FLUID DYNAMIC COMPARISON

AMONG HYDROTREATING REACTORS

M.Sc. Alexandre de Oliveira Silva

Prof. José Roberto Nunhez
SUMMARY

• Introduction;
• Modelling;
• Results;
• Conclusions.
 Introduction Modelling Results Conclusions

INTRODUCTION

• Petroleum • HDT • Enviroment • Research • Goals

• Sulphur • Industrial • Laws • Fluid • Compare
• Reactors • Optimization Dynamic
 Introduction Modelling Results Conclusions

MODELLING

• Interphase interaction (gas-liquid-solid)

– Attou and Ferschneider(1999)
• Porosity distribution
– (Bazmi, Hashemabadi and Bayant, 2011)

• Kinetics
– (Chowdhury et. al, 2002)
 Introduction Modelling Results Conclusions

MODELLING
• Geometry
Counter-current
Co-current

Hybrid

Figure 2 –Isometric view

Figure 1 – Reactors configurations
 Introduction Modelling Results Conclusions

MODELLING
Liquid inlet at the top
or
• Meshing Gas inlet at the bottom

Gas outlet at the top

Or
Liquid outlet at the bottom

Liquid and gas inlet at the top

and
Gas inlet and liquid outlet at the bottom
and
Gas outlet at the side

Figure 3 – Hexahedral mesh (300.000 elements)

 Introduction Modelling Results Conclusions
Co-current
RESULTS
TOP
0.230 Co-current Counter-current
Mass Fraction (H²S) on gas phase

Co-current
0.210
Counter-current
H1
0.190
H3
H5
0.170 H6

Gas outlet
H7
Hybrid
0.150 H9
H11
BOTTOM
H4
0.130
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Counter-current
Height (m)
Hybrid
Figure 5 – H2S mass fraction profiles along the HDT reactors.
 Introduction Modelling Results Conclusions

RESULTS
1

0.85
Conversion

0.7

0.55

0.4

0.25
573 593 613 633 653
Temperature (K)
Co-current Experimental Counter-current

Figure 6 – Sulphur conversions in differents operational temperature.

 Introduction Modelling Results Conclusions

RESULTS
0.19

0.18

0.17
Liquid Holdup

0.16

0.15

0.14

0.13

0.12

0.11
573 593 613 633 653

Temperature (K)
Co-current Counter-current Hybrid

Figure 7 – Liquid holdup in different operational temperatures.

 Introduction Modelling Results Conclusions
Co-current
RESULTS TOP
260
250 2.48E-03

240 2.38E-03

Pressure drop (atm/m)

230 2.28E-03
Pressure drop (Pa/m)

220 2.18E-03

210 2.08E-03

200 1.98E-03

190 1.88E-03

180 1.78E-03

170 1.68E-03
573 593 613 633 653
BOTTOM
Temperature (K)
Co-current Counter-current Counter-current

Figure 8 – Pressure drop along the HDT reactors. Hybrid

 Introduction Modelling Results Conclusions

CONCLUSIONS
• Hybrid reactor (counter and co-current) showed
lower H S partial pressure and it did not cause
2

flooding of the reactor;

• Sulphur conversions are similar in all

arrangements);

• Pressure drop is negligible for the bench scale

reactors.
QUESTIONS?