4.7 Article

Comparative study of the optimal operation of methane reforming process in cylindrical and spherical reactors using multi-objective optimization

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 46, 期 10, 页码 7060-7072

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.11.201

关键词

Multi objective optimization; Tri-reformer; Spherical reactor; Power loss

资金

  1. Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB), Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, India [EMR/2015/002038]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the optimal operation of a methane reformer using multi-objective optimization (MOO) for spherical reactor, comparing the results with that of cylindrical reactor. Three objective functions were considered: maximizing hydrogen production, minimizing carbon dioxide emission, and minimizing power loss due to pressure drop. Optimizing the feed conditions, including variables such as inlet temperature and molar feed ratios of oxygen to methane & steam to methane, were essential for solving four MOO problems.
We present a multi-objective optimization (MOO) based study of the optimal operation of methane reformer for spherical reactor and compare the results with the ones for the cylindrical reactor. We considered three objective functions for this comparative study, namely maximization of hydrogen production, minimization of carbon dioxide emission, and minimization of power loss due to pressure drop in the reactor. We solve four MOO problems, which include three 2-objective problems with each pair of the aforementioned three objectives. In addition, we also solve a three objective problem considering all the three objectives. The optimization variables considered for the MOO study correspond to the feed conditions. Specifically, the three variables include the inlet temperature and the molar feed ratios of oxygen to methane & steam to methane. (C) 2020 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据