0
Technical Briefs

Numerical Analysis of a Steam Reformer Coupled With a Combustion Burner

[+] Author and Article Information
Joonguen Park

Department of Mechanical Engineering, KAIST, 373-1, Guseong-Dong, Yuseong-Gu, Daejeon 305-701, Republic of Koreajoonguen@kaist.ac.kr

Joongmyeon Bae1

Department of Mechanical Engineering, KAIST, 373-1, Guseong-Dong, Yuseong-Gu, Daejeon 305-701, Republic of Koreajmbae@kaist.ac.kr

Shinku Lee

Department of Environment and Energy Research Center, RIST, 32, Hyoja-Dong, Nam-Gu, Pohang, Gyeongbuk 790-330, Republic of Koreashinkulee@rist.re.kr

Myungjun Kim

Corporation R&D Center, SK Corporation, Wonchon-Dong, Yuseong-Gu, Daejeon 305-712, Republic of Koreazephyr1@skenergy.com

1

Corresponding author.

J. Fuel Cell Sci. Technol 7(6), 064501 (Aug 17, 2010) (6 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4001762 History: Received July 23, 2009; Revised March 22, 2010; Published August 17, 2010; Online August 17, 2010

This study focuses on a numerical simulation of a steam reforming system. The steam reforming system consisted of a cylindrical steam reformer and a combustion burner. The heat was supplied to an endothermic steam reformer from combustion gases. The correlation between the performance and the shape of the system was studied using two different configurations. The first configuration utilized a flame guide between the combustion burner and the steam reformer, whereas the other did not. The flame guide changed the flow of the combustion gas, which affected the heat transfer rate from the burner to the reformer. Reactor temperature profiles, heat transfer rates, fuel conversions, and hydrogen yields were calculated. In addition, the fuel feed ratio between the burner and the steam reformer was manipulated as an operating parameter.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2010 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Comparison between experimental results and numerical results: (a) temperature at the center and (b) species concentration at the outlet

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

A schematic of the steam reforming system: (a) Type A and (b) Type B

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

The fuel conversion and mean temperature of Type A: (a) GHSV of 2200/h and (b) GHSV of 10,000/h

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

The fuel conversion and mean temperature of Type A: (a) fuel ratio of 5.00 and (b) fuel ratio of 1.25

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

The fuel conversion and mean temperature of Type B: (a) GHSV of 2200/h and (b) GHSV of 10,000/h

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

The fuel conversion and mean temperature of Type B: (a) fuel ratio of 5.00 and (b) fuel ratio of 1.25

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Comparison of Type A and Type B: (a) GHSV of 10,000/h, fuel ratio of 5.00, and (b) GHSV of 10,000/h, fuel ratio of 1.25

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In