Comparison of equilibrium-based and kinetics-based models for evaluating the impact of hydrogen carrier reforming on SOFC system

IF 9.9 1区 工程技术 Q1 ENERGY & FUELS
Clyde-Theodore N. Batista , Kazeem Ayodeji Mohammed , Amirpiran Amiri , Neda Azimi , Robert Steinberger-Wilckens
{"title":"Comparison of equilibrium-based and kinetics-based models for evaluating the impact of hydrogen carrier reforming on SOFC system","authors":"Clyde-Theodore N. Batista ,&nbsp;Kazeem Ayodeji Mohammed ,&nbsp;Amirpiran Amiri ,&nbsp;Neda Azimi ,&nbsp;Robert Steinberger-Wilckens","doi":"10.1016/j.enconman.2025.119733","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This paper evaluates the computational risks of using Equilibrium-Based Models (EBMs) and Kinetics-Based Models (KBMs) interchangeably for simulating the external reformer in Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) Balance of Plant (BoP). Various reforming processes, including steam reforming, partial oxidation, and autothermal reforming of hydrocarbons are assessed. The study systematically investigates the effect of reformers operating parameters, such as temperature, pressure, steam-to-carbon ratio, and oxygen-to-carbon ratio, on SOFC performance captured by EBM and KBM. In contrast to EBM, the KBM consistently provided a more detailed and accurate measures of system behaviour. This is more evident, especially under conditions where reaction kinetics play a crucial role, such as in high-pressure scenarios or significant variations in the steam-to-carbon ratio. The KBM captured the details of reaction kinetics and mass transfer limitations that the EBM, with its inherent assumption of near-instantaneous equilibrium, could not fully replicate. While EBM is computationally effective for minimising modelling complexity/time at the system level, it has limitations in scenarios that require detailed reaction kinetics due to the nature of reaction or fuel mixture. EBM and KBM results deviations are quantified to identify regions where these risks are either significant or tolerable.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11664,"journal":{"name":"Energy Conversion and Management","volume":"332 ","pages":"Article 119733"},"PeriodicalIF":9.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy Conversion and Management","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196890425002560","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper evaluates the computational risks of using Equilibrium-Based Models (EBMs) and Kinetics-Based Models (KBMs) interchangeably for simulating the external reformer in Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) Balance of Plant (BoP). Various reforming processes, including steam reforming, partial oxidation, and autothermal reforming of hydrocarbons are assessed. The study systematically investigates the effect of reformers operating parameters, such as temperature, pressure, steam-to-carbon ratio, and oxygen-to-carbon ratio, on SOFC performance captured by EBM and KBM. In contrast to EBM, the KBM consistently provided a more detailed and accurate measures of system behaviour. This is more evident, especially under conditions where reaction kinetics play a crucial role, such as in high-pressure scenarios or significant variations in the steam-to-carbon ratio. The KBM captured the details of reaction kinetics and mass transfer limitations that the EBM, with its inherent assumption of near-instantaneous equilibrium, could not fully replicate. While EBM is computationally effective for minimising modelling complexity/time at the system level, it has limitations in scenarios that require detailed reaction kinetics due to the nature of reaction or fuel mixture. EBM and KBM results deviations are quantified to identify regions where these risks are either significant or tolerable.
本文评估了交替使用基于平衡的模型(EBM)和基于动力学的模型(KBM)模拟固体氧化物燃料电池(SOFC)设备平衡(BoP)中外部重整器的计算风险。研究评估了各种重整过程,包括碳氢化合物的蒸汽重整、部分氧化和自热重整。该研究系统地调查了重整器操作参数(如温度、压力、蒸汽碳比和氧气碳比)对 EBM 和 KBM 所捕获的 SOFC 性能的影响。与 EBM 相比,KBM 始终能提供更详细、更准确的系统行为测量结果。这一点更为明显,尤其是在反应动力学起关键作用的条件下,例如在高压情况下或蒸汽与碳的比例发生重大变化时。KBM 捕获了反应动力学和传质限制的细节,而 EBM 因其固有的接近瞬时平衡的假设,无法完全复制这些细节。虽然 EBM 在系统层面最大限度地减少建模复杂性/时间方面具有很高的计算效率,但由于反应或燃料混合物的性质,它在需要详细反应动力学的情况下具有局限性。对 EBM 和 KBM 的结果偏差进行量化,以确定这些风险显著或可容忍的区域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Energy Conversion and Management
Energy Conversion and Management 工程技术-力学
CiteScore
19.00
自引率
11.50%
发文量
1304
审稿时长
17 days
期刊介绍: The journal Energy Conversion and Management provides a forum for publishing original contributions and comprehensive technical review articles of interdisciplinary and original research on all important energy topics. The topics considered include energy generation, utilization, conversion, storage, transmission, conservation, management and sustainability. These topics typically involve various types of energy such as mechanical, thermal, nuclear, chemical, electromagnetic, magnetic and electric. These energy types cover all known energy resources, including renewable resources (e.g., solar, bio, hydro, wind, geothermal and ocean energy), fossil fuels and nuclear resources.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信