Post on 23-May-2019
IJRRAS 17 (3) ● December 2013 www.arpapress.com/Volumes/Vol17Issue3/IJRRAS_17_3_08.pdf
315
KINETIC ANALYSIS OF 2-HEPTENE REFORMING ON
PLATINUM/ALUMINA CATALYST USING THE TIKHONOV
REGULARIZATION TECHNIQUE
Aramide Adenike Adesina1 & Alfred Akpoveta Susu
2
1Department of Chemical & Polymer Engineering, Lagos State University, Epe, Lagos State, Nigeria
E-mail: ajeigbearamide@yahoo.com 2Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria
E-mail: alfredasusu222@hotmail.com
ABSTRACT
In this work, the kinetic analysis of 2-heptene reforming on Platinum/Alumina catalyst was carried out using the
concentration-time data reported by Aberuagba [8]. The Tikhonov regularization technique was used for the
confirmation of the experimental concentration-time data to rate-concentration data. Due to the ill-posed nature of
the problem of obtaining of reaction rates from experimental data, conventional methods will lead to noise
amplification of the experimental data. Hence, Tikhonov regularization technique is preferably employed because it
is entirely independent of reaction rate models and it also manages to minimize noise amplification, thus, leading to
more reliable results. The kinetic parameters obtained by the application of the Nelder-Mead simplex optimization
technique to formulated mechanistic models permit discrimination among rival kinetic models based upon
physicochemical criteria, analysis of the residuals, and thermodynamic tests. The rate-determining step was found to
be the surface reaction of adsorbed methylcyclohexane to adsorbed toluene with dissociative adsorption of bi-
molecular hydrogen specie on the catalyst surface.
Keywords: Tikhonov regularization technique; Nelder-Mead simplex method; 2-Heptene reforming; Mechanistic
kinetic models; Kinetic and equilibrium parameters.
1. INTRODUCTION
In a typical reaction kinetics investigation, the progress of the reaction is monitored by measuring the concentration
of one or more of the products or reactants as a function of time. Guided by prior experience or the likely reaction
mechanism, a reaction rate model is then adopted that gives the rate as a function of concentration. The next step is
to determine all the reaction parameters (kinetic and equilibrium constants) in the model from the experimental
kinetic data. A variety of procedures has been developed to perform this task. For relatively simple reactions, it is
possible to obtain these constants by graphical construction of one kind or another [1]. For other reactions, it may be
possible to deduce the rate constants by examining the initial slope of the time-concentration data. Another
technique is to treat the rate equations as ordinary differential equations but converting time-concentration data into
concentration reaction rate data by direct numerical differentiation of experimental kinetic data. However, this
procedure amplifies the noise in the data leading to unreliable results.
Special procedures have been developed to perform this task [2]. Yeow et al. [3] showed that Tikhonov
regularization is a reliable procedure for processing the time-concentration data of reaction kinetics. This procedure
has been successful in keeping noise amplification under control and meets the important requirement that it does
not require the assumption of a model to describe the original experimental data. This procedure was first used by
Yeow and Taylor [4] for obtaining velocity profiles from various experimentally measured velocity data. Yeow et.
al. [3] carried out further application of the procedure to reactions ranging from first order reactions to chain
reactions involving a number of intermediate steps with rate equation of the rate determining process. Omowunmi
and Susu [5] used the Tikhonov regularization technique in converting the concentration-time data for n-eicosane
pyrolysis data procured by Susu and Kunugi [6] to generate the kinetic parameters for this homogeneous
autocatalytic chain reaction. In addition, Omowunmi and Susu [7] also used the same technique in determining the
kinetic parameters for the reforming of n-heptane, 2-heptene and 3-methylhexane on Pt/Alumina catalyst.
The aim of this paper is to more exhaustively apply Tikhonov regularization to the conversion of the concentration-
time data of the complex reaction of the catalytic reforming of 2-heptene on Platinum/Alumina catalyst to
concentration-rate data at temperatures 330°C, 350°C, 370°C, 400°C and 500°C using the well documented
experimental data from the work of Aberugba [8]. The unknown kinetic parameters in the rate equations
accompanying these data were obtained by fitting the rate equations into the resulting concentration-reaction rate
profile. Thus, the performance of this new procedure can be demonstrated by showing that these parameters
conform to the expected trend in the kinetic investigation under study.
IJRRAS 17 (3) ● December 2013 Adesina & Susu ● Kinetic Analysis of 2-Heptene Reforming
316
2. THEORY
The review of the derivation of the working equations of Tikhonov regularization is explained in Sections 2.1 to 2.4
while the implementation of the computational steps is explained in Sections 2.5 and section 2.6 while Section 2.7
describes the kinetics of the process and parameter estimation.
2.1 The governing equation The relationship between the reaction rate r(t) and the time-concentration profile C(t) can be written as:
r( ) ( )
( )
This can be rewritten as:
( ) ∫ ( )
( )
where is the initial concentration. This equation can be regarded as a Volterra integral equation for the unknown
reaction rate ( ) and initial concentration if this quantity is not measured directly or if the experimental
measurement is considered to be unreliable. This is an integral equation of the first kind. The mathematical nature of
this equation shows that the problem of obtaining r(t) is an ill-posed problem in the sense that if inappropriate
methods are to inaccurate results [2].
Instead of solving Equation (2) directly for ( ), this equation, through integration by parts, can be transformed into:
( ) ∫ * [ ( )]
( )+ ( )
( ) ∫ ( )
( )
(∫ ( )
) ∫ ( ) ( )
∫ ( ) ( ) ( )
where ( ) ( )
⁄ and ( ) is the initial rate.
Equation ( ) can be regarded as a Volterra integral equation of the first kind to be solved for the unknown function
( ) and the constants and . Superscript is used to distinguish the computed concentration given by this
equation from its experimentally measured counterpart which will be denoted by superscript . The computational
procedure developed here will obtain and as part of the solution to the integral equation. However, if the initial
concentration is exactly known, e.g. when the initial mole fraction is zero or unity, then takes on this exact value
and is not treated as an unknown. Similarly if there are physical reasons to suggest that the initial reaction rate is
identically zero then is assigned this value and not treated as an unknown.
Once ( ), and are known, ( ) and ( ) can be obtained by direct numerical integration. Since numerical
integration does not suffer from noise amplification, the ( ) thus obtained can be expected to be relatively free
from the influence of experimental noise.
Equation (6) is the starting point of the present investigation. Inputs to this equation are the experimentally measured
time-concentration data points: ( ) (
) ( ) (
). is the number of points in the
set and is usually a relatively small number, typically around . The data points may or may not be regularly
spaced out in time. From the way Equation ( ) was obtained it is clear that this equation is independent of the order
of the reaction and its nature.
2.2 Discretizing the Volterra integral equation
In discretized form Equation ( ) becomes:
∑ ( )
( )
where are the discretized ( ). The independent variable is divided into uniformly
spaced discretization points with step size ( )∆t′. In the present investigation is typically of
the order of . is the largest in the data set. is the coefficient arising from the numerical
scheme used to approximate the integral in Eq. . For Simpson’s ⁄ rule, used throughout the present investigation,
⁄ for odd (except
⁄ ) and ⁄ for even . Depending on whether the of the experimental data
point coincides with a discretization point, the last associated with this point may have to be adjusted, by
interpolation, to allow for fractional step size.
The deviation of from is given by
IJRRAS 17 (3) ● December 2013 Adesina & Susu ● Kinetic Analysis of 2-Heptene Reforming
317
( ∑ ( )
) ( )
(∑ ( )
) ( )
or, in matrix notation, δ CM - Cc0 - Br0 - Af. (10) C and B are ND × 1 column vectors and A is a ND × NK matrix of coefficients of the unknown column vector.
f = [f1, f2, f3 fNK ]T. (11) while C, B and A are given by
Ci = 1 (12)
Bi = ti (13)
( ) for for (14)
In Equation (14) , ND are the times at which the concentration is measured and , j = 1, 2, 3, ….,
NK are then uniformly discretized time . NK generally exceeds the number of data points ND, thus A is
not a square matrix and Equation (9) cannot be inverted to give a unique ( ), and . Instead, these unknowns
are selected to minimize the sum of squares of , i.e. to minimize
∑ ( ) ( ) ( )
2.3 Tikhonov regularization To obtain smooth solutions to ill-posed problems, the standard Tikhonov regularization method is most often used.
Ill-posed problems are frequently encountered in science and engineering. The term itself has its origins in the early
20th century. It was introduced by Hadamard [9] who
investigated problems in mathematical physics. According to his beliefs, ill-posed problems did not model real
world problems, but later it appeared how wrong he was. Hadamard [9] defined a linear problem to be well posed if
it satisfies the following three requirements: (a) existence, (b) uniqueness, and (c) stability. A problem is said to be
ill-posed if one or more of these requirements are not satisfied. A classical example of an ill-posed problem is a
linear integral equation of the first kind in L2 (I) with a smooth kernel. A solution to this equation, if it exists, does
not continuously depend on the right-hand side and may not be unique. When a discretization of the problem is
performed, we obtain a matrix equation in Cm,
( )
where is an matrix with a large condition number, . A linear least squares solution of the system ( ) is a solution to the problem
*‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ + ( )
where the Euclidean vector norm in Cm is used. We say that the algebraic problems ( ) and ( ) are discrete ill-
posed problems.
The numerical methods for solving discrete ill-posed problems in function spaces and for solving discrete ill-posed
problems have been presented in many papers. These methods are based on the so-called regularization methods.
The main objective of regularization is to incorporate more information about the desired solution in order to
stabilize the problem and find a useful and stable solution. The most common and well-known form of
regularization is that of Tikhonov (Groetsch, 1984). It consists in replacing least-squares problem ( ) by that with
a suitably chosen Tikhonov functional. The most basic version of this method can be presented as
*‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ + ( )
where α R is called the regularization parameter. The Tikhonov regularization is a method in which the
regularized solution is sought as a minimizer of a weighted combination of the residual norm and a side constraint.
The regularization parameter controls the weight given to the minimization of the side constraint.
Minimizing δTδ in Equation (15) will not in general result in a smooth f(t) because of the noise in the experimental
data. To ensure smoothness, additional conditions have to be imposed. In the present investigation, the additional
condition is the minimization of the sum of squares of the second derivative d2f/dt′
2 at the internal discretization
points. In terms of the column vector f, this condition takes on the form of minimizing
∑ ( f )
( ) ( ) ( )
where β is the tri-diagonal matrix of coefficients arising from the finite difference approximation of f
IJRRAS 17 (3) ● December 2013 Adesina & Susu ● Kinetic Analysis of 2-Heptene Reforming
318
[
]
( ) ( )
In Tikhonov regularization [2] instead of minimizing δTδ and fT βT βf separately, a linear combination of these two
quantities R δTδ λfT βT βf is minimized. λ is an adjustable weighting/regularization factor that controls the extent
to which the noise in the kinetic data is being filtered out. It balances the two requirements on f(t):
a. fitting the experimental data
b. remaining as smooth as possible.
A large λ will give a smooth f(t) but at the expense of the goodness of fit of the kinetic data and vice versa.
Minimizing R becomes:
( )
R
C
( )
( )
These give rise to a set of linear algebraic equations for f, C0 and r0 (assuming that both initial conditions are
unknown). It can be shown [10] that the f, C0 and r0 that satisfy Equations (21) to (23) are given by
( λ )
C ( )
For convenience f is used to denote the column vector [f1, f2, f3 fNK , C0; r0]T incorporating C0 and r0 into f. A is
the composite matrix (A,C,B) derived from Equations (21) to (23) to reflect the inclusion of C0 and r0 in f.
Similarly β is the composite matrix (β, 0, 0) where 0 is a (NK 2)× 1 column vector of 0 to allow for the fact that
C0 and r0 play no part in the smoothness condition in Equation (19). The f given by Equation (24) can now be
substituted into Equation (2) to give C(t). It can also be substituted in the defining equation dr(t)/dt = f(t) and
integrated to give the reaction rate r(t).
As f(t) is known at a large number of closely spaced discretization points the integration for r(t) and c(t) can be
carried out using any of the standard numerical integration procedures. Since integration is a smoothing process, the
resulting r(t) and c(t) can be expected to be well-behaved smooth functions. This has been observed in all the
examples investigated.
2.4 Regularization parameter identification
A suitable choice of the regularization parameter λ has to be provided by the user in order to apply Tikhonov
regularization [2]. The regularization parameter controls the weight given to the minimization of the side constraint.
Thus, the quality of the regularized solution is controlled by the regularization parameter. An optimal regularization
parameter should fairly balance the perturbation error and the regularization error in the regularized solution.
There are several possible strategies that depend on additional information referring to the analysed problem and its
solution, e.g., the discrepancy principle and the generalized cross-validation method. The discrepancy principle is an
a-posteriori strategy for choosing α as a function of an error level (the input error level must be known). The
generalized cross validation method is based on a-priori knowledge of a structure of the input error, which means
that the errors in f can be considered to be uncorrelated zero-mean random variables with a common variance, i.e.,
white noise.
Another practical method for choosing α when data are noisy is the L-curve criterion [11,12]. The method is based
on the plot of the norm of the regularized solution versus the norm of the corresponding residual. The practical use
of such a plot was first introduced by Lawson and Hanson [13]. The idea of the L-curve criterion is to choose a
regularization related to the characteristic L-shaped “corner” of the graph.
The most appropriate value of λ depends on factors such as the noise level in the experimental data, the number of
data points ND, and discretization points NK, and the numerical schemes used to approximate the integral in Equation
(6) and the second derivative in Equation (19). It is neither a property of the reaction under investigation nor a
constant determined by the concentration measurement technique or instrument employed [2]. If λ is set too small
the determinant of the matrix A TA λβ Tβ in Equation (24) may become close to zero and the inverse of the
matrix becomes ill conditioned. This is a manifestation of the ill-posed nature of the problem of obtaining reaction
rates from time-concentration data.
IJRRAS 17 (3) ● December 2013 Adesina & Susu ● Kinetic Analysis of 2-Heptene Reforming
319
3. APPLICATION TO 2-HEPTENE REFORMING ON PLATINUM/ALUMINA CATALYST AT
DIFFERENT TEMPERATURES
3.1 The step wise analysis of the conversion concentration-time data to reaction rate-concentration data
Aberuagba [8] investigated the kinetics of the catalytic reforming of 2-heptene over Platinum/Alumina catalyst
using a micro-catalytic reactor at a total pressure of 391.8Kpa and a temperature range of 330-500°C. The
experimental data was presented in the form of x, the mole fraction of exit products, (2-heptene, cracked fraction,
methylcyclohexane, benzene/toluene) and their concentration against the residence time (Appendix). The data was
for the reaction occurring at temperatures: C C C C C The step wise analysis of the conversion of the data from concentration-time data to reaction rate-concentration data,
taking the initial mole fraction of unreacted n-heptene to be 1.0 is as follows:
tmax = 3.75, ND=5, take Nk = 20 Step one: Divide the independent variable, time(t), where max is divided uniformly
spaced discretization points Nk with step size t = tmax = (NK 1). Nk= 101, tmax=3.75
Step two: Generate αij from Simpson’s 1/3 rule, where αij = 2/3 for odd j (excep αi1 = 1/3)
and 4/3 for every even j Step three: Compute (ti –tj ) in Equation (14)
Step four: Compute ∆t′ in Equation (14)
Step five: Compute Aij using Equation (15)
Step six: Compute matrix A, where A is a 5 x 20 matrix of coefficients of unknown column
vector
Step seven: Compute matrix C, where C is a 5 x 1 matrix of ones
1
1
1
1
1
Step eight: Compute matrix B from Equation (14), where B is a 5x1 matrix of ti’s.
5
4
3
2
1
t
t
t
t
t
Step nine: Compute A using Equation (15)
A =
A
Step ten: Compute composite matrix A where
A′ = which is a 5 x 22 matrix
Step eleven: Compute the transpose of A′.
Compute β using Equation (20), where β is a tri-diagonal matrix of 20 x 20 square matrix
Step twelve: Compute matrix 0 where matrix 0 is a 18 x 1 column vector of 0
Step thirteen: Compute β′ where β′ is a composite matrix (β ). Step fourteen: Compute f using Equation (24) for each value of CM
Step fifteen: Compute Cc(t) using Equation (24) which is solved by Simpson’s numerical
method of integration
Step sixteen: Calculate r(t) using equation r( ) ∫ f( ) using Simpson’s numerical method
IJRRAS 17 (3) ● December 2013 Adesina & Susu ● Kinetic Analysis of 2-Heptene Reforming
320
Steps one to sixteen is carried out by MATLAB software package by imputing different mole fractions of each of
the exit streams at the respective temperatures.
Simulated results for the conversion of concentration time data to reaction rate data are presented in the following
forms:
(a) Graph of rate versus concentration at each temperature for 2-heptene in the exit stream
(b) Graph of back calculated concentration against measured concentration for each component in the exit
stream at different temperatures.
3.1.1 Reforming of 2-heptene on Platinum/Alumina catalyst at 330°C Figure 1 shows a linear relationship between the rate (dC2-heptene/dt) and concentation of 2-heptene in exit stream (C2-
heptene(t)) for 0.4 ˂ C2-heptene ˂ 0.5 at temperature 330°C. For the purpose of this research work, the reaction Model 4
is proposed as the best model which fits the description of the catalytic reforming of 2-heptene over
Platinum/Alumina Catalyst, after discriminating it among many other models.
C C
C
( C C C C C
C
C
C
) ( )
The parameters in this model are obtained by the Nelder-Mead Simplex method of multivariable optimization. The
best fit Equation (47) is shown in Figure 1a as a smooth curve in which the rate of reaction decreases smoothly to
0.3623 ml/mg.min as the concentration of 2-heptene in exit stream changes from 0.4684 to 0.4425 gmol/m3 in a
non-linear fashion. The time-concentration profile back calculated from the best-fit rate equation is shown as a
continuous curve in Figure 1b. Good correlation is seen between the calculated concentration and the measured
concentration of 2-heptene.
Figure 1a: Measured concentration of 2-heptene in exit stream versus rate at 330°C
0.36234
0.362342
0.362344
0.362346
0.4378 0.4425 0.4509 0.457 0.4684
Rate
(m
l/m
g.m
in)
Concentration of 2-heptene in exit stream (gmol/m3)
IJRRAS 17 (3) ● December 2013 Adesina & Susu ● Kinetic Analysis of 2-Heptene Reforming
321
Figure 1b: Experimental concentration, calculated concentration versus time for 2-heptene at 330°C
3.1.2 Reforming of 2-heptene on Platinum/Alumina catalyst at 350°C
Figure 2a shows a linear relationship between the rate (dC2-heptene/dt ) and concentration of 2-heptene in exit stream
(C2-heptene(t)) for 0.35 ˂ C2-heptene ˂ 0.40 at temperature 350°C.
The best fit Equation (47) is shown in Figure 2a as a smooth curve in which the rate of reaction decreases smoothly
to 0.0284 ml/mg.min as the concentration of 2-heptene in exit stream changes from 0.3987 to 0.3739 gmol/m3 in a
non-linear fashion. The time-concentration profile back calculated from the best-fit rate equation is shown as a
continuous curve in Figure 2b. Good correlation is seen between the calculated concentration and the measured
concentration of 2-heptene.
Figure 2a: Measured concentration versus rate for 2-heptene at 350°C
0.000000
0.150000
0.300000
0.450000
0.600000
1.25 1.5 1.88 2.5 3.75
Co
nce
ntr
ati
on
(g
mo
l/m
3)
W/F (mg.min/ml)
Calculated Conc.
Experimental Conc.
0.028419
0.02842
0.028421
0.028422
0.3739 0.3856 0.3856 0.3987 0.3989
Rate
(m
l/m
g.m
in)
Concentration of 2-heptene in exit stream (gmol/m3)
IJRRAS 17 (3) ● December 2013 Adesina & Susu ● Kinetic Analysis of 2-Heptene Reforming
322
Figure 2b: Experimental Concentration, Calculated concentration versus time at 350°C
3.1.3 Reforming of 2-heptene on Platinum/Alumina catalyst at 370°C
Figure 3a shows a linear relationship between the rate (dC2-heptene/dt ) and Concentation of 2-heptene in exit stream
(C2-heptene(t)) for 0.3 ˂ C2-Heptene ˂ 0.4 at temperature 370°C. The best fit Equation (47) is shown in Figure 4a as a
smooth curve in which the rate of reaction decreases smoothly to 0.5162 ml/mg.min as the concentration of 2-
heptene in exit stream changes from 0.3541 to 0.3069 gmol/m3 in a non-linear fashion. The time-concentration
profile back calculated from the best-fit rate equation is shown as a continuous curve in Figure 3b. Good correlation
is seen between the calculated concentration and the measured concentration of 2-heptene.
Figure 3a: Measured concentration versus rate for 2-heptene at 370°C
0.300000
0.400000
0.500000
1.25 1.5 1.88 2.5 3.75
Co
nce
ntr
ati
on
(g
mo
l/m
3)
W/F (mg.min/ml)
CalculatedConc.
ExperimentalConc.
0.51618
0.516184
0.516188
0.516192
0.3052 0.3057 0.3069 0.311 0.3541
Rate
(m
l/m
g.m
in)
Concentration of 2-heptene in exit stream (gmol/m3)
IJRRAS 17 (3) ● December 2013 Adesina & Susu ● Kinetic Analysis of 2-Heptene Reforming
323
Figure 3b: Calculated concentration, measured concentration versus time for 2-heptene at 370°C
3.1.4 Reforming of 2-heptene on Platinum/Alumina catalyst at 400°C
Figure 4a shows a linear relationship between the rate (dC2-heptene/dt ) and concentation of 2-heptene in exit stream
(C2-heptene(t)) at temperature 400°C. The concentration of 2-heptene in the exit stream is 0 which implies all the 2-
heptene coming into the reaction is completely converted. The best fit Equation (47) is shown in Figure 4a as a
smooth curve in which the rate of reaction increases smoothly to 0.063365 ml/mg.min as the concentration of 2-
heptene in exit stream remains 0gmol/m3 in a linear fashion. The time-concentration profile back calculated from the
best-fit rate equation is shown as a continuous curve in Figure 4b. Good correlation is seen between the calculated
concentration and the measured concentration of 2-heptene.
Figure 4a: Measured concentration versus rate for 2-heptene at 400°C
0.000000
0.100000
0.200000
0.300000
0.400000
1.25 1.5 1.88 2.5 3.75
Con
cen
trati
on
(g
mol/
m3)
W/F (mg.min/ml)
Calculated Conc.
Experimental Conc.
0.000000
0.020000
0.040000
0.060000
0.080000
0 0 0 0 0
Rate
(m
l/m
g.m
in)
Concentration of 2-heptene in sit stream (gmol/m3)
IJRRAS 17 (3) ● December 2013 Adesina & Susu ● Kinetic Analysis of 2-Heptene Reforming
324
Figure 4b: Calculated concentration, measured concentration versus time for 2-heptene at 400°C
3.1.5 Reforming of 2-heptene on Platinum/Alumina catalyst at 500°C
Figure 5a shows a linear relationship between the rate (dC2-heptene/dt ) and concentation of 2-heptene in exit stream
(C2-heptene(t)) at temperature 500°C. The concentration of 2-heptene in the exit stream is 0 which implies all the 2-
heptene coming into the reaction is completely converted. The best fit Equation (47) is shown in Figure 5a as a
smooth curve in which the rate of reaction increases smoothly to 0.063365 ml/mg.min as the concentration of 2-
heptene in exit stream remains 0gmol/m3 in a linear fashion. The time-concentration profile back calculated from the
best-fit rate equation is shown as a continuous curve in Figure 5b. Good correlation is seen between the calculated
concentration and the measured concentration of 2-heptene.
Figure 5a: Measured concentration versus rate for 2-heptene at 500°C
0.000000
0.400000
0.800000
1.200000
1.25 1.5 1.88 2.5 3.75
Co
nce
ntr
ati
on
(g
mo
l/m
3)
W/F (mg.min/ml)
Calculated Conc.
Experimental Conc.
0.000000
0.020000
0.040000
0.060000
0.080000
0 0 0 0 0
Rate
(m
l/m
g.m
in)
Concentration of 2-heptene in exit stream
(gmol/m3)
IJRRAS 17 (3) ● December 2013 Adesina & Susu ● Kinetic Analysis of 2-Heptene Reforming
325
Figure 5b: Calculated concentration, measured concentration versus time for 2-heptene at 500°C
4. KINETICS OF THE CATALYTIC REFORMING OF 2-HEPTENE ON PLATINUM/ALUMINA
CATALYST
MECHANISM 1
For hydrogen not adsorbed on the catalyst surface
ADSORPTION
1K ( )
REACTION
2K ( )
3K ( )
4K ( )
5K C ( )
DESORPTION
6K
( )
C 7KC ( )
8K ( )
The construction of Model 1 is based on the assumption that if Equation (27) (dehydrogenation of isoheptene) is the
rate determining step while other rate equations are in quasi-equilibrium.
Therefore,
( )
The construction of Model 2 is based on the assumption that Equation 3.2.4 (hydrogenation of toluene) is the rate
determining step while other rate equations are in quasi-equilibrium.
( (
)
( )
MECHANISM 2 For hydrogen absorbed on the catalyst surface as bimolecular specie.
ADSORPTION
0.000000
0.400000
0.800000
1.200000
1.25 1.5 1.88 2.5 3.75
Co
nce
ntr
ati
on
(g
mo
l/m
3)
W/F (mg.min/ml)
Calculated Conc.
Experimental Conc.
IJRRAS 17 (3) ● December 2013 Adesina & Susu ● Kinetic Analysis of 2-Heptene Reforming
326
1K ( )
2K ( )
REACTION
3K ( )
4k ( )
5K ( )
6KC ( )
DESORPTION
7K ( )
C 8KC ( )
9K ( )
10K ( )
11K ( )
For reaction 3 as the rate controlling step the reaction rate equation was given as
Model 3 is given as:
(
) ( )
For reaction 4 as the rate controlling step the reaction rate equation was given as
Model 4 is given as:
(
) ( )
MECHANISM 3
For hydrogen absorbed on the catalyst surface as monomolecular specie.
ADSORPTION
1K ( )
2K ( )
REACTION
3K ( )
4k ( )
5K ( )
6KC ( )
DESORPTION
7K ( )
C 8KC ( )
9K ( )
10K ( )
11K ( )
For reaction 3 as the rate controlling step, the reaction rate equation is given as:
Model 5 is given as:
(
) ( )
IJRRAS 17 (3) ● December 2013 Adesina & Susu ● Kinetic Analysis of 2-Heptene Reforming
327
For reaction 4 as the rate controlling step the reaction rate equation is given as:
Model 6 is given as:
(
) ( )
5. PARAMETER ESTIMATION
Estimation of the kinetic parameters of the six proposed rate models were accomplished by least square fitting of the
rate equations into the concentration reaction rate curve. The polyhedron method of Nelder and Mead is used to
achieve this using FORTRAN software package. This method alters the shape of the initial simplex to suit local
topology. The tolerance criterion is reduced within the region of an optimum till it reaches a present small value.
The general objective in optimization is to choose a set of values of variables subject to the various constraints that
produce the desired optimum response for the objective function. The objective function in this work is the sum of
squares of residuals between experimental and predicted rates of reaction.
n
i 1
(
)
The FORTRAN programme uses initial guesses to form the initial simplex, predict the initial rates and then
minimizes the sum of squares of errors between the observed and calculated rates.
The kinetic parameters and the objective functions obtained by fitting the selected rate models given by Equations
(27), (28) and (29) into the concentration-rate curve generated by Tikhonov regularization are given in Tables 1 to 3.
The objective functions accompanying these results are also provided in these tables.
Table 1: Objective function and parameter estimates for Model 1
330
OC 350
OC 370
OC 400
OC 500
OC
K3f 9.9360E+05 6.2420E+07 6.4630E+09 8.2450E+05 9.1330E+05
K3r 2.4440E+04 2.0000E+04 2.1340E+04 2.0000E+04 2.0360E+04
K3 4.0650E+01 3.1210E+03 3.0290E+05 4.1220E+01 4.4860E+01
K1 4.5700E-03 2.4940E-05 3.1110E+00 7.5690E+00 9.3730E-01
K2 2.5390E-03 8.6650E-04 2.5260E-07 9.5540E-02 9.6020E-06
K6 1.0490E+00 1.3800E+00 1.1560E-01 -1.1190E-04 -1.0720E-05
K7 1.5470E+00 1.8200E+00 -1.1900E-05 4.6810E+00 4.8530E-02
K8 2.9230E+00 4.5150E-01 2.8410E+00 2.8140E+01 3.0080E+00
objective function 1.903094E-01 1.915400E-01 7.903570E-02 1.936510E-01 2.087080E-01
Table 2: Objective function and parameter estimates for Model 2
330
OC 350
OC 370
OC 400
OC 500
OC
K4f 4.0310E+01 3.3420E+07 5.9250E+01 1.4970E+01 3.1860E+01
K4r 2.3060E+04 2.0000E+04 2.0080E+04 2.0430E+04 -2.7450E+00
K4 1.7480E-03 1.6710E+03 2.9500E-03 7.3290E-04 -1.1610E+01
K7 5.1760E+01 5.2410E+01 7.7040E-04 -1.0240E-05 6.6030E+01
K1 5.8900E-03 1.0430E-03 5.1830E+01 1.0130E+00 4.0460E-01
K2 1.8850E+00 1.5180E-04 2.2830E+01 8.9970E+01 6.0010E-02
K3 2.5420E+00 2.4090E-01 5.7590E-02 4.6710E+00 -1.0350E+00
K6 4.4430E+00 1.1300E+00 1.3960E-01 1.2790E-05 2.4090E-01
objective function 1.909010E-01 1.915650E-01 1.944760E-01 1.391910E+00 2.320640E-01
IJRRAS 17 (3) ● December 2013 Adesina & Susu ● Kinetic Analysis of 2-Heptene Reforming
328
Table 3: Objective function and parameter estimates for Model 3
330
OC 350
OC 370
OC 400
OC 500
OC
K3f 8.4580E+01 9.4890E+01 1.3540E+02 5.4630E+03 2.1740E-01
K3r 3.9610E+00 5.8560E+00 2.1260E-02 4.8510E-01 2.9840E-01
K3 2.1360E+01 1.6200E+01 6.3680E+03 1.1260E+00 7.2870E-01
K1 7.7900E+01 7.8780E+01 4.4120E+03 3.3840E+01 8.5970E+01
K2 8.8250E+02 8.8800E+02 8.0410E-01 2.6890E+05 8.3930E+01
K4 6.9950E+01 6.8630E+01 1.4370E+03 2.1800E+01 7.7090E+01
K7 7.3450E+01 7.1130E+01 1.8500E+03 4.9870E+04 8.2910E+01
K8 1.5340E+02 1.5870E+02 1.1980E+03 4.2290E+04 1.2380E+02
K9 1.0290E+02 9.9490E+01 1.8690E+08 1.1190E+03 1.2340E+02
K11 1.5110E+02 1.5470E+02 1.2990E+03 5.7300E+04 1.2160E+02
objective function 1.908950E-01 1.915760E-01 1.823498E-01 1.411780E+00 1.411700E+00
Table 4: Objective function and parameter estimates for Model 4
330
OC 350
OC 370
OC 400
OC 500
OC
K4f 8.4580E+01 9.4890E+01 7.3330E+03 7.3431E+03 7.3420E+04
K4r 3.9610E+00 5.8560E+00 9.3850E+00 7.9180E+01 7.9630E+02
K4(K4f/K4r) 2.1360E+01 1.6200E+01 7.8190E+02 9.2710E+01 9.2210E+01
K1 7.7900E+02 7.6780E+02 8.5780E+03 8.5770E+03 8.5780E+03
K2 8.8825E+02 8.8800E+02 8.3940E+02 8.3930E+02 8.3400E+02
K3 6.9950E+01 6.8630E+01 2.5690E-06 1.0620E-01 8.6110E-01
K7 7.3450E+01 7.1130E+01 8.3710E+01 8.1990E+01 1.2030E+01
K8 1.5340E+02 1.5170E+02 1.2330E+02 1.2290E+02 1.2260E+02
K9 1.0290E+02 9.9490E+01 1.2330E+04 1.2330E+04 1.2330E+04
K11 1.5110E+02 1.5070E+02 1.2230E+02 1.2210E+02 1.2220E+02
objective function 1.908950E-01 1.915760E-01 5.644260E-00 9.839044E-01 1.609048E+00
IJRRAS 17 (3) ● December 2013 Adesina & Susu ● Kinetic Analysis of 2-Heptene Reforming
329
Table 5: Objective function and parameter estimation for Model 5
330
OC 350
OC 370
OC 400
OC 500
OC
K3f 1.3450E-02 1.6190E+00 6.3080E+02 -1.4990E+01 1.7120E+02
K3r 1.6190E+00 1.7060E+00 0.1984+02 -2.5870E+01 -1.0000E-05
K3 8.3080E-03 1.0770E-02 3.1800E+01 5.7950E-01 -1.7110E+07
K1 8.2810E+01 8.5100E+01 2.0160E-03 -5.3680E+01 3.1030E+02
K2 8.3720E+02 8.3890E+02 8.3510E+02 7.8610E+03 2.0580E-04
K4 7.7690E+01 7.8330E+01 8.7290E+01 1.9350E+04 3.7290E+02
K7 8.2770E+02 8.2650E+04 8.5090E+02 7.3540E+03 1.5110E+03
K8 1.2360E+02 1.2300E+02 1.3590E+02 1.3880E+02 1.7470E+02
K9 1.1390E+01 1.4440E+01 1.2340E+04 3.1330E+04 1.3530E+04
K11 1.3740E+01 1.1350E+01 2.2800E+01 8.3160E+03 3.3430E+02
objective function 1.909050E-01 2.136228E-01 1.915662E-01 1.410010E+00 1.411312E+00
Table 6: Objective function and parameter estimation for Model 6
330
OC 350
OC 370
OC 400
OC 500
CC
K3f 3.1010E+01 3.0970E+01 3.0940E+01 1.4460E-01 1.3890E-01
K3r 7.4720E+00 7.7050E+00 7.5350E+00 3.3830E-01 3.3830E-01
K3 4.1500E+00 4.0190E+00 4.1060E+00 4.2750E-01 4.1070E-01
K1 8.4540E+01 8.4780E+01 8.4780E+01 8.5920E+01 8.5920E+01
K2 8.4670E+02 8.4660E+02 8.4660E+02 8.3930E+02 8.3930E+02
K4 6.2750E+01 6.2590E+01 6.2590E+01 7.7040E+01 7.7040E+01
K7 8.8790E+01 8.8760E+01 8.8760E+01 8.2790E+01 8.2790E+01
K8 1.2860E+02 1.2850E+02 1.2850E+02 1.2370E+02 1.2360E+04
K9 1.2590E+02 1.2590E+02 1.2590E+02 1.2330E+04 1.2330E+04
K11 1.2390E+02 1.2390E+02 1.2390E+02 1.2150E+02 1.2330E+04
objective function 1.936702E-01 1.936700E-01 1.936968E-01 1.411780E+00 1.411780E+00
6. DISCUSSION
The procedure based on Tikhonov regularization has successfully converted time-concentration data into
concentration-reaction rate data. It was applied to the reforming of 2-heptene over Platinum/Alumina catalyst even
at different reaction temperatures and to kinetic data presented in a variety of formats. Eq. (14) was used to perform
all the data conversion. The data as generated by Eq. (14) are in the form of a discrete set of reaction rate data points
at uniformly and closely spaced time intervals. These discrete data points, without assuming any rate model, were
used to back calculate the time-concentration profiles. The back-calculated profiles, for all the examples considered,
are in good agreement with the original experimental data. As the back calculations were performed using
commercial software independent of that developed for the Tikhonov computation, they provide a quick check
against possible errors introduced during the derivation and solution of Eq. (14). The outcome of the Tikhonov
regularization computation can now be put in the form of a set of closely spaced concentration versus reaction rate
points. All the results up to this point are independent of any reaction rate model. As can be seen from all the
IJRRAS 17 (3) ● December 2013 Adesina & Susu ● Kinetic Analysis of 2-Heptene Reforming
330
examples, The best fit Eq. (47) is shown in Figures 1b, 2b and 3b as a smooth curve in which the rate of reaction
decreases smoothly as the concentration of 2-heptene in exit stream changes in a non-linear fashion while The best
fit Eq. (47) is shown in Figures 4b and 5b as a smooth curve in which the rate of reaction increases smoothly as the
concentration of 2-heptene in exit stream remains 0gmol/m3 in a linear fashion.
The regularization parameter λ has ensured that each set of concentration-reaction rate data traces out a relatively
smooth curve. The smooth curves were used to determine the parameters in the models. Irrespective of the nature of
the reaction, the key step involved is the fitting of the rate expression of the model to the well-behaved
concentration-rate curve.
This was accomplished by the flexible tolerance search method. Based on the behavior of these parameters, the rate
models were screened in order to determine the model that fits the data best. The parameter estimates were in no
means unique, but were expected to follow a general trend.
The discrimination amongst the rival models using the generated results from 3.3 is based on the following factors:
(a) The agreement of estimated rate constants with the expected trend of increasing rate constants as
temperature increases.
(b) The agreement of estimated equilibrium constants with the expected trend of its decrease with temperature
increase.
(c) The respective values of the objective function at each temperature, over the whole temperature range.
(d) Thermodynamic scrutiny. This involves assessing the kinetic models against the Boudart-Mears-Vannice
guidelines [14,15].
This criterion is given as: ˂ ˂ – ( )
where
(62)
The result for the estimation of the rate constants and equilibrium constants for model1 as presented in Table 1
shows an increase in value for the rate constants of the forward reaction as temperature increase from 330°C to
370°C but the rate constant due to the reverse reaction shows a decrease in value from 330°C to 350°C. The values
for some of the equilibrium constants decreased with temperature increase but were not consistent because K6 and
K7 showed an increase in value with temperature increase from 330°C to 350°C. However, the rate constants due to
forward and reverse reactions both showed an increase in value and also a consistent decrease in value of the
equilibrium constants from temperatures 400°C to 500°C.
Model 1 will therefore be considered a possible model based on the parameter values between temperatures 400°C
and 500°C.
Also the result for the estimation of the rate constants and equilibrium constants for Model 4 as presented in Table 4,
shows an increase in the value of the rate constants with temperature increase as well as the equilibrium constants
decreasing with temperature increase from temperatures 330°C to 350°C. Model 4 will therefore be considered a
possible model based on the parameter values between temperatures 330°C and 350°C.
However, Models 2,3,5&6 were eliminated based on the factor of expected increase in the value of rate constants
with temperature increase and corresponding decrease of equilibrium constants with increase in temperature as seen
in Tables 2,3,5 and 6. The best two models i.e Models1&4 were tested for their thermodynamic adequacy. From
Figures 6 (Model 4) & 7 (Model 1), the plot of lnK against 1/T gave values for ∆H/R as the slope and ∆S/R as the
intercept of the graphs respectively. The slope of the Vant Hoff plot for Model 1 is 1.6916E+08 and the intercept
5.0E+01 which also made Model 1 to be eliminated according to the Boudart-Mears-Vannice guideline. The slope
of the Vant Hoff plot for Model 4 is 5.8209E+03 and the intercept is 1.50E+01.
Model 4 is the only model that satisfied the criterion for thermodynamic scrutiny. This model is the rate of
conversion of adsorbed 3-methylhexane to adsorbed toluene when hydrogen is adsorbed as a bi-molecular specie.
From the Vant Hoff plot for this model (Fig. 6), the enthalpy of reaction, ∆Hrxn, for the reforming of 2-heptene was
computed to be 4.8394E+07J/mol. The activation energy for forward and backward reaction was obtained from
Figure 8 as 1.034E+08J/mol and 2.6995E+07J/mol while the Arrhenius constants are 40s-1
& 11.328 s-1
respectively.
The reaction entropy change, ∆Srxn, for the process was computed as4.7447E+04J/molK.
Hence, Eq. (83) shows that 10 < 124,710 < 677,529 implies that Model 4 also satisfies the
thermodynamic scrutiny.
IJRRAS 17 (3) ● December 2013 Adesina & Susu ● Kinetic Analysis of 2-Heptene Reforming
331
Figure 6: Vant Hoff plot of lnK4 against 1/T for Model 4
Figure 7: Vant Hoff plot of lnK3 against 1/T for Model 1
ln K4 = 5820.9/T - 15
-6.00E+00
-4.00E+00
-2.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.00E+00
4.00E+00
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004ln
K4
(Dim
en
sio
nle
ss)
1/T(K')
ln K3 = 16971/T - 41
-8.00E+00
-4.00E+00
0.00E+00
4.00E+00
8.00E+00
1.20E+01
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
ln K
3(D
ime
nsi
on
less
)
1/T(K')
IJRRAS 17 (3) ● December 2013 Adesina & Susu ● Kinetic Analysis of 2-Heptene Reforming
332
Figure 8: Arrhenius plot of lnK4f and ln K4r against 1/T for Model 4
7. CONCLUSION
Tikhonov regularization technique applied to the analysis of kinetic data provides a reliable way of converting the
time-concentration data of reaction kinetics into concentration-reaction rate data. The procedure is independent of
reaction rate model and is applicable to a wide variety of reactions. As noise amplification is kept under control, the
resulting concentration-reaction rate curve allows the rate constants in any rate model used to describe the reaction
to be determined with relative ease and reliability. The polyhedron search method of optimization provides a way of
generating the kinetic parameters of multivariable function. Based on the fact that the rate constants of Model 4
increased consistently with temperature and satisfaction of the thermodynamic criterion, this model thus provide the
realistic rate expression with the contaminant rate and equilibrium parameters for the catalytic reforming of 2-
heptene on the Platinum/Alumina catalyst.
8. NOMENCLATURE
A ND x Nk matrix of coefficient of unknown column vector f
αij A coefficient arising from the numerical integration of equation (2)
β A tri-diagonal matrix of coefficients arising from the finite difference approximation of
d2f/dt
2
Ci, Bi The coefficients of C0 and r0 representing the column matrices C and B respectively
Cc Computed Concentration
CM
Experimentally measured concentration
C(t) Concentration at specific time t
C0 Initial concentration
δi The deviation of Cc from C
M
ND Number of data points
Nk Number of Uniformly-spaced discretization points
r(t) Rate of reaction
r0 Initial rate of reaction
S The objective function
t Time
ti The times at which the concentration is measured
λ The regularization parameter
x Conversion
N N-Heptane or N-Heptene
Σ Summation
Q 2-heptene
ln K4f = -12435/T + 40
ln K4r= -3246.9/T + 11.328
0
4
8
12
16
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
lnK
4f,
lnK
4r
(Dim
en
sio
nle
ss)
1/T(K')
K4f
K4r
IJRRAS 17 (3) ● December 2013 Adesina & Susu ● Kinetic Analysis of 2-Heptene Reforming
333
CP Cracked products
I 3-methylhexane
MCH Methylcyclohexane
B Benzene
M Methane
T Toluene
Θv Vacant site on catalyst surface
ΘT Total active site of the catalyst
a subscript denoting adsorbed specie on the catalyst
Kf Rate constant of forward reaction
Kr Rate constant of reverse reaction
K Equilibrium constant
°C Unit of Temperature in Celsius
∆H Enthalpy of reaction
∆S Entropy change for the reaction
9. REFERENCES
[1]. K.A. Connors. Chemical Kinetics: The Study of Reaction Rates in Solution, New York: VCH, 1990.
[2]. H.W. Engl, M. Hanke and A. Neubauer. Regularization of Inverse Problems, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 2000.
[3]. Y. L. Yeow, S. R. Wickramasinghe, B. Han, Y. Leong A new method of processing the time-concentration
data of reaction kinetics, Chemical Engineering Science 58 (2003) 3601 – 3610.
[4]. Y.L. Yeow and J.W. Taylor. Obtaining the Shear Rate Profile of Steady Laminar tube flow of Newtonian and
non-Newtonian Fluids from Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Laser Doppler Velocimetry Data. J.
Rheology, 2002, 46(2): 351–365.
[5]. S.C. Omowunmi, A.A. Susu. Application of Tikhonov Regularization Technique to the Kinetic Data of an
Autocatalytic Reaction: Pyrolysis of N-Eicosane. Engineering, 2011, 3: 1161-1179.
[6]. A.A. Susu and T. Kunugi. Novel Pyrolysis Decomposition of n-Eicosane with Synthesis Gas and K2CO3-
Catalyzed Shift Reaction. I & EC Process Design & Development, 1980, 19: 693-699.
[7]. S.C. Omowunmi and A.A. Susu. Application of Tikhonov Regularization Technique to the Kinetic Analysis
of N-Heptane, 2-Heptene and 3-Methylhexane Reforming on Pt/Al2O3 Catalysts. J. Engineering Technology
Research, 2012, 1 (1): 1-18.
[8]. F. Aberuagba. Selective Aromatization during n-Heptane Reforming on Fresh and Decaying
Platinum/Alumina and Platinum-Rhenium/Alumina Catalysts. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Lagos, Lagos,
Nigeria, 1995.
[9]. J. Hadamard. Sur les problèms aux dérivées partielles et leur signification physique. Princeton University
Bulletin, 1902, 13: 49-52
[10]. W.T. Shaw and J. Tigg. Applied Mathematica. Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley: Toledo, 1994.
[11]. P.C. Hansen. Analysis of Discrete Ill-posed Problems by means of the L-curve’’, SIAM Reviews, 1992, 34:
561–580.
[12]. P.C. Hansen and D.P. O’Leary. The Use of the L-curve in the Regularization of Discrete Ill- Posed Problems,
SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 1993, 14(6): 487–1503.
[13]. C.L. Lawson and R.J. Hanson. Solving Least Squares Problems, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1974.
[14]. M. Boudart, D.E. Mears and M. A. Vannice. Kinetics of Heterogeneous Catalytic Reactions, Industrie
Chimique Belge, 1967, 32(I): 281.
[15]. M.A. Vannice, S. H. Hyun, B. Kalpakci and W.C. Liauh. Entropies of Adsorption in Heterogeneous
Catalytic Reactions, 1979, J. Catal., 56: 358.
IJRRAS 17 (3) ● December 2013 Adesina & Susu ● Kinetic Analysis of 2-Heptene Reforming
334
Appendix: Experimental data of mole concentration of products in the exit stream for 2-heptene reforming
on Pt/Al2O3 catalyst
T°C(330) W/F(contact time) 2-heptene CCP C6H5CH3 C6H6 H2
1.25 0.4684 0.1021 0.0207 0 67.4009
1.5 0.4378 0.0964 0.0332 0 67.4009
1.88 0.4509 0.01011 0.0272 0 67.4009
2.50 0.4570 0.0949 0.0272 0 67.4009
3.75 0.4425 0.1201 0.0273 0 67.4009
T°C(350) 1.25 0.3987 0.1117 0.0381 0 65.5103
1.5 0.3856 0.1083 0.0463 0 65.5103
1.88 0.3989 0.1132 0.0326 0 65.5103
2.50 0.3856 0.1132 0.0402 0 65.5103
3.75 0.3739 0.1125 0.0601 0 65.5103
T°C(370) 1.25 0.3541 0.1162 0.0386 0.1226 63.7728
1.5 0.3052 0.1338 0.0579 0.1491 63.7728
1.88 0.3110 0.1278 0.0517 0.1554 63.7728
2.50 0.3057 0.1217 0.0593 0.1628 63.7728
3.75 0.3069 0.1334 0.06445 0.1181 63.7728
T°C(400) 1.25 0 0.1281 0.0501 0.1502 62.0303
1.5 0 0.1303 0.0430 0.1567 62.0303
1.88 0 0.1389 0.0689 0.1690 62.0303
2.50 0 0.1650 0.0689 0.1725 62.0303
3.75 0 0.1667 0.0750 0.2048 62.0303
T°C(500) 1.25 0 0.4200 0.0691 0.2318 60.4254
1.5 0 0.3920 0.1236 0.2318 60.4254
1.88 0 0.3336 0.0725 0.2684 60.4254
2.50 0 0.3307 0.0725 0.2806 60.4254
3.75 0 0.3095 0.0794 0.3050 60.4254