Western Michigan University

ScholarWorks at WMU

Honors Theses Lee Honors College

4-20-2021

Design of a Full-Scale Plant for Plastic Pyrolysis

Hannah Sargent
western michigan university, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/honors_theses

Part of the Aerospace Engineering Commons, and the Chemical Engineering Commons

Recommended Citation
Sargent, Hannah, "Design of a Full-Scale Plant for Plastic Pyrolysis" (2021). Honors Theses. 3393.
https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/honors_theses/3393

This Honors Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for

free and open access by the Lee Honors College at
ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion
in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of
ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please
contact [email protected].
Design of a Full-Scale Plant for Plastic Pyrolysis
Kaden Allen, David Lont, Hannah Sargent, Christopher Weaver

Group No. 04-21-17

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,

Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI 49008, USA

Sponsoring Company

Gulf Coast Environmental Systems

Faculty Mentor

Dr. Parviz Merati

Industry Mentors

Mr. Chad Clark

Mr. Cary Allen

Submitted April 2021

Senior Design Project (AE 4800)

 Certification

This is to certify that the project “Design of a Full-Scale Plant for Plastic Pyrolysis” has

been submitted to the Western Michigan Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

to meet the requirements of a Bachelor’s of Science in the major of Aerospace Engineering by

the following students:

Kaden Allen

David Lont

Hannah Sargent

Christopher Weaver

1
 Disclaimer

This project report was written by students at Western Michigan University to fulfill an

engineering curriculum requirement. Western Michigan University makes no representation that

the material contained in this report is error-free or complete in all respects. Persons or

organizations who choose to use this material do so at their own risk.

2
 Acknowledgement

We would like to express our gratitude to all the individuals that helped us complete this

project. Due to our lack of engineering experience many challenges and obstacles were faced,

but these individuals helped us overcome these to complete the final project.

We would like to thank Dr. Parviz Merati for the mentorship and counseling during this

project. With this our project would not have progressed in the manner it did.

We would also like to thank Chad Clark, “Carbon Expert”, for this opportunity and the

guidance and direction throughout this project. Without this we would have not had the chance to

work on such a revolutionary project

We would lastly like to thank Cary Allen for his instruction and training over the course

of this project. Without this we would not have been able to gain the experience and wealth of

knowledge required to complete a project such as this.

Finally, we would like to thank Jerrel Branson from Liquid Extractions for his

contributions to developing the chemical process of plastic pyrolysis (which he has a provisional

patent for) in an auger reactor. His expertise and recommendations for this project were key

throughout the development of this project.

3
 Abstract

With over thirty million tons of plastic accumulating in the United States every year, the

need for an environmentally safe means of disposal is increasing. Only ten percent of this plastic

is recycled while the majority is disposed of via landfill. With recent advances in pyrolysis

research, a permanent solution is presented. By creating a pyrolysis plant, not only could billions

of pounds of plastic be prevented from contributing to landfills, but also be converted to oil

resulting in an environmentally beneficial and lucrative solution to plastic waste.

Figure 1: Plastic on a Beach

4
 Table of Contents

Certification 1
Disclaimer 2
Acknowledgement 3
Abstract 4
Table of Contents 5
List of Figures 7
List of Tables 8
Introduction 9
History 9
Introduction to pyrolysis 9
Company 10
Design Requirements 11
Processing Rate 11
Temperature requirements 11
Facilities available 12
Fabrication 13
Safety 13
Cost constraints 14
Approach 14
Reactor choice 14
Rotary Kiln 15
Fluidized Bed Reactor 15
Conical Spouted Bed Reactor 15
Ablative 16
Screw 16
Heating source selection 17
Self-sustainment 18
Timeline 19
Design 19

5
 Initial calculations 20
Heat calculations 20
Estimated Molar Mass of Gases Produced 21
Estimated Molar Mass of Produced Oil 22
Volumetric Flow Rate Calculations 22
Process Flow Diagram (PFD) 23
Piping and Instrumentation Diagram (P&ID) 26
Reactor CAD model 28
Process Inputs and Outputs 28
Hot Side Seal (Detail 1) 29
Cold Side Seal (Detail 2) 29
Auger 30
Heating Element 31
Insulation and End Cap 31
Parts to be Fabricated 31
Assembly 32
Reactor CFD Analysis 35
Cost and Weight Estimate 41
Economic and Environmental Impact 43
Shortcomings 45
Conclusion 45
Future Work 46
References 47
Appendices 49
Heat calculations 49
Heating method ideas 50
Additional CFD images 51
Responsibilities Table 53
Resumes 54

6
 List of Figures

Figure 1: Plastic on a Beach 4

Figure 2: History of Pyrolysis 10

Figure 3: Gantt Chart 19

Figure 4: Process Flow Diagram 25

Figure 5: Piping & Instrumentation Diagram 27

Figure 6: Reactor CAD Drawings 33

Figure 7: Parts to be Fabricated Drawings 34

Figure 8: Simplified Reactor CAD Model for CFD Analysis 35

Figure 9: Velocity of the Fluid during Mixing 37

Figure 10: Velocity Magnitude Profile 38

Figure 11: Temperature Distribution of a Simplified Reactor 40

Figure 12: Initial Concepts for Pyrolysis Reactor 50

Figure 13: Flow of Water through Rotating Auger 51

Figure 14: Flow of Water through Reactor without Auger 52

7
 List of Tables

Table 1: Decision Matrix for Reactor Geometry 17

Table 2: Average Molar Mass of Gases Produced 22

Table 3: Molar Mass of Oil Produced 22

Table 4: Polypropylene Properties 39

Table 5: Bill of Materials 43

Table 6: Heat Calculation Values 49

Table 7: Group Responsibilities 53

8
 1. Introduction

1.1. History

Manufacturing char through carbonizing wood has happened throughout the entirety of

human history. The goal of producing char grew to other products such as tar and methanol as

mankind advanced. Though some mild advances occurred throughout history, the oil crisis of the

1970s caused an increase in research and experimentation with the pyrolysis process in hopes of

finding a solution to dependency on fossil fuel. Soon after, the commercial batch-by-batch

systems that used brick ovens with low oxygen and indirect heat had to be emptied of char after

each use and were replaced with fixed Bed and fluidized bed systems. These had the drawback

of hazardous tar or char byproducts but showed a great advance in the efficiency of the process.

The process was even further advanced at the turn of the century with the implementation of

augurs, circulating fluidized beds and many others. This has led to many pyrolysis plants being

created in the past decade with the most common being tire pyrolysis plants, one of which in

2017 received the first “C2C” certification given to a pyrolysis plant, signifying safety and

energy efficiency. This leads to today where the continuous research and application of the

pyrolysis process gives opportunity for eradicating the current plastic waste problem. A

schematic of the history of pyrolysis is shown in Figure 2.

1.2. Introduction to pyrolysis

The pyrolysis of plastic is the thermal degradation of plastic waste at temperatures

ranging from 250°C to 900°C. This is done in the absence of oxygen to produce liquid oil. For

this process to occur, the plastic material is fed into a reactor which creates liquid oil through

heat transfer. The char is then extracted and filtered from the oil so that the oil can be condensed

and cooled for storage and later use.

9
 Figure 2: History of Pyrolysis

1.3. Company

Gulf Coast Environmental Systems (GCES) is an environmental abatement solutions

provider based in Conroe, Texas. GCES specializes in Industrial Air Pollution Control but also

supplies products, consultation, and services for other thermal and energy processes. The

company provides complete solutions to over 30 industries across 17 countries and takes pride in

its overall flexability.

GCES was responsible for the conception of this project as they believe this system has

potential for environmental change as well as economic advantage.

10
 2. Design Requirements

The following requirements have been set by GCES to ensure that the plant is operating

at its best performance while ensuring that the system is both sustainable and that safety

specifications are being met.

2.1. Processing Rate

The plant will be processing 10 US tons of recycled plastic per day. The plastic will go

into a hopper that then slowly feeds into an extruder before entering the reactor where the

pyrolysis takes place. The plant will be operating 24 hours a day. Therefore, the design mass

flow rate through the reactor is 833.3 lbs/hr (378 kg/hr), or equivalently, 0.105 kg/s. This value

was recommended by GCES and was used in determining the sizing of the pilot plant.

With 20 thousand pounds of plastic passing through the reactor a day, it is estimated that

only 15,586 lbs will be converted into API 51° oil. The remaining mass will be converted into

2,412 lbs of gaseous hydrocarbons and 2,002 lbs of char. The oil will be collected and sold while

the hydrocarbons can either be sold or used to help power the plant. The char can also be sold

and will not contribute to power.

2.2. Temperature requirements

Ensuring the proper temperature gradients in the plant is key to the plant’s successful

operation. The most crucial part of this plant is its reactor as this is where the plastic is pyrolyzed

into crude oils. It has been determined that the ability to regulate and control the temperature

gradient within the reactor should be implemented in its design to ensure that the plant has the

most flexibility for making adjustments as needed.

11
 The plastic in the hopper will be fed into an extruder which will shred and preheat the

plastic to its melting temperature. This ensures the plastic going into the reactor will have a

higher density and more uniform temperature distribution. It is expected that this will increase

the efficiency of the reactor. The extruder should preheat the plastic to about 536°F (280°C),

which is higher than the melting temperatures of high density polypropylene (HDPE), low

density polypropylene (LDPE), and polyethylene (PE) which are the plastics of interest, which

will be converted into fuel. Melting the plastic to this temperature is estimated to require 5.5

MMBTU/day (58E6 J/day).

The reactor will be designed for an inlet temperature of 500°F (260°C). The reactor will

then gradually increase the temperature gradient along its length to a final temperature of 896°F

(480°C). Further increasing the temperature of the reactor is expected to decrease the formation

of coke and char in the crude oils. At this temperature, the fuel will be in the gaseous phase and,

therefore, a condenser is required. The char collected is expected to require a dedicated cooling

system as well. This system will consist of another screw conveyor that is immersed in water.

The crude oil and hydrocarbon byproduct gas leaving the reactor will then be filtered

with a centripetal filter to remove any char mixed with the oil. The oil will then be cooled with a

condenser using city water to remove the heat. The city water is estimated to have an average

input temperature of 70°F (21°C) which can be used to bring the temperature of the fuels

produced to 200°F (93°C) before the output fuels can be stored. Both the liquid oil and gas

hydrocarbon collectors are expected to be at this temperature or below.

2.3. Facilities available

Since Gulf Coast Environmental Systems is located in Texas, their facilities were not

readily available for our use. By contrast, Western Michigan Universities resources were

12
available and used often for different programs including, but not limited to, AutoCAD and

Fluent.

2.4. Fabrication

Fabrication of this plant is outside the scope of this project, however, the plans for

fabrication are well within. GCES has it’s very own fabrication shop with all the equipment

needed to make the plant. Because of this, they will be responsible for fabrication. In order to

fabricate this system, the shop at GCES needs the proper documentation. This documentation

includes technical drawing of the reactor as well as purchase orders for all relevant part drawings

for fabrication. It is expected of the team to create the drawings, find price estimates of the parts,

and part drawings that will then be reviewed and approved by GCES.

2.5. Safety

The main safety hazard of this plant will be due to the hot temperatures inside of the

reactor. The reactor will be well insulated so that any exposed surfaces of the reactor and plant

do not exceed 140°F (60°C). This complies with the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA).

A second potential hazard will be related to any excess pressure which could cause an

explosion. Careful consideration will be taken in the design of the plant to include explosion

vents as necessary. The type and size of these explosion vents, however, is outside of the scope

of this project and left to GCES to decide. Proper warning labels and signs will also be used to

comply with OSHA to minimize any risks of injury to the personnel.

13
 2.6. Cost constraints

This plastic pyrolysis plant will be the most profitable if the total cost of design and

manufacturing of the plant can be minimized. It was ensured that the parts to be purchased or

manufactured for the pyrolysis plant are within the allocated budget set forth by GCES.

Something that was also considered was purchasing used parts for the extruder screws to lower

the overall cost. The total cost of designing and manufacturing the completed pilot plant should

not exceed $2M USD according to GCES.

3. Approach

The approach for designing the reactor was set up in multiple steps. The first step was

researching the different reactor geometries that are in use in the industry. Next, a decision

matrix was created to compare the different geometries and ultimately choose one for the plant.

Then, three concepts were drawn up for the heating source for the reactor and one was chosen for

the design. Next, an analysis was done regarding the self-sustaining ability of the reactor based

on the products collected at the end of the pyrolysis process. Lastly, Figure 3 shows the Gantt

chart which gives a timeline of the group’s tasks for the project.

3.1. Reactor choice

The major element of design for this plastic pyrolysis plant is the reactor which will melt

the plastic on a temperature gradient from 500 °F to 896 °F. The first step in designing the

reactor was to choose the type and geometry of the reactor. The geometries investigated were

rotary kiln, fluidized bed reactor, conical spouted bed reactor, ablative, and screw. Table 1 below

shows the decision matrix created to aid in the decision for the reactor geometry. Based on the

14
decision matrix and discussions with GCES, it was concluded that a screw reactor would be best

for this design.

3.1.1. Rotary Kiln

The rotary kiln pyrolyzer is a drum that has blades located circumferentially along the

walls and rotates to mix the plastic and is heated externally. The drum is also usually inclined by

a couple degrees to help with the movement of the plastic. The benefits of a rotary kiln geometry

are that it can handle high operating temperatures and involves a continuous mixing of the

plastic. However, the downsides of this kind of geometry are that it is very costly to operate and

maintain due to the high temperatures exposed to moving parts.

3.1.2. Fluidized Bed Reactor

The fluidized bed reactor involves an inert bed where a fluidization medium is passed

through a bed of solid reactants and the bed is heated externally. The shredded feedstock is fed

through the top of the reactor while the heated bed flows in through the bottom. Some

advantages of the fluidized bed reactor are that it involves uniform particle mixing and

temperature gradients. However, some of the disadvantages of this geometry are that it can be

costly to construct and maintain specifically with the catalyst.

3.1.3. Conical Spouted Bed Reactor

The conical spouted bed reactor operates similar to the fluidized bed reactor but uses a

conical spouted geometry to filter the plastic feedstock through instead. The advantages of this

geometry is that it creates a higher collision rate and has a much smaller pressure drop compared

to the fluidized bed reactor. The disadvantages of the conical spouted bed reactor are that the

more complicated design results in issues with the catalyst feeding and entrainment and the

product collection.

15
 3.1.4. Ablative

The ablative pyrolyzer consists of two electronically heated grinding discs where the

upper disc is fixed and the lower disc is pressed by a spring and rotated by a vertical shaft. Some

of the benefits of an ablative reactor is that the reaction system is more intense comparatively

and that it can be easily scaled up. However, some of the disadvantages of this type of geometry

are that it creates less heat transfer than the other reactors and requires a lot of maintenance.

3.1.5. Screw

The screw reactor, also known as an auger reactor, is a reactor geometry consisting of a

screw inside a shaft that is externally heated. The advantages of the screw reactor geometry is

that it is a simple system and can easily be scaled up for larger amounts of feedstock. However,

some of the downsides of this type of reactor are that it has poor heat transfer between the heated

reactor wall and the cold screw shaft and it has a slower speed.

16
 Reactor Economic Heat Scale up
Durability Risk Speed Factors
type feasibility transfer flexibility

Total
Weight 5 6 4 3 2 1
score

Rotary
3 1 2 3 3 2 46
Kiln

Fluidized
3 5 1 4 5 5 76
Bed

Conical

Spouted 3 5 1 4 5 5 76

Bed

Ablative 3 2 1 5 3 1 53

Screw 5 2 5 5 5 2 84

Table 1: Decision Matrix for Reactor Geometry

3.2. Heating source selection

Once the reactor geometry was decided, the heating source then needed to be selected.

Three concepts were developed for how to heat the screw reactor for the plastic pyrolysis plant

which can be found in Appendix 1. The three concepts were electric band heating, induction

heating, and electric resistance heating. The first option, electric band heating, has bands

wrapped around the reactor jacket. The bands will have multiple circuits connected to it to

17
gradually increase the temperature along the reactor. The second option, induction heating, has

heat induced at each end of the auger and the middle section of the inner tube is heated through

conduction. The third option, electric resistance heating, has resistance heaters placed inside the

auger to allow for uniform heating. After discussions with the company, it was decided that the

first concept of electric band heating would be best for this reactor design. The band heating

allows for the most feasible heat transfer with the ability for having a gradual temperature

increase along the reactor.

3.3. Self-sustainment

One of the goals of this project was to determine if the plant could run solely off the

combustion of the output hydrocarbon gas in a generator. To approach this, calculations were

done to determine the amount of energy needed to run the two main power sinks: the plastic

extruder and the pyrolysis reactor. Assuming 100% thermal efficiency, the heat required for these

two components is 22.24 MMBTU/day (22.887 GJ/day). Once this was found, a few

assumptions were made about the composition of the output gas (see section 4.1). The heat

released through the combustion of all of the output gas was estimated to be 55.997

MMBTU/day (59.13 GJ/day).

After researching the typical efficiency of a natural gas generator (found to be between

30% and 40%), it was determined that this plant would not be self-sufficient and would require

external sources of energy to function. This conclusion was made based on the fact that, given

the calculations, a generator needed to have an efficiency of 38.7% in order to power the plant.

This is far too close of a margin for safe operation. Furthermore, the heat requirement calculated

above assumes a thermal efficiency of 100% and that the reactor and extruder were the only

devices to be powered; this is very unrealistic.

18
 3.4. Timeline

Figure 3 below shows the overall schedule for the design of the plastic pyrolysis plant.

These tasks are shown on the left, and the two colors for the bars represent the two different

semesters: blue for the fall semester and green for spring semester.

Figure 3: Gantt Chart

4. Design

The overall design of the plastic pyrolysis plant was done in three steps: initial heat

calculations, a process flow diagram, and a piping and instrumentation diagram. The heat

calculations were done to document temperature, mass flow rate, and volumetric flow rate at

certain points in the plant. These values were then used to create the process flow diagram and

the piping and instrumentation diagram.

19
 4.1. Initial calculations

The initial calculations were done with regards to heat, estimated molar mass of the gases

produced, estimated molar mass of the oils produced, and volumetric flow rate. These were used

to create the PFD and P&ID.

4.1.1. Heat calculations

The plastic to be pyrolyzed is first fed into a hopper. It then goes into the extruder which

grinds and heats the plastic until it is melted and of a consistent mixture before entering the

reactor. The target temperature of the plastic is 536°F at the end of the extruder after entering the

hopper at room temperature. The reactor will gradually increase the temperature of the pyrolyzed

plastic until it reaches a temperature of 896°F. At this point, all of the plastic will have been

converted to fuel and a small amount of char. To obtain these desired changes in temperature, the

following required head calculations were made.

The change in heat per mass of plastic going into the extruder was determined using

Equation (1) and Equation (2) below.

°
∆𝑞𝐸𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑟 = (𝐶𝑝∆𝑇 + ∆ℎ 𝑓𝑢𝑠)𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 (1)

∆𝑄𝐸𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑟 = 𝑞𝑚𝑖𝑛 (2)

The change in heat in the reactor was calculated in a similar way using Equation (3) and

Equation (4) below.

° °
∆𝑞𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 = (𝐶𝑝∆𝑇 + ∆ℎ 𝑣𝑎𝑝)𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 + (𝐶𝑝∆𝑇 + ∆ℎ 𝑣𝑎𝑝)𝑜𝑖𝑙 (3)

∆𝑄𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 = 𝑞𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟(𝑚𝑖𝑛 + 𝑚𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑏𝑎𝑐𝑘 𝑂𝑖𝑙) (4)

20
The total change in heat required was then determined by taking the sum of the changes in heat

for the extruder and reactor. This is shown in the following equations, Equation (5) and Equation

(6).

∆𝑞𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = ∆𝑞𝐸𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑟 + ∆𝑞𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 (5)

∆𝑄𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = ∆𝑄𝐸𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑟 + ∆𝑄𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 (6)

According to GCES, it is predicted that 2,412 lbs (1094 kg) of gas will be produced by

pyrolysis. The company estimates 90% of this gas will be methane. The heat released by the

combustion of methane was then determined to be 54 MJ/kg. Therefore, the total heat released

by methane is

𝑞𝐶𝐻 = 23,215,842 BTU/lb

4

𝑄𝐶𝐻 = 𝑞𝐶𝐻 𝑚𝑔𝑎𝑠 = 55. 99MMBTU

4 4

In order for the plant to be self-sustaining, we need a natural gas generator with 38.7% efficiency

which is typically between 35%-40% and this is assuming the system is 100% efficient

otherwise (an unrealistic assumption). Because of this, we can conclude that the system will not

be self-sustaining based on the produced gas and will need other sources of energy in order to

operate. A complete table of all of the heat values can be found in Table 6 in Section 13.1 in the

Appendix.

𝑄𝐶𝐻
η𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 = 4

𝑄𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
= 0. 387 (7)

4.1.2. Estimated Molar Mass of Gases Produced

The average molar mass of the gas produced was determined from the sum of the

products of the theoretical gases released with the percentages as shown in Table 2 below.

21
 Gases produced methane ethane propane butane avg

Molar mass (g/mol) 16.04 30.07 44.1 58.12 18.495

percentage 90.00% 5.00% 2.50% 2.50%

Table 2: Average Molar Mass of Gases Produced

4.1.3. Estimated Molar Mass of Produced Oil

Molar masses of certain distillates of this oil are hard to estimate. A safety margin of 150

g/mol was used since it is better to underestimate the molar mass (in turn, underestimate the

density) as it is safer to have pipes that are able to handle a larger volume than needed than pipes

that cannot handle enough. Table 3 below shows the estimated molar mass values for the

produced oil.

API 51° grade oil gasoline kerosene diesel Heavy oil Safety margin

Molar mass ~100 ~170 ~175 NA 150

(g/mol)

Table 3: Molar Mass of Oil Produced

4.1.4. Volumetric Flow Rate Calculations

In order to determine how big the plant needs to be, it is important to understand the

volumetric flow rate within each pipe and component. As has been observed, the volume of

different substances changes as heat is added. Because of this phenomena, the coefficient of

22
linear thermal expansion of each material needed to be found. This value is used to calculate the

new density of a substance. From here, the volume can easily be found.

To start this calculation, the density of the melted plastic entering the reactor, its

coefficient of linear thermal expansion (α), and the change in temperature needed to be known.

ρ𝑀𝑒𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐
ρ𝐸𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑟, 𝑜𝑢𝑡 = ρ𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟, 𝑖𝑛 = 1+α(𝑇𝑛𝑒𝑤−𝑇𝑚.𝑝.)
(8)

Here, Equation (8) above, is used to find the density of the plastic at the inlet of the reactor,

however, this equation can be used to find the density at any point within the reactor that sees

solid or liquid flow.

The reactor output density was found using the ideal gas law using the crude oil and

hydrocarbon output as the gas.

Using the mass flow rate and densities found using the method above, the volume flow

rate can be calculated using the following Equation (9).

𝑉˙ =
ρ𝑚
𝑡
(9)

From here, the flow rate was converted into standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM) as it is easily

communicated within the industry.

4.2. Process Flow Diagram (PFD)

As with any process, the process flow diagram serves as a backbone for the rest of the

project. A PFD shows the conditions of the inputs, outputs, and at every step in between. Many

calculations have to be done in order to ensure that this diagram is as accurate as possible. Any

mistake made on this document will result in further mistakes down the road resulting in

expensive changes and/or catastrophic events. That being said, a large percentage of the time

spent on this project was spent perfecting the process flow diagram.

23
 As stated above, this PFD serves as the backbone for the project and is referred to by all

that are involved in order to communicate the proper conditions and so that the team is acting as

one. Any new finding causes an immediate update to the PFD to ensure that the team is up to

date. Figure 4 below shows the PFD for the designed plastic pyrolysis plant.

24
Figure 4: Process Flow Diagram

25
 4.3. Piping and Instrumentation Diagram (P&ID)

The piping and instrumentation diagram is essentially a more detailed PFD. This diagram

shows all the same information as the PFD while adding all the instruments, pipe sizing, and

more detail about the process itself. The P&ID in this report is incomplete as it was mostly

outside the scope of the project, however, Gulf Coast Environmental System insisted on an

attempt being made to create it for its educational value. The shortcomings of this particular

document are the pipe sizing as well as many of the instruments, as the team was not experienced

in this field. Figure 5 below shows the P&ID for the designed plastic pyrolysis plant.

26
Figure 5: Piping & Instrumentation Diagram

27
 5. Reactor CAD model

Design models were made in 2D using AutoCAD. Due to the hazardous nature of this

reactor and the overall inexperience of the group, it is highly recommended that all aspects of

this design be checked and approved by the responsible parties before manufacturing begins.

5.1. Process Inputs and Outputs

In this design, there is one input and three outputs. The process inlet carries liquid plastic

from the extruder to the reactor and is placed on the underside at the beginning of the reactor (far

left). The first system of outlets (two ports) is located at the top left of the reactor and is meant to

vent off any dirty gas and nitrogen that made it through the initial purge, ensuring a clean,

contaminant free environment for the melted plastic to react. The second set of output ports are

located on the top right of the reactor. Here, all crude oil and natural gas is sucked out by a

blower downstream and is to be treated and collected. The third and final output of this system is

located on the bottom right of the reactor. This output's purpose is to rid the system of any coking

that has built up in the system. The coke is carried to the output via the auger.

The inputs are all welded to the reactor jacket at 30° angles from the horizon in the

direction shown in the drawing. 30° angles were chosen for these outputs so that the system

would continue to run properly as the inclination moves from 0-30°. The inlet is welded at this

angle as an attempt at keeping the plastic flowing to the right. Ideally, this creates a low pressure

zone in the top left section of the reactor. The low pressure zone will help to pull all remaining

gases out of the plastic before being sucked out of the system. Similarly, the nitrogen outputs are

applied to the left and at the same angle as the input. This ensures that the liquid will have a

more difficult time moving into and out of the ports. Furthermore, the process outputs are welded

at 30° and opposing flow, again, this makes it difficult for liquids to move up the ports while still

28
allowing easy venting of gas. The coke output (located at the bottom right) is placed at this

similar angle to ensure coking is easily evacuated as the inclination of the system increases.

The nitrogen and process outlets are 10 inch long, ½ in NPT (national pipe thread) TOE

(threaded one end) so that pipe fittings, such as valves, can be fitted to one end while the other

end can be butt welded to the reactor. Multiple of these pipes are welded on so that an operator

can open and close ports to dial in the process.

5.2. Hot Side Seal (Detail 1)

In order to ensure a proper seal on the hot side (right side) of the reactor. A sealing

strategy must be used. The difficulty in this lies in the fact that the temperatures inside the

reactor are far too high for any O-ring to withstand. Because of this, a bushing, or sleeve bearing,

was used. This is because it can be welded in place and will not leak process gas to the outside.

Furthermore, ball bearings become less effective at these temperatures due to the thermal

expansion of the balls within their sleeve. An alternative to this bushing could be a slightly larger

pipe that the end of the screw can rest in. As the system is inclined, this bushing will not carry as

much load as the cold side, and therefore, does not need to have the same reinforcement.

The end plate on the hot side will also be welded to a piece of circular angle that is then

welded to the jacket of the reactor. This will be done early in the assembly process where water

can be poured into the closed jacket to check for leaks.

5.3. Cold Side Seal (Detail 2)

The cold side (left side) sealing system is difficult to design as there is a rotating shaft

that must exit the system. Like the hot side, the cold side’s temperature (536°F) is still a major

design consideration. The design chosen features a double mechanical seal with a bushing inside

the reactor and bearing outside. Here, an 8 inch pipe is welded to the outside of the reactor end

29
plate. Inside this pipe will be a circular piece of angled steel that will work to push the O-ring

housing inward as force is applied via a spring. This system is designed to be redundant with two

O-ring housings in order to maintain a seal if one becomes damaged.

The end plate is then secured to the jacket by bolting to a flange that is welded to the

jacket. A high temperature, metal reinforced fiber gasket is placed between the end plate and the

flange to ensure a proper seal.

As stated above, heat is still a major consideration so the O-rings chosen are made out of

kalrez. This material has many advantageous properties but most importantly, can withstand

temperatures up to 635°F. Given the fact that the auger will conduct heat toward the O-rings, an

engineering decision was made to start the application of the heating element two feet from the

end plate. This makes it so less heat will be conducted to the O-rings which ultimately protects

them.

5.4. Auger

Because the auger is very difficult to manufacture, its creation will need to be carried out

by another company. This, however, did not stop the auger from being designed. Basic

calculations were done to create a preliminary design. From here, the design was further

idealized. Because of this, the center shaft (shown as the dark shaft down the center of the

reactor in Figure 6) was assumed to be 6 inches in diameter. The effects of this idealization can

be seen in the design as both the hot and cold side sealing mechanisms are designed around the 6

inch shaft.

The blades of the auger (shown as the gray boxes surrounding the shaft in Figure 6) will

have an outer radius that is ⅙ of an inch smaller than that of the reactor jacket. This is intended to

30
allow the auger to rotate without any direct friction with the jacket, however, this gap is small

enough that the auger will push all coke toward the aft end of the reactor.

5.5. Heating Element

To maintain a reactor temperature of 896°F, electric band heaters are applied to the area

around the outside of the reactor. The electric band heaters are gradually applied in greater

volume in order to provide a gradual increase in temperature from 500°F at the inlet to 896°F at

the outlet. This area is insulated in order to maintain this temperature gradient. The power

required for this is found by finding the volume, density, specific heat, change in temperature and

the time allowed to achieve the desired temperature.

5.6. Insulation and End Cap

To keep the reactor running as efficiently and as safely as possible, 6 inches of mineral

wool (8 lb/cu ft density) is to be placed around the reactor jacket. This is then held on by 18

gauge embossed aluminum. As per the request of GCES, the input and output pipe insulation

does not show on the drawings as they will be wrapped later on.

Due to the design of the hot side jacket end plate, insulation is difficult to add and hold in

place. This problem resulted in the design of a handheld exterior end cap. The cap is filled with 6

inches of insulation and has a slightly larger diameter than the exterior wall of the reactor. This is

so the cap can be quickly placed and removed from the reactor.

5.7. Parts to be Fabricated

Figure 7 features all the parts that can be fabricated in the GCES shop. All parts start as

metal stock that is purchased from various vendors. The parts are then cut, bent, and crafted to

the exact specs shown in the drawings. The drawings list the part number as well as the material,

31
quantity, and exact dimensions needed (aside from cut to fit parts, these are reserved for the

shop's best judgment).

5.8. Assembly

The entire design was made with accessibility and the assembly procedure in mind. The

manner of which parts are connected is carefully considered. To start, all flanges should be

welded to their respective location. Then, the hot side bushing is welded to the end plate before

the end plate is welded to the jacket. From here, the weld is checked by filling the bottom of the

jacket with water and checking for leaks. Then, the input and output pipes are butt welded to the

jacket. As this is all being done, the one angled bar can be welded to the inside of the cold side

sealing pipe. This can then be welded to the cold side jacket end plate. The cold side end plate

can be bolted on after the auger is loaded in and meets the bearing at the hot side. The reactor is

then covered in 6 inches of mineral wool insulation. The O-ring housing, spring, then second

O-ring housing are loaded into the sealing mechanism on the cold side end plate. The exterior

end plate is then bolted in place before the 18 gauge, embossed aluminum is cut to fit around the

reactor.

32
Figure 6: Reactor CAD Drawings

33
Figure 7: Parts to be Fabricated Drawings

34
 6. Reactor CFD Analysis

Both ANSYS Fluent and ANSYS CFX were used for the analysis of the flow and heat

transfer of the reactor, and they provided near-identical results. The images shown in this report

are from ANSYS Fluent. Figure 8 below shows the 3D CAD model. The auger was created in

Inventor and the jacket of the reactor in SpaceClaim in ANSYS.

Figure 8: Simplified Reactor CAD Model for CFD Analysis

35
 The reactor was first modeled as 7 parts: the auger, fluid volume, and five thin tubes

representing the outer jacket of the reactor. This jacket was sliced into sections as shown by the

colored regions in Figure 8 above where a different temperature was applied as the boundary

conditions along the length of the reactor. The heating coil wrapped around the jacket of the

reactor will be broken into several sections to have a good temperature gradient control along the

length of the reactor. This should ensure an efficient pyrolysis of the plastic with minimal

charring. In this case, the reactor has been split into five equally spaced heating sections (1.2 m

each). Going from left to right, the temperatures applied in discrete steps are 533, 590, 645, 699,

and 753 [K]. It is expected that the actual length and number of divisions for these temperature

sections will have to be determined experimentally by GCES.

Figure 9 below shows the velocity component of the fluid along the axial direction. The

fluid used in this model was water, since at these very high temperatures, the heat distribution

along the reactor was very similar to that of plastic as will be shown later.

The purpose of the auger is to mix the pyrolyzed plastic and to force any char out of the

reactor. The number of turns in the auger will have to be determined by GCES, as the actual flow

along the reactor is mixed, chemically reactive, and thus very complicated to model. To obtain a

general idea of the flow along the reactor, the auger was modeled as having a constant blade

pitch of 0.5 m along the length of the reactor. As advised by GCES, it is very likely that an

increasing pitch along the direction of the flow may result in better control of the pyrolysis such

that the plastic that has been fully pyrolyzed near the hottest section along the reactor is extracted

quickly, thus preventing charring. The radius of the auger core was modeled to be one-quarter

the radius of the outer wall housing the reactor. This ratio was determined from the ratio of

36
various extruders used for pyrolysis. The reactor is spun such that the direction of travel of

chemicals in the reactor is along the positive x-axis.

Figure 9 below shows velocity along the x direction on the cross section of the flow on

the xy plane. The fluid modeled here is water, and the auger is rotating at -5 RPM along the

x-axis. This figure shows that the auger is effective in mixing the fluid as can be shown by the

coloration of the velocity.

Figure 9: Velocity of the Fluid during Mixing

37
 The heat transfer with the mixing of the auger proved challenging to model. The heat

transfer was therefore modeled without the auger. To compensate for the mixing, the walls of the

auger were rotated, and a 50% setting of k-epsilon turbulence was used as a boundary condition

at both the inlet and outlet of the reactor. The walls were spinned at much higher angular

velocities. These were 10 RPM at the core and -50 RPM at the outer wall surface. A comparison

of the velocity profile of these two models is shown in the following figure. Note that though the

wall rotations are at relatively high angular velocities in the simplified model, an angular

velocity of 5 RPM by the auger produces higher velocity of the fluid.

Figure 10: Velocity Magnitude Profile for the cross sections of both models of
the reactor. Left: model with auger. Right: model with spinning walls.

This simplified model was then used to visualize the temperature distribution along the

reactor assuming a homogeneous liquid. Figure 10 (above) shows the temperature distribution of

the liquid along the reactor with the boundary conditions described above. The top half shows

the temperature distribution of polypropylene (PP) and the bottom half shows the temperature

distribution of liquid water. Polypropylene was chosen to be compared with water because PP

38
has the lowest thermal conductivity of the different types of plastics that will enter the reactor,

thus ensuring a uniform temperature distribution can be reached at the end of the reactor for the

fluid in question. The properties for PP were modeled as a custom fluid with the following

properties (note the properties of HDPE and LDPE are shown in the appendix):

Specific heat [J/kg·K] Thermal conductivity Density [kg/m^3] Viscosity [Pa·s]

[W/m·K]

1800 0.15 900 1.4E-3

Table 4: Polypropylene Properties

It is important to note that the density and viscosity of PP vary with temperature. Thus

these temperature distributions in the reactor serve only as a rough initial visualization analysis.

39
 Figure 11: Temperature Distribution in Simplified Reactor model with 50%
k-epsilon turbulence at the inlet and outlet as boundary conditions

Note in Figure 11 above that the temperature distribution of PP and liquid water is nearly

identical. The right-most section shown in red does show that water archives a uniform

40
temperature distribution of 753 K sooner before the PP does as indicated by the merging colors

yellow and red.

Also note that at the outer wall surface, where the heat is applied via coils wrapped

around the reactor, the temperature remains constant along this boundary layer. In reality, the

auger will have a small gap between the auger and the tube containing it. Plastic that has been

pyrolyzed into the gas and liquid phases may affect this boundary layer as it escapes either

upstream or downstream of the inclined reactor.

Gravity was not taken into account in this CFD analysis. The inclination of the reactor

will thus also have an impact on the heat transfer and temperature distribution along the reactor

as gases rise to the top.

7. Cost and Weight Estimate

A copy of the most up-to-date bill of materials can be seen below in Table 5. Costs were

found by finding quotes or price of the stock needed to make each part. Links to specific parts

and suppliers are provided as well. This is a simplified list and does not include fasteners.

The weight estimation was found by using the density and volume of each part.

41
 Cost Weight
item QTY (USD) (lbs) related link

Parts to be Purchased

Pipe Fittings Direct. 1/2 inch NPT x

1/2 inch NPT x 10 inch length TOE 316 Stainless 10 inch length TOE 316 Stainless
Steel 10 165.7 7.2 Steel

Graphalloy High Temperature

graph alloy bearing 453-120.9624-XXX 1 20 Bearings Type 453

6" bushing 2 20 Special Order

Special Order
https://screwconveyor.com/produc
6.5" ID spring 1 10 t-solutions/screw-conveyors/

ROXUL 2 in x 48 in x 24 in Mineral
Mineral Wool Insulation (2 in x 48 in x 24 in Wool High Temperature Insulation,
Mineral Wool High Temperature Insulation, Density Density 8#, Green - 19NE78|40205 -
8#, Green) 17 307.7 156.4 Grainger

ROXUL 4 in x 48 in x 24 in Mineral
Mineral Wool Insulation (4 in x 48 in x 24 in Wool High Temperature Insulation,
Mineral Wool High Temperature Insulation, Density Density 8#, Green - 19NE80|40225 -
8#, Green) 17 723.86 302.6 Grainger

Auger 1 Special Order

Standard O Rings - AS568 O-Rings |

FFKM 6" O-rings 2 1 Rocket Seals, Inc.

Pipe Fittings Direct. high

high temperature gasket for 24 inch ANSI class 150 temperature full face gasket for 24
flange 1 97.31 1 inch ANSI class 150 flange

Parts to be Fabricated

Metals Depot® - 316L Stainless

item 1 (2"x2"x1/4" angle) 1 287.1 22 Angle | Shop Online!

Metals Depot® - 316L Stainless

item 2-5 (20 ft 316ss 3"x3"x1/4" angle) 2 1222.46 196 Angle | Shop Online!

item 2-5 (10 ft 316ss 3"x3"x1/4" angle) cont. 1 305.8 15 Metals Depot® - 316L Stainless

42
 Angle | Shop Online!

Welcome to Lone Star Supply Co -

item 6 (20' long 316 ss 24" schedule 40 pipe) 1 1937 (281) 339-5800

Welcome to Lone Star Supply Co -

item 7 (22' long 316 ss 18" schedule 20 pipe) 2 258 (281) 339-5800

MetalsDepot® - Buy A36 Steel Plate

item 8 & 15 (3/8 inch THICK A36 Steel Plate) 4'x4' 2 1047.68 215 Online!

MetalsDepot® - Buy Steel Round

item 9 (1 inch Dia. Hot Rolled A-36 Steel Round) 4' 1 23 8.9 Bar Online!

item 10 (0.04" Aluminum Sheet 6061-T6) 144"x48" 1 206.24 60

item 11 (8" 316ss pipe) 1 463.11 13.1 Buy Pipe Online (onlinemetals.com)

Metals Depot® - 316 Stainless Steel

item 12 (1/8" x 1" 316/316L Stainless Flat Bar) 3' 1 25.45 0.528 Flat

item 13 (Custom Machined Part) 2 5 Special Order

316L Stainless Steel Plate | Stainless

item 14 & 16 2 3610.68 295.18 Supply

https://www.onlinemetals.com/en
item 17 (0.04" Aluminum Sheet 6061-T6) 144"x48" 5 1031.2 137 /buy/aluminum-sheet-plate

Total 8486.09 3543.908

Table 5: Bill of Materials

8. Economic and Environmental Impact

The development of this plastic pyrolysis plant design will have both environmental and

economic impacts on society. As of 2017, 348 million tons of plastic are produced globally and it

is estimated that this number will quadruple by the year 2050 (Qureshi et al., 2020). The amount

of plastic produced for our society will only increase, so a new technology has to be developed to

lessen its environmental impact on the planet. Currently, plastic waste is either mechanically

43
recycled, left in landfills, or incinerated. However, only a small amount of plastic waste can be

mechanically recycled because it has to be sorted and washed first, and only homogenous and

high quality materials can be processed in this way. Pyrolysis of plastic waste would be able to

recycle those plastics that are more heterogeneous and are multi-layered since through the

process the waste gases are collected. A study was done in Finland using life cycle assessment

(LCA), and it was found that through the combination of mechanical and chemical recycling, the

carbon footprint of plastic landfilling can be reduced by up to 67% to 76% (Qureshi et al., 2020).

The downside of pyrolysis is that it does result in a release of CO2. A solution for these CO2

emissions is that they can be mitigated with CO2 scrubbers. However, the amount of CO2

emitted from pyrolysis has been found to be 1/30th the amount that a normal landfill releases. In

addition to this, pyrolysis does not emit harmful dioxins as are released from the incineration of

plastics (Resynergi).

Economically, plastic pyrolysis is beneficial as it would be a key player in increasing the

petro-chemical and plastic industries. However, one of the major roadblocks in commercializing

this kind of technology is the legislative aspect. The framework for policies related to circular

economy, waste management, product safety, and fuels can be complex and extensive. Therefore,

even once the technology for plastic pyrolysis has been perfected and fabricated, it will still take

some time before it can be commercialized and globalized, especially since these laws and

regulations vary between countries.

This plant will allow for approximately 3,650 tons of plastic waste to be converted into

oil per year. Though pyrolysis plants have been created before, this is one of the first to be used

for plastic waste. This will make a noticeable change in plastic waste disposal but this single

plant will not solve the plastic waste crisis alone. It is hoped that successful operation of this

44
pilot plant will encourage future investment in the creation of more plastic pyrolysis plants and

thus create a profitable means of disposing of plastic.

The profitability of this plant comes both from the oil that it creates and the disposal of

plastic. This being the first plastic pyrolysis plant of its kind will allow GCES to have an

advantage in the market for plastic disposal. In addition to the profit made from companies

paying for plastic disposal, that plastic can be converted into 15,586 lbs of oil per day or

5,588,890 lbs per year. Based on the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the current price

prediction for 2022 is $60.494 per barrel and therefore the plant would earn 1.13 million U.S.

dollars. This results in not only a positive environmental impact but a plant that is highly

profitable.

9. Shortcomings

Over the course of the year, the true scale of this project became more apparent. Because

of this, the scope of the project had to be narrowed on several different occasions resulting in a

more achievable goal of designing the reactor. As time progressed, certain aspects of the reactor

were finished, however, other aspects did not see the attention they truly needed. Below is a list

of known shortcomings.

● Showing electrical heating element in CAD drawings

● Including all fasteners needed for assembly

● Addressing instrumentation within the reactor

10. Conclusion

During the process of designing a full-scale pyrolysis plant, the initial heat calculations

were needed as a baseline to decide how this plant would operate and if it was feasible. With

45
these calculations established, the process flow diagram and piping and instrumentation diagram

were then created as a schematic representation of the pyrolysis plant design. Then the CAD

model and CFD analysis were done while simultaneously contacting companies to find parts and

instruments for this pyrolysis plant to be created. Each of these steps allowed the group to apply

the knowledge that was gained over their time studying engineering. This additionally allowed

the group to expand upon that knowledge through working with a company and creating a real

product that will impact the world.

11. Future Work

The creation of this pyrolysis plant will allow for millions of pounds of plastic to be

recycled every year. With this plant demonstrating a safe, efficient and profitable means of

recycling plastic, this should allow for additional plants to be created. With enough plastic

pyrolysis plants being created at a large scale, this technology should greatly improve the plastic

waste crisis in the United States and the world. After this plant successfully demonstrates the

technology can be used at an industrial scale, the plant could be improved by implementing a

more complex reactor such as the fluidized bed reactor or conical spouted reactor, which could

improve the production rate and offer a more uniform heat transfer distribution of the pyrolyzed

plastic.

46
 12. References

Arabiourrutia, M., Elordi, G., Olazar, M., & Bilbao, J. (2017). Pyrolysis of Polyolefins in a

Conical Spouted Bed Reactor: A Way to Obtain Valuable Products. In Pyrolysis.

IntechOpen. doi:10.5772/67706

DOING Holdings - Henan Doing Environmental Protection Technology Co., L. (n.d.).

What is a pyrolysis rotary kiln reactor and what are its advantages? Retrieved April 18,

2021, from

https://www.recyclingpyrolysisplant.com/FAQ/pyrolysis_plant/pyrolysis_rotary_kiln_rea

ctor_860.html

FAQ. (n.d.). Retrieved April 20, 2021, from

https://resynergi.com/faq#:~:text=What%20are%20the%20benefits%20of,fuels%20and%

20virgin%20plastic%20resins.

Fluidized bed reactor. (2021, March 10). Retrieved April 18, 2021, from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluidized_bed_reactor

IEA Bioenergy. (n.d.). Pyrolysis Reactors. Retrieved April 18, 2021, from

https://task34.ieabioenergy.com/pyrolysis-reactors/

INEOS - Olefins & Polymers USA. (2014, April). [Typical Engineering Properties of

Polypropylene]. Unpublished raw data.

Lewandowski, W. M., Ryms, M., & Kosakowski, W. (2020). Thermal biomass conversion:A

review. Processes, 8(5), 516. doi:10.3390/pr8050516

Moscicki, K. J., Niedzwiecki, L., Owczarek, P., & Wnukowski, M. (2014).

Commoditization of biomass: Dry torrefaction and pelletization - a review. Journal of

Power Technologies, 94(4), 233-249.

47
Qureshi, M. S., Oasmaa, A., Pihkola, H., Deviatkin, I., Tenhunen, A., Mannila, J., . . .

Laine-Ylijoki, J. (2020). Pyrolysis of plastic waste: Opportunities and challenges. Journal

of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 152, 104804. doi:10.1016/j.jaap.2020.104804

Thermoplastic. (2020, May 30). Retrieved April 18, 2021, from

https://www.makeitfrom.com/material-properties

U.S. energy Information administration - eia - independent statistics and analysis. (n.d.).

Retrieved April 20, 2021, from

https://www.eia.gov/opendata/qb.php?category=1039852&sdid=STEO.BREPUUS.A

48
 13. Appendices

13.1. Heat calculations

HDPE LDPE PP Oil Gas Char

Percentage Out (%) 77.93 12.06 10.01

Melting Point (℉) 267.44 253.4 266

Specific Heat (BTU/lb· 0.454 0.502 0.43

℉)

Thermal Conductivity 0.26 0.21 0.087

(BTU/h·ft· ℉)

Heat of Combustion 17445 18960 18960 18966 19820 9367

(BTU/lb)

Density (kg/m3) 59.3 57.43 56.19

Change in Heat 477.225 527.460 452.108

(BTU/lb) 92 2 8

Change in Heat 360.170 398.083 341.214

(BTU/lb) 51 2 2

Total Change in Heat 837.396 925.543 793.322

(BTU/lb) 43 4 9

Energy in (MBTU) 348.9 379.2 379.2

Heat for Process 16.7479 18.5108 15.8664

(MBTU) 29 7 6

Average Energy Out 362.162 362.162 362.162 295.6041 47.80584 18.75273

(MBTU) 65 7 7

Table 6: Heat Calculation Values

49
 13.2. Heating method ideas

Figure 12: Initial Concepts for Pyrolysis Reactor. Note that the gas out tubes would not be
connected to 90° elbows as shown in this figure. It was also found that Concept 2 infringes on
a patent, so it does not present a viable heating method.

50
13.3. Additional CFD images

Figure 13: Flow of Water through Rotating Auger at -5RPM

51
 Figure 14: Flow of Water through Reactor without Auger. The outer wall is
rotating at 10 RPM while the core is rotating at -50 RPM to simulate the flow
with the auger.

52
 13.4. Responsibilities Table

Task Kaden Allen David Lont Hannah Sargent Chris Weaver

CFD for velocity mixing and heat transfer X
Chemical properties/reaction research X X
Complete project review forms X
Contact suppliers X X X
Cost and weight estimates X
Decision matrix for reactor selection X X
Economic and environmental impact
analysis X
Ethics group presentation paper X
Gantt chart X
Heat and flow calculations X
Heating element research and selection X
Individual parts CAD and material
selection X
Organize weekly progress forms X
P&ID conception and CAD X
PFD calculations, conception, and CAD X
Reactor 2D CAD X
Reactor 3D CAD X

Reactor selection research X X

Reactor structure, sealing mechanisms,
and plant connection design X
Table 7: Group Responsibilities
Signatures

Kaden Beatty Allen David Jeremiah Lont

Christopher Nathan Weaver

Hannah Grace Sargent

53
13.5. Resumes

54
 David Jeremiah Lont

[email protected] (269) 421-1923 linkedin.com/in/david-lont

Education
Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI Exp. graduation: Aug. 2021
B.S. in Aerospace Engineering, minor in Mathematics GPA: 3.77
Work Experience
WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY, Kalamazoo, MI
Undergraduate Research Assistant May 2019 - August 2019
● Investigated alongside Ph.D. students in the Fluid Mechanics Lab the effects of wind on the evaporation
rate of water as it is heated to describe this relationship mathematically
● Analyzed the characteristics of the air-water interface using particle image velocimetry (PIV)
● Created program using MATLAB to prepare, analyze, and concatenate data for study
● Redesigned diffuser of wind tunnel to provide laminar flow necessary for the experiment
● Improved seeding for PIV by redesigning olive oil diffusing system
Tutor/Learning Assistant August 2018 - Present
● Increase student comprehension and retention rate through personalized review sessions
● Teach material with emphasis on concepts difficult for students to master
● Guide students in finding the adequate resources to succeed in their college career
● Collaborate with professors weekly to tailor review sessions to meet the professors’ needs

LOWE’S, Kalamazoo, MI
Seasonal Cashier/Back end Receiver June 2020 - August 2020
● Adapted to a fast-paced and demanding environment to meet the needs of the store
● Coordinated truck arrival schedule and loading dock traffic to ensure efficient stocking of the store

STARBUCKS, Kalamazoo, MI
Barista May 2018 - September 2018
● Maintained customer satisfaction by placing customers first with speed and accuracy
● Multi-tasked taking customers’ orders while efficiently and accurately handling beverages

MATRIX ENTERPRISES, Grand Rapids, MI

Electronic Parts Assembler June 2017 - August 2017
● Prepared, soldered, and assembled a wide variety of cable types and electronic parts
● Exceeded required quota of cables to be stripped and soldered per day
Honors and Accomplishments
● Mechanical and Aerospace Merit Scholarship 2019-2020, 2020-2021
● Recipient of merit-based Kenneth Knight Scholarship 2020-2021
● Recipient of LSAMP grant to conduct research in fluid mechanics, 2019
● Nominated “Student Employee of the Year” 2018-2019
● Dean’s List (all semesters except Spring 2020-COVID-19 Impacted)
● Participated in AutoCAD competition and received invitation to be a TA for Engineering Graphics (EDMM
1420) based on performance; declined in order to accept position as Learning Assistant
● Translated book, The Power of the Gospel, 2017 by Gerda Brown from Spanish into English
● Student contributor to the book Keeping us Engaged: Student Perspectives (and Research-Based
Strategies) on What Works and Why, 2021 by Christine Harrington

55
56
57
58