Modeling biomass gasication in circulating uidized beds

Qi Miao
a
, Jesse Zhu
a,
*
, Shahzad Barghi
a
, Chuangzhi Wu
b
, Xiuli Yin
b
, Zhaoqiu Zhou
b
a
Particle Technology Research Centre, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada N6A 5B9
b
CAS Key Laboratory of Renewable Energy and Gas Hydrate, Guangzhou Institute of Energy Conversion, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510640, China
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 11 January 2012
Accepted 9 August 2012
Available online 1 September 2012
Keywords:
Biomass gasication
Hydrodynamics
Kinetics
Modeling
Circulating uidized bed
a b s t r a c t
Detailed review of existing models resulted in the development of a new mathematical model to study
biomass gasication in a circulating uidized bed. Hydrodynamics as well as chemical reaction kinetics
were considered to predict the overall performance of a biomass gasication process. The uidized bed
was divided into two distinct sections: a) a dense region at the bottom of the bed where biomass
undergoes mainly heterogeneous reactions and b) a dilute region at the top where most of homogeneous
reactions occur in gas phase. Each section was divided into a number of small cells, over which mass and
energy balances were applied. A number of homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions were considered
in the model. Mass transfer resistance was considered negligible since the reactions were under kinetic
control due to good gasesolid mixing. The model is capable of predicting the bed temperature distri-
bution along the gasier, the concentration and distribution of each species in the vertical direction of
the bed, the composition and heating value of produced gas, the gasication efciency, the overall carbon
conversion and the produced gas production rate. The modeling and simulation results were in good
agreement with published data.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Biomass is a renewable, storable and transportable energy
source. Biomass energy is neutral with respect to CO
2
emission, and
can signicantly alleviate the greenhouse effect caused by fossil
fuel consumption [1]. Biomass fuels and residues can be converted
to energy via thermal, biological and physical processes [2]. In the
thermochemical conversion technologies, biomass gasication has
attracted the highest interest as it offers the best combination of
efciency, product versatility and emission compared to combus-
tion and pyrolysis. Circulating uidized bed biomass gasiers
(CFBBGs) have been used for converting biomass materials into
energy because of enhanced gasesolid contact, better temperature
control, large heat storage capacity, good degree of turbulence, etc.
Although CFB gasication is now undergoing rapid commerciali-
zation for biomass [3e5], fundamental and pilot studies are,
nevertheless, still required for scale-up, as well as for lling the
gaps in better understanding the underlying principles.
Various models with widely differing complexity have been
proposed to describe CFB biomass gasication [6e13]. These
models range from complex kinetic models incorporating bed
hydrodynamics and particle distributions to simple thermody-
namic models based on reaction stoichiometry, chemical equilib-
rium, and mass and energy balances. However, variations of
assumptions of gasication models are numerous and sometimes
even contradicting, which makes evaluation of these models very
difcult with limited experimental data. Very few attempts were
found in the literature to simulate a self-sustained gasication
process that includes hydrodynamics, transport and kinetic
properties.
Very recently, Gmez-Barea and Leckner [14] carried out
a survey of the main mathematical reactor models for biomass and
waste gasication in uidized beds, and outlined the following
main conclusions: (1) Pyrolysis or devolatilisation is a key step,
affecting greatly the model results. To support a reliable model,
measurements of the gas composition and yield of pyrolysis in
laboratory scale at high heating rates with the biomass of interest
are required, if such results are not available in literature. (2) Char
and tar conversion are the processes whose modeling is least
satisfactory. A great research effort is still needed to improve the tar
chemistry. (3) Validation has not been sufciently detailed. There
are still uncertainties about the model structure. There is no vali-
dation against commercial-scale equipment. (4) The reliability of
these models for simulation of large-scale uidized bed gasiers is
as valid as the semi-empirical correlations used for the devel-
opment of the uid-dynamics.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 1 519 661 3807; fax: 1 519 661 3498.
E-mail address: jzhu@uwo.ca (J. Zhu).
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Renewable Energy
j ournal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ renene
0960-1481/$ e see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2012.08.020
Renewable Energy 50 (2013) 655e661
In the present work, a steady state mathematical model of
a CFBBG has been developed, integrating the hydrodynamics,
gasication reactions, as well as heat and mass balances in the
gasier. The model is capable of predicting the bed temperature
distribution along the gasier, the concentration and distribution of
each species in the vertical direction of the bed, the composition
and heating value of produced gas, the gasication efciency, the
overall carbon conversion and the produced gas production rate.
2. Model development
Biomass particles fed into the CFB riser will undergo a series of
physical and chemical processes, i.e., devolatilization, gasication,
oxidation, tar cracking and even segregation, attrition, etc. For
simplicity, almost all the literature models (for CFB gasication of
coal or biomass) treated those processes as completely indepen-
dent. However, these processes under some conditions actually
overlap very seriously. In addition to this fact, the complicated CFB
hydrodynamics can have signicant inuence on the physical
properties of biomass char particles and subsequently lead to
changing chemical reaction kinetics. Moreover, the temperature
gradient caused by the exothermic and endothermic reactions at
different bed positions can also result in the variation of chemical
reaction kinetics. Based on the above mentioned facts, a conclusion
can be drawn that the construction of a model suitable for CFBBGs
is absolutely not easy [15].
The main objective of this work was to develop a comprehensive
model taking into account hydrodynamics, chemical reaction
kinetics, as well as mass and energy balances to predict the overall
performance of CFBBGs. The schematic of model development
strategy is shown in Fig. 1.
2.1. Hydrodynamics
On the basis of our experimental investigations on the ow
structure in the CFBBG, two different zones in the reactor are
observed. For steady state conditions, the model assumes that the
CFBBG is divided into two regions: a dense region with a constant
solids holdup at the bottom and a dilute region with a decaying
suspension density in the upper portion of the gasier.
Several approaches have been proposed to investigate vertical
prole of solids concentration in CFB risers [16e18]. Based on the
observations that the solids concentration decays exponentially
fromthe bed surface, Kunii, O. Levenspiel [19] developed a model to
describe backmixing in the freeboard above the bubbling bed. The
model was also suggested to be valid for circulating uidized beds
[20]. This model is modied and applied in the present study where
the vertical solids holdup distribution is expressed as:

s

*
s

sb

*
s
exp az H
b
(1)
where
sb
is the average solids holdup in the dense region, H
b
is the
height of the dense region and is experimentally determined.
s
*
is
the average solids holdup in the fully-developed dilute region.
Decay constant a is a function of particle properties and operating
conditions, and the following equation was recommended by
Adnez et al. [21] to calculate the decay constant:
a
_
u
g
u
t
_
2
3:5 1670d
p
(2)
Since there are very few models concerning uid structure of
biomass particles in CFBs, the following correlations are proposed
for
sb
and
s
*
based on experimental data from the literature and
our laboratory [22]:

sb
1:0422
_
G
s
r
p
_
u
g
u
t
_
_
0:2781
_
u
g

gD
_
_
0:3218_
d
p
r
g
u
t
m
_
0:1195
(3)

*
s
0:0104
_
G
s
r
p
_
u
g
u
t
_
_
1:2933
_
u
g

gD
_
_
0:0808
Ar
0:9822
(4)
valid for d
p
> 200 mm, r
p
< 800 kg/m
3
, u
g
1.5e6 m/s, G
s
1e
150 kg/m
2
s.
2.2. Reactor kinetics
In a typical CFBBG, biomass particles may be fed in through
a screw feeder and uidized by air entering at the bottom of the
bed. A simplied reaction sequence for biomass gasication can be
described, as in Fig. 2. In the rst step, biomass particles are dried
and pyrolysed and the volatiles are released. A small portion of
Fig. 1. Schematic of model development strategy.
Q. Miao et al. / Renewable Energy 50 (2013) 655e661 656
volatile contents and char particles are combusted near the bottom
of the bed to provide heat required for further devolatilization and
gasication reactions. The intermediary products of pyrolysis are
gas, tar and char (carbon). The gaseous components and tar
continue reacting in the gas phase. Simultaneously the char
produced by the rst pyrolysis reaction, reacts with the gaseous
components [23] to produce syngas. Kinetics of homogeneous and
heterogeneous reactions depend on the local concentrations of
gaseous components and carbon, which change due to the above-
mentioned reactions.
Some assumptions and simplications regarding biomass gasi-
cation in this model are listed as follows:
Steady state
Compared with combustion and gasication, devolatilization is
very fast, and can be considered as an instantaneous reaction,
so a mixture of char, tar and gas can be assumed as soon as
biomass is introduced to the gasier
The yields of different products, including char, tar and gas, are
determined based on the kinetic model developed by Wu [25]
The composition of products calculated in the pyrolysis step is
used as initial conditions in the following step to solve mass
balance equations
Typical particles in the gasier is the combination of char and
ash, with char content decreasing with time consecutively
Solids mass ux G
s
includes recycle materials and fresh
biomass particles
Uniform temperature between solid and gas at the same axial
height, no heat transfer between the two phases
Temperature difference in gasier is minor, and temperature
change is slow, so net heat radiation is negligible
Unexposed core model for biomass pyrolysis, shrinking core
model for combustion and gasication reactions. The sizes of
char particles are assumed to remain constant (the same as the
feeding biomass particles) within the bottom dense bed. From
the top of the bottom dense bed surface upwards, the char
particles sizes are assumed to be one tenth of their original size
and remain constant during the consumption of the residual
char particles (based on the experimental ndings of Amand
et al. [26] on a 12 MW
th
biomass CFB boiler)
Effects of reactor inlet and outlet on the model are neglected
Effect of temperature on the bed hydrodynamics is neglected
The produced dry syngas consist of CO, CO
2
, H
2
, CH
4
and N
2
2.3. Pyrolysis
The biomass particles undergo pyrolysis upon their entry to the
CFBBG. Pyrolysis is the decomposition of biomass structure due to
heat. Pyrolysis is a very complicated process and the distribution of
products is particularly sensitive to the heating rate of reactor.
Under CFB conditions, the heating rate is very high and the pyrol-
ysis reaction is so fast, especially for biomass which is more reactive
than coal, that it is reasonable to assume the pyrolysis step to be
instantaneous [27]. The degree of devolatilization and its rate
increase with increasing temperature. The following correlations
are derived from our previous work [25]:
f
gas
5 10
5
T
2
0:16 T 22:43 (5)
f
char
7 10
7
T
3
10
3
T
2
1:065 T 267:5 (6)
f
tar
3 10
5
T
2
0:012 T 43:27 (7)
_
CO

5 10
7
T
3
10
3
T
2
0:703 T 84:49 (8)
CO
2
6 10
5
T
2
0:114 T 65:07 (9)
H
2
3 10
6
T
2
0:024 T 2:887 (10)
CH
4
2 10
5
T
2
0:055 T 11:9 (11)
where f
gas
, f
char
, f
tar
are mass fractions of gas, char and tar in the
pyrolysis products, respectively; [CO], [CO
2
], [H
2
] and [CH
4
] are
mass fractions of CO, CO
2
, H
2
and CH
4
in the gas, respectively; T is
the bed temperature in

C. The pyrolysis gases did contain some
C
2
H
2
, C
2
H
4
and C
2
H
6
in addition to CH
4
, but considering these as
CH
4
did not change the overall results [28], and this consideration
simplied the model signicantly. Therefore, the primary pyrolysis
gas compositions can be approximated fromthe above calculations.
2.4. Tar cracking and combustion
The thermal cracking of tar, also known as secondary pyrolysis,
is another important step. Because tar accounts for about 30% mass
fraction of the primary pyrolysis products, this step also has an
important impact on the accuracy of the prediction of nal gas
composition. Tar cracking and combustion take place in the gas
phase. Boroson et al. [29] studied the homogeneous cracking of tar
resulting from sweet gum hard wood and developed a rst-order
kinetic model. Their model was adopted by Rath et al. [30] to
calculate kinetic parameters for beech wood and is also used in this
study:
tar (gas) /(0.01733) H
2
(0.0884) CH
4
(0.5633) CO (0.1109)
CO
2
(0.22) tar
inert
r
cracking
10
4:98
exp
_

93370
RT
_
r
tar
(12)
where r
tar
the density of the tar in the gas stream.
The kinetic model of Bryden and Ragland [31] is used in this
study for the combustion of tar:
tar (CH
1.522
O
0.028
) (0.867) O
2
/CO (0.761) H
2
O
r
combustion
M
tar
9:2 10
6
Texp
_
9650=T
_
C
tar
0:5
C
O2
(13)
where M
tar
the molecular mass of tar material, 90 kg/kg mol
according to Bryden and Ragland [31].
2.5. Homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions
Only a number of homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions
are important during the formation and destruction of the reac-
tants or species in CFBBGs. Table 1 shows the main homogeneous
Fig. 2. Reaction sequence of biomass gasication [24].
Q. Miao et al. / Renewable Energy 50 (2013) 655e661 657
and heterogeneous reactions involved in gasication of biomass.
These reactions take place after the primary pyrolysis of biomass.
2.6. Mass balance
Thepresent model is one-dimensional. Thereactor is dividedinto
several cells invertical direction. Fig. 3shows schematically the solid
and gas ow in one cell of the uidized bed. For each cell, there are
some assumptions: (a) one channel model, fully gas solids mixing,
(b) homogeneous gas and solids distribution, no concentration
gradient, (c) constant parameters, e.g. X
c
, C
c
, C
g
, T, , (d) all reactions
under kinetic control, mass transfer not a rate controlling step.
The gas phase is modeled as plug ow without backmixing. For
the ith gaseous component under steady state, its mass balance can
be written as follow,
0
dC
gas;i;j
dt
v
gas;j1
C
gas;i;j1
Av
gas;j
C
gas;i;j
Ar
gas;i
ADz (14)
For the solid phase, complete backmixing is assumed, which
results in steady states in the following mass balance for carbon,
0
dC
c;j
dt
v
up;j1
C
up;j1
A v
up;j
C
up;j
A v
down;j
C
down;j
A
v
down;j1
C
down;j1
A r
c
ADz
(15)
For the reaction term, the overall reaction rates for each gas
component and carbon are given by the following equations in
terms of the individual reaction rates.
r
CO

l
l 1
r
1
r
2
2r
3
r
4
r
6
r
7
r
8
(16)
r
CO2

1
l 1
r
1
r
3
r
4
r
7
(17)
r
H2
r
2
r
5
r
7
3r
8
(18)
r
CH4
r
6
r
8
(19)
r
H2O
r
2
r
5
2r
6
r
7
r
8
(20)
r
O2

l 2
2l 1
r
1
0:5r
4
0:5r
5

3
2
r
6
(21)
r
N2
0 (22)
r
C
r
1
r
2
r
3
(23)
2.7. Heat balance
Axial temperature distributions along the riser of a CFBBG are
very important since all kinetic constants depend on temperature.
To calculate a given kinetic constant at a given height in the riser,
the temperature at such height has to be known and to know such
axial temperature proles several heat balances have to be made. In
the heat balance in one cell, a uniform temperature in the gas and
the solid phase is assumed. The convective ows and the heat loss
are considered in the following heat balances (Fig. 4).
0
dQ
dt

v
in
C
in
DH
in
A

v
out
C
out
DH
out
A hA
s
T
w
T
N

8
j1
r
j
DH
r;j
DzA
(24)
The term hA
s
T
w
T
N
stands for heat loss to the surrounding
environment and h is heat transfer coefcient and is determined
from Nusselt number Nu [36]:
Table 1
List of heterogeneous and homogeneous reactions involved in CFBBGs.
No. Chemical reaction Kinetic (kmol/m
3
s) Reference
R1 C (l 2)/2(l 1)O
2
/l/(l 1)CO 1/(l 1)CO
2
r
1
1:5 10
6
exp
_

13078
T
_
p
O2
1 Xc
1:2
Cc
l 3 10
8
exp30178=T
[32]
R2 C H
2
O /CO H
2
131 MJ/kmol
r
2
k
2
$C
C
$C
H2O
k
2
200$exp6000=T
[10]
R3 C CO
2
/2CO
172 MJ/kmol
r
3
k
3
$C
CO2
k
3
4:364$exp29844=T
[33]
R4 CO 1/2O
2
/CO
2
283 MJ/kmol
r
4
k
4
$C
CO
$C
0:25
O2
C
0:5
H2O
k
4
3:98 10
11
$exp20119=T
[33]
R5 H
2
1/2O
2
/H
2
O
242 MJ/kmol
r
5
k
5
$C
H2
$C
O2
k
5
2:19 10
9
$exp13127=T
[33]
R6 CH
4
3/2O
2
/CO 2H
2
O
802.31 MJ/kmol
r
6
k
6
$C
0:7
CH4
$C
0:8
O2
k
6
1:585 10
7
exp24157=T
[34]
R7 CO H
2
O /H
2
CO
2
41 MJ/kmol
r
7
2:7 10
3
exp1510=TC
CO
$C
H2O
C
CO2
$C
H2
=k
7

k
7
0:0265exp3968=T
[35]
R8 CH
4
H
2
O /CO 3H
2
206 MJ/kmol
r
8
k
8
$C
CH4
$C
H2O
k
8
3 10
3
$exp15000=T
[10]
X
c
: carbon conversion rate (X
c
W
0
W
t
/W
0
W
N
).
p
O2
: partial pressure of O
2
(atm).
Chemical reaction
th cell,
Fig. 3. Solids and gas ows of the ith component in the jth cell in the gasier.
Q. Miao et al. / Renewable Energy 50 (2013) 655e661 658
Nu
hD
K
(25)
Nu 0:10Ra
1=3
(26)
Ra
gb
ya
T
w
T
N
D
3
(27)
2.8. Calculation procedure
The ow diagram for the calculation of the overall solution is
shown in Fig. 5. The program was coded in MATLAB language. For
its solution, the following inputs must be given:
Feedstock: biomass ow rate, diameter and density; biomass
proximate and ultimate analysis
Operating conditions: uidization air ow rate/ER, tempera-
ture at bottom bed
Gasier geometry: gasier height, internal diameter, wall
thickness or external diameter
With these input parameters, the hydrodynamic sub-model is
rst run to obtain the axial proles of solids holdup, gas and solid
velocities, etc. To start the mass and heat balance iteration, it is
necessary to make an assumption for the particle ow rate recycled
into the gasier. Meanwhile, the results from the pyrolysis step are
used as initial conditions for the resolution of mass balances in the
rst cell. The solution of the heat balance is carried out simulta-
neously with the kinetics and the mass balances. When the kinetics
and the mass and heat balances are solved, the axial prole of tar
content, char concentration, gas composition and bed temperature
are obtainedas model outputs. Besides, syngas compositionandLHV,
gas yield, carbon conversionand gasication efciency at the gasier
exit are obtained at different operating conditions.
3. Some preliminary results and discussion
The model was used to predict the overall performance of
a CFBBG located in Zhejiang Province, China [37]. The input vari-
ables of the model are shown in Table 2 for one case study.
Using rice husk as the biomass feedstock and air as input into the
model resulted in concentration and temperature prole as shown
in Fig. 6. The gas composition calculated fromthe pyrolysis step was
used as the boundary condition at the bottomof the bed. Therefore,
all the values of the gas species are not starting from zero. The
boundary between the dense phase and diluted phase is shown by
a dashed line. In the dense region, the main reaction is combustion
because of the relativelyhighconcentrationof oxygenat the bottom.
Since combustion is exothermic, the bed temperature is also
increasing in this region. On the other hand the reactions in the
dilute region occur in homogeneous phase and are mostly endo-
thermic, which resulted in gradual decrease of temperature along
the bed in this region. In the presence of oxygen at high tempera-
tures, combustion reactions occur rapidly in the dense region
resulting in fast consumption of oxygen as shown in Fig. 6. Fromthe
gas concentrationproles, it canbe concluded that most of the gas is
produced in the dense region. This indicates that the majority of all
the subprocesses of gasication take places in the bottompart of the
riser. This conclusion is corresponded with the experimental nd-
ings inKersten[38]. Nitrogenconcentrationis practicallyunchanged
Chemical reaction
Heat loss
th cell,
Fig. 4. Energy balance for the jth cell in the CFBBG.
Fig. 5. Flow chart of calculation for the overall solution.
Table 2
Input variables for the case study.
Input Data Input Data
Rice husk properties Gasier
Volatile (% dry basis) 70.36 Bottom diameter (m) 1.40
FC (% dry basis) 15.07 Bottom height (m) 1.20
Ash (% dry basis) 14.57 Top diameter (m) 2.00
Moisture (%) 12.10 Total height (m) 8.50
C (%) 39.78 Biomass feed rate (kg/h) 1435
H (%) 4.97 Air
O (%) 40.02 Temperature (

C) 20
N (%) 0.46 Equivalence ratio () 0.26
S (%) 0.20
Density (kg/m
3
) 500
Q. Miao et al. / Renewable Energy 50 (2013) 655e661 659
because the conditions are not suitable for oxidation of nitrogen.
Carbon dioxide is formed in combustion reactions and its concen-
tration increased in the dense region, however due to the lack of
oxygen the concentration of carbon dioxide changed slightly in the
dilute phase. It seems that shift gas reaction and partially steam
reforming occur in the bed which results in gradual increase of
hydrogen and carbon monoxide in the dilute region.
A comparison of the prediction and experimental data is shown
in Table 3. The preliminary evaluation of the model prediction is in
reasonable agreement with the results obtained experimentally
[37]. The complexity of biomass gasication process and large
number of variables and their interaction between the components
makes the prediction a challenge, on the other hand access to real
data and sensitivity analysis of the model are the subject of our
oncoming papers.
4. Conclusions
The model developed in this study is a one-dimensional
comprehensive model, which is capable of predicting the perfor-
mance of CFBBGs at steady state operations. The mass and energy
balances as well as CFBBG hydrodynamics were taken into consider-
ation. The circulating uidizedbedwas dividedintotwo zones: dense
and dilute. The input variables of the computer program included:
biomass feedrate, particlephysical andchemical properties, moisture
content, uidization velocity and gasier geometry. The prediction of
axial prole of bedtemperature andgas composition, syngas LHVand
yield, gasication efciencyand carbon conversion at the gasier exit
was close to the experimental data.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the nancial support
from the National Science and Engineering Research Council of
Canada (NSERC), the National High-tech R&D Program of China
(2007AA05Z410 & 2009AA05Z434) and Chinese Academy of
Sciences (KGCX2-YW-329).
Nomenclature
a decay constant (dimensionless)
A bed cross sectional area (m
2
)
Ar archimedes number d
3
p
r
g
gr
p
r
g
=m
2
g

A
s
area of gasier sidewall (m
2
)
C concentration (kmol/m
3
)
C
down
concentration of downward particles (kmol/m
3
)
C
gas
gas concentration (kmol/m
3
)
C
up
concentration of upward particles (kmol/m
3
)
d
p
particle diameter (mm)
D riser internal diameter (m)
f mass fraction (dimensionless)
F
re
assumed recycled solids ow rate (kg/s)
F
0
re
calculated recycled solids ow rate (kg/s)
g acceleration due to gravity (m/s
2
)
G
s
solids circulation rate (kg/m
2
s)
h heat transfer coefcient (kJ/m
2
s K)
H
b
dense region height (m)
DH
in, out
enthalpy of gas (kJ/kmol)
DH
r
heat of reaction (kJ/kmol)
i, j counting variables
k kinetic constant (unit depending on the considered
reaction)
K thermal conductivity of gas (W/m K)
p partial pressure (atm)
Q enthalpy ow of stream (kJ)
r reaction rate (kmol/m
3
s)
R ideal gas constant (kJ/kmol K)
t time (s)
T temperature (

C, K)
T
w
gasier wall temperature (K)
T
N
temperature of surrounding (K)
u
g
supercial gas velocity (m/s)
u
t
terminal particle velocity (m/s)
v velocity (m/s)
v
down
average velocity of downward particles (m/s)
v
gas
gas velocity (m/s)
v
up
average velocity of upward particles (m/s)
W
0
initial sample weight (g)
W
t
sample weight after time t (g)
W
N
sample weight after innite time (g)
X
c
carbon conversion (dimensionless)
z axial distance from the distributor (m)
Dz increment in axial direction (m)
Greek symbols
a thermal diffusivity (m
2
/s)
b thermal expansion coefcient (K
1
)
d
b
Volume fraction of the bubble phase (dimensionless)
d
e
Volume fraction of the emulsion phase (dimensionless)

s
cross-sectional average solids holdup (dimensionless)

sb
cross-sectional average solids holdup at dense region
(dimensionless)

*
S
cross-sectional average solids holdup at dilute region
(dimensionless)
l ratio of CO to CO
2
Table 3
Comparison of prediction and experimental results.
Predicted value Exp. data [37]
Syngas composition (v%)
CO 16.67 17.29
CO
2
21.68 16.81
H
2
8.96 7.09
CH
4
(C
n
H
m
) 9.77 9.09
O
2
0 0
N
2
42.92 49.73
Syngas LHV (kJ/Nm
3
) 6573.10 6266.35
Syngas production rate (Nm
3
/kg biomass) 1.49 1.50
Gasication efciency (%) 67.12 66.60
Carbon conversion ratio (%) 98.47 91.90
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Bed height (m)
G
a
s

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

(
v
%
)
CO
CO
2
H
2
CH
4
H
2
O
O
2
N
2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
750
760
770
780
790
800
810
820
830
Dense
region
Dilute
region
Fig. 6. Gas species and bed temperature along bed height.
Q. Miao et al. / Renewable Energy 50 (2013) 655e661 660
m gas viscosity (Pa s)
v knematic viscosity (m
2
/s)
r
g
gas density (kg/m
3
)
r
p
particle density (kg/m
3
)
r
tar
density of tar (kg/m
3
)
References
[1] Quaak P, Knoef H, Stassen H. Energy from biomass: a review of combustion
and gasication technologies. In: Energy series. Washington, D.C.: The World
Bank; 1999.
[2] Bridgwater AV. Renewable fuels and chemicals by thermal processing of
biomass. Chem Eng J 2003;91:87e102.
[3] Yin X-L, Wu C-Z, Zheng S-P, Chen Y. Design and operation of a CFB gasi-
cation and power generation system for rice husk. Biomass Bioenerg 2002;
23:181e7.
[4] Chen P, Zhao ZL, Wu CZ, Zhu J, Chen Y. Biomass gasication in circulating
uidized bed. In: Circulating uidized bed technology VIII, proceedings of the
international conference on circulating uidized beds, 8th, Hangzhou, China;
2005. p. 507e14.
[5] Wu C, Yin X, Ma L, Zhou Z, Chen H. Design and operation of a 5.5 MWe
biomass integrated gasication combined cycle demonstration plant. Energ
Fuel 2008;22:4259e64.
[6] Jennen T, Hiller R, Kneke D, Weinspach P-M. Modeling of gasication of
wood in a circulating uidized bed. Chem Eng Technol 1999;22:822e6.
[7] Liu H, Gibbs BM. Modeling NH
3
and HCN emissions from biomass circulating
uidized bed gasiers. Fuel 2003;82:1591e604.
[8] Chen G, Spliethoff H, Andries J, Glazer MP. Biomass gasication in a circulating
uidised bed e part I: preliminary experiments and modelling development.
Energ Sourc 2004;26:485e98.
[9] Li XT, Grace JR, Lim CJ, Watkinson AP, Chen HP, Kim JR. Biomass gasication in
a circulating uidized bed. Biomass Bioenerg 2004;26:171e93.
[10] Corella J, Sanz A. Modeling circulating uidized bed biomass gasiers. A
pseudo-rigorous model for stationary state. Fuel Process Technol 2005;86:
1021e53.
[11] Petersen I, Werther J. Three-dimensional modeling of a circulating uidized
bed gasier for sewage sludge. Chem Eng Sci 2005;60:4469e84.
[12] Petersen I, Werther J. Experimental investigation and modeling of gasication
of sewage sludge in the circulating uidized bed. Chem Eng Process 2005;44:
717e36.
[13] de Souza-Santos ML. Comprehensive simulator (CSFMB) applied to circulating
uidized bed boilers and gasiers. Open Chem Eng J 2008;2:106e18.
[14] Gmez-Barea A, Leckner B. Gasication of biomass in uidised bed: review of
modelling. In: Yue G, Zhang H, Zhao C, Luo Z, editors. Proceedings of the 20th
international conference on uidized bed combustion. Xian, China: Tsinghua
University Press; 2009. p. 13e26.
[15] Corrella J, Toledo J. Modelling a CFB gasier: part I: model formulation. In:
Progress in thermochemical biomass conversion. Blackwell Science; 2001. p.
333e45.
[16] Li Y, Kwauk M. The dynamics of fast uidization. In: Grace JR, Masten JM,
editors. Fluidization. New York: Plenum Press; 1980. p. 537e44.
[17] Wen CY, Chen LH. Fluidized bed freeboard phenomena: entrainment and
elutriation. AIChE J 1982;28:117e28.
[18] Rhodes MJ, Geldart D. A model for the circulating uidized bed. Powder
Technol 1987;53:155e62.
[19] Kunii D, Levenspiel O. Entrainment of solids from uidized beds. Powder
Technol 1990;61:193e206.
[20] Kunii D, Levenspiel O. Fluidization engineering. 2nd ed. Boston: Butterworth-
Heinemann; 1991.
[21] Adnez J, Gayn P, Garca-Labiano F, de Diego LF. Axial voidage proles in fast
uidized beds. Powder Technol 1994;81:259e68.
[22] Miao Q, Zhu J, Barghi S, Wang C, Yin XL, Wu CZ. Axial and radial solids holdup
modeling of circulating uidized bed risers. In: Yue G, Zhang H, Zhao C, Luo Z,
editors. Proceedings of the 20th international conference on uidized bed
combustion. Xian, China: Tsinghua University Press; 2009. p. 335e40.
[23] Wang Y, Kinoshita CM. Kinetic model of biomass gasication. Sol Energ 1993;
51:19e25.
[24] Higman C, Burgt Mvd. Gasication. USA: Gulf Professional Publishing, Elsevier
Science; 2003.
[25] Wu C. Research on solid biomass gasication kinetics, Master thesis.
Guangzhou: Guangzhou Institute of Energy Conversion, Chinese Academy of
Science; 1990.
[26] Amand L-E, Lyngfelt A, Karlsson M, Leckner B. Fuel loading of a uidized bed
combustor burning bituminous coal, peat or wood chips. Report A 97-221.
Sweden: Chalmers University of Technology; 1999.
[27] Raman P, Walawender WP, Fan LT, Chang CC. Mathematical model for the
uid-bed gasication of biomass materials. Application to feedlot manure. Ind
Eng Chem Process Des Dev 1981;20:686e92.
[28] Sadaka SS, Ghaly AE, Sabbah MA. Two phase biomass air-steam gasication
model for uidized bed reactors: part I e model development. Biomass Bio-
energ 2002;22:439e62.
[29] Boroson ML, Howard JB, Longwell JP, Peters WA. Product yields and kinetics
from the vapor phase cracking of wood pyrolysis tar. AICHE J 1989;35:120e8.
[30] Rath J, Steiner G, Wolnger MG, Staudinger G. Tar cracking from fast pyrolysis
of large beech wood particles. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 2002;62:83e92.
[31] Bryden KM, Ragland K. Numerical modeling of deep xed bed combustor.
Energ Fuel 1996;10:269.
[32] Di Blasi C, Buonanno F, Branca C. Reactivities of some biomass chars in air.
Carbon 1999;37:1227e38.
[33] Wurzenberger JC, Wallner S, Raupenstrauch H. Thermal conversion of
biomass: comprehensive reactor and particle modeling. AICHE J 2002;48:
2398e411.
[34] Gungor A, Eskin N. Two-dimensional coal combustion modeling of CFB. Int J
Therm Sci 2008;47:157e74.
[35] Radmanesh R, Chaouki J, Guy C. Biomass gasication in a bubbling uidized
bed reactor: experiments and modeling. AICHE J 2006;52:4258e72.
[36] Bejan A, Kraus AD. Heat transfer handbook. In: Jaluria Y, editor. Natural
convection. Jone Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2003.
[37] Wu C, Yin X, Ma L, Zhou Z, Chen H. Operational characteristics of a 1.2-MW
biomass gasication and power generation plant. Biotechnol Adv 2009;27:
588e92.
[38] Kersten SRA, Prins W, van der Drift A, van Swaaij WPM. Experimental fact-
nding in CFB biomass gasication for ECNs 500 kW
th
pilot plant. Ind Eng
Chem Res 2003;42:6755e64.
Q. Miao et al. / Renewable Energy 50 (2013) 655e661 661