Aspen Plus

Model for Moving Bed Coal Gasifier

Copyright (c) 2011 by Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved.

Aspen Plus, the aspen leaf logo and Plantelligence and Enterprise Optimization are trademarks or registered
trademarks of Aspen Technology, Inc., Burlington, MA.

All other brand and product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies.

This document is intended as a guide to using AspenTech's software. This documentation contains AspenTech
proprietary and confidential information and may not be disclosed, used, or copied without the prior consent of
AspenTech or as set forth in the applicable license agreement. Users are solely responsible for the proper use of
the software and the application of the results obtained.

Although AspenTech has tested the software and reviewed the documentation, the sole warranty for the software
may be found in the applicable license agreement between AspenTech and the user. ASPENTECH MAKES NO
WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THIS DOCUMENTATION,
ITS QUALITY, PERFORMANCE, MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Aspen Technology, Inc.

200 Wheeler Road
Burlington, MA 01803-5501
USA
Phone: (1) (781) 221-6400
Toll Free: (1) (888) 996-7100
URL: http://www.aspentech.com
Revision History
Version Description

V7.2 First version

V7.3 Update the model to V7.3 and add a paragraph in Introduction section
to describe what files are released.

Revision History 1
Contents
Revision History ......................................................................................................1

Contents..................................................................................................................2

Introduction ............................................................................................................3

1 Components .........................................................................................................4

2 Process Description..............................................................................................5

3 Physical Properties...............................................................................................6

4 Reactions .............................................................................................................8

5 Simulation Approaches.......................................................................................12

6 Simulation Results .............................................................................................17

7 Conclusions ........................................................................................................27

References ............................................................................................................28

2 Contents
Introduction

This file describes a comprehensive Aspen Plus model for countercurrent

moving bed coal gasifiers.
The model includes the following features:
The model is a steady-state model.
The model considers all the processes occurring in the gasifier, i.e. coal
drying, coal pyrolysis, char gasification, and char combustion.
The kinetics for char gasification and combustion are included.
Coal drying and pyrolysis take place instantaneously at the top of gasifier.
The variable bed voidage throughout the gasifier is taken into account.
The solid and gas phases flow in a plug-flow pattern.
The pressure drop in the gasifier is neglected.
The solid and gas temperatures are equal inside the gasifier.
The following files related to this example can be found in the
GUI\App\Moving bed coal gasifier folder of the Aspen Plus installation:
Aspen_Plus_Model_for_Moving_Bed_Coal_Gasifier.apwz, a compound file
containing these five files:
o Aspen_Plus_Model_for_Moving_Bed_Coal_Gasifier.bkp
o Aspen_Plus_Model_for_Moving_Bed_Coal_Gasifier.pdf
o USRKIN.f
o USRKIN.dll
o USRKIN.opt
Aspen_Plus_Model_for_Moving_Bed_Coal_Gasifier.bkp
Aspen_Plus_Model_for_Moving_Bed_Coal_Gasifier.pdf
USRKIN.dll
USRKIN.opt

Introduction 3
1 Components

The following table lists the chemical species present in the process:

Table 1. Components Used in the Model

ID Type Name Formula
O2 CONV OXYGEN O2
CO CONV CARBON-MONOXIDE CO
H2 CONV HYDROGEN H2
CO2 CONV CARBON-DIOXIDE CO2
H2O CONV WATER H2O
CH4 CONV METHANE CH4
N2 CONV NITROGEN N2
H2S CONV HYDROGEN-SULFIDE H2S
C6H6* CONV BENZENE C6H6
C SOLID CARBON-GRAPHITE C
S SOLID SULFUR S
COAL NC ------ ------
DRY-COAL* NC ------ ------
CHAR NC ------ ------
ASH NC ------ ------

*: C6H6 represents the tar and DRY-COAL represents the dried coal.

4 1 Components
2 Process Description

Moving bed coal gasifiers are vertical countercurrent reactors in which coal
reacts with oxygen and steam to produce the gas c containing
ontaining CO, H2, CO2,
CH4, and
nd other hydrocarbons. Fig. 1 shows a schematic diagram of a moving
bed coal gasifier. Coal is fed to the top of the gasifier and moves downward
under the gravity. A preheated mixture of oxygen and steam is introduced at
the bottom of the gasifier and flows upward to react with the coal. As coal
descends slowly, four processes will take place in sequence: coal drying, coal
pyrolysis, char gasification
gasification, and char combustion. Ash and unreacted char are
removed at the bottom by the rotating grate, and the produced gas leaves at
the top. Part of the process steam is produced by a water jacket surrounding
the gasification chamber.

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of moving bed coal gasifier

2 Process Description 5
3 Physical Properties

In this model, the property method RK-SOAVE is used to calculate the

physical properties of mixed conventional components and CISOLID
components. HCOALGEN and DCOALIGT models are used to calculate the
enthalpy and density of non-conventional components, respectively.
The HCOALGEN model requires these three component attributes for non-
conventional components: proximate analysis results (denoted as PROXANAL
in Aspen Plus), ultimate analysis results (denoted as ULTANAL in Aspen Plus),
and sulfur analysis results (denoted as SULFANAL in Aspen Plus). The
proximate analysis gives the weight content of moisture, fixed carbon, volatile
matter and ash. The ultimate analysis gives the weight composition of coal in
terms of ash, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, chlorine, sulfur, and oxygen. The
sulfur analysis divides the sulfur content into three types, pyritic, sulfate, and
organic sulfur. The DCOALIGT model requires only the two component
attributes ULTANAL and SULFANAL.
Table 2 shows the component attributes of coal used in our model, which are
from Wen et al.[1]. The enthalpy and density of coal are calculated by the
HCOALGEN and DCOALIGT models, respectively.
For the characterization of the char and ash generated in coal conversion, the
same methodology as above is applied and the same models are used to
calculate their enthalpy and density. The results of proximate, ultimate, and
sulfur analyses for the char and ash are determined from the analysis data of
original coal and the amount of gaseous product in terms of mass balance.

6 3 Physical Properties
 Table 2. Component Attributes of Coal Used in the Model[1]
Proximate analysis Ultimate analysis Sulfur analysis

Value Value
Value
Element Element (wt.%, dry Element (wt.%, dry
(wt.%)
basis) basis)
Moisture
4.58 C 77.76 Pyritic 0.87
(wet basis)
Fixed carbon
39.16 H 5.24 Sulfate 0.87
(dry basis)
Volatile matter
52.72 N 1.47 Organic 0.88
(dry basis)
Ash
8.12 Cl 0
(dry basis)

S 2.62

O 4.79

Ash 8.12

3 Physical Properties 7
4 Reactions

When the coal travels downward along the gasifier, these reactions take place
in sequence: coal drying, coal pyrolysis, char gasification, and char
combustion.

4.1 Coal drying

4.1.1 Drying process
In the coal drying process, the physical moisture bound in the coal is released
into the gas phase. The dried coal which results is represented by DRY-COAL
in the model.

4.1.2 Amount of water vaporized

The amount of vaporized water is determined based on the water content in
the proximate analysis of coal, because the temperature in the gasifier is
usually high enough to vaporize all the bound water in coal. At the same time,
from the results of Hobbs et al.[2], we know that the length for coal drying in
gasifier is much smaller than that for other processes, such as char
gasification and combustion. So, we assume that coal drying takes place
instantaneously at the top of gasifier.

4.2 Coal pyrolysis

4.2.1 Pyrolysis reaction
Coal pyrolysis is to break the coal to form the products of CO, H2, CO2, H2O,
H2S, N2, CH4, tar, and char, as shown in Eq. (1). In the model, tar is
represented by C6H6.

Coal CO H 2 CO2 H 2O H 2 S N 2 CH 4 C6 H 6 Char (1)

8 4 Reactions
 4.2.2 Amount of each pyrolysis product
In the literature, there are two methods used to obtain the amount of each
coal pyrolysis product. One is based on experiments, such as a coal pyrolysis
experiment outside the gasifier[3]. The other uses a theoretical method such
as a functional group model[2]. Due to the natural complexity of coal in
composition, the theoretical method is usually very complicated, and is
difficult to use in practical application. Compared with the theoretical method,
the method based on experiments is simpler and more practical. So, the
experimental method is used to predict the results of coal pyrolysis in the
model. Additionally, the results of Hobbs et al.[2] show that in the gasifier, the
length for coal pyrolysis is negligible relative to the length for char gasification
and combustion. So, coal pyrolysis is assumed to happen instantaneously at
the top of gasifier in the model.

4.3 Char gasification and

combustion
4.3.1 Reactions
In the process of char gasification and combustion, reactions (2-7) are
considered[1, 4]:
Z 2 Z 1
C O2 CO CO2 (2)
2Z 2 Z 1 Z 1
C H 2O CO H 2 (3)

C CO2 2CO (4)

C 2 H 2 CH 4 (5)

CO H 2O CO2 H 2 (6)

H 2 0.5O2 H 2O (7)

In reaction (2), the parameter Z

CO
6249
2500e T , where [CO] and [CO ]
CO2 2

mean concentrations of CO and CO2, respectively; T is temperature in unit of

K[5].

4.3.2 Reaction kinetics

Reactions (2-5) are the solid-gas reactions. Some of these reactions are
volumetric reactions, while others are surface reactions. In the volumetric
reactions, gas can quickly diffuse into the particles and reaction takes place
throughout of the interior of particle. In the surface reaction, gas does not
penetrate into the particle but is confined at the surface of the shrinking core

4 Reactions 9
 of unreacted solid. Generally, volumetric reaction occurs when chemical
reaction is slow compared with diffusion. Surface reaction occurs when
chemical reaction is very fast and diffusion is the rate-limiting step. Among
these four reactions, the rate of reaction (2) is usually fast relative to the
diffusion rate of reactants, so reaction (2) occurs as a surface reaction. The
rates of the other three reactions are rather slow because of the low
operating temperature in the moving bed coal gasifier, typically lower than
1000C. So, reactions (3-5) are volumetric reactions.
Based on the above statements, the unreacted-core shrinking model is
applied to describe the reaction rate of reaction (2)[1]:

PO2
RC O2 (8)
1 1 1
2

k film k sY k dash
Where

RC O2 = reaction rate, mol/cm3s.

k film = gas film diffusion coefficient, mol/cm3atms.

ks = chemical reaction constant, mol/cm3atms.

k dash = ash diffusion coefficient, mol/cm3atms.

PO2 = partial pressure of oxygen, atm.

rcore
Y , where rcore is radius of unreacted core in cm and rparticle is radius
rparticle
of feed coal particle in cm.
In the moving bed gasifier, coal particle size is of the order of 1cm[6], and in
most cases, the gas film and ash diffusions are the rate-limiting steps. Then,
Eq. (8) is simplified as:

PO2
R C O2 (9)
1 1

k film k dash
Where
1.75
T

0.292 4.26 1800
k film .
d pT
Y
k ash k film p2.5 .
1 Y
T = temperature, K.

10 4 Reactions
 dp = diameter of coal particle size, cm.

p = porosity of ash, dimensionless. In the model, p = 0.75.

The rates of reactions (3-7) are expressed in Table 3.

Table 3. Reaction Rates of Reactions (3-7)

Reaction Reaction rate Comment Unit Source

PH 2 PCO

45000
PH* 2O
C PH 2O P

(3) 930 e 1 .987 T * 16330 mol/cm3s [1]
H 2O 17 .29
T
e
2
PCO

45000 *
C PCO2 P
PCO
(4) 930 e 1.987 T * 20280 mol/cm3s [1]
20 .92
2
CO2 T
e
0. 5
P


8078
C PH 2 PH* 2
7.087

CH 4
(5) PH* 2 mol/cm3s [1]

T
e
13.43 T
10100

e
27760

Fw 2.87710 e 5 1.987T
7234
3.6890 mol/sg of
(6) [1]
xCO xH2 P
0.5 t 8.91
5553
kwgs e 1.8T
ash
xCO xH2O 2 Pt 250
e T
k wgs

9 . 976 10 4

(7) ------ mol/m3s [7]
8 . 83 10 e 5 8 . 315 T
C H 2 CO2

Note: T = temperature, K. C = concentration of carbon, mol/cm . 3

PH 2O ,
PCO2 , PH 2 , PCO , and PCH 4 = partial pressures of components, atm. Fw =
correction factor taking into account the relative reactivity of ash to the iron-
base catalyst. In the model, Fw 0 .0084 . Pt = total pressure, atm. xCO ,
xH2O , xCO2 , and xH2 = mole fractions of components, dimensionless. CH 2
and C O2 = concentrations of components, mol/m3.

In the Aspen Plus model, the kinetics of these reactions are provided in an
external Fortran subroutine.

4 Reactions 11
5 Simulation Approaches

Fig. 2 shows the simulation diagram of Aspen Plus model. The function of
each block is described in Table 4.. This model covers the processes occurring
in the gasifier, i.e. coal drying, coal pyrolysis, char gasification,
gasification and char
combustion.

Figure 2.. Simulation diagram for moving bed coal gasifier

Table 4. Function of Each Block

Block Model Function

Simulate coal drying based on the water content value in

DRYING RYield
proximate analysis of coal
Simulate coal pyrolysis based on the results of pyrolysis
PYROLYS RYield
experiment

GASIF-110 RCSTR Simulate char gasification and combustion

Decompose char into C, H2, O2, N2, S, and ash in order to

CHAR-DEC RStoic easily deal with solid reaction in the simulation
imulation of char
gasification and combustion

12 5 Simulation Approaches
 Block Model Function

SEP-13 Sep2 Separate the gas and solid

MX-GASIN Mixer Mix the gas feedstock

Mix the product gas and provide the heat for coal drying
MX-EXCH Heater
and pyrolysis

5.1 Unit Operations

5.1.1 Coal drying
A RYield block, DRYING, is used to simulate the coal drying. The coal is fed
into the block, and the water bound in coal is vaporized in this block. The
yield of gaseous water is determined by the water content in the proximate
analysis of coal. For the coal we are using, the water content is 4.58wt.%, so
the mass yield of gaseous water is set as 4.58%, based on the assumption
that the physically bound water is vaporized completely in this process. The
mass yield of dried coal is correspondingly equal to 1-4.58% = 95.42%.
After the drying process, the gaseous water and dried coal flow into a gas and
solid separator, SEP-1. The separated gaseous water mixes with the gas
streams from coal pyrolysis, char gasification, and char combustion to
produce the final product gas, and the separated dried coal goes on to the
next block for the pyrolysis process. In the simulation diagram, there is a
heat stream called Q-DRYING which represents the heat duty in the drying
process. This stream is used to keep the heat balance inside the gasifier. The
heat needed in the drying process is provided by the hot gases from coal
pyrolysis, char gasification, and char combustion.

5.1.2 Coal pyrolysis

The coal pyrolysis is simulated by a RYield block, PYROLYS. In this block, the
dried coal is broken into CO, H2, CO2, H2O, H2S, N2, CH4, C6H6, and char. The
yield of each component is specified according to the results of the pyrolysis
experiment[3]. The heat required in the pyrolysis process originates from the
heat exchange with the gas from char gasification and combustion, and is
represented by the heat stream Q-PYROLYS in the model. After the pyrolysis,
the pyrolysis products flow into the block SEP-2 to separate the gas and solid.
The gases from SEP-2 flow upward into the coal drying process. The solid
char from SEP-2 flows downward into the char gasification and combustion
processes.

5.1.3 Char gasification and combustion

The whole gasifier consists of four processes, namely coal drying, coal
pyrolysis, char gasification, and char combustion. In the model, coal drying

5 Simulation Approaches 13
 and pyrolysis are assumed to happen instantaneously at the top of gasifier, as
described in sections 4.1.2 and 4.2.2. This indicates that the length for char
gasification and combustion is equal to the total length of gasifier in the
model.
The moving bed coal gasifier is a countercurrent reactor. This indicates that a
countercurrent reactor model is required to simulate the char gasification and
combustion processes. However, Aspen Plus does not have a built-in reactor
model to deal with the countercurrent reactor. Benjamin et al.[8] developed a
user solution program for the countercurrent moving bed coal gasifier, and
then integrated it into Aspen Plus, but their results showed that the solution
was time consuming. This is attributed to the following reason: The form of
the mathematical model of the countercurrent moving bed coal gasifier is a
two-point boundary value problem. Its solution requires matching a number
of variables, some specified at the top and others at the bottom of the
gasifier. This feature causes the solution process to be usually complicated
and time-consuming. So, from the viewpoint of directly using the built-in
algorithm in Aspen Plus and then simplifying the problem, a number of RCSTR
reactors in series are proposed to model the char gasification and combustion
processes. The RCSTR reactor has the characteristic that all phases have the
same temperature, which means the temperatures of solid and gas phases in
the char gasification and combustion processes are equal in the model.
As suggested above, the simulation for char gasification and combustion
processes is performed by a series of RCSTRs. However, in order to easily
deal with the solid-gas reactions in this process, a RStoic block, CHAR-DEC, is
set up before the series of RCSTRs. In this block, char is decomposed into the
elements C, H2, O2, N2, S, and ash. The stoichiometric coefficients of these
elements are determined according to the ultimate analysis of char, which is
automatically done by a Calculator. In the char decomposition, the heat duty
is specified as 0 in the specification sheet of RStoic in order to maintain the
heat balance inside the gasifier. The products leaving from CHAR-DEC enter a
solid and gas separator, SEP-3. The separated gases including H2, O2, and N2
are introduced into the bottom of the gasifier together with the feedstock O2
and H2O. The separated solid components, including C, S, and ash, go to a
series of RCSTRs to take part in the gasification and combustion reactions.
Each RCSTR has the same volume, which is equal to the whole gasifier
volume divided by the number of RCSTR in series. The reaction kinetics
described in section 4.3.2 are written in external Fortran code. The heat loss
between the bed and wall is represented by the heat stream. Each heat
stream is bound with a Calculator and its value is determined by the
corresponding Calculator. The Calculator automatically retrieves the reactor
temperature in the flowsheet iteration and then updates the value of heat
stream based on Eq. (10):

Q loss U A T reactor T wall (10)

Where
Q loss = heat loss, Btu/hr.

U = heat transfer coefficient, Btu/hrft2R. In the model, U =

16Btu/hrft2R in order to match the carbon conversion with literature
results[1] in the subsequent simulation.

14 5 Simulation Approaches
 A = area, ft2.
T reactor and T wall = temperature, R.
In Fig. 2, the direction of each heat stream is flowing into the RCSTRs. So,
the negative term before the heat transfer coefficient in Eq. (10) is to correct
the direction of heat stream to make it flow out of the RCSTRs. In Fig. 2, 10
RCSTRs in series are shown from GASIF-1 to GASIF-10. Ten RCSTRs in series
are used due to the fact that the simulation results change little as the
number of RCSTR is further increased.

5.2 Streams
Streams represent the material and energy flows in and out of the process.
This model includes two types of streams: material and heat streams, as
shown in Fig. 2. The streams with solid lines represent material streams. The
streams with dashed lines represent heat streams.

5.3 Calculator Blocks

This model includes 11 Calculator blocks, as shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Calculators Used in the Model

Name Function
Determine the stoichiometric coefficients of C, H2, O2, N2, S, and ash
CHARDEC
in reaction of CHAR-DEC block

QLOS-110 Calculate the heat loss for blocks GASIF-110

5.4 Convergence
The convergence method impacts simulation performance greatly.
Inappropriate convergence methods may result in the failure of convergence
or long running time. In this model, the convergence method for RCSTRs
from GASIF-1 to GASIF-10 blocks is very important. Tables 6 and 7
summarize the convergence parameters for each RCSTR block used in the
example model, which are specified on the sheet Blocks | GASIF-110 |
Convergence | Parameters.

5 Simulation Approaches 15
 Table 6. Convergence Parameters for Blocks GASIF-15
Value
Item Parameter
GASIF-1 GASIF-2 GASIF-3 GASIF-4 GASIF-5

Solver Broyden Broyden Broyden Broyden Broyden

Mass balance
convergence
Maximum iterations 100 500 500 500 100

Maximum iterations 100 500 500 500 100

Energy balance
convergence
Maximum temperature step 90F 9F 9F 90F 90F

Advanced Mass balance | Damping

1 1E-10 1 1 1
parameters factor for step size
Initialize using integration |
Integration parameters |
Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct
Corrector | Convergence
method
Initialization
Initialize using integration |
Integration parameters |
Dynamic Dynamic Dynamic Dynamic Dynamic
Integration error | Error
scaling method

Table 7. Convergence Parameters for Blocks GASIF-610

Value
Item Parameter
GASIF-6 GASIF-7 GASIF-8 GASIF-9 GASIF-10

Solver Broyden Broyden Broyden Broyden Broyden

Mass balance
convergence
Maximum iterations 100 100 100 100 500

Maximum iterations 100 100 100 100 500

Energy balance
convergence Maximum temperature
90F 90F 9F 9F 9F
step
Advanced Mass balance | Damping
1 1 1 1 1
parameters factor for step size
Initialize using integration
| Integration parameters |
Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct
Corrector | Convergence
method
Initialization
Initialize using integration
| Integration parameters |
Dynamic Dynamic Dynamic Dynamic Dynamic
Integration error | Error
scaling method

16 5 Simulation Approaches
6 Simulation Results

A Pittsburgh bituminous coal is selected to perform the coal gasification

simulation. The coal attributes and operational parameters of the gasifier are
from the open literature of Wen et al.[1], as shown in Tables 2, 8, and 9. Table
2 gives the component attributes of coal, specifically the data of proximate,
ultimate, and sulfur analyses. Table 8 lists the feed conditions of coal,
oxygen, and steam streams, which include the flow rate, temperature, and
pressure. In addition, the diameter of coal particles and mole fraction of
impurity nitrogen are provided in coal and oxygen streams, respectively.
Table 9 lists the configuration parameters and operational conditions of the
gasifier, including gasifier height, gasifier diameter, operating pressure, and
wall temperature. At the same time, the pressure drop along the gasifier is
neglected in the simulation. In the paper of Hobbs et al.[2], they considered
the pressure drop. The nominal operating pressure in the gasifier was
100kPa. However, the maximum pressure drop calculated was only about
3kPa. This indicates that the pressure throughout the bed changes little and
the pressure drop is negligible. So, for simplification, the pressure drop is not
considered in the model.

Table 8. Feed Conditions of Feedstocks[1]

Feedstock Parameter Value Unit
Flow rate 43204 lb/hr
Temperature 77 F
Coal
Pressure 500 psig
Diameter of particle 2.0 cm
Flow rate 25923 lb/hr
Mole fraction of N2 0.06 dimensionless
Oxygen
Temperature 700 F
Pressure 500 psig
Flow rate 123132 lb/hr
Steam Temperature 700 F
Pressure 500 psig

Table 9. Configuration Parameters and Operational

Conditions of Gasifier[1]
Parameter Value Unit

6 Simulation Results 17
 Parameter Value Unit
Height 7.6 ft
Diameter 12 ft
Pressure 500 psig
Wall temperature 700 F

In the simulation of the coal pyrolysis process, the yield of each pyrolysis
product is estimated based on the report of Suuberg et al.[3]. Table 10
summarizes the component attributes of coal used in Suubergs work and our
model. Table 11 shows the yield of each pyrolysis product used in Suubergs
work and our model. From Table 10, it can be seen that the proximate
analysis of coal used in our model is similar to that in Suubergs work.
However, there is a big difference in ultimate analysis, especially in the
content of carbon and oxygen. In Suubergs work, the carbon and oxygen
contents are 63.63% and 19.53%, respectively. However, in our model, the
carbon and oxygen contents are 77.76% and 4.79%, respectively. From these
data, it can be inferred that the increase in carbon content may increase the
yield of components containing carbon, and that the decrease in oxygen
content may decrease the yield of components containing oxygen. Based on
this assumption, we increase the yield of methane and decrease the yield of
CO, CO2 and H2O compared with the results of Suuberg et al., as shown in
Table 11.

Table 10. Comparison of Component Attributes of Coal

Used in Suuberg et al.s Work[3] and This Model
Proximate analysis (wt.%) Ultimate analysis (dry basis, wt.%)

Suuberg This Suuberg This

Element Element
et al. work[1] et al.[15] work[1]
Moisture
6.8 4.58 C 63.63 77.76
(wet basis)
Fixed carbon
39.59 39.16 H 4.08 5.24
(dry basis)
Volatile matter
49.79 52.72 N 0.97 1.47
(dry basis)
Ash
10.62 8.12 Cl 0 0
(dry basis)

S 1.18 2.62

O 19.53 4.79

Ash 10.62 8.12

Table 11. Comparison of Yield of Pyrolysis Products in

Suuberg et al.s Work[3] and This Model
Yield (mass basis on dried coal, %)
Components
Suuberg et al. This model

18 6 Simulation Results
 Yield (mass basis on dried coal, %)
Components
Suuberg et al. This model
CO 7.62 1.9 (=7.62/4)
CO2 9.01 2.25 (=9.01/4)
H2O 10.41 0.65 (=10.41/16)
CH4 1.39 13.95 (=1.3910)
H2 0.54 0.54
tar 5.79 5.79
C2H4 0.6 Not considered
HC 1.02 Not considered
H2S Not measured 0.94
N2 Not measured 0.35
Char 63.62 73.63
Total 100 100

Based on above input conditions, some model parameters, including bed

voidage and number of RCSTRs in series, are analyzed. Then, our simulation
results are compared with literature results[1] to validate the model.

6.1 Parametric analysis

6.1.1 Bed voidage
Fig. 3 shows the effect of bed voidage on the profile of carbon flow rate. In
the first case, the bed voidage is kept at a constant value, 0.4, throughout
the gasifier. In the second case, the bed voidage increases linearly from 0.4
at the top to 0.7 at the bottom. In both cases, the number of RCSTRs in
series is 10. From Fig. 3, it can be seen that both the carbon flow rates in
these two cases decrease gradually from top to bottom. But the carbon flow
rate decreases slower when the bed voidage increases from top to bottom.
This is due to the decrease in carbon consumption rate.
Bed voidage refers to the fraction of the bed not filled with particles, so
increasing bed voidage will cause the particle number per unit volume to
decrease. This in turn decreases the carbon consumption rate per unit
volume. The decreasing carbon consumption rate keeps the carbon flow rate
higher in the second case. From these results, it can be seen that accurate
simulation results significantly depend on the correct setup of the profile of
bed voidage in the gasifier.
Some researchers have made attempts to measure the bed voidage in the
gasifier. Krishnudu et al.[9] quenched a pilot plant moving-bed coal gasifier
and measured bed voidage along the bed length. It was found that the bed
voidage varied linearly from the top to the bottom of the bed. Meanwhile,
Hobbs et al.[2] also found that it was necessary for accurate simulation results
to consider variable bed voidage. Therefore, the second case for the setup of
bed voidage is used in our model, i.e. bed voidage increases linearly from the
top (0.4) to the bottom (0.7).

6 Simulation Results 19
 4.5

3.5

Carbon flow rate (kg/s)

3

2.5

1.5

1
Linear change of bed voidage

0.5 Constant bed voidage

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Distance from bottom (ft)

Figure 3. Effect of bed voidage on profile of carbon flow rate

6.1.2 Number of RCSTRs in series

Fig. 4 shows the effect of number of RCSTRs in series on carbon conversion.
The number of RCSTRs in series ranges from 1 to 15. In all cases, the bed
voidage increases linearly from 0.4 (at the top) to 0.7 (at the bottom). As the
number of RCSTRs in series increases from 1 to 5, the carbon conversion
shows a steep increase, which is from 79.5% to 96.5%. However, when the
number of RCSTRs in series ranges from 5 to 10, the carbon conversion
shows a gentle increase, which is from 96.5% to 98.3%. When the number of
RCSTRs in series is further increased from 10 to 15, the increase of carbon
conversion becomes much slower, which is from 98.3% to 98.8%. These
results indicate that it may be reasonable to use 10 RCSTRs in series for our
case.

20 6 Simulation Results
 100

95

Carbon conversion (%)

90

85

80

75
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Number of RCSTRs in series

Figure 4. Effect of number of RCSTRs in series on carbon conversion

6.2 Comparison with literature

results
Table 12 shows the simulation results with 10 RCSTRs in series. In the
simulation, the bed voidage increases linearly from 0.4 (at the top) to 0.7 (at
the bottom). For comparison, the results reported by Wen et al.[1] are also
given in Table 12. The compared items include the product gas composition,
carbon conversion, exit gas temperature and peak temperature in the
gasifier. From Table 12, it can be seen that our simulation results show a
reasonable agreement with Wens results.

Table 12. Simulation Results

Product gas composition (dry basis, mol.%)
Carbon Exit gas Peak
Source
conv. (%) temp. (K) temp. (K)
CO H2 CO2 CH4 H2 S N2 C6H6
[1]
Wen et al. 27.16 38.12 22.84 9.34 0.81 1.70 0.03 98 1063.5 1378.2
This work 28.57 37.71 21.98 9.00 0.28 1.72 0.75 98.3 989.9 1355.3

Figs. 5-8 show the profile of temperature and main components (CO, H2, and
CO2). For comparison, the results of Wen et al.[1] are correspondingly
summarized in Figs. 5-8.

6 Simulation Results 21
 Fig. 5 shows the profile of temperature along with the height of the gasifier.
As the distance increases from the bottom to the top, the temperature
increases quickly to a maximum value and then decreases gradually. The
increase of temperature is due to the existence of O2. At that time, the
exothermic reactions of C-O2 and H2-O2 dominate the change of temperature.
When the O2 is consumed, the endothermic reactions of C-H2O and C-CO2
make the temperature decrease.
Fig. 6 is the profile of CO mole fraction. The mole fraction of CO increases
with the height near the bottom of the gasifier. When a maximum value is
reached, the mole fraction of CO begins to decrease in the rest of the height.
Fig. 7 gives the profile of H2 mole fraction. With the increase of height from
bottom to top, H2 mole fraction does not increase at first and is kept at
around 0. This is because H2 is consumed up by O2 in the feed gas. When the
O2 is consumed, H2 mole fraction shows an increase until the end of the
gasifier.
Fig. 8 is the profile of CO2 mole fraction. In the whole gasifier, CO2 mole
fraction shows a monotonic increase from the bottom to top, except for a
slight decrease at the top. Comparing the Aspen Plus model results with
Wens results, it is found that they show a similar trend in the profile of
temperature and main components.

22 6 Simulation Results
 8

Distance from bottom (ft)

6

3 Gas phase

Solid at the top

2
Solid at the bottom

0
100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500

Temperature (K)
(a)

(b)
Figure 5. Profile of temperature along with the height of gasifier: (a) As
Aspen
Plus model; (b) Wens model[1]

6 Simulation Results 23
 8

Distance from bottom (ft)

6

4 CO

0
0 0
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0. 12 0.14

Mole fraction
(a)

(b)
Figure 6. Profile of CO along with the height of gasifier: (a) Aspen
As Plus model;
(b) Wens model[1]

24 6 Simulation Results
 8

Distance from bottom (ft)

6

5 H2

0
0 0..02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16

Mole fraction
(a)

(b)
Figure 7. Profile of H2 along with the height of gasifier: (a) Aspen
pen Plus model;
(b) Wens model[1]

6 Simulation Results 25
 8

Distance from bottom (ft)

6

CO2
4

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1

Mole fraction
(a)

(b)
Figure 8. Profile of CO2 along with the height of gasifier: (a) Aspen Plus
model[1]
model; (b) Wens mode

26 6 Simulation Results
7 Conclusions

A comprehensive Aspen Plus model is developed for the countercurrent

moving bed coal gasifier. To provide the model, several Aspen Plus unit
operation blocks are combined. In the model, the kinetics for char gasification
and combustion are considered and provided in an external Fortran
subroutine. The model considers variable bed voidage throughout the gasifier.
The Aspen Plus model results are in reasonable agreement with the literature
results[1]. The Aspen Plus model provides a useful modeling framework for
future refinements as new knowledge is gained about the moving bed coal
gasifier.
To use the Aspen Plus model, you need to provide the following data:
Component attributes and higher heat of combustion of coal. The
component attributes of coal include the data of proximate, ultimate, and
sulfur analyses.
Feed conditions of coal, oxygen, and steam streams. This includes
the flow rate, temperature, and pressure for coal, oxygen, and steam
streams, and also the diameter of coal particles and mole fraction of
impurity nitrogen in the oxygen stream.
Configuration parameters and operational conditions of gasifier.
This includes gasifier height, gasifier diameter, operating pressure, and
wall temperature.
Yield of each coal pyrolysis product from the pyrolysis experiment.
Model parameters. This includes the heat transfer coefficient between
bed and wall, the porosity of the ash layer, and the reactivity of ash for
the reaction of CO and H2O.
From the model, the following information can be obtained:
Profile of each component flow rate;
Profile of carbon conversion;
Profile of temperature;
Pressure of exit gas and solid;
Gas and solid residence times in gasifier.

7 Conclusions 27
References

[1] C.-Y. Wen, H. Chen, M. Onozaki, Users manual for computer

simulation and design of the moving bed coal gasifier, Report
submitted to Morgantown Energy Technology Center and U.S.
Department of Energy, Contract DOE/MC/16474-1390, 1982.
[2] M.L. Hobbs, P.T. Radulovic, L.D. Smoot, Modeling fixed-bed coal
gasifiers, AIChE J., 38: 681-702, 1992.
[3] E.M. Suuberg, W.A. Peters, J.B. Howard, Product composition and
kinetics of lignite pyrolysis, Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev., 17:
37-46, 1978.
[4] I.H. Rinard, B.W. Benjamin, Great plains ASPEN model development:
gasifier model. Literature Review and Model Specification, U.S.
Department of Energy, Morgantown, WV, Final Topical Report
DOE/MC/19163-1782, 1985.
[5] C.-Y. Wen, T.-Z. Chaung, Entrainment coal gasification modeling, Ind.
Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev., 18: 684-695, 1979.
[6] S.-S. Xu (), D.-L. Zhang (), Y.-Q. Ren (), Large-scale
coal gasification technology (), Beijing: Chemical
Industry Press, 2006.
[7] K.-F. Cen (), M.-J. Ni (), Z.-Y. Luo (), J.-H. Yan
(), Y. Chi (), M.-X. Fang (), X.-T. Li (), L.-M.
Cheng (), Theory, design and operation of circulating fluidized
bed boilers (), Beijing: Chinese Electric
Power Press, 1998.
[8] B.W. Benjamin, Great plains ASPEN model development: gasifier
model, Report submitted to U.S. Department of Energy, Contract
DOE/MC/19163-1787, 1985.
[9] T. Krishnudu, B. Madhusudhan, S.N. Reddy, V.S.R. Sastry, K.S. Rao, R.
Vaidyeswaran, Studies in a moving bed pressure gasifier: prediction of
reaction zones and temperature profile, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 28:
438-444, 1989.

28 References