Fuel Vol. 77, No. 4, pp.

327-337, 1998
0 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
PII: SOO16-2361(97)00211-l 0016-2361/98 $19.00+0.00
ELSEVIER

Simulation of circulating fluidized

bed reactors using ASPEN PLUS

R. Sotudeh-Gharebaagh, R. Legros*, J. Chaouki and J. Paris

Department of Chemical Engineering, &o/e Polytechnique, PO Box 6079, Station ‘Centre-Vi//e’,
Montrkal, PO, Canada H3C 3A7
(Received 4 April 1995; revised 18 August 1997)

A comprehensive model is developed for the combustion of coal in a circulating fluidized bed combustor (CFBC).
The proposed model integrates hydrodynamic parameters, reaction model and kinetic subroutines necessary to
simulate coal combustion in a CFBC. Kinetic expressions were developed for the char combustion rates and the
SO2 absorption in the bed using data from the literature. The reaction model, which considers only the important
steps of coal combustion, was simulated using four ASPEN PLUS reactor models and several subroutines. The
developed subroutines were then nested in the ASPEN PLUS input file, so that the CF’EK may be represented. The
validity of the model was demonstrated using 14 different sets of operating conditions for the CANMET
0.8 MWth CFBC pilot plant. 0 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

(Keywords: ASPEN PLUS; CFBC; circulating fluidized bed reactors; fluidized bed combustion)

INTRODUCTION
Circulating fluidized bed combustors (CFBCs) are consid-
ered as an improvement over the traditional methods
associated with coal combustion. The CFBC exhibits
several advantages over conventional coal combustion
methods, especially when high sulfur coal is used’.
Operation of CFBCs at industrial levels has confirmed
many advantages that include fuel flexibility, broad turn-
down ratio, high combustion efficiency, low NO, emissions
and high sulfur capture efficiency. These characteristics
assure an ever-increasing number of successful commer-
cializations of CFBC in power generation applications.
Although CFBC technology is becoming more common
from these commercial applications, there are some
significant uncertainties in predicting their performance in
large-scale systems.
Technical knowledge about design and operation of
CFBC is widely available for pilot plant and large scale
units. However, little has been done in the field of
mathematical modeling and simulation of combustion in
CFBCs. This might be attributed to the fact that the
combustion process occurring in a CFBC involves complex
phenomena including chemical reactions, heat and mass
transfer, particle size reduction due to combustion, attrition,
fragmentation and other mechanisms, gas and solid flow
structure, etc. Weiss et al.* introduced a CFBC model by
dividing it into 11 blocks, each corresponding to a CSTR
reactor for both gas and solid phase. Five of these blocks
related to the CFBC riser. Basu et aL3 developed a CFBC
model in which a plug flow regime for both the gas and
solids is assumed. Lee and Hypanen4 presented a CFBC
*Corresponding author
model which considers the riser as a plug flow reactor for
the gas phase and a CSTR reactor for the solid phase. The
model also considers the feed particle size distribution and
the attrition phenomena. Using a lumped-modeling
approach, Arena et aL5 introduced the means for predictive
calculation by dividing the CFBC riser into four blocks,
each corresponding to a separate reactor. Three of these
blocks related to the CFBC riser. The hydrodynamic
parameters were considered uniform within each section
and were used in various kinetic models to predict char
conversion. Wong6 proposed a model for the hydrody-
namics of CFBC risers to characterize the effect of the
internal flow structure within the riser, the particle size
distribution and the operating conditions on CFBC behav-
ior. To estimate the axial voidage profile, a core-annulus
model was developed. The predictive hydrodynamic model
was then applied to a CFBC design. A comprehensive
review of relevant work on the hydrodynamics of circulat-
ing fluidized bed risers is presented by Berruti et aL7
Moreover, Senior’ conducted some theoretical and
experimental investigations to improve the understanding
of the fluid and particle mechanics in the CFBC riser and to
develop mathematical models to represent riser suspension
flows. On the other hand, a few CFBC modeling efforts have
been based on extension of bubbling AFBC hydrodynamic
concepts’-’ ‘.
Beyond those mentioned above, some modeling work
have been developed using ASPEN (advanced system for
process engineering). ASPEN was developed at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) under a
United States Department of Energy project to simulate
coal conversion processes. It has now become a powerful
tool for engineers to model chemical, power generation and
other processes. The work of Young’* entails the modeling
and simulation of AFBC using ASPEN. Herein, the ‘black

Fuel 1998 Volume 77 Number 4 327

Circulating fiuidized bed reactors: R. Soutdeh-Gharebaagh
box’ approach with one ASPEN PLUS stoichiometric
reactor was used to calculate the mass balances based on
given combustion and sulfur capture efficiencies. CFBC
simulation work was also initiated at CERCHAR13 to
provide the technical information required for the evalua-
tion and optimization of CFBCs under steady-state con-
dition in power generation applications. The study of
pollutant emissions such as SO*, NO, and N20, as well as
the ash composition leaving the CFBC was not included in
this work; instead several ASPEN PLUS user subroutines
were used in order to study the hydrodynamic, combustion
and heat transfer phenomena in the bed. The approach used
at CERCHAR is similar to that of Young’s, but was
extended to cover CFBCs. Combustion Engineering Inc.14
also used ASPEN in modeling a Lurgi circulating fluid bed.
The approach, similar to that of Young’s’* used here, has a
low level of complexity since the goal was the calculation of
the mass and energy balances for the CFBC. Up to now,
modeling of CFBCs using a process simulator (such as
ASPEN PLUS) has been limited to simple mass and energy
balances, without predictive capabilities.
ASPEN PLUS is widely accepted in the chemical
industry as a design tool because of its ability to simulate
a variety of steady-state processes ranging from single unit
operation to complex processes involving many units.
Consequently, ASPEN PLUS was chosen as a framework
for the development of a CFBC process simulation. Since
there is no CFBC model provided by ASPEN PLUS, we
must develop our own using the tools offered by ASPEN
PLus15,16. In addition to its conventional reactor models,
ASPEN PLUS has the flexibility to allow the insertion of
Fortran blocks and user kinetic subroutines into the
simulation.
In this work, several ASPEN PLUS reactor models
interact with their corresponding user-written kinetic
subroutines to perform calculation during the simulation.
This flexible structure of ASPEN PLUS permits handling of
complex processes, such as those occurring in a CFBC.
Hence, an attempt is made to develop a model which
includes several features that were neglected or simplified in
the previous studies as outlined above, in order to produce a
predictive tool. This paper presents the details of the
modeling approaches taken to obtain a process simulation
programme for coal combustion in a CFBC.
MODELING APPROACHES
In a typical CFBC used for coal combustion, crushed coal
together with limestone or dolomite and ash particles are
fluidized by the combustion air entering at the bottom of the
bed and at one or several secondary air injection points. A
large portion of the bed particles exits the riser of the CFBC
with the flue gas due to the high superficial gas velocities
utilized. The particles are then separated from the exhaust
gas in a gas/solid separator (often a cyclone) and recycled
into the riser to promote complete combustion of the coal.
Because coal combustion in a CFBC is directly affected by
its hydrodynamic parameters, both hydrodynamic and
combustion models must be treated simultaneously to
yield a predictive model for the CFBC. The description of
the method followed in developing the hydrodynamic and
reaction models is given below.
Hydrodynamic model
The hydrodynamic model enables the variation of the
void fraction with height in the riser to be determined. The
328 Fuel 1998 Volume 77 Number 4
et al.
general hypotheses of the hydrodynamic model along with
the modeling procedure are presented below.
General hypotheses of the hydrodynamic model. For
steady state conditions, the assumptions regarding the
hydrodynamic model are the following:
(1) The CFBC is naturally divided into two hydrody-
namic regions:
(i) a lower region-turbulent fluidized bed (dense bed);
(ii) an upper region (dilute bed).
The boundary between the two regions is defined by the
height of the secondary air injection point.
(2) There is perfect mixing of solids (individual ash, char
particles and sorbents) in the lower region and in each
zone of the upper region17. This assumption is justified by
the high internal and external recirculation of solids in the
bed.
(3) Plug flow regime for gas is assumed in the bed. This is
consistent with the results of gas backmixing ex eriments
in the CFBC risers as reported in the literature p7.
(4) The gas velocity throughout the bed is uniform and
constant for each region of the bed.
(5) For a given superficial gas velocity, the mean voidage
in the lower region of the CFBC is constant. This assump-
tion is justified by the results of experiments of
Chehbouni et al. l8 for group B particles considering the
lower region to be operated under the turbulent fluidiza-
tion condition.
(6) In the upper region of the CFBC, the voidage
decreases with the vertical position along the riser.
Modeling procedure. The model considers that the
CFBC is divided into two regions: a dense lower region
with a constant suspension density (turbulent fluidized
bed) and a more dilute upper region with a decaying suspen-
sion density with height. Detail related to the gas-solid
structures chosen to represent two regions of the riser are
given below:
Lower region of the CFBC. The lower region is fluidized
by the primary air supply. Kunii and Levenspiel’, Saraiva et
al. ‘O,and Kwaulk et al. ’’treated the lower region of CFBC
using the models developed originally for bubbling flui-
dized beds. This is inconsistent with the fact that the gas
superficial velocity in this region is usually higher than a
certain critical value, U,, where the region becomes turbu-
lent18. At this condition, solid velocity, bubble diameters
and velocities are quite different from the bubbling
regime7,18. However, for simulation purposes, perfect
mixing between the solids and the gas phases is assumed
in this region. Under these conditions, the mean voidage of
the dense region is considered constant and may be obtained
using the correlation proposed by Kunii and Levenspiel’.
Upper region of the CFBC. The upper region is suspended
both by the combustion gases from the lower region and the
secondary air supply which determines the boundary
between the two regions. Hydrodynamic models, as pro-
posed in most CFBC literature regarding the upper region,
are classified into three broad groups’: (1) those predicting
the axial profile of the solids suspension density but failing
to predict the radial variation; (2) those assuming two or
more regions considering either the core annulus or the
 Circulating fluidized bed reactors: R. Soutdeh-Gharebaagh et al.

cluster models to predict the radial variation; (3) those
applying the fundamental equations of fluid mechanics to
model gas-solid flow structure. Type 1 and 2 models, which
are lumped models, can be easily coupled with reaction
models to simulate a CFBC reactors. On the other hand,
type 3 models, which are differential models, become rapidly
tedious when coupled to reaction models because of the
numerical complexity.
For simulation purposes, we chose to apply the type 1
model to predict the mean axial voidage profile in the upper
region of the CFBC, assuming that this region consists of
two zones: an acceleration zone and a fully developed zone.
In the acceleration zone, the axial voidage decreases with
the vertical position along the riser’:
e * - E(Z) -az
=e
E* -El
In the lumped modeling approach used in this work, the riser
will be divided into a discrete number of intervals. Based on
the void fraction variation in the acceleration zone given by
eqn (I), the mean value of voidage in a certain riser interval
between height Zi_l and Zi can be calculated using the
expression proposed by Kunii and Levenspiel’:
1 combustion process are neglected5.
Ei=E* - -&El -e*)(exp-“z -exp-“&-I) i=2,3
(4) Since char combustion is slower, it is assumed to
occur after all the volatile products have been burned2’.
This is an acceptable hypothesis considering the very
short time required for volatile combustion,
(5) Burning coal particle and gas temperatures are con-
sidered constant and equal to the bed temperature. This is
a simpliying hypothesis considering the fact that the coal
particle temperature is higher than the temperature in gas
media.
(6) The contribution of the cyclone and the circulation
loop on the overall combustion process is neglected.
Arena et al5 have considered the cyclone as a reaction
block in their simulation, but due to the small particle
residence time in the cyclone and the lack of excess
oxygen in the recirculation loop, the hypothesis appears
(1) reasonable.
(7) Char particles are assumed to bum with a constant
diameter. This diameter is the mean char particle diam-
eter based on the experimental particle size distribution.
(8) The attrition rate constant for char particles in the
CFBC is smal15. Therefore, the attrition-assisted combus-
tion rate is deemed negligible.
(9) The effects of the primary fragmentation of coal and
the secondary fragmentation of char in the overall coal
(10) Any char particle size reductions caused by ash par-
ticles or the walls of the CFBC are neglected.
(2)

In the fully developed zone, the mean axial voidage is esti- Modeling procedure. For simulation purposes, the com-
mated by the following equation: bustion of coal particles can be modeled using the following
1 reactions:
E4 = (3)
(PG, (1) devolatilization and volatile combustion;
1+
U2Ps (2) char combustion;
(3) NO, formation;
where the slip factor Q is19:
(4) SO2 absorption.These reaction steps occur in the differ-
ent regions of the riser which can be divided into a
+ = 1+ $ + o.47fi4’ (4) number of individual reactors. To carry out the required
r calculations for each of those reactors, ASPEN PLUS
reactor blocks were selected and combined in a program
The variation of void fraction with length in the riser is flowsheet representing the CFBC. The CFBC riser is
illustrated in Figure 1. divided into two regions: a lower region and an upper
region. The lower region is represented by a single
Reaction model CSTR (continuous stirred tank reactor), while in the
The reaction model allows for the determination of the upper region a plug flow regime for both gas and
chemical changes and the heat released during combustion. solid phases is assumed. A series of CSTR reactors
Since coal combustion in the CFBC is quite complex, only are used to simulate the corresponding plug flow
the major steps of coal combustion are considered in the regime in the upper region2’. The number of CSTR in
model with some simplifying hypotheses. The general series is determined based on the hydrodynamic
hypotheses of the reaction model along with the modeling description of the upper region. As mentioned pre-
procedure is presented below. viously, this region is divided into two zones, a fully
developed zone and an acceleration zone. One CSTR
General hypotheses of the reaction model. For reactor simulates the fully developed zone. Since the
steady-state conditions, the assumptions regarding the height of the acceleration zone predicted by model is
reaction model are the following: relatively high with a considerable solid fraction varia-
tion, this zone is then modeled using two CSTR reactors
(I) The coal and limestone are fed into the bottom of the with a different mean solid fraction for each reactor.
bed at a uniform temperature”. This is largely encoun- With these arguments, the use of four CSTR reactors
tered in industrial units operating at high feed rate, in ASPEN PLUS is justified. Figure I shows the mean
because in these conditions the temperature gradient solids fraction (1 - Ei) corresponding to the four reac-
within the feed is negligible. tors (lower region and three sections of the upper
(2) Since the time required for volatile combustion is very region). The reactors are numbered as 1 for the lower
short, the devolatilization process is considered instanta- region reactor and 2, 3 and 4 for the three upper region
neous and to take place at the bottom of the bed’. reactors. Description of reaction steps involved in each
(3) Char is uniformly distributed throughout the circulat- reactor, with the corresponding ASPEN PLUS unit
ing bed. operation blocks, are presented below.

Fuel 1998 Volume 77 Number 4 329

Circulating fiuidized bed reactors: R. Soutdeh-Gharebaagh et al.

Reactor number hydrogen content of the coal is found in the volatile

.j................................
matter. The volatile carbon fraction (X,) reacts to form
I
I
CO only during the volatile combustion process because
of the oxygen depletion in the lower region of the riser.
I (l-e3 - - -MepnsolidfktionUinthekm#tion @
(ii) The coal hydrogen content is entirely consumed
I
I during the volatile combustion process.
(iii) The coal sulfur content is assumed to be converted
completely to SO2 during the volatile combustion process.

Upper&on @ Char combustion kinetic model. The char particles result-

I ing from the devolatilization process consist of the remain-
ing carbon fraction (1 - X,) and ash only. These particles
are then burned to produce a mixture of CO and CO*. Three
main reactions for char combustion are considered here 24:
c+@**co

_-- c+co*=+2co
These reactions occur in the entire riser, hence in the four
1(l-e,) ;
CSTR reactors, and RCSTR (ASPEN PLUS CSTR reactor)
I Lowetregion 0
I is used to model this process. This block requires the knowl-
I
I edge of the reaction kinetic model which is presented below.
I + b The first and third reactions are heterogeneous and
Solid fraction,(1e)
the second is homogeneous. Since the temperature of the
burning particles in the CFBC is not sufficiently high, the
effect of the third reaction on the combustion rate is 10w*~,
Figure 1 Variation of void fraction with height in the riser
and this reaction is neglected in the model. For the
remaining two reactions, the reaction rate expressions
Devolatilization and volatile combustion. When coal is must be developed. The first reaction is a gas-solid reaction
introduced into a CFBC, it decomposes into two parts: and the chemical changes take place on both the external
hydrogen-rich volatile and char. The char remains in the and the internal surface of the char particles’. The following
bed and burns slowly. Based on the plume model, coal expression for the char combustion rate, to form CO, per
devolatilization and complete combustion of the volatile unit volume of the ith interval is obtained25.
occur at the feed entry point23. Two steps will then be con-
sidered in the simulation: decomposition and volatile 3v02kcrFchar, i( 1 - fi)
rl,i = CO, (5)
combustion. PcharrC( 1 - EC)Fsolid, i

Decomposition. In this step, coal is converted into its k,, can be expressed by an Arrhenius form as follows:
constituting components such as carbon, hydrogen, sulfur,
nitrogen and ash. This step occurs in the lower region reac- k,, = kolexp
tor only and RYTELD (ASPEN PLUS yield reactor) is used
to model this process by speciying the yield distribution
vector according to the coal ultimate analysis. The following equation is used to calculate the mean par-
ticle radius based on the experimental particle size
Volatile combustion. To simulate the volatile combus- distribution:
tion step, three reactions are considered in the model: 1
rc= m (7)
c+$**co
s+o**so* t r,(k)
Carbon monoxide produced during the heterogeneous com-
H2 + $02 * H20 bustion of char reacts with 02 in the homogeneous gas phase
reaction to form CO*. Factors contributing to CO emission
These reactions occur in the lower region reactor only where levels are the bed temperature, 02, CO and Hz0 concentra-
the coal is introduced and RSTOIC (ASPEN PLUS Stoi- tion. The following ex ression is used for the CO combus-
chiometric reactor) is used to model the volatile combustion tion rate in the model 2g :
process. The combustion of the volatile matter is based on
the following hypotheses:
(i) Considering that the volatile matter (VM) in the coal,
rco,i= 1.18* 10’3f&6~~o(
&)exp
(obtained from a proximate analysis) consists exclusively
of carbon, hydrogen and sulfur, the fraction of total coal x (-F)CEi (8)
carbon associated to volatile combustion is given by X, =
VM - H - S, where H and S are the fraction of hydrogen
and sulfur in the coal. This supposes that the entire NO, formation. Staged combustion remains an attractive

330 Fuel 1998 Volume 77 Number 4

 Circulating fluidized bed reactors: R. Soutdeh-Gharebaagh et al.

method for reducing NO, emissions in various combustion V205, is often present in fly ash from heavy oil combustion,
systems. For staged combustion in a CFBC, the air used for for example. However, in our case such an element was not
the combustion is divided into two or more streams: the first present and it is therefore correct to assume negligible SO2
one is supplied through the bottom air distributor and sec- to SO3 conversion.
ondary air streams are injected in the upper region of the Since CaCOs is unstable under CFBC conditions, the
riser. NO, formations in combustion processes result from a calcination process is assumed to occur instantaneously and
combination of a thermal generation process and fuel nitro- completely in the lower region of the bed. The second
gen oxidation. At very high temperatures, thermal genera- reaction, representing the SOi capture in the riser, is
tion of NO, from the air nitrogen becomes very important, considered to occur in both the lower and the upper regions.
while at low temperatures found in a CFBC, the dominant The corresponding fractional conversion for SO2 (Xso,, i) is
source of NO, is fuel nitrogen oxidation. It is also important calculated using a Fortran program according to the CaO
to emphasize the complexity involved in NO, chemistry conversion model presented below. RSTOIC is then used to
within the CFBC because of many catalytic reactions invol- model the capture of sulfur in the riser from the calculated
ving, for example, char, ash and sorbent particles. value Of Xso*,i. The fractional conversion of CaO to CaS40
Therefore, the total NO, formation in the CFBC can be is strongly affected by the physical and chemical properties
calculated by the following formula which considers the of limestone, hydrodynamic parameters, mass transfer
thermal generation and fuel nitrogen oxidation as detailed resistance, temperature, reactive concentration, particle
below: size distribution (PSD) and operatin conditions, and can
%
be calculated according to Couturier from the following
]N0,1,,,,1 = ]NOx]thermar+ ~1WQlfuel expression:
where
3acyS02,i
1+ (e”” - 1)
cy, = Overall fuel nitrogen to NO, conversion factor Vcao R,Kv
x CaO,i’ -I __,
X(O<cr, < 1) RS -- 1
‘I 3aCYso,,i KV
(9)
Thermal generation ([NO,] thermal). Three main reactions Considering the ideal gas law for the combustion products
are used to represent this process in the model: in the riser, the total gas concentration is expressed by:
;N~+&*NO P
C=---.- (10)
RlTb
The values of parameters a I and a! may be written as*‘:
N2 + &02 * N20 a, = 3.33 * 10e4eyR\ (11)
REQUIL (ASPEN PLUS equilibrium reactor) is used to
predict the amount of thermal NO, formed during coal com-
bustion based on equilibrium conditions considering the
CY= 35D”.3
P (12)
nitrogen present in the riser. Using eqn (9), the moles of SO2 removed per unit v,Ollume
become
Fuel nitrogen oxidation ([NO,] fuel). The NO, formation
via fuel nitrogen oxidation is modeled using the following VCaOFl
overall reaction: rso~*i
= 1 _ E,Au * 100

3oCYsoz,,
1+ (e”” - 1)
R&v
RSTOIC block is used to calculate the fuel nitrogen oxida-
X (13)
tion with a given value of o, which is taken from the litera-
ture. The NO, formation calculations are then applied in 3aCYS02,i - j&
each of the four reactors using the combined REQUIL and
I
RSTOIC blocks.
If the sorbent particles in the bed are well mixed, their
SO2 absorption. The SO2 capture by limestone can be residence time is independent of particle size*‘. Therefore,
represented by the following ureactions: the mean residence time is expressed by
CaCOs =+ CaO + CO2 ALI
?I =W%p-
6
and
CaO + SO2 + & 3 CaS04

The formation of SOI to SO3 is assumed to be instanta- (15)

neous. In CFBC reactors, the maximum concentration of
SO3 is governed by the thermodynamic and kinetic consid- where
erations. Equilibrium conditions predict a certain conver-
sion of SO2 to S03. However, kinetic considerations
predict very a small reaction rate without the presence of (lo)
a catalyst for the SO2 to SO3 conversion. Such a catalyst,

Fuel 1998 Volume 77 Number 4 331

Circulating fluidized bed reactors: R. Soutdeh-Gharebaagh et al.

Table 1 The reactor models description utilized in
simulation’5”6
Reactor block Description
RYIELD To simulate a reactor by speciying
yield distribution data or correlation
when reaction stochiometry and
kinetics are unknown
RSTOIC To simulate a reactor with the
unknown or unimportant reaction
kinetic and Imown stoichiometry by
speciying the extent of reaction or the
fractional component of the key
component
To handle any number of simulta-
neous or series reactions
RCSTR To model CSTR reactors with known
reaction kinetic
To require user supplied kinetics
subroutine when solids, such as char,
are participating in the reactions
REQUIL To calculate simultaneous phase
chemical equilibrium by solving
stoichiometric chemical and phase
equilibrium equations
To be convenient to the known reac-
tion stoichiometry when only a few
reactions approach equilibrium
the OnceGo,, i is calculated for the ith reactor, it is used as the
fractional conversion of the key component necessary to run
the RSTOIC block corresponding to this reactor. Calcula-
tions start at the first reactor (lower region) and continue
upward until the top of the riser.
SIMULATION RESULTS AND MODEL VALIDATION
The process simulation program for a CFBC was developed
using four ASPEN PLUS reactor blocks-KYIELD,
RSTOIC, RCSTR and REQUIL-to represent the phenom-
ena identified in the coal combustion process. A detailed
description of the ASPEN PLUS reactor blocks along with
their re uirement is given in the ASPEN PLUS user
manualsq5,t6. A brief description of the reactor blocks is
given in Table 1. Table 2 presents the reactor model
parameters and input variables required for the simulation.
Considering the reaction and hydrodynamic models, the
entire CFBC system is divided into three sub-flowsheets:
lower, upper and sep-flowsheets. The first sub-flowsheet
represents the dense region, the first reactor of the riser,
where the phenomena associated with coal devolatilization
and volatile combustion, char combustion, NO, formation,
limestone calcination and SO2 capture take place. The

Table 2 The reactor model parameters utilized in the simulation

Phenomena Reactor block Input variables

(I) Devolatilization and volatile combustion (1) RYIELD Tbr p. Fti)

(2) RSTOIC Tb, P, Xc, Xn, Xs chemical reactions

(2) Char combustion (3) RCSTR Ts, P, ri,,, rco,, chemical reactions
(3) NQ formation (4) REQUIL Tb, P chemical reactions
(4) SO* capture (5) RSTOIC Tbr p, &CO, 3 X,o,. i chemical reactions

Since SO2 is well mixed in each interval of the bed, an second sub-flowsheet represents the dilute region of the riser
overall SO* balance gives which is divided into three intervals; each one represented
by an individual reactor. Since the devolatilization and
-5 @so,,
I - rso,,I)
volatile combustion process is assumed to take place
Ysoz,I = (17)
GUI exclusively in the lower region, only char combustion,
and NO, formation and SO2 capture are considered to occur in
each reactor of the upper region. The last sub-flowsheet
YSO*,i
WRso,,i - rso2,J i contains two unit operation blocks, CYCLONE and
(18)
z 1

cu2 FSPLIT. CYCLONE is used to represent the gas/solid

separation at the riser outlet. To maintain the required level
where
of solid inventory in the bed, a solid drain valve, represented
as FSPLIT in ASPEN PLUS, is used. The resulting solid
(19)
stream from CYCLONE is fed to FSPLIT where it is
divided into two streams; the first one is recycled into the
and
lower region of the riser and the second one exits the system

R so*,i =
(1 - Xso,, i - I Yc wsi#l (20)
to satisy the material balance.
32AAL Along with the unit operation blocks provided by ASPEN
PLUS, several complete Fortran programs and an external
The value of Yso2,i is calculated by simultaneous solving of
subroutine for the kinetic models were used in the
eqns (13) and (17) for i = 1, or eqns (13) and (18) for i f 1.
simulation. The Fortran codes contain the following four
The fractional sulfur capture for each reactor (Xso,J can
blocks which are required to complete the model. The first
then be calculated from
block, ‘KINETIC’, is the external kinetic subroutine
developed for both heterogeneous gas/solid and homoge-
(21) neous gas phase reactions. The second Fortran block, called
‘KESTIME’, when integrated with the ASPEN PLUS input
file, calculates the residence time of char particles in the
CFBC. This calculation is required in order to execute the
‘KINETIC’ subroutine. The third block, ‘HYDRO’, is
inserted into the ASPEN PLUS input file to calculate the
&02.i=1- [ Fc,j$fzi_,J i# 1 (22) mean void fraction in each section of the upper region and in
the dense bed of the riser. The fourth block of Fortran codes,

332 Fuel 1998 Volume 77 Number 4

 Circulating fluidized bed reactors: R. Soutdeh-Gharebaagh et al.

s4
B2 ~2, B3 &B4 - BS
Rl

1 :

HYDRODYNAMIC AND KINETIC MODELS

I-
mdro,IMtimcdKilldics~)

Bl7 B16 $1 ‘I B9 z BS
a s2n #s&y - S1Q
FSPLIT CYCLOM R4 RSm1c - REQUIL

?? All squareblocksarc givenby ASPEN PLUS

Figure 2 A comprehensive simulation diagram for the CFBC

Table 3 Value of the fixed parameters used in the simulation Table 5 The CFBC operating conditions”

Parameter Source Run Data

Th 6) Fcoai cab F,,, SIP LI (m)
El = 1.247*10* (J kmole-‘) Gordon and Amundsonz4 (kg h-‘) (k;‘?) (kg h-‘)
kO, = 1.55*10’ (m s-‘) Gordon and Amundsot?
Kv = 8*10e4 [kmole (m’ s-‘)-‘I Couturie? 1 1140 67.30 19.20 2.28 799.0 0.45 1.37
Vcao = 1.69*10-’ (m’ kmole-‘) Wang’ 2 1106 70.20 15.90 1.70 832.0 0.43 2.59
y = - 0.0226 Couturier” 3 1146 64.60 13.20 1.61 778.0 0.43 2.59
Ec = 0.30, E, = 0.52 Wong6 4A 1155 74.90 23.50 2.38 807.0 0.43 1.37
pchar = 1500 (kg m-‘) Wang’ 4B 1155 62.10 16.10 1.97 796.0 0.43 1.37
pL = 2710 (kg m-‘) Wang’ 5 1187 61.20 17.60 2.13 757.0 0.42 2.59
ps = 800 (kg m-‘) Gordon and Amundson24 6 1180 60.40 16.60 2.07 749.0 0.41 2.59
CFBC geometery A = 0.13 m2 Desai et a1.27 7 1192 65.10 17.90 2.10 768.0 0.85 1.37
L = 6.7 m 8 I183 63.30 17.80 2.10 773.0 0.85 1.37
Dr = 0.405 m 9 1155 66.60 17.90 2.10 792.0 0.86 1.37
10 1152 66.30 18.10 2.06 791.0 0.86 2.59
11 1109 70.00 18.20 1.91 836.0 0.84 2.59
Table 4 List of the input and output variables of the model 12A 1105 69.80 18.00 2.08 734.0 0.85 1.37
12B 1104 70.00 18.70 2.15 831.0 0.85 I .37
Input variables Output variables
Cross-sectional area (A) Combustion efficiency
Height of the bed (L) Sulphur capture efficiency
Height of the dense bed (L,) NO, and CO emission levels
Superficial gas velocity Outlet O2 concentration and flow rate
Simulation convergence
Solid circulation flux (Gs) One important feature of a CFBC is the recirculation of
Temperature (Tb) Hydrodynamic parameters (interval solids, captured by the cyclone at the top of the riser and
positions and voidages)
recycled back to the base of the riser. Therefore, the
Pressure (P)
Coal (feed rate, PSD, analysis) 02 and CO concentrations profiles simulation flowsheet, which contains the recycle loop, must
Limestone (feed rate, Ca/S, PSD) be solved iteratively and the tear streams, convergence
Air (flowrate, SIP, composition) Outlet gas stream composition and methods and calculation sequence must be specified.
flowrate ASPEN PLUS can perform all these functions automatically
Kinetic constants, physical Outlet solid stream composition
properties and fixed parameters and flowrate
or the user can supply them. To achieve convergence of the
value recirculation stream in the simulation, we used the classical
bounded Wegstein method, which normally converges
rapidly15. It should be mentioned that for convergence to
‘SO2’, calculates the sulfur capture efficiencv in each occur, the value of the tear stream variables needs to be
section of the upper region aid in the dense bed. A correctly initialized. Such an initialization will enable a
comprehensive simulation diagram for the CFBC is rapid convergence of the tear streams. Thus, to initialize the
illustrated in Figure 2. Table 3 gives the value of the tear stream variables (see Figure 2), a greater G, value was
parameters used in the simulation. The input and output considered for the initial tear stream flux. Since the char
variables of the process simulation program are summarized conversion during one pass in the riser is less than lo%, the
in Table 4. initial amount of char in the tear stream was considered

Fuel 1998 Volume 77 Number 4 333

Circulating fluidized bed reactors: R. Soutdeh-Gharebaagh et al.

Q8

1000
!z
B
2 800

F
.fi 800

400

0 I I 1 I I I I

0 200 400 800 800 1000 1200 1400

90 92 94 Q8 Q8 100
Waa so2 @pm)
Expeflmental Combustion Efficiency(W)
Figure 5 Comparison between the predicted and experimental
Figure 3 Between the predicted and experimental combustion so2
efficiency

Combustion eficiency. In order to estimate combustion

350 efficiency, the two outlet streams, S20 and S22 (see
Figure 2), are used. These streams contain small amount
0 Equation24 (proposedcorrelation) of unburnt char particles that controls the combustion
300 efficiency (vc), which is defined as
0 Equation8 (originalcorrelation)
Total rate of carbon in the outlet stream
250 vc=l-
( Total rate of carbon in the feed stream 1
(23)
g 200
Thirteen sets of expenmental data reported values for the
8 combustion efficiency were used to compare with the model
150 predictions. In Figure 3, it is found that the model consis-
t tently overpredicts the combustion efficiency. The differ-
k ences between the predicted values and experimental data,
100
which are less than 3%, are related to the value calculated
for the cyclone efficiency. ASPEN calculated 99.99% effi-
50 ciency for the cyclone used in the pilot plant, which is
generally higher than that reported experimentally. Conse-
quently, the carbon content of the fly ash predicted by the
0 L model becomes substantially smaller than the experimental
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 value. This smaller amount of carbon in flyash causes the
mntal co @pm) model to overestimate the combustion efficiency.
Figure 4 Comparison between the predicted and experimental CO emission levels. Although CO combustion rates
co have been widely studied1*6*24,2 , the extension of these
expressions to CFBC conditions is limited. The validity of
the proposed CO combustion rates from the literature was
approximately 10 times the carbon fraction in the coal feed
examined by inserting them into the simulation program.
rate. This procedure ensured a rapid and stable convergence
Following the simulation results, a new correlation, similar
process.
to the Robinson’s expression26, with two adjustable par-
Model validation ameters wa;proposed to predict the CO range reported by
Desai et al. :
In order to validate the proposed model, 14 different sets
of operating data from various CANMET runs*’ were used
to validate the simulation (see Table 5). A detailed
description of the CANMET 0.8 MWth CFBC pilot plant
is presented by Desai et ~1.~~.The predicted simulation (24)
with
results in terms of combustion efficiency, emission levels of
CO, SO2 and NO, and 2O and CO concentration profiles are /3, = 1.8 * lOI
compared with the experimental data. The results are
detailed below. p* = 0.21

334 Fuel 1998 Volume 77 Number 4

 Circulating fluidized bed reactors: R. Soutdeh-Gharebaagh et al.

These parameters were obtained by fitting the CANMET observed between predicted and experimental SO* concen-
experimental data. However, more data from various tration in the flue gas.
sources are required in order to confirm this correlation.
The CO emission levels predicted by the model ranged NO, emission levels. As mentioned earlier, two forma-
from 119 to 271 ppm, while the experimental data varied tion mechanisms were considered in the modeling of NO,
between 112 and 3 16 ppm. Therefore, the model based on formation in the CFBC: thermal generation and fuel nitro-
the new correlation estimates CO emission levels relatively gen oxidations. Thermal generation was calculated con-
well. The comparison between predicted and experimental sidering equilibrium conditions, while NO, formation
CO levels is presented in Figure 4. from fuel nitrogen oxidation was calculated using an overall
conversion factor (cY~)from the literature. Since the aim of
SO* emission levels. The Ca/S molar ratio ranged this work was not to study the NO, formation and reduction
between 1.6 and 2.3 for the various runs considered. Such processes in detail, this overall approach was taken to simu-
values of Ca/S are usually considered sufficient to achieve late the fuel nitrogen oxidation. Fuel nitrogen conversion
reasonably high sulfur capture efficiencies. Without using entails relatively complex reactions schemes involving sev-
any fitting parameters, Figure 5 shows the close agreement eral heterogeneous reaction steps and therefore attains a
lower overall conversion26. Typical values of fuel N2 to
NO, conversion factors, as reported by Legros et CZZ.*~ and
Becker et d3’, vary approximately between 0.05 to 0.25,
depending on coal properties, feed particle size distribution,
excess air level and operating conditions. In our simulation,
a value from that interval, which gave the best agreement
between predicted and experimental NO, was chosen as the
overall conversion factor. As reported in most CFBC
literature, the results also confirmed that thermal NO, for-
mation, which leads to between 18 and 65 ppm of NO,, is
ii
‘: 200 unimportant compared to that of fuel nitrogen oxidation
8 which approximately lies between 84 and 104 ppm of
NO,. The predicted emission levels ranged from 130 to
150
% 267 ppm, while NO, emissions for the experimental
CFBC ranged from 107 to 309 ppm.27. Figure 6 appears
%
100 to indicate a reasonable agreement between predicted and
experimental NO,. The difference between experimental
data and those of the simulation prediction is attributable
to the fact that a constant value of CY
I = 0.05 is used through-
out the entire simulation.
0 In recent years, several comprehensive studies have been
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 reported6.3 ’-34 regarding NO, formation and reduction
processes. These were conducted to develop an improved
Ew=tm~tNO,(ppm)
understanding of the fundamental nature of NO, chemistry
Figure 6 Comparison between the predicted and experimental and underlying physical processes in CEBCs, and to support
NO, the needs for experimental work in this field. Emphasis is

8 6- 0 _ 2500
Redi*edCOConcartration(ppm) p
.g 5- - 8
E 2000 i

E
$!' 3- - 1500 E

0"
0 - 1000 "
2-
..
*.'..Q - 500
l-
_.
....
0 .-...._._..
I I I I I I 00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

BedHeight

Figure 7 O2 and CO concentration profiles within the CFBC predicted by the model

Fuel 1998 Volume 77 Number 4 335

Circulating fluidized bed reactors: R. Soutdeh-Gharebaagh
also given to develop reliable techniques to control NO,
emissions from fluidized bed combustion. For example,
many published studies suggest that NO, emissions could be
controlled by adding chemical components such as carbon
monoxide, char hydrogen, ammonia, unburnt hydrocarbons
and limestone due to the catalytic reactions found in
CFBC32V33.
02 and CO concentration profiles. The emission data
from the CANMET CFBC pilot plant used to validate the
model consisted only of flue gas concentration and did not
include the various gas concentration profiles along the
riser. However, since the model can predict these concen-
tration profiles within the riser, oxygen and carbon monox-
ide profiles were chosen to be compared qualitatively with
data from the literature. The overall trends observed in
experimental concentration profiles along the riser height
are in close agreement with those predicted by the model.
In the lower region a significant change in the oxygen con-
centration is found, while in the upper region there is a
gradual decrease in the oxygen concentration. The CO
concentration is constantly high in the lower region, while
it sharply decreases in the upper region due to the injection
of secondary air. Typical O2 and CO concentration profiles
provided by Hansen et a1.35 and experimental data reported
by Brereton et al.33 and Grace et al.34 are similar with those
predicted by the present model. In Figure 7, the predicted
profiles are presented.
Due to the relatively high dense bed found at the bottom
of the CFBC reactor, Brereton et al.33 and Grace et aZ.34
have not measured the O2 and CO concentrations. There-
fore, the experimental data have only been reported for the
upper region. Since the operating and bed design data
reported in those references differ with that of CANMET,
the predicted concentration profiles have been compared
qualitatively with the trend reported in these references.
CONCLUSION
A model was developed for the combustion of coal in a
circulating fluidized bed using the ASPEN PLUS simulator.
To provide such a CFBC model, several ASPEN PLUS unit
operation blocks were combined and, where necessary,
kinetic expressions and hydrodynamic model were devel-
oped using data and models from the literature. The
developed models were then inserted into the flowsheet to
provide a complete representation of the CFBC. The
resulting model was used to predict the performance of
the CANMET CFBC pilot plant in terms of combustion
efficiency, emission levels of CO, SO2 and NO,, and 02 and
CO concentration profiles. The predictions of CO and NO,
were achieved using two and one fitting parameters,
respectively. The agreement between the model prediction
and experimental data is satisfactory but more experimental
data are still required to confirm the proposed CFBC model
in order to make it more comprehensive and reliable. The
model can now be used to represent a CFBC unit in various
process simulation flowsheets such as power generation
plants.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was supported by CANMET, part of Energy,
Mines and Resources, Canada. This financial assistance is
gratefully acknowledged. Special thanks are due to the
Ministry of Culture and Higher Education of Iran for
336 Fuel 1998 Volume 77 Number 4
et al.
providing a scholarship to Mr R. Sotudeh-Gharebaagh.
Helpful discussions from F. Preto and E. J. Anthony are also
appreciated. We greatly acknowledge Aspen Technology
for having granted special permission for the use of the
ASPEN PLUS under the condition of the academic
licensing agreement.
REFERENCES
1 Congalidis, J. P. and Georgakis, C., Multiplicity patterns in
atmospheric jluidized bed coal combustors. Chem. Engng
Sci., 1981, 36, 1529.
2 Weiss, V., Fert, F. N., Helmerich, H. and Janssen, K., Muth-
ematical modelling of circulating jluidized bed reactors by
reference to solid decomposition reaction and coal combus-
tion. Chem. Engng Prog., 1987, 22, 79.
3 Basu, P., Sett, A. and Gbordzoe, E.A.M., A simplified model
for combustion of carbon in a circulating fluidized bed com-
bustor, in FBC comes of Age, ed. J.P. Mustonen. ASME,
New York, 1987, pp. 738-742.
4 Lee Y.Y. and T. Hyppanen, in FBC Technology for Today,
ed. A.M. Manaker. ASME, New York 1989, pp. 753-764.
5 Arena, U., Malandrion, A. and Massimilla, L., Modelling of
circulating jluidized bed combustion of a char. Can. J.
Chem. Engng, 199 1,69,860.
6 Wong, R., Modelling the hydrodynamic of circulating
fluidized bed risers. M.A.Sc Thesis, the University of
Calgary, Canada, 199 1.
7 Berruti, F., Chaouki, J., Godfroy, L., Pugsley, T. S. and
Patience, G. S., The hydrodynamics of circulating fluidized
beds: a review. Can. J. Chem. Engng, 1995,73, 579.
8 Senior R. C., Circulating fluidised bed fluid and particle
mechanics: modelling and experimental studies with appli-
cation to combustion. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, 1992.
9 Kunii D. and Levenspiel, O., Flow modelling of fast
fluidized beds, in CFB Technology III, ed. P. Basu,
M. Horio and M. Hasatani. Pergamon, Oxford, 1991,
pp. 91-98.
10 Saraiva, P. C., Azevdo, J. L. T. and Carvalho, G., Mathe-
matical simulation of a circulatingjuidized bed combustor.
Combust. Sci. Technol., 1993, 93, 233.
11 Kwaulk, M., Ningde, W., Youchu, L., Bingyu, C. and
Zhiyuan, S., Fast Fluidization at ICM, Circulating
Fluidized Bed Technology, 1987, pp. 33-45.
12 Young, B. E., Technico-economic evaluation of atmos-
pheric fluidized bed combustion in steam production.
M.Sc.A Thesis, Queen’s University, Canada, 1986.
13 Paffenbarger, J., Analyse des Procedes a Lit Fluidise avec
ASPEN et USRFBC. CERCHAR, France, 1991.
14 Wysk, S. R., Modelling a LURGI circulating fluid bed using
ASPEN. ASA 82-11, Combustion Engineering, Inc.,
Windsor, 1982.
1.5 Aspen Technology, ASPEN PLUS Solids Manual.
Cambridge, MA, 1988.
16 Aspen Technology, ASPEN PLUS Notes on Inte$aces and
User Models. Cambridge, MA, 1985.
17 Grace, J. R., Contacting modes and behaviour classification
of gas-solid and other two phase suspensions. Can. J.
Chem. Engng, 1986,64,353.
18 Chehbouni, A., Chaouki, J. Guy, C. and Klvana, D., Char-
acterization of the flow transition between bubbling and
turbulent fluidization. I. and EC RESEARCH, 1994,
pp. 1889- 1896.
19 Patience, G. S. and Chaouki, J., Gasphase hydrodynamic in
the riser of a circulating jiuidized bed. Chem. Engng Sci.,
1993,48, 3 195.
20 Couturier, M. F., Sulphur dioxide removal in fluidized bed
combustors. Ph.D. Dissertation, Queen’s University,
Kingston, Ontario, Canada, 1986.
 Circulating fluidized bed reactors: R. Soutdeh-Gharebaagh et al.

21 Rajan. R., Krishnan, R. and Wen, C. Y., Simulation of Fat,I primary air mass flowrate (kg h-‘)
fiuidized bed combustors-part II. In Fluidizatioti Fwr-2 secondary air mass flowrate (kg h-‘)
application to coal conversion process. AIChE Sym., Fc mass flowrate of coal (kg s-‘)
flux of the char particles entering the ith interval (kg s-‘)
1978, 74, 112. FdlK,
mass flowrate of coal (kg h-‘)
22 Levenspiel, O., Chemical Reaction Engineering. 2nd ed. FL-,,,

Fl mass flowrate of limestone in the feed (kg s-‘)

Wiley, New York, 1972. F lhnr mass flowrate of limestone in the feed (kg h_-‘)
23 LaNauze R. D., in Fundamentals of Coal Combustion, in F \“ld., flux of solids entering the ith interval (m- s ‘)
Fluidization, 2nd ed., ed. J. F. Davidson, R. Clift and fco mole fraction of CO
D. Harrison. Acadamic, New York, 1985, pp. 63 l-674. fH!O mole fraction of Hz0
24 Gordon, A. L. and Amundson, N. R., Modelling ofjuidized fo2 mole fraction of O2
bed reactor--IV. Chem. Engng Sci., 1978,31, 1163. F, Froude number
25 Sotudeh-Gharebaagh, R., Simulation of a circulating fluid- F* particle Froude number
ized bed combustor using ASPEN PLUS. M.Sc.A Thesis, G, net solids circulation flux (kg mm2 riser s-‘)
reactor number i
Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Canada, 1994.
IK” volumetric rate constant [kmole (m’ s-‘)-‘I
26 Robinson, W. D., The Solid Waste Handbook: a Practical
kol pre-exponential factor (m s-‘)
Guide. Wiley, New York, 1986. k chemical reaction rate constant (m s-‘)
27 Desai, D. L., Lau, I. and Anthony, E. J., Study of NzO LL’ height of the bed (m)
formation in CRL’s circulating fluidized bed combustor. LI height of dense bed (m)
Final report, ERL’s, CANMET, Ottawa, 1991. P bed pressure (atm)
28 Desai, D. L., Friedrich, F. D. and Lee, C. K., Pilot-scale P(k) weight fraction vector of char particles in the recirculation stream
circulating fluidized bed combustion research facility at R universal gas constant [kcal (kmole K-‘)-‘I
RI universal gas constant [atm cm-3 (gmole K-‘)-‘I
CCRL’s. CANMET, Ottawa, 1990.
RI four reactors representing the riser (I = 1,2,3,4)
29 Legros, R., Brereton, C. M. H., Lim, C. J., Li, H., Grace, J. R.
universal gas constant [J (kmole K-l)]
4
and Anthony, E. J., in Combustion characteristics of dif-
RS mean sorbent particle radius (cm)
ferent fuels in a pilot scale circulating fluidized bed com- Rso,., rate of SO2 per unit volume of the ith interval (kmole me3 s-‘)
bustor. 12th International Conference on FBC, rc mean coal particle radius (m)
Proceedings, Vo1.2, ed. Lynn N. Rubow. ASME, New rc(k) coal particle radius vector (m)
York, 1993, pp. 66 l-666. YC0.I CO combustion rate per unit volume of the ith interval
30 Becker, H. A., Code, R. K., McCleave, R. and Stephenson, [kmole (m’s_‘)-‘]
J. R., Pilot plant studies of fluidized coal combustion. r1.r char combustion rate per unit volume of the ith interval
[kmole (m’ s-‘)-‘I
Technical Report QFBC.TR.85. I, Kingston, Ontario,
Canada, 1985. rso,, mole of SO2 removed per unit volume of the ith interval [kmo-
le (m’ s-‘)-‘I
31 Zhao, J., Nitrogen oxide emissions from circulating SJ stream number, Figure 2 (J = 1,2,3,. .,22)
fluidized bed combustion. Ph.D. Dissertation, University SIP secondary to primary air ratio
of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, 1992. Tb bed temperature (K)
32 Furusawa, T., Koyama, M. and Tsujimura, M., Nitric oxide T, temperature of the char particles (K)
reduction by carbon monoxide over calcined limestone t, mean residence time of sorbent particles in ith interval of the bed (s)
enhanced by simultaneous sulfur retention. Fuel, 1985, 64, Ul superficial gas velocity (m s-‘)
413. u2 superficial gas velocity in the dilute bed (m 8)
UC onset of the turbulent regime (m s-‘)
33 Brereton, C., Grace, J. R., Lim, C. J. Zhu, J., Legros, R.,
vc.0 molar volume of CaO (m’ kmole-‘)
Muir, J. R., Zhao, J., Senior, R. C., Luukos, A., Numaru, N., sulfur weight fraction in the dry-based coal
W,
Zhang. J. and Hwang, I., Environmental aspects, control and fractional conversion of carbon in the volatile combustion
xc
scale-up of circulating fluidized bed combustion for appli- XH fractional conversion of hydrogen in the volatile combustion
cation in western Canada. University of British Columbia, xs fractional conversion of sulfur in the volatile combustion
Final report, prepared for Energy, Mines and Resources &co, fractional conversion of CaS04 in the dense bed
Canada, 199 1. &Tao,, fractional conversion of CaO in the ith interval
34 Grace, J. R., Brereton, C. M. H., Lim, C. J., Legros, R., Xso,. , fractional sulfur capture in the ith interval of the riser
Zhao, J., Senior, R. C., Wu, R. L., Muir, J. R. and YSO?., mole fraction of SO2 in the ith interval
Z riser height (m)
Engman, R., Circulating fluidized bed combustion of wes-
Z, corresponding distance for the ith interval above the lower region
tern Canadian fuels. UBC, Final report, prepared for Energy,
(m)
Mines and Resources Canada, 1989. corresponding distance for the i - I th interval above the lower
Z,-I
35 Hanson, P. F. B, Dam-Johansen, K., Bank, L. H. and region (m)
Ostergaard, K.. Sulphur retention on limestone under flui-
dized bed combustion conditions-an experimental study.
Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on FBC, Greek letters
ed. E. J. Anthony. ASME, New York, 1991.
external mass transfer coefficient (cm s-‘)
overall N? to NO I conversion factor
NOMENCLATURE parameter used in eqn (I 1) (cm-‘)
hight of the ith interval (m)
volume fraction occupied by sorbent particles
cross-sectional area of bed (m’) char porosity
decay constant (m-l) porosity of particle after the calcination
parameter defined in eqn (9) (s-l) mean voidage of the lower region
unit operation blocks given by ASPEN PLUS, Figure 2, (I = 1, 2, mean voidage of the fully developed zone
3,...,17) mean axial voidage in the ith interval of the riser
c combustion gas concentration (kmole m-‘) axial voidage in the acceleration zone
Cd? calcium to sulfur ratio axial voidage at saturated conditions
CO? concentration of oxygen (kmole m -‘) combustion efficiency
DP average sorbent surface particle diameter (cm) effectiveness factor
D, riser diameter (m) density of char particles (kg mm3)
El apparent activation energy (J kmole-‘) density of limestone particles (kg m-‘)
W) yield distribution vector density of bed solids particles (kg m-j)
F,,‘ mass Rowrate of air (kg h-‘) slip factor

Fuel 1998 Volume 77 Number 4 337