ARTICLE IN PRESS

BIOMASS AND BIOENERGY

32 (2008) 1245 1254

Available at www.sciencedirect.com

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/biombioe

Simulation of biomass gasification in fluidized bed reactor

using ASPEN PLUS
Mehrdokht B. Nikooa, Nader Mahinpeya,b,
a

Environmental Systems Engineering, University of Regina, 3737 Wascana Parkway, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada S4S 0A2
Process Systems Engineering, University of Regina, 3737 Wascana Parkway, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada S4S 0A2

art i cle info

ab st rac t

Article history:

A comprehensive process model is developed for biomass gasification in an atmospheric

Received 10 February 2007

fluidized bed gasifier using the ASPEN PLUS simulator. The proposed model addresses both

Received in revised form

hydrodynamic parameters and reaction kinetic modeling. Governing hydrodynamic

19 February 2008

equations for a bubbling bed and kinetic expressions for the char combustion are adopted

Accepted 29 February 2008

from the literature. Four ASPEN PLUS reactor models and external FORTRAN subroutines

Available online 11 April 2008

for hydrodynamics and kinetics nested in ASPEN PLUS simulate the gasification process.

Keywords:
Biomass
Gasification
Fluidized bed
Simulation
ASPEN PLUS

Different sets of operating conditions for a lab-scale pine gasifier are used to demonstrate
validation of the model.
Temperature increases the production of hydrogen and enhances carbon conversion
efficiency. Equivalence ratio is directly proportional to carbon dioxide production and
carbon conversion efficiency. Increasing steam-to-biomass ratio increases hydrogen and
carbon monoxide production and decreases carbon dioxide and carbon conversion
efficiency. Particle average size in the range of 0.250.75 mm does not seem to contribute
significantly to the composition of product gases.
& 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1.

Introduction

Biomass, fuel derived from organic matter on a renewable

basis, is among the largest sources of energy in the world, third
only to coal and oil [1]. Biomass adsorbs CO2 from the
atmosphere during photosynthesis, and the CO2 is then
returned to the environment after combustion. Because of this
cycle, biomass is CO2 neutral, making it an advantageous fuel
source and a dominant choice for replacement of fossil fuels as
the concern of global warming increases. Biomass materials
known as potential sources of energy are agricultural residues
such as straw, bagasse, and husk and residues from forestrelated industries such as wood chips, sawdust, and bark [2,3].
Fluidized bed gasifiers are advantageous for transforming
biomass, particularly agricultural residues, into energy.

Perfect contact between gas and solid, along with a

high degree of turbulence, improves heat and mass
transfer characteristics, enhances the ability to control
temperature, and increases heat storage and volumetric
capacity [4].
The ASPEN PLUS process simulator has been used by
different investigators to simulate coal conversion; examples
include methanol synthesis [5,6], indirect coal liquefaction
processes [7], integrated coal gasification combined cycle
(IGCC) power plants [8], atmospheric fluidized bed combustor
processes [9], compartmented fluidized bed coal gasifiers [10],
coal hydrogasification processes [11], and coal gasification
simulation [12]. However, the work that has been done on
biomass gasification is limited. Mansaray et al. [13] used
ASPEN PLUS to simulate rice husk gasification based on

Corresponding author at: Environmental Systems Engineering, University of Regina, 3737 Wascana Parkway, Regina, Saskatchewan,
Canada S4S 0A2. Tel.: +1 306 558 4490; fax: +1 306 585 4855.
E-mail address: Nader.Mahinpey@uregina.ca (N. Mahinpey).
0961-9534/$ - see front matter & 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.02.020

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1246

BIOMASS AND BIOENERGY

Nomenclature
a
Ar
dp
E
g
k
MC
N
P
R
rC
T
t
u
umf
XCO
XSG
YC
yi

decay constant of clusters in freeboard (m1)

Archimedes number
particle diameter (m)
activation energy (kcal/mol)
gravitational acceleration (m/s2)
rate constant (s1 atm1)
molecular weight of carbon (kg/kmol)
total number of data points
pressure (bar)
universal gas constant (kcal/mol K)
reaction rate of carbon (kmol/m3 s)
temperature (K)
time (s)
superficial velocity (m/s)
minimum fluidization velocity (m/s)
carbon conversion due to combustion
carbon conversion due to steam gasification
volume fraction of carbon in solid
mole fraction of i

material balance, energy balance, and chemical equilibrium relations. Because of the high amount of volatile
material in biomass and the complexity of biomass
reaction rate kinetics in fluidized beds, they ignored the char
gasification and simulated the gasification process by the
assumption that biomass gasification follows Gibbs equilibrium.
In a typical atmospheric fluidized bed gasifier, feed,
together with bed material, are fluidized by the gasifying
agents, such as air and/or steam, entering at the bottom of
the bed. The product gas resulting from the gasification
process is fed to a gassolid separator (i.e., cyclone) to
separate solid particles carried by exhaust gas.
The objective of this study is to develop simulation capable
of predicting the steady-state performance of an atmospheric
fluidized bed gasifier by considering the hydrodynamic and
reaction rate kinetics simultaneously. The products of homogeneous reactions are defined by Gibbs equilibrium, and
reaction rate kinetics are used to determine the products of
char gasification. A drawback in using ASPEN PLUS is the lack
of a library model to simulate fluidized bed unit operation.
However, it is possible for users to input their own models,
using FORTRAN codes nested within the ASPEN PLUS input
file, to simulate operation of a fluidized bed. This paper
presents the details of the modeling approaches taken to
obtain a process simulation program for biomass gasification
in a fluidized bed reactor.

32 (2008) 1245 1254

distance above the surface of the bed (m)

Greek letters
kinetics parameter
kinetics parameter
volume fraction of bed occupied by bubble
average voidage of bed
average voidage of freeboard
voidage in emulsion at minimum fluidization
volume fraction of solid in bed
carbon conversion efficiency
density of carbon (kg/m3)
density of gas (kg/m3)
density of solid (kg/m3)
viscosity (kg/m s)

a
b
eb
ef
efb
emf
es
ZC
rC
rg
rs
m

Subscripts
e
p

experimental
predicted

2.1.

Assumptions

The following assumptions were considered in modeling the

gasification process:

 Process is steady state and isothermal

 Biomass devolatilization takes place instantaneously and







volatile products mainly consist of H2, CO, CO2, CH4, and

H2O [4,1416]
All the gases are uniformly distributed within the emulsion phase
Particles are spherical and of uniform size and the average
diameter remains constant during the gasification, based
on the shrinking core model
Char only contains carbon and ash
Char gasification starts in the bed and completes in the
freeboard.

2.2.

Reaction kinetics

The gasification process begins with pyrolysis and continues

with combustion and steam gasification, wherein the following reactions occur:
Combustion reaction [17]:
C aO2 ! 21  aCO 2a  1CO2

(1)

Steam-gasification reactions [18]:

2.

Modeling approach

Because of the influence of hydrodynamic parameters on

biomass gasification in fluidized beds, both hydrodynamic
and reaction kinetics must be treated simultaneously.

C H2 O ! CO H2

(2)

CO H2 O ! CO2 H2

(3)

C 2H2 O ! CO2 2H2

(4)

C bH2 O ! b  1CO2 2  bCO bH2

(5)

ARTICLE IN PRESS
BIOMASS AND BIOENERGY

Here, a is a mechanism factor [19] that changes, in the

range of 0.51, when CO or CO2, is carried away from the char
particle during char combustion. The factor, a, is a function of
the temperature and average diameter of the char particles.
In reaction (5), (2b)/b represents the fraction of the steam
consumed by reaction (2) and 2(b1)/b represents the fraction
of steam consumed by reaction (4). Matsui et al. [18]
experimentally determined b to be in the range of 1.11.5 at
750900 1C. For the proposed model, the values of a and b
equal 0.9 and 1.4, respectively, and show the best agreement
with experimental data.
Lee et al. [17] defines the reaction rate equations for the
mentioned reactions as follows:


dXCO
ECO n
kCO exp
PO 1  XCO 2=3
(6)
2
dt
RT
(7)



dXCO dXSG
r s Y C

 C
dt
dt
MC

(8)

Previous studies [20,21] considered parameter n to be equal

to 1.0 in Eqs. (6) and (7). For the steam-gasification reaction,
some studies [22,23] reported different numbers for n, but it is
actually 1.0 in the steam partial pressure range of
0.250.8 atm. Kinetic parameters can be found in Table 1.

2.3.

Hydrodynamic assumptions

 Fluidized bed reactor is divided into two regions: bed and

freeboard

 The fluidization state in the bed is maintained in the

bubbling regime

 The volume fraction of solids decreases as height in-





creases, corresponding to the coalescence of bubbles in

the bed and the returning of solid particles to the bed in
the TDH zone
Volumetric flow rate of gas increases along with height,
corresponding to the production of gaseous products
The mixing of solid particles, consisting of ash, char
particles, and bed material, is perfect
The reactor is divided into a finite number of equal
elements with constant hydrodynamic parameters
The fluidized bed is one-dimensional; any variations in
conditions are considered to occur only in the axial
direction.

Table 1 Kinetic parameters

Combustion
Steam gasification

Ar

Bed hydrodynamics

d3p rg rs  rg g
m2

k (s1 atm1)

13,523
19,544

0.046
6474.7

(10)

The following correlations, developed by Babu et al. [25,26],

are used to determine the volume fraction occupied by
bubbles in a fluidized bed
B 1:0

10:978u  umf 0:738 r0:376

d1:006
p
s
u0:937
r0:126
g
mf

(11)
(12)

where u the superficial gas velocity, is not a constant

parameter, due to the gas production resulting from
homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions. Yan et al. [26]
demonstrated the importance of considering varying
gas velocity in obtaining results with higher precision in
simulation.
The bed void fraction [24] is then given by the following:
f b 1  b mf
mf 0:4

(13)

Freeboard hydrodynamics

According to Lewis et al. [27] the volume fraction of solids at

various levels z in the freeboard falls off exponentially from
the value at the bed surface, or
1  fb 1  f expaz

(14)

Kunii and Levenspiel [24] prepared a graph from reported

data that correlates the constant a with particle size and
superficial gas velocity. This graph can be used in the
following range:
u p 1:25 m=s
dp p 800 mm
The constant a for this simulation has been found from the
graph as follows:
a

1:8
.
u

2.4.

(15)

ASPEN PLUS model

The different stages considered in ASPEN PLUS simulation, in

order to show the overall gasification process, are decomposition of the feed, volatile reactions, char gasification, and
gassolid separation.

2.4.1.

E/R (K)

1247

Kunii and Levenspil [24] introduced the following equation to

calculate the minimum fluidization velocity for fine particles:

33:7m p
1 3:59  105 Ar  1
(9)
umf
rg dp

2.3.2.

The following assumptions were made in simulating the

hydrodynamics:

2.3.1.

b 1  1=B



dXSG
ESG n
kSG exp
PH O 1  XSG 2=3
2
dt
RT
rC

32 (2008) 1245 1254

Biomass decomposition

The ASPEN PLUS yield reactor, RYIELD, was used to simulate

the decomposition of the feed. In this step, biomass is
converted into its constituting components including
carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, sulfur, nitrogen, and ash, by
specifying the yield distribution according to the biomass
ultimate analysis.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1248

2.4.2.

BIOMASS AND BIOENERGY

32 (2008) 1245 1254

Volatile reactions

The ASPEN PLUS Gibbs reactor, RGIBBS, was used for volatile
combustion, in conformity with the assumption that volatile
reactions follow the Gibbs equilibrium. Biomass consists of
mainly C, H, N, O, S, Cl, ash, and moisture. Carbon will partly
constitute the gas phase, which takes part in devolatilization,
and the remaining carbon comprises part of the solid phase
(char) and subsequently results in char gasification.
A SEPARATION COLUMN model was used before the RGIBBS
reactor to separate the volatile materials and solids in order to
perform the volatile reactions. Within the ASPEN PLUS
environment, the separation column is the most appropriate
unit operation to achieve this goal. The amount of volatile
material can be specified from the biomass approximate
analysis. Also considering the assumption that char contains
only carbon and ash, the amount of carbon in the volatile
portion can be calculated by deducting the total amount of
carbon in char from the total carbon in biomass.

2.4.3.

Char gasification

The ASPEN PLUS CSTR reactor, RCSTR, performs char

gasification by using reaction kinetics, as mentioned previously, written as an external FORTRAN code. The hydrodynamic parameters divide the reactor into two regions, bed
and freeboard, and each region is simulated by one RCSTR.
Using FORTRAN code, each RCSTR is divided into a series of
CSTR reactors with equal volume. The hydrodynamic and
kinetic parameters, such as superficial velocity, voidage, and
fractional pressure of oxygen and steam, are constant in
these small reactors. The number of the elemental reactors
depends on the residence time, the reactor dimensions, and
the operational conditions wherein the mentioned parameters can be considered constant.
A description of the ASPEN PLUS reactor blocks and
simulation diagram are given in Table 2 and Fig. 1, respectively.

Table 2 Reactor blocks description utilized in the

simulation [28]
Reactor
block

Description

RYIELD

Models a reactor by specifying reaction yields of

each component. This model is useful when
reaction stoichiometry and kinetics are unknown
and yield distribution data or correlations are
available

RGIBBS

Models single-phase chemical equilibrium, or

simultaneous phase and chemical equilibrium by
minimizing Gibbs free energy, subject to atom
balance constraints. This model is useful when
temperature and pressure are known and reaction
stoichiometry is unknown

RCSTR

Models a continuous-stirred tank reactor. This

model is useful when reaction kinetics is known.
This model is useful when solids, such as char, are
participating in the reactions

Fig. 1 Comprehensive simulation diagram for the fluidized

bed gasification process.
Table 3 Characteristics of pine sawdust
Moisture content (wt%)
Proximate analysis (wt% dry basis)
Volatile matter
Fixed carbon
Ash

82.29
17.16
0.55

Ultimate analysis (wt% dry basis)

C
H
O
N
S

50.54
7.08
41.11
0.15
0.57

Average particle size (mm)

Char density (kg/m3)
Flow rate (kg/h)

0.250.75
1300
0.4450.512

3.

Model validation

In order to validate the simulation results, experimental data

from gasification of pine in a lab-scale fluidized bed gasifier
was used; details of the setup can be found elsewhere [14].
Tables 3 and 4 show feed material and reactor characteristics
used in the simulation.
Lv et al. [14] studied the influence of temperature,
equivalence ratio (ER), steam-to-biomass ratio, and biomass
average particle size on gas composition and carbon conversion efficiency. They considered four main gases (i.e. H2, CO,
CO2, CH4) to study gas production.
Equivalence ratio and carbon conversion efficiency are
defined, respectively, as follows:

ER

Weight oxygen air=weight dry biomass

Stoichiometric oxygen air=biomass ratio

(16)

ARTICLE IN PRESS
BIOMASS AND BIOENERGY

ZC 1 

Total rate of carbon in the outlet stream

Total rate of carbon in the feed stream

(17)

Simulation results were compared with all sets of experimental data. The sum squared deviation method was used to
estimate the accuracy of simulation results [29].
N y  y 2
X
ie
ip
(18)
RSS
yie
i1
MRSS

RSS
N

Mean error

(19)
p
MRSS

1249

32 (2008) 1245 1254

temperatures higher than 800 1C. Simulation results for

carbon monoxide in Fig. 3 display good qualitative prediction
of experimental data in the whole range, and carbon dioxide
production is underestimated in Fig. 4. Also, simulation
results in Fig. 5 show good accuracy for methane production.
Gases with a CnHm formula are the result of non-equilibrium processes. Thus, because of the assumption in this
study that homogeneous reactions follow Gibbs equilibrium,
methane is the only possible hydrocarbon in the gasification
products.

(20)

The analysis of data for product gases is shown in Table 5.

Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide show the lowest and
highest error, respectively, in all sets of experiments.

3.1.

Effect of temperature

3.1.1.

Gas composition

Figs. 25 show the simulation results compared with experimental data for product gas composition versus five different
temperatures in the range of 700900 1C.
Fig. 2 shows better agreement between simulation prediction and experimental data for hydrogen production in the

Table 4 Experimental setup parameters used in the

simulation
Fluidized bed reactor
Temperature (1C)
Pressure (bar)

Fig. 2 Effect of temperature on hydrogen. Biomass feed

rate: 0.445 kg/h; air: 0.5 N m3/h; steam rate: 1.2 kg/h.

700900
1.05

Bed diameter (mm)

Freeboard diameter (mm)
Height (mm)

40
60
1400

Air
Temperature (1C)
Flow rate (N m3/h)

65
0.50.7

Steam
Temperature (1C)
Flow rate (kg/h)

145
01.8

Bed material
Silica sand
Average particle size (mm)
Weight (g)

0.275
30

Fig. 3 Effect of temperature on carbon monoxide. Biomass

feed rate: 0.445 kg/h; air: 0.5 N m3/h; steam rate: 1.2 kg/h.

Table 5 Analysis of data

Mean error

Gas
Gas
Gas
Gas

composition
composition
composition
composition

versus
versus
versus
versus

temperature
ER
particle size
S/B ratio

H2

CO

CO2

CH4

0.36057
0.19811
0.1847
0.2045

0.10442
0.0939
0.0868
0.1143

0.3009
0.23079
0.2038
0.2382

0.21523
0.19974
0.1632
0.2712

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1250

BIOMASS AND BIOENERGY

Fig. 4 Effect of temperature on carbon dioxide. Biomass

feed rate: 0.445 kg/h; air: 0.5 N m3/h; steam rate: 1.2 kg/h.

32 (2008) 1245 1254

Fig. 6 Effect of temperature on carbon conversion

efficiency. Biomass feed rate: 0.445 kg/h; air: 0.5 N m3/h;
steam rate: 1.2 kg/h.

Fig. 5 Effect of temperature on methane. Biomass feed rate:

0.445 kg/h; air: 0.5 N m3/h; steam rate: 1.2 kg/h.
Fig. 7 Effect of ER on hydrogen. Biomass feed rate:
0.512 kg/h; temperature: 800 1C; steam rate: 0.8 kg/h.
Biomass produces more tar and unburned hydrocarbon in
lower temperatures, which decreases hydrogen production.
The error related to the prediction of hydrogen, especially in
lower temperatures, is the result of ignoring tar production in
the simulation, as shown in Fig. 2. Corresponding to reaction
(5) in Fig. 3, the higher amount of hydrogen favors the
backward reaction and causes prediction of lower carbon
dioxide production in simulation. Also, the backward reaction
(5) dominates the prediction of carbon monoxide, and it
shows slight underestimation in temperatures lower than
800 1C.
The equilibrium assumption substitutes the methane for all
other possible hydrocarbons. An amount of less than 10%
methane in product gas results in a negligible difference
between experimental and simulation results, as observed in
Fig. 5.

3.1.2.

Carbon conversion efficiency

Fig. 6 shows the comparison of the simulation results with

the experimental data for carbon conversion efficiency versus
temperature in the range of 700900 1C. Higher temperature
improves the gasification process and increases the carbon
conversion. Increasing trends of carbon conversion efficiency
can be seen for both simulation and experimental results.

The high accuracy of the simulation results is depicted in

Fig. 6.

3.2.

Effect of equivalence ratio (ER)

3.2.1.

Gas composition

Simulation results and experimental data for gas composition

versus five different equivalence ratios in the range of
0.190.27 are shown in Figs. 710.
The equivalence ratio shows two opposing effects on the
gasification process. Increasing the amount of air favors
gasification by increasing the temperature but, at the same
time, produces more carbon dioxide [14]. Gasification with a
better level of efficiency produces more carbon monoxide and
less carbon dioxide. Thus, the trends in Figs. 8 and 9 show
domination of the each opposing effects for ER of less and
more than 0.23, respectively.

3.2.2.

Carbon conversion efficiency

Fig. 11 shows the predicted results from simulation and

measured data from experiments for carbon conversion
efficiency in five different ER in the range of 0.190.27.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
BIOMASS AND BIOENERGY

Fig. 8 Effect of ER on carbon monoxide. Biomass feed rate:

0.512 kg/h; temperature: 800 1C; steam rate: 0.8 kg/h.

Fig. 9 Effect of ER on carbon dioxide. Biomass feed rate:

0.512 kg/h; temperature: 800 1C; steam rate: 0.8 kg/h.

32 (2008) 1245 1254

1251

Fig. 11 Effect of ER on carbon conversion efficiency.

Biomass feed rate: 0.512 kg/h; temperature: 800 1C; steam
rate: 0.8 kg/h.

Fig. 12 Effect of steam-to-biomass ratio on hydrogen.

Biomass feed rate: 0.445 kg/h; temperature: 800 1C, air:
0.5 N m3/h.

Based on the oxidation reactions, Eqs. (21) and (22), carbon

monoxide production consumes more carbon for the same
amount of oxygen. Therefore, for ER of less than the optimum
point, equal to 0.23, the increasing trend of carbon monoxide
increases the carbon conversion efficiency, and it is the
reverse for ER of greater than the optimum point.
The constant amount of kinetic parameters, a and b, does
not reflect the change of proportion between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide in the product gas, and as a result,
simulation predicts the increasing trend for carbon conversion efficiency in the whole range.
Fig. 10 Effect of ER on methane. Biomass feed rate:
0.512 kg/h; temperature: 800 1C; steam rate: 0.8 kg/h.

The oxidation reaction for carbon monoxide production is

C 12O2 ! CO:

(21)

The oxidation reaction for carbon dioxide production is

C O2 ! CO2

(22)

3.3.

Effect of steam-to-biomass ratio (S/B)

3.3.1.

Gas composition

Comparisons of simulation predictions with experimental

results of gas composition versus steam-to-biomass ratio in
five points in the range of 04 are shown in Figs. 1215.
Introducing low-temperature steam to the gasification
process reduces the temperature of the process and increases
the amount of tar. Simulation (Fig. 12) predicts the percentage
of hydrogen in product gas with the best precision for

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1252

BIOMASS AND BIOENERGY

32 (2008) 1245 1254

ture resulting from the entering steam is ignored. Also,

overestimation of the amount of methane is caused when
there is no steam in the process, as is shown in Fig. 15.

3.3.2.

Carbon conversion efficiency

As shown in Fig. 16, carbon conversion efficiency decreases

over the S/B range from 0 to 4, which can be explained by the
excess amount of low-temperature steam in the gasification
process.

Fig. 13 Effect of steam-to-biomass ratio on carbon

monoxide. Biomass feed rate: 0.445 kg/h; temperature:
800 1C, air: 0.5 N m3/h.

3.4.

Effect of biomass particle size

3.4.1.

Gas composition

Figs. 1720 show the results of the simulation compared with

experimental data for gas composition versus four biomass
average particle diameters in the range of 0.250.75 mm.
Simulation shows good agreement with experimental data,
especially in the qualitative view, regarding the production of
hydrogen and carbon dioxide, as can be seen in Figs. 17 and
19. Fig. 18 demonstrates very good prediction of the percentage of carbon monoxide compared with the experimental

Fig. 14 Effect of steam-to-biomass ratio on carbon dioxide.

Biomass feed rate: 0.445 kg/h; temperature: 800 1C, air:
0.5 N m3/h.

Fig. 16 Effect of steam-to-biomass ratio on carbon

conversion efficiency. Biomass feed rate: 0.445 kg/h;
temperature: 800 1C, air: 0.5 N m3/h.

Fig. 15 Effect of steam-to-biomass ratio on methane.

Biomass feed rate: 0.445 kg/h; temperature: 800 1C, air:
0.5 N m3/h.

gasification without steam because of the low amount of tar

in the process. As seen in Figs. 13 and 14, a higher flow rate of
steam decreases carbon monoxide and increases carbon
dioxide in the product gas. However, simulation cannot
predict the real trends because the effect of varying tempera-

Fig. 17 Effect of biomass particle size on hydrogen.

Biomass feed rate: 0.512 kg/h; temperature: 800 1C, air:
0.6 N m3/h.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
BIOMASS AND BIOENERGY

32 (2008) 1245 1254

3.4.2.

1253

Carbon conversion efficiency

Based on the hydrodynamic model used in this simulation,

larger biomass particle size results in a higher volume
fraction of solid that improves the carbon conversion
efficiency in the range of 0.250.75 mm. This is the reason
for the increasing trend of simulation results for carbon
conversion versus particle size in Fig. 21. However, the
decreasing trend of carbon conversion efficiency in experimental data is due to the higher mass transfer resistance for
larger particles in real processes.

4.
Fig. 18 Effect of biomass particle size on carbon monoxide.
Biomass feed rate: 0.512 kg/h; temperature: 800 1C, air:
0.6 N m3/h.

Fig. 19 Effect of biomass particle size on carbon dioxide.

Biomass feed rate: 0.512 kg/h; temperature: 800 1C, air:
0.6 N m3/h.

Future work

Good qualitative agreement between model prediction and

experimental data was achieved. However, to improve the
simulation results, some modifications should be considered.
The present paper intended to present the simulation results
of parametric study of the effects of temperature, equivalence
ratio, steam-to-biomass ratio, and particle size on gas composition (i.e., H2, CO, CO2, and CH4) and carbon conversion. Tar
formation will improve the predicted results in the simulation.
Detailed experimental data about the influence of operating
conditions on the formation of tar along with the kinetics
studies is needed to obtain a thorough evaluation. The
chemical formula of tar is CxHyOz. The parameters (x, y, z)
are temperature and heating rate dependent. Such study is
being carried out in our lab and results will be communicated
very soon. Once these results are analyzed, the tar production
can be implemented in the current model by defining nonequilibrium products in the RGIBBS reactor.
Mass transfer inside solid particles is an important parameter in gassolid reactions, and heat transfer inside
particles, between phases, and between material and wall is
another feature that should be included in order to achieve
better simulation prediction. Radial dispersion inside the
reactor helps to see wall effects on the hydrodynamics of the
fluidized bed reactor. Additional modeling studies with more
detailed assumptions are underway, and results of such
studies will be communicated upon their completion.

Fig. 20 Effect of biomass particle size on methane. Biomass

feed rate: 0.512 kg/h; temperature: 800 1C, air: 0.6 N m3/h.

data. For methane, in Fig. 20, there is an overestimation in

biomass with average size equal to 0.75 mm, but the simulation predicts experimental data with acceptable accuracy for
other points.

Fig. 21 Effect of biomass particle size on carbon conversion

efficiency. Biomass feed rate: 0.512 kg/h; temperature:
800 1C, air: 0.6 N m3/h.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1254

5.

BIOMASS AND BIOENERGY

Conclusion

A model was developed for the gasification of biomass in an

atmospheric fluidized bed gasifier using the ASPEN PLUS
simulator. To provide the model, several ASPEN PLUS unit
operation blocks were combined and, where necessary,
kinetic expressions and hydrodynamic models were developed using data and models from the literature. The model
was used to predict the results of lab-scale gasification of pine
with air and steam. The simulation results for the product gas
composition and carbon conversion efficiency versus temperature, equivalence ratio (ER), steam-to-biomass ratio, and
biomass average particle size were compared with experimental results.
Higher temperature improves the gasification process. It
increases both the production of hydrogen and the carbon
conversion efficiency. Carbon monoxide and methane show
decreasing trends with increasing temperature. Carbon
dioxide production and carbon conversion efficiency increase
by increasing the ER. Although, hydrogen, carbon monoxide,
and methane decrease when ER is increased, increasing
steam-to-biomass ratio increases hydrogen and carbon monoxide production and decreases carbon dioxide and carbon
conversion efficiency. Particle average size does not show a
significant influence on the composition of product gases.

Acknowledgments
The authors express their gratitude to Communities of
Tomorrow (CT) and Saskatchewan Power Corporation (SaskPower) for providing funding for this study and also Petroleum Technology Research Centre (PTRC) for providing
computational resources. Special thanks are also extended
to Dr. Malcolm Wilson for his instrumental support and
valuable comments provided toward accomplishing this
study.
R E F E R E N C E S

[1] Bapat DW, Kulkarni SV, Bhandarkar VP. Design and operating
experience on fluidized bed boiler burning biomass fuels
with high alkali ash. In: Preto FDS, editor. Proceedings of the
14th international conference on fluidized bed combustion.
Vancouver, New York, NY: ASME; 1997. p. 16574.
[2] Strehler A, Stuetzle W. Biomass residues. In: Hall DO, editor.
Biomass. New York: Wiley; 1987. p. 75102.
[3] Werther J, Saenger M, Hartge E-U, Ogada T, Siagi Z. Combustion of agricultural residues. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 2000;26:127.
[4] Sadaka S, Ghaly AE, Sabbah MA. Two phase biomass air
steam gasification model for fluidized bed reactors: Part I
model development. Biomass and Bioenergy 2002;22:43962.
[5] Kundsen RA, Bailey T, Fabiano LA. Experience with ASPEN
while simulating a new methanol plant. AIChE Symposium
Series 1982;78:214.
[6] Schwint KT. Great plains ASPEN model development, methanol synthesis flowsheet. Final topical report, Scientific Design
Co., Inc., USA, 1985.

32 (2008) 1245 1254

[7] Barker RE. ASPEN modeling of the tri-state indirect-liquefaction process. Oak Ridge, USA: Oak Ridge National Laboratory;
1983.
[8] Phillips JN, Erbes MR, Eustis RH. Study of the off-design
performance of integrated coal gasification. In: Combined
cycle power plants, computer-aided engineering of energy
systems, vol. 2analysis and simulation, winter annual
meeting of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
Anaheim, CA, USA conference, 1986.
[9] Douglas PL, Young BE. Modelling and simulation of an AFBC
steam heating plant using ASPEN/SP. Fuel 1990;70:14554.
[10] Yan HM, Rudolph V. Modeling a compartmented fluidized
bed coal gasifier process using ASPEN PLUS. Chemical
Engineering Communication 2000;183:138.
[11] Backham L, Croiset E, Douglas PL. Simulation of a coal
hydrogasification process with integrated CO2 capture.
Combustion Canada 2003;3A(4).
[12] Lee HG, Chung KM, Kim C, Han SH, Kim HT. Coal gasification
simulation using ASPEN PLUS. In: USKorea joint workshop
on coal utilization technology, 1992, p. 44774.
[13] Mansaray KG, Al-Taweel AM, Ghaly AE, Hamdullahpur F,
Ugursal VI. Mathematical modeling of a fluidized bed rice
husk gasifier. Energy Sources 2000:8398.
[14] Lv PM, Xiong ZH, Chang J, Wu CZ, Chen Y, Zhu JX. An
experimental study on biomass airsteam gasification in a
fluidized bed. Bioresource Technology 2004;95:95101.
[15] Buekens AG, Schoeters JG. Modelling of biomass gasification.
In: Overend RP, Milne TA, Mudge KL, editors. Fundamentals
of thermochemical biomass conversion. London, UK: Elsevier
Applied Science Publishers; 1985. p. 61989.
[16] Ergudenler A. Gasification of wheat straw in a dual-distributor type fluidized bed reactor. Unpublished PhD thesis,
Technical University of Nova Scotia, NS, Canada, 1993.
[17] Lee JM, Kim YJ, Lee WJ, Kim SD. Coal gasification kinetics
derived from pyrolysis in a fluidized bed reactor. Energy
1998;23(6):47588.
[18] Matsui I, Kunii D, Furusawa T. Study of fluidized bed steam
gasification of char by thermogravimetrically obtained kinetics. J Chem Eng Japan 1985;18:10513.
[19] Rajan RR, Wen CY. A comprehensive model for fluidized bed
coal combustors. AIChE Journal 1980;26:64255.
[20] Walker PLJ, Rusinko FJ, Austin LG. Gas reactions of carbon.
Advances in Catalysis 1959;11:133221.
[21] Dutta S, Wen CY. Reactivity of coal and char 2. In oxygennitrogen atmosphere. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry
Process Design and Development 1977;16(1):316.
[22] Kasaoka S, Skata Y, Tong C. Kinetic evaluation of the
reactivity of various coal chars for gasification with carbon
dioxide in comparison with steam. Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry 1985;25:160.
[23] Chin G, Kimura S, Tone S, Otake T. Gasification of coal char
with steam. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry 1983;25:105.
[24] Kunii D, Levenspiel O. Fluidization engineering, 2nd ed. 1991.
[25] Babu SP, Shah B, Talwalker A. Fluidization correlations for
coal gasification materialsminimum fluidization velocity
and bed expansion ratio. AICHE Symposium Series
1978;74:17686.
[26] Yan HM, Heidenreichayb C, Zhanga DK. Mathematical
modelling of a bubbling fluidized-bed coal gasifier and the
significance of net flow. Fuel 1998;77:106779.
[27] Lewis WK, Gilliland ER, Lang PM. Entrainment from fluidized
beds. Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium Series
1962;58:6578.
[28] Aspen Technology. Aspen Plus 12.1 user guide. Cambridge,
MA, 2003.
[29] Gururajan VS, Agarwal PK, Agnew JB. Mathematical modeling of fluidized bed coal gasifier. Chemical Engineering
Research and Design 1992;70a:21138.