Applied Thermal Engineering 135 (2018) 325–333

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng

Research Paper

Simulation of sub-bituminous coal hydrodynamics and thermochemical T

conversion during devolatilization process in a fluidized bed
⁎
A. Salmasia, M. Shamsa, , V. Chernorayb
a
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, K.N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
b
Department of Applied Mechanics, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden

H I G H L I G H T S

• CPD model predicts devolatilization time and mass loss of the fuel particle well.
• The effect of bed material is considered on devolatilization process in fluidized bed.
• There is a good agreement between the numerical and experimental results.
• Eulerian-Eulerian-Lagrangian approach is capable to predict hydrodynamics of bed.
• Fuel particle movement is mostly in vertical direction due to bubble eruption.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The majority of the numerical studies conducted on the thermochemical conversion of solid fuels in a fluidized
Devolatilization bed have ignored the bed materials inside the bed and just considered the effect of hot air passing the fuel
Fluidized bed particle. In this study, a sub-bituminous coal particle hydrodynamics during the devolatilization process is
Volatile modeled inside a 2D fluidized bed in two different cases. In the first case, the energy exchange of inert phase
Eulerian-Eulerian-Lagrangian
with the fuel particle is included in the simulation and, in the second case, it is ignored. The coal particle’s
motion is modeled including the drag force from the bed and the heat and the mass transfer are also simulated
during the devolatilization process while the fuel particle is heated up using the chemical percolation devola-
tilization model. The simulation successfully predicted the motion of the particle inside the bed as well as the
temperature increase and volatile release from the particle during the simulation time. The mass loss and
temperature history of the fuel particle resulting from the simulation show good agreement with the experi-
mental results. The simulation also indicates that inert particles have a great effect on the heat transfer coef-
ficient inside the bed and ignoring them will cause a difference in the devolatilization time, and this difference
will also increase significantly with the increase of the fuel particle’s diameter.

1. Introduction
For the last few decades, fluidized bed technology has been widely
used in combustion applications for energy production. Compared to
other industrial methods, fluidized bed combustion has numerous ad-
vantages, including higher thermal and combustion efficiency, reduc-
tion of nitrogen oxides’ formation and, consequently, air pollution and
enabling the combustion of different low-grade coals [1]. As a se-
quence, fluidized bed combustion is widely used for obtaining energy
from different types of fuels.
When a fuel particle is introduced to a fluidized bed, it undergoes a
number of distinct processes collectively called thermochemical
conversion. Drying is the first process to be commenced which can even
start below the boiling point of water due to water vapor diffusion from
the particle, and this process will increase rapidly once the boiling point
is reached. The next process is the devolatilization referring to a rapid
thermal decomposition at which the particle decomposes into light
gases, tars and a highly carbonaceous solid called char. The amount of
each component developed during this stage depends on the composi-
tion of the initial sample. Devolatilization is considered as a very
complex process which takes place in a shorter time compared to the
whole process of combustion. It includes heat and mass transfer and
also several reactions resulting in the release of volatiles to the ambient.
Because of the complexity, the devolatilization process of solid fuel

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: shams@kntu.ac.ir (M. Shams).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.02.057
Received 5 September 2017; Received in revised form 7 February 2018; Accepted 15 February 2018
Available online 16 February 2018
1359-4311/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Salmasi et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 135 (2018) 325–333

Nomenclature hfg latent heat for evolution of volatiles, J/kg

H specific enthalpy, J/kg
Greek letters mp mass of particle, kg
ṁ i mass source term, kg/m3 s
βij drag coefficient between phase i and j, kg/m3 s Pi phase pressure, Pa
λi thermal conductivity of species, W/m2 K SDev heat source due to devolatilization, J/m3 s
ρi density, kg/m3 SRad heat source due to radiation, J/m3 s
τi stress tensor, Pa t time, s
εi volume fraction T temperature, K
u velocity, m/s
Symbols X position of particle, m
Yi mass fraction of species
Cp specific heat, kJ/kg K
Di,m effective diffusion coefficient Subscripts
e emissivity coefficient
Fij net force exerted on phase i from phase j, N g gas phase
g gravity constant, m/s2 p fuel solid phase
hij heat transfer coefficient between phase i and j, W/m3 K s inert solid phase

particles is among the most studied subjects in the field of combustion
[2–6].
Among all the studies, a large number of numerical investigations
have been performed on the devolatilization process during the com-
bustion of fuel particles using a computational fluid dynamics ap-
proach. CFD modeling has proven to be a valuable and efficient tool for
taking into account the hydrodynamics and thermal conversion during
the gasification process [7]. Therefore, in the last decade, CFD has been
used as a powerful tool for the simulation of a devolatilization process
of coal particles in a fluidized bed.
Watanabe and Otaka [8] developed a coal gasification simulation
technique consisting of a pyrolysis model, a char gasification model and
a gas phase reaction model for the prediction of gasification perfor-
mance for an entrained flow coal gasifier. Deng et al. [9] developed a
3D mathematical model for simulating the coal gasification process in a
pressurized spout-fluid bed. Zhou et al. [10] employed a 2D model to
predict the oxy-coal combustion process in a circulating fluidized bed
including particle drying, dry coal devolatilization, volatile combus-
tion, char combustion, char gasification and SO2 emission.
The most commonly used bed material in an industrial fluidized bed
is silica sand, due to its low cost and abundancy. Silica sand is me-
chanically resistant, has a high melting point, and also high heat
transfer capacity, which makes it suitable to be used in a hot fluidized
bed. Because of the possibility of reaction between the silica sand and
products of the fuel combustion, some other bed materials are used in
conjunction with sand particles, such as olivine, bauxite and limestone
in order to inhibit agglomeration of the bed. They can also act as a
catalyst of tar cracking during the fuel’s gasification. Different ranks of
coal can typically be used in fluidized beds, including anthracite, bi-
tuminous coal, sub-bituminous coal, and lignite.
In the present study, a CFD approach is used to simulate a sub-bi-
tuminous coal devolatilization process in a fluidized bed combustor
heated by the high-temperature air entering the bed. The sub-bitumi-
nous coal which is considered in this study is a dry coal in order to be
comparable to the results of other similar experimental studies. As a
result, in this simulation devolatilization process is the first stage that
takes place when the coal particle is heated which makes the process
occur in a significantly shorter time. Among all the studies focused
upon the same subject, only a few investigations have simulated a coal
particle in a fluidized bed containing bed materials to study the devo-
latilization process of the coal particle [11–13]. In other words, most of
the investigations which have simulated the devolatilization process of
a coal particle in a fluidized bed have ignored the bed material and
hence its effect on the heat transfer coefficient between the fuel particle
and the bed, which does not seem to be sufficiently accurate. Inert
materials have a significant effect on the heat exchange between the
bed and the fuel particles, and so it must be considered in the numerical
simulation. Therefore, in this study, the effect of the bed inert material
in the simulations is studied in detail.
Two types of simulations are performed here. To consider the bed
material and its effect on hydrodynamics and heat exchange of the coal
particle, the simulations are carried out using an Eulerian-Eulerian-
Lagrangian procedure in which the gas phase and also the inert bed
material are treated as continuous phases due to their high volume
fraction in the bed, and resolved within the Eulerian framework. The
only coal particle in the bed is also tracked and simulated within the
Lagrangian frame. In the second case, only the momentum exchange of
the inert phase with other phases is modeled, and its heat exchange
with the fuel particle is excluded to make it possible to study the effect
of the inert phase on the heat coefficient of the bed. The devolatilization
process of the coal particle is simulated by the chemical percolation
devolatilization (CPD) model in both cases. Furthermore, the simula-
tions are validated via comparison with similar experimental results.
2. Mathematical models
As mentioned, in this study, the simulations are carried out using an
Eulerian-Eulerian-Lagrangian procedure. The gas phase and bed mate-
rial are treated as continuous phase and resolved within the Eulerian
framework and the fuel particle is simulated within the Lagrangian
framework. The governing equations of each phase, represented in
Eulerian or Lagrangian framework will be presented in this section, in
which the subscript g is referred to the gas phase, s is the inert bed solid
material, and p is the coal particle:
2.1. Continuous phases
The continuity equation for gas and inert phases are expressed as:
∂
(εg ρg ) + ∇ ·(εg ρg ug ) = mpg
∂t (1)
∂
(εs ρs ) + ∇ ·(εs ρs us ) = 0
∂t (2)
where mpg denotes the mass transfer from the coal particle to the gas
phase due to the devolatilization process and phase transformation
which can be expressed as the sum of mass transfer from certain species
in solid phase of the fuel particle to certain species in gas phase with
mpg = ∑i,j m p j g i . The volume fractions of the two phases must equal 1,
such that:

326
A. Salmasi et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 135 (2018) 325–333

εg + εs = 1 (3) SDev and SRad are also the heat source terms denoting the heat
transfer due to the devolatilization and radiation.
The conservation of momentums for the continuous phases are ex-
Species transport equations for species in the gas phase and the coal
pressed using the following equations:
particle is expressed as:
∂
(εg ρg ug ) + ∇ ·(εg ρg ug ug ) = −εg ∇P + ∇ ·(εg τg ) + εg ρg g + βgs (us−ug ) ∂
∂t (εg ρg Yg,i ) + ∇ ·(εg ρg ug Yg,i ) = −∇ ·(εg ρg Di,m Yg,i ) + m p j g i
∂t (14)
+ βgp (up−ug ) + mpg (up−ug ) (4)
where Di,m is the effective diffusion coefficient for gas i through a
∂ mixture of gases. m p j g i is the mass flux between phases due to devola-
(εs ρs us ) + ∇ ·(εs ρs us us ) = −εs ∇P−∇Ps + ∇ . (εs τs ) + εs ρs g + βgs (ug −us )
∂t tilization release of gases from species j of the coal particle to species i
+ βsp (up−us ) of the gas.
(5)
Energy conservation equation for granular temperature of the inert
In the above equations, βgs, βgp and βsp are the drag coefficients due solid particles is as below:
to the momentum exchange between gas phase and the inert phase, gas
3 ⎡ ∂ (εs ρs Θs )
phase and coal particle, and inert phase and coal particle, respectively. + ∇ (εs ρs us Θs )⎤ = −(ps I + τs ): ∇ ·(us )−∇ ·(qs )−γs−3K gs Θs
The drag coefficient of βgs is selected as the model proposed by 2⎢⎣ ∂t ⎥
⎦
Gidaspow [14]: (15)
3ρg εg (1 − εg ) where qs is the Pseudo-Fourier flux of kinetic fluctuation energy and can
⎧
⎪ Cd |us−ug |εg−2.65 εg > 0.8
4ds be written as:
βgs = μ (1 − ε ) 2 ρ (| u − u |)(1 − ε )
⎨150 g g
+ 1.75
g g s g
εg ⩽ 0.8
⎪ εg ds2 ds
qs = −κs ∇Θs (16)
⎩ (6)
150ρs ds Θs π 2
where Cd is the drag factor and can be derived as: 6 Θs
κs = ⎡1 + εs g0 (1 + es ) ⎤ + 2εs2 ρs ds g0 (1 + ess )
24
384(1 + ess ) g0 ⎣ 5 ⎦ π
0.687 ds ρg εg |ug −us |
⎧ Res (1 + 0.15Res ) Res⩽1000
Cd = ,Res = (17)
⎨ 0.44 Res > 1000 μg (7)
⎩
The stress-strain tensor for gas and inert phase are as:
βgp can also be derived via equations (6) and (7) with just substituting
2
coal particle properties instead of the inert particles’. The drag coeffi- τg = μg (∇ug + ∇ugT )− μg (∇ × ug ) I
3 (18)
cient of βsp is derived by Syamlal model [15] as a simplified version of
kinetic theory as below: 2
τs = μs (∇us + ∇usT )−⎛λs− μs ⎞ (∇ × us ) I
3(1 + esp)(π /2 + Csp π 2/8) ρp εp ρs εs (ds + dp)2g0,sp |us−up | ⎝ 3 ⎠ (19)
βsp =
2π (ρp dp3 + ρs ds3) (8) where λs and μs are the solid bulk viscosity and solid shear viscosity,
respectively, and are derived as:
where Csp and esp are the coefficients of friction and restitution between
the solid phase and the fuel particle, respectively. g0,sp is also the radial 4 Θs
λs = εs ρ ds g (1 + es )
distribution function at the contact, which is derived by Lebowitz [16] 3 s 0 π (20)
as below:
4 Θs 5ρs ds Θs π 4
1 3dp ds 2
εsλ μs = εs ρ ds g (1 + es ) + ⎡1 + εs g0 (1 + es )⎤
g0,sp = + 2 ∑ 5 s 0 π 48εs (1 + es ) g0 ⎣ 5 ⎦
εg εg (dp + ds ) λ=1
dpλ (9) (21)
Energy conservation equations for gas phase and inert phase are as:
∂ ∂p 2.2. Discrete phase
(εg ρg Hg ) + ∇ ·(εg ρg ug Hg ) = εg + τg : ∇ug + ∇ ·(εg k g ∇Tg )−hgs (Ts−Tg )
∂t ∂t
−hgp (Tp−Tg ) + SDev (10) The particle trajectory is calculated from the motion equation:
dXp
∂ ∂p = up
(εs ρs Hs ) + ∇ ·(εs ρs us Hs ) = εs + τs: ∇us + ∇ ·(εs ks ∇Ts )−hgs (Tg−Ts ) dt (22)
∂t ∂t
−hps (Tp−Ts ) + SRad (11) dup
mp = mp g + Fps + Fpg
dt (23)
where hgs is the heat transfer coefficient between the gas phase and
inert solid phase. hgp is the heat transfer coefficient between the gas where mp and up are the mass and velocity of coal particle, Fps is the net
phase and the coal and hps is the heat transfer coefficient between the contact force on the fuel particle as a result of contact with the inert
inert phase and the coal particle. hsg can be derived by Gunn's model particles and Fpg is total drag force between the coal particle and the gas
[17] as below: phase. Fps and Fpg are given by βsp (up−ug ) and βgp (up−ug ) , respectively.
Particle heat transfer due to convection, radiation, devolatilization
6k g (1−εg ) εg Nus
hsg = and contact to the inert phase is expressed as:
ds2 (12)
dTp dmp
Nus = (7−10εg + 5εg2)(1 + 0.7Re 0.2 Pr 1/3) + (1.33−2.4εg + 1.2εg2) Re 0.7 Pr 1/3 m p cp = hps (Tp−Ts ) + hgp (Tp−Tg ) + hfg + Ap ep σ (Tg4−Tp4 )
dt dt (24)
(13) where hfg is the latent heat for the evolution of volatiles from the par-
where Pr and Re are the Prandtle number and Reynolds number of the ticle. In this study, because the fuel particles’ size is small, the con-
inert phase, respectively. hgp can also be derived with the same for- duction heat exchange through the particle is negligible, and so the
mulation but coal particle's properties and hps are derived from model of particle temperature is assumed to be the same throughout the particle.
Chang et al. [18]. As a result, the porosity of the particle is not included in the modeling.

327
A. Salmasi et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 135 (2018) 325–333

2.3. Devolatilization model 3. Computational details

Devolatilization is an endothermic process whereby the heat
transfers from the surrounding to the particle, increases the particle’s
temperature, and causes the release of volatiles from the coal. Different
models have been proposed to simulate the devolatilization process of
solid fuel particles, which vary widely in complexity and needed inputs.
The simplest devolatilization model is a constant-rate model in which
the volatiles, independent of their amount or the particle’s temperature,
are released at a constant rate [19]. In single-rate kinetic model, the
devolatilization rate is related to the concentration of the volatiles re-
maining in the particle by a first-order reaction [20]. The two-rate
devolatilization model uses two parallel and competing reactions for
low and high temperature ranges [21]. The Distributed Activation En-
ergy (DAE) model uses a Gaussian distribution for the activation energy
of the devolatilization process in which determining the parameters for
the Gaussian distribution is the challenge for the model [22].
In contrast to the above models, network models do not depend on
first-order reaction kinetics but instead correlate the devolatilization
rate with the chemical structures and functional groups. Consequently,
these models need more detailed input concerning kinetic parameters
and composition of the coal. Chemical percolation devolatilization
model is one of the network models, which represents the coal structure
transformation as a transformation of chemical bridge network re-
sulting in the products of the process [23].
In this model, coal is treated as a macromolecular array of clusters
with different sizes and types which are connected to each other by two
different types of bridges. These two types of bridges are the labile
bridges, represented by £, and the stable or char bridges represented by
c. The simple reaction sequence of this model is represented as:
The process starts when the chemical bond in a labile bridge breaks
and a reactive bridge intermediate £∗ is formed which is highly unstable
and participates in either of two competitive processes. In one of the
reaction pathways, the reactive bridge is stabilized to produce side
chains (δ) from the reactive bridge fragments. These side chains are
then converted into light gas fragments (g1) through a slow reaction. In
another pathway, the reactive bridge is stabilized to form a stable char
bridge (c) together with the associated release of light gases (g2)
[23,24]. More details about the devolatilization models in general and
also the formulation used in the CPD model can be found in [25].
As can be found in the literature, a large number of parameters
should be determined before utilizing the CPD model for simulating the
more accurate devolatilization process. Fletcher et al. [26] concluded
that, among all the parameters needed to use the CPD model for si-
mulation of the devolatilization process, only 5 parameters should be
calculated and the rest are almost entirely fixed for different kinds of
coal. These 5 parameters are the initial fraction of bridges in the coal
lattice (p0), the initial fraction of char bridges (c0), the lattice co-
ordination number (σ + 1), cluster molecular weight (MWcluster), side
chain molecular weight (MWδ) which should be taken directly from
NMR analysis of the parent coal. Genetti and Fletcher [27] proposed
nonlinear polynomial correlations to calculate four parameters of them
from proximate and ultimate analysis of the coal particle. The variable
p0, σ + 1, MWcluster and MWδ can be calculated by the quadratic fitted
curve using the below equation:
In this study, the devolatilization process and hydrodynamics of a
coal particle are studied in a fluidized bed. The simulated fluidized bed
is a small-scale 2D bed with the size of 150 mm × 300 mm filled with
inert silica sand. The static height of the bed including sand particles
with a diameter of 430 µm and density of 2100 kg/m3 is 100 mm. A
schematic diagram of the fluidized bed and its dimensions are illu-
strated in Fig. 2.
The bed is heated by the high temperature air entering the bed from
the bottom. After the bed is mixed, the coal particle which is sub-bi-
tuminous with different ranges of diameters, is introduced into the bed.
Thereafter, the coal particle’s temperature starts increasing until it
reaches a temperature whereby the volatiles are released. In the first
stage of the study, the concentration is on simulating the changes in the
fuel particle during the devolatilization process considering the effect of
inert particles inside the bed. Moreover, the coal particle hydro-
dynamics is modeled by including the fluidizing gas and bed material’s
interactions on the fuel particle after the injection. As is obvious then,
three different components should be simulated inside the bed, which
are gas phase, inert materials and coal particle. For this purpose, the gas
phase and also the inert phase, because of its high volume fraction
inside the bed, are treated as continuous phases and resolved within the
Eulerian framework. On the other hand, the coal particle inside the bed
is tracked within a Lagrangian framework which will have mass, mo-
mentum and heat transfer with the two continuous phases. In the fol-
lowing study, the temperature history, the mass loss and also the hy-
drodynamics of the fuel particle are calculated during the
devolatilization process inside a fluidized bed.
In order to validate the numerical modeling results, both experi-
mental and numerical results published by Sadhukhan et al. [28],
which have conducted the same investigation on coal combustion in a
fluidized bed, are used.
In the second stage, the simulation is performed ignoring the effect
of inert materials on the heat exchange with the coal particle. So all the
previously mentioned equations are solved with the same assumptions
except that the heat transfer coefficient between the inert phase and the
coal particle, hps, is considered to be zero. The results are then com-
pared to the first stage to illustrate the inert particles’ influence on the
heat transfer coefficient in a fluidized bed. As mentioned, the results of
the current study are validated by the study of Sadhukhan et al. [28],
hence the same materials and properties have been used in this study to
enable comparing the results.
A sub-bituminous coal with different particle diameters of 2.18 mm,
4.36 mm, 6 mm and 10 mm is simulated inside a fluidized bed which is
heated by the hot air entering the bed with a fluidization velocity of
0.24 m/s. The coal samples which are used in the experimental study
are first heated in crucibles in an oven at a temperature of 383 K for two
hours before being used in the fluidized bed, and so the moisture is
completely eliminated and dry coals are used in the experiments [28].
The ultimate and proximate analysis of the sub-bituminous used in this
simulation is presented in Table 2.
Table 1
Correlations for CPD devolatilization model [27].

y = c1 + c2 YC + c3 Yc2 + c4 YH + c5 YH2 + c6 YO + c7 YO2 + c8 YVM + c9 YVM

2
Coefficients MWδ MWcluster p0 σ+1
(25) −1
C1 4.220 e +2
1.301 e+3
4.898 e −5.2105 e+1
C2 −8.647 1.639 e+1 −9.816 e−3 1.6387
where y is p0, σ + 1, MWcluster and MWδ and Y is the mass fraction of
C3 4.639 e−2 −1.875 e−1 1.330 e−4 −1.0755 e−2
each component in the coal. The nonlinear coefficients are also shown C4 −8.473 −4.548 e+2 1.555 e−1 −1.2369
in Table 1: C5 1.182 5.171 e+1 −2.439 e−2 9.3194 e−2
The initial fraction of char bridges is also set to zero in this simu- C6 1.154 −1.007 e+1 7.052 e−3 −1.6567 e−1
lation. The structural parameters of the CPD model will be determined C7 −4.340 e−2 7.608 e−2 2.192 e−4 4.0956 e−3
C8 5.568 e−1 1.360 −1.105 e−2 9.2610 e−3
by this method in the following study (see Fig. 1).
C9 −6.546 e−3 −3.136 e−2 1.009 e−4 −8.2672 e−5

328
A. Salmasi et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 135 (2018) 325–333

3 mm for the numerical simulation. The simulation is conducted with

an unsteady mode and constant time step of 10−4 s. The air inlet en-
tering the bed from the bottom is considered as a uniform gas velocity
and the top boundary of the bed is modeled via constant pressure. The
sidewalls are adiabatic and non-slip boundary condition for both gas
and solid phases are adopted. The SIMPLE algorithm is used to couple
the pressure with the momentum equation.
Fig. 1. The competitive reaction in the CPD model.
4. Results and discussion

In the first step, the hydrodynamics and devolatilization process of a

4.36 mm diameter coal particle injected in the fluidized bed is modeled.
At first, the bed material is fluidized by the air at 973 K temperature
entering the bed. At the 5th second when the bed material is sufficiently
mixed, the 4.36 mm coal particle is injected into the center of the bed.
Because of the momentum exchanged between the coal particle and the
surrounding, the fuel particle starts to move inside the bed, where the
velocity and position of the particle are calculated by the Eqs. (22) and
(23). The hydrodynamics of the fluidized bed at different times with the
position of coal particle is illustrated in Fig. 3, where the volume
fraction of the bed material and also particle’s motion inside the bed is
illustrated.
Fig. 4a and b show, respectively, the horizontal and vertical position
of the fuel particle for a time period of 25.1 s. The results illustrate that
the fuel particle moves in a cyclic pattern in which the vertical position
changes more rapidly than the horizontal position and with a shorter
cycles. This pattern in the fuel particle’s movement is the result of
bubbles’ eruption inside the bed. Bubbles which are formed in the bed
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the fluidized bed. grow while moving upward and carry the fuel particle with them. As
the bubbles reach to the top surface of the bed, they burst and make the
fuel particle to throw up with a great push. The particle ascends in the
Table 2
Ultimate and proximate analysis of the sub-bituminous
bed up to the peak point and then falls back to the bed as a result of its
coal. weight.
Furthermore, it should be mentioned that the forces applying to the
Proximate analysis (%) particle from the bed are below the limit needed for driving the particle
Volatile matter 27
out of the fluidized bed. It is figured out that the particle reaches the
Fixed carbon 58.1
Ash 14.9 maximum height of nearly 200 mm from the bottom of the bed.
As mentioned, during the simulation time, the particle’s tempera-
Ultimate analysis (%)
Carbon 86.41
ture increases until it reaches the point that the devolatilization process
Hydrogen 4.51 starts and the volatiles are released from the particle. Fig. 5 illustrates
Oxygen 7.15 the released volatiles from the particle at different time steps.
Nitrogen 1.82 Fig. 5 shows that, after the particle is injected into the bed and
Sulfur 0.15
heated, its temperature rises and reaches the temperature of the de-
volatilization onset. The volatile release is attained at the time of 2.7 s
Two operating bed temperatures of 973 K and 1123 K with after the injection, which is the time that the fuel particle’s temperature
minimum fluidization velocities of 0.087 m/s and 0.082 m/s are chosen is around 423 k. At first, the rate of volatiles release is so small that it
for the numerical simulation. Final volatile yield for different particle makes it difficult to recognize any mass loss from the particle but, by
sizes, in different temperatures determined from Ref. [28], is also il- the passing of time and more increase in the temperature, the devola-
lustrated in Table 3 as: tilization rate, and so volatiles’ release from the fuel particle, are in-
In the experiment, mass loss of the fuel particle is monitored during creased. The devolatilization process continues until the 25.1 s after the
the thermochemical conversion process. A wire basket is attached to the injection of the particle and all the volatiles leave the particle during
top of the fluidized bed with a microbalance to enable measuring the this time.
fuel’s mass. The basket containing the particles is weighted before The same simulation is done for a fuel particle with the same
starting the test and is then continuously monitored during the tests. As properties and the same bed conditions but with the diameter of
a result, the mass loss history of the particles are determined during the 2.18 mm to compare the results with the experimental and numerical
devolatilization process [28]. results of normalized mass loss of the fuel particle in the fluidized bed,
More details about the fuel particle and inert bed material proper- which is studied in Ref. [28].
ties can be found in Refs. [28,29]. The structural parameters used by Fig. 6 shows the mass loss of fuel particle of diameter 2.18 mm and
the CPD model in the present study determined by Eq. (25) and using 4.36 mm at bed temperatures of 973 K.
the ultimate and proximate analysis of the coal particle are shown in
Table 3
Table 4.
Final volatile yield at various temperatures and particle sizes.
These parameters are used for the CPD model simulation.
The effect of the grid size and grid independence study is performed Particle diameter (mm) 2.18 4.36
in this study. On this basis and via the grid independence analysis, the Final volatile yield at 973 K 0.25 0.22
total number of grids is determined as 5000, with a uniform grid size of Final volatile yield at 1123 K 0.30 0.28

329
A. Salmasi et al.
Table 4
Structural parameters for CPD model in the present
study.
Parameter Value
p0 0.6767
σ+1 4.7226
MWcluster 262.64
MWδ 23.315
c0 0 and the bed, and so the mass loss history of the fuel particle in the
Numerical results of the mass loss illustrated in Fig. 6 compare well
with the experimental and numerical results obtained by Sadhukhan
et al. [28]. Fig. 6 shows that, for a larger particle, the devolatilization
process needs a longer time to start and also the rate of the volatile
release in a larger particle is less than the rate of volatile release of a
smaller particle in the same situation. It is also illustrated that the vo-
latile release from the fuel particle with the size of 2.18 mm and
4.36 mm continues until the particles’ mass drops to 0.75 and 0.77 of
the initial mass, respectively. It approves the total volatile release of the
fuel particles mentioned in Table 3 by Ref. [28] and the errors are only
0.06 and 0.048 for the mentioned particles’ size, which is admissible for
the current simulation.
The temperature of the fuel particle has a great effect on the de-
volatilization onset and the rate of volatiles’ release during the con-
version process. The temperature of the fuel particle is thus illustrated
in Fig. 7 for the particles with sizes of 2.18 mm and 4.36 mm at the bed
temperature of 973 K.
As expected, the temperature rise in the smaller particle takes place
faster compared to the larger particle due to the faster heat transfer to
the surrounding. It is also illustrated that, at first, the rate of tem-
perature increase is high but, by the passing of time, this rate decreases,
which occurs because of the heat transfer reduction between the fuel
particle and the bed by the temperature growth of the coal particle.
In the next step, the simulation is repeated with the same conditions
but with the bed temperature of 1123 K and the results are also com-
pared with Ref. [28]. Figs. 8 and 9 show the mass loss and the tem-
perature history of the fuel particles with a bed temperature of 1123 K,
respectively.
Fig. 8 shows good agreement between the results of the current si-
mulation with Ref. [28]. The experimental results are predicted very
well by the current numerical study, with mean errors of only 0.029 and
0.047 for both the fuel particles with diameters of 2.18 mm and
4.36 mm, respectively. It is significant that the rate of temperature in-
crease and devolatilization are also increased for a particular particle’s
diameter when the temperature of the bed is increased.
As mentioned, most of the studies which have been performed on
the subject of the thermochemical conversion of a fuel particle inside a
fluidized bed have ignored the effect of the inert particles on the heat
transfer coefficient and just simulate the fluidization gas and the fuel
particle, which does not seem to be sufficiently accurate. So, in the next
Fig. 3. Fluidized bed hydrodynamics and position of the fuel particle.
330
Applied Thermal Engineering 135 (2018) 325–333
step, the simulation is performed again for the particle size of 4.36 mm
and the bed’s temperature of 973 K but the inert particles heat exchange
with the fuel particle, and hence its thermal conversion, are not simu-
lated anymore in order to investigate how much difference it makes to
ignore the inert particles. Fig. 10 shows the mass loss of fuel particle of
diameter 4.36 mm at the bed temperature of 973 K with and without
simulation of the heat exchange from inert particles.
As can be seen in Fig. 10, the heat transfer between the fuel particle
fluidized bed, are significantly affected by the inert particles. The re-
sults show that the time needed for all the volatiles to leave the fuel
particle by ignoring the inert particles’ heat transfer coefficient inside
the bed is much higher with the same conditions but with simulating
the effect of inert particles. To investigate the effect of inert particles’
heat transfer coefficient and the fuel particle size on the heat transfer
between the fuel particle and the bed and the devolatilization time si-
multaneously, the simulations are performed repetitively, with particle
diameters of 2.18 mm, 4.36 mm, 6 mm and 10 mm at the bed tem-
perature of 973 K through the two different statuses. Fig. 11 shows the
time interval required for the fuel particle losing the volatiles during the
devolatilization process inside the bed with and without considering
the inert particles’ effect on heat transfer.
As can be seen in Fig. 11, the heat transfer between the fuel particle
and the bed, and so the mass loss history of the fuel particle in the
fluidized bed, is significantly affected by the inert particles’ presence.
The results show that the time needed for all the volatiles to leave the
fuel particle without simulating the inert particles’ heat transfer coef-
ficient inside the bed is much higher with the same conditions but with
including the effect of inert particles. The results also indicate that the
effect of the inert particles on the heat transfer coefficient between the
fuel particle and the bed is also increased by increasing the diameter of
the fuel particle. The difference between the devolatilization time with
and without simulation of the inert particles’ heat transfer coefficient is
significantly greater in larger fuel particle sizes, which makes it in-
consequential to simulate the thermochemical conversion of a coal
particle in a fluidized bed without simulating the effect of inert particles
on the heat transfer inside the bed. The mass loss of fuel particles with
diameters of 2.18 mm, 4.36 mm, 6 mm and 10 mm at bed temperature
of 1123 K with and without simulation of the inert particles’ heat ex-
change to the fuel particle is also illustrated in Fig. 12.
Fig. 12 shows similar results, which indicates that inert particles
have a great effect on the devolatilization time. There is a difference
between the devolatilization time of a fuel particle with the same
conditions but considering the inert particles’ heat exchange to the fuel
particle and ignoring it and the difference is also increased by in-
creasing the fuel particle diameter. The results also indicate that the
difference between the devolatilization times of the two cases decreases
with an increase in bed temperature. In other words, one can also
conclude that the effect of inert particles on the heat transfer coefficient
between the fuel particle and the bed is somewhat decreased with the
increase of the bed’s temperature. As a result, the study shows that it is
A. Salmasi et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 135 (2018) 325–333

Fig. 4. Time history of: (a) horizontal position, and (b) vertical position time history of the 4.26 mm fuel particle.

not reasonable to simulate the thermochemical conversion of a fuel 5. Conclusion

particle in a fluidized bed without simulating the effect of inert material
on the heat transfer coefficient inside the bed. The devolatilization process of a sub-bituminous coal was modeled
inside a 2D fluidized bed including the inert bed materials. The simu-
lation was performed in two different stages, once with considering the

Fig. 5. Mass fraction of the volatiles released from the particle during devolatilization.

331
A. Salmasi et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 135 (2018) 325–333

Fig. 6. Normalized mass loss of fuel particles with size of 2.18 mm and 4.36 mm at the
temperature of 973 K.

Fig. 9. Temperature history of 2.18 mm and 4.36 mm fuel particles at the temperature of
1123 K.

Fig. 7. Temperature history of fuel particles with size of 2.18 mm and 4.36 mm fuel
particle at the temperature of 973 K.

Fig. 10. Normalized mass loss of 4.36 mm fuel particle at the temperature of 973 K with
and without simulation of the inert particles’ heat exchange.

Fig. 8. Normalized mass loss of fuel particles with size of 2.18 mm and 4.36 mm fuel
particle at the temperature of 1123 K.
effect of inert particles inside the bed, and once with ignoring its effect
on the heat transfer inside the bed. In the first stage, multiphase flow
simulation was done in an Eulerian-Eulerian-Lagrangian framework,
simulating the gas and bed material in an Eulerian framework and the
fuel particle was tracked by a Lagrangian technique. The hydro-
dynamics and devolatilization process of the fuel particle were simu-
lated in the fluidized bed including the forces of the other components
inside the bed which affect the fuel particle. The temperature history
and mass loss of the fuel particle were compared with the experimental
and numerical results of some of the published literature, found at the
end of this article, presented the good agreement between them.
In the second stage, the simulation was repeated with the same
conditions but without considering the inert particles’ heat exchange to
the fuel particle. The results showed that ignoring the heat transfer
coefficient between the inert particles and the coal particle will cause a
difference in the devolatilization time comparing with the case of inert
particles’ heat exchange consideration. It was shown that ignoring the
inert particles’ heat exchange to the fuel particle makes the

332
A. Salmasi et al.
Fig. 11. Time of fuel particle devolatilization at the temperature of 973 K with and
without simulation of the inert particles’ heat transfer to the fuel particle.
Fig. 12. Time of fuel particle devolatilization at the temperature of 1123 K with and
without simulation of the inert particles’ heat transfer to the fuel particle.
devolatilization time of the fuel particles longer, and this trend in-
creases with the increase of the particles’ diameter. As a result, it seems
irrational to simulate devolatilization process of a fuel particle in a
fluidized bed ignoring the heat transfer coefficient between the inert
material and the fuel particle.
References
[1] S.N. Oka, Fluidized Bed Combustion, Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, 2004.
333
Applied Thermal Engineering 135 (2018) 325–333
[2] G.M. Kimber, M.D. Gray, Rapid devolatilization of small coal particles, Combust.
Flame 12 (1967) 360–370.
[3] K.K. Pillai, The influence of coal type on devolatilization and combustion in flui-
dized beds, J. Instit. Energy 54 (1981) 142–150.
[4] P.R. Solomon, D.G. Hamblen, R.M. Carangelo, M.A. Serio, G.V. Deshpande, General
model of coal devolatilization, Energy Fuel 2 (1988) 405–422.
[5] D.P. Ross, C.A. Heidenreich, D.K. Zhang, Devolatilization times of coal particles in a
fluidized-bed, Fuel 79 (2000) 873–883.
[6] M. Stenseng, A. Jensen, K. Dam-Johansen, Investigation of biomass pyrolysis by
thermogravimetric analysis and differential scanning calorimetry, J. Anal. Appl.
Pyrol. 58 (2001) 765–780.
[7] S.I. Singh, A. Brink, M. Hupa, CFD modeling to study fluidized bed combustion and
gasification, Appl. Therm. Eng. 52 (2013) 585–614.
[8] H. Watanabe, M. Otaka, Numerical simulation of coal gasification in entrained flow
coal gasifier, Fuel 85 (2006) 1935–1943.
[9] Z. Deng, R. Xiao, B. Jin, H. Huang, L. Shen, Q. Song, Q. Li, Computational fluid
dynamics modeling of coal gasification in a pressurized spout-fluid bed, Energy Fuel
22 (2008) 1560–1569.
[10] W. Zhou, C.S. Zhao, L. Duan, D. Liu, X.P. Chen, CFD modeling of oxy-coal com-
bustion in circulating fluidized bed, Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 5 (6) (2011)
1489–1497.
[11] A.E. Wildegger-Gaissmaier, P.K. Agarwal, Drying and devolatilization of large coal
particles under combustion condition, Fuel 69 (1990) 45–52.
[12] C. Bu, B. Leckner, X. Chen, D. Pallarès, D. Liu, A. Gómez-Barea, Devolatilization of a
single fuel particle in a fluidized bed under oxy-combustion conditions. Part A:
experimental results, Combust Flame 162 (3) (2015) 797–808.
[13] K. Papadikisa, S. Gub, A.V. Bridgwater, CFD modelling of the fast pyrolysis of
biomass in fluidised bed reactors. Part B Heat, momentum and mass transport in
bubbling fluidised beds, Chem. Eng. Sci. 64 (2009) 1036–1045.
[14] D. Gidaspow, Multiphase Flow and Fluidization: Continuum and Kinetic Theory
Descriptions, Academic Press, Cambridge MA, 1994.
[15] M. Syamlal, The Particle–Particle Drag Term in a Multiparticle Model of
Fluidization, Topical Report, DOE/MC/21353-2373, NTIS/DE87006500, National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, 1987.
[16] J.L. Lebowitz, Exact solution of generalized Percus-Yevick equation for a mixture of
hard spheres, Phys. Rev. A 133 (1964) 895–899.
[17] D. Gunn, Transfer of heat or mass to particles in fixed and fluidised beds, Int. J. Heat
Mass Transf. 21 (1978) 467–476.
[18] J. Chang, G. Wang, J. Gao, K. Zhang, H. Chen, Y. Yang, CFD modeling of parti-
cle–particle heat transfer in dense gas–solid fluidized beds of binary mixture,
Powder Technol. 217 (2012) 50–60.
[19] M.M. Baum, P.J. Street, Predicting the combustion behavior of coal particles,
Combust. Sci. Technol. 3 (1971) 231–243.
[20] S. Badzioch, P.G.W. Hawksley, Kinetics of thermal decomposition of pulverized coal
particles, Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 9 (1970) 521–530.
[21] H. Kobayashi, J.B. Howard, A.F. Sarofim, Coal Devolatilization at High
Temperatures, 16(1), 1977, pp. 411–425.
[22] D.B. Anthony, J.B. Howard, Coal devolatilization and hydrogastification, AICHE J.
22 (4) (1976) 625–656.
[23] W.C.R. Chan, M. Kelbon, B.B. Krieger, Modelling and experimental verification of
physical and chemical processes during pyrolysis of a large biomass particle, Fuel
64 (1985) 1505–1513.
[24] T. Fletcher, A.R. Kerstein, R.J. Pugmire, M. Solum, D.M. Grant, A Chemical
Percolation Model for Devolatilization: Summary, Brigham Young University, 1999.
[25] R.C. Borah, P. Ghosh, P.G. Rao, A review on devolatilization of coal in fluidized bed,
Int. J. Energy Res. 35 (2011) 929–963.
[26] T.H. Fletcher, A.R. Kerstein, R.J. Pugmire, M. Solum, D.M. Grant, Chemical per-
colation model for devolatilization: 3. Direct use of 13C NMR data to predict effects
of coal type, Energy Fuel 6 (1992) 414–431.
[27] D. Genetti, T.H. Fletcher, Development and application of a correlation of 13CNMR
chemical structural analyses of coal based on elemental composition and volatile
matter content, Energy Fuel 13 (1999) 60–68.
[28] A.K. Sadhukhan, P. Gupta, R.K. Saha, Modeling and experimental studies on single
particle coal devolatilization and residual char combustion in fluidized bed, Fuel 90
(2011) 2132–2141.
[29] A. Sadhukhan, P. Gupta, R. Saha, Analysis of the dynamics of coal char combustion
with ignition and extinction phenomena: shrinking core model, Int. J. Chem. Kinet.
40 (9) (2008) 569–582.