Energy 191 (2020) 116515

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

CFD modeling of gasification process in tapered fluidized bed gasifier

Hossein Askaripour
Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This article presents a two-dimensional simulation of the coal gasification in tapered fluidized bed
Received 26 August 2019 gasifier. The effects of tapered angle, gasifier temperature, velocity of gasifying agent, and steam-to-air
Received in revised form ratio on the gas compositions, lower heating value (LHV), and higher heating value (HHV) were exam-
23 October 2019
ined. In order to find the appropriate operating conditions of coal gasification, carbon conversion effi-
Accepted 7 November 2019
ciency (CCE) and cold gas efficiency (CGE) were also explored. It was found that with an increase of the
Available online 11 November 2019
gasifier temperature, CCE and CGE of the tapered gasifier diminishes. Increasing tapered angle results in
a decrease of the LHV and HHV of the gas products, whereas the CCE of gasification process increases.
Keywords:
Tapered fluidized bed gasifier
The CGE of the gasifier increases as the tapered angle goes up from 3 to 5
, but it slightly varies with a
Tapered angle further increase of the tapered angle from 5 to 11
. The results indicate that as the velocity of gasifying
Gasifier temperature agent increases, LHV and HHV of the product gas drop while CCE of the gasifier enhances. It was also
Steam-to-air ratio found that the concentrations of H2, CO, and CO2 decrease with an increase in the steam-to-air ratio.
Eulerian modeling © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Lagrangian [4e6] and Eulerian-Eulerian [7e9] models. With an

Gasification is a thermochemical process converting the solid
fuels (e.g., coal, biomass, etc.) into a gaseous mixture that contains
mainly methane, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and
nitrogen. In addition to the product gases, some byproducts like
ash, tar, char particles, and heavier hydrocarbons are also produced
from the gasification reactions [1]. The application of the fluidized
bed gasifiers for gasifying solid fuels has attracted much attention
because of high rate of heat and mass transfer and good mixing
properties. The complicated behavior of hydrodynamics and
chemical reactions in gasifiers necessitates performing experi-
mental and theoretical works to obtain enough valuable informa-
tion about the fluidized bed gasifiers in different sizes [2,3].
To describe the gasification process in a fluidized bed gasifier,
two modeling approaches have been proposed in the literature, i.e.,
equilibrium modeling and kinetic modeling [1]. Because the equi-
librium modeling does not involve the hydrodynamics of gas and
solid phases, this approach is independent of the gasifier type.
Based on the calculation process of the product gas compositions,
the first approach is classified into stoichiometric and non-
stoichiometric models. However, the kinetic modeling considers
the fluidized bed hydrodynamics along with the reaction kinetics
[1]. In this regard, the second approach is classified into Eulerian-
E-mail address: h_askaripour@yahoo.com.
increase in the computational capability of computers, researchers
become more interested in the CFD modeling of gasification pro-
cess using Eulerian-Lagrangian and Eulerian-Eulerian approaches.
Lv et al. [10] conducted an experimental work to explore the
effects of biomass particle size, equivalence ratio, and reactor
temperature on the gas compositions, lower heating value (LHV),
and carbon conversion efficiency (CCE). It was found that with an
increase in the reactor temperature, hydrogen production
increased and with an increase in the equivalence ratio, LHV of the
fuel gas decreased. Gerber et al. [11] applied a Eulerian model to
simulate the wood gasification in a fluidized bed gasifier. They
examined the effects of different parameters including the reactor
throughput, static bed height, feeding rate, and the kinetics of
primary pyrolysis. The results showed that operating parameters
slightly affected the outlet gas compositions while amount of the
tar produced in the gasifier was strongly dependent on the oper-
ating and model parameters. The experimental study of biomass
gasification was carried out in interconnected fluidized beds [12].
The effects of steam to biomass (S/B) ratio and reactor temperature
on the tar content, carbon gasification, and composition of H2-rich
gas were investigated. It was found that S/B ratio slightly affected
the gas compositions and with an increase in the reactor temper-
ature, H2 content decreased and CO content increased. A two-
dimensional CFD study was carried out by Couto et al. [13] to
investigate the effect of oxygen-enriched air on the gasification
temperature and gas compositions. The results showed that as the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116515
0360-5442/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 H. Askaripour / Energy 191 (2020) 116515

oxygen content of the inlet air increased, H2 and N2 mole fractions angle, gasifier temperature, steam-to-air ratio, and velocity of
decreased while CO2 mole fraction increased. gasifying agent on the gas compositions, lower and higher heating
The biomass gasification in a fluidized bed reactor was simu- values, cold gas efficiency, and carbon conversion efficiency were
lated by Ku et al. [14] using CFD-DEM model, and the effects of comprehensively explored.
operating parameters such as S/B ratio, injection position of
biomass, and temperature were studied. The results showed that 2. Mathematical model
with an increase of the S/B ratio, mole fractions of CO2 and H2
increased while that of CO decreased. The gasification of coffee In the present study, an unsteady-state Eulerian multiphase
husks was simulated using Eulerian-Eulerian approach [15] and the model with the kinetic theory of granular flow (KTGF) was
effects of moisture content and equivalence ratio on the reactor employed to simulate the coal gasification in tapered fluidized bed
temperature, higher heating value (HHV), and cold gas efficiency gasifier. The balance equations of mass, momentum, turbulence,
(CGE) were studied. It was found that the moisture content had energy, and species transport for gas and solid phases along with
negative effect on the CGE and HHV and with an increase in the the equation of granular temperature for the solid phase were
equivalence ratio, mole fractions of CH4, H2, and CO decreased and solved together. The constitutive relations required for the solid
those of CO2 and N2 increased. Xia et al. [16] used Eulerian approach phase equations were also obtained based on the KTGF to model
to simulate the process of coal gasification in a fluidized bed with a the stresses of solid particles. Here the governing equations for gas
pair of embedded high-speed jets. The results showed that the and solid phases are explained in detail, then pyrolysis, homoge-
embedded jets could split large gas bubbles and enhance the neous gas phase reactions, and heterogeneous gasification re-
contacts between gas and solid phases. In addition, conversion of actions are presented.
steam and carbon for the embedded jets gasifier was higher than
that for the conventional gasifier. The biomass gasification was 2.1. Hydrodynamic equations
studied using a two-dimensional Eulerian model in a bubbling
fluidized bed gasifier [17]. The effects of steam temperature, S/B To model the hydrodynamics of gas and solid phases in gasifi-
ratio, and equivalence ratio on the gas compositions were exam- cation process using Eulerian approach, conservation equations of
ined. It was found that with an increase in S/B ratio from 0.5 to 1.5, mass and momentum for each phase closed with appropriate
H2 concentration enhanced 87% and with an increase in equiva- constitutive relations should be solved. The interactions between
lence ratio from 0.15 to 0.4, H2 concentration lowered 72%. gas and solid phases are taken into account by introducing addi-
To examine the effect of biomass properties, ten types of tional terms in conservation equations. The continuity equations
biomass fuels were considered by Gonza
lez-Va
zquez et al. [18] and for gas and solid phases can be represented by Ref. [1].
the gasification performance and gas compositions were studied.
v


The correlations obtained for the biomass gasification showed that ag rg þ V: ag rg !
v g ¼ Sgs (1)
carbon and volatile matter contents, and HHV of biomass have vt
positive effects on the CO and calorific value of product gas. An
v
experimental work in a two-stage fluidized bed gasifier was con- ðas rs Þ þ V:ðas rs !
v s Þ ¼ Ssg (2)
ducted using the rice straw as biomass fuel [19]. The results indi- vt
cated that the gasifier performance improved as the temperature
where a is the volume fraction, r is the density, ! v is the velocity,
increased and HHV of the product gas decreased with an increase in
and subscripts g and s denote the gas and solid phases, respectively.
equivalence ratio. The steam gasification of biomass in a fluidized
The source terms, Sgs and Ssg , are the mass transfer between gas and
bed reactor was simulated using coarse grain model [20]. The ef-
solid phases owing to the heterogeneous chemical reactions and
fects of S/B ratio and operating temperature on the gas composi-
can be evaluated from:
tions were studied and it was found that increasing the S/B ratio led
to an increase in H2 mole fraction while the mole fraction of CO X
decreased. It was also found that coarse grain model could reliably
Sgs ¼  Ssg ¼ wi gi Rhet;i (3)
predict the gasification process with shorter computational time
where wi , gi , and Rhet;i are the molecular weight, stoichiometric
than the discrete element method. Meng et al. [21] studied the
coefficient, and reaction rate of species i, respectively.
effect of different types of gasifying agents (oxygen-steam, air,
To consider the effect of momentum and energy carried along
oxygen-enriched air, and air-steam) on the gasification process of a
with the exchanged mass between gas and solid phases, the source
novel pilot scale fluidized bed. The results indicated that type of the
terms are added to the momentum and energy equations. The
gasifying agent significantly affected the product gas compositions.
momentum equations for gas and solid phases can be expressed as
The respective LHV and H2 content for oxygen-enriched air and air-
follows [1]:
steam gasifying agents were higher than that the air was only used.
Tapered fluidized beds have received lots of attention because of v

 !
their capability for fluidization of solids with different properties ag rg !
v g þ V: ag rg !
v g!
v g ¼  ag Vp þ V:tg þ ag rg g
vt
 (4)
[22] and better mixing of solid and fluid phases [23]. Gradual
þ Kgs !v s !
v g þ Sgs !vg
decrease of the gas velocity, due to change in the cross-sectional
area of the column, promotes the use of tapered fluidized beds in
v !
chemical processes, like solid fuel combustion or gasification, ðas rs !
v s Þ þ V:ðas rs !
v s!
v s Þ ¼  as Vp  Vps þ V:ts þ as rs g
which encounter continuous decreasing size of particles. Despite vt
! 
the numerous investigations performed about the gasification þ Kgs v g  !
v s þ Ssg !vs
process, no simulation or experimental study for tapered fluidized (5)
bed gasifiers have been reported to date. Accordingly, the present
!
author was convinced to conduct a study regarding this type of where p is the pressure, t is the stress tensor, g is the gravitational
gasifiers. To validate the simulation results, predictions for the acceleration, and Kgs is the interphase momentum exchange coef-
product gas compositions were compared with the experimental ficient. The stress-strain tensors of gas and solid phases can be
data of a cylindrical gasifier [24]. In addition, the effects of tapered represented by
 H. Askaripour / Energy 191 (2020) 116515 3

  viscosity, can be defined as a function of granular temperature. The

2

tg ¼ ag rg V!
v g þ!
v g  ag mg V:!
T algebraic form of the granular temperature was employed in this
vg I (6)
3 study [16]:
   
ts ¼ as rs V! v s þ as ls  ms V:!
v s þ!
T
v sI
2
(7) ð  ps I þ ts Þ : V!
v s  gQs ¼ 0 (15)
3
where
where m and l are the shear and bulk viscosities, respectively.
The expression proposed by Lun et al. [25] was applied for

12 1  e2ss g0;ss 3
evaluating the bulk viscosity of solid phase: gQs ¼ pffiffiffi rs a2s Q2s (16)
ds p
4 Q 1
s
ls ¼ as rs ds g0;ss ð1 þ ess Þ
2
(8)
3 p
The shear viscosity of particles, that is a combination of kinetic,
collisional, and frictional terms, can be given by Ref. [3]. 2.2. k-ε Turbulence equations
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

2
10rs ds Qs p 4 Various turbulence models have been proposed in the literature
ms ¼ 1 þ as g0;ss ð1 þ ess Þ to compute the fluctuations in a turbulent flow. In this work, the
96ð1 þ ess Þas g0;ss 5
Q 1 p sin f standard k-ε turbulence model consisted of two separate transport
4 2 s 2 s
þ as rs ds g0;ss ð1 þ ess Þ þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (9) equations for turbulent kinetic energy and dissipation rate was
5 p 2 I2D employed. Because of reasonable accuracy and robustness in
simulation of the industrial mass and heat transfer phenomena,
where ds is the particle diameter, rs is the particle density, g0;ss is this semi-empirical model becomes popular. The turbulent kinetic
the radial distribution function, ess is the coefficient of restitution, energy, k, and its dissipation rate, ε, can be obtained from the
Qs is the granular temperature, ps is the solid pressure, f is the following transport equations [29]:
angle of internal friction, and I2D is the second invariant of devia-
 
tory stress tensor. vðrm kÞ mt;m
The solid phase pressure and radial distribution function can be þ V:ðrm !
v m kÞ ¼ V: Vk þ Gk;m  rm ε (17)
vt sk
evaluated by Ref. [3]:
 
vðrm εÞ mt;m ε

ps ¼ as rs Qs þ 2rs ð1 þ ess Þa2s g0;ss Qs (10) þ V:ðrm !
v m εÞ ¼ V: Vε þ C1ε Gk;m  C2ε rm ε
vt sε k
 
(18)
as 1=3 1
g0;ss ¼ 1  (11)
as;max where
The interphase momentum exchange coefficient is used to  
Gk;m ¼ mt;m V! v m : V!
v m þ V!
T
determine the drag force between gas and solid phases. The drag vm (19)
model of Gidaspow [26] that is a combination of Wen-Yu equation
[27] for the dilute phases (as < 0:2) and Ergun equation [28] for the where sk and sε are the inverse turbulent Prandtl number for k and
dense phases (as > 0:2) was applied. ε, respectively, and C1ε and C2ε are the model constants. In addition,
8 !  rm is the mixture density, !v m is the mixture velocity, and mt;m is the
> a2s mg vs! v g turbulent viscosity that can be computed, respectively, from
>
> 150 þ 1:75rg as ag  0:8
>
< ag d2 s
ds Ref. [29]:
Kgs ¼ (12) X
>
> ! ! 

: 3C as rg v s  v g a1:65
>
> rm ¼ ai ri (20)
ag > 0:8
4 D ds g
P
In which ! ar!v
v m ¼ Pi i i (21)
8 ai ri
>
< 24 h
0:687 i
1 þ 0:15 ag Res Res  1000
CD ¼ ag Res
>
: k2
0:44 Res > 1000 mt;m ¼ rm Cm (22)
ε
(13)
 
rg ds !
vg !
v s
Res ¼ (14)
mg 2.3. Conservation equations of species transport and energy

where CD and Res are the drag coefficient and solid Reynolds
number, respectively.
Analogous with the gas temperature in thermodynamics, the
kinetic energy associated with the fluctuations of solid particles can
be represented by a pseudo-thermal temperature. The equation of
granular temperature is derived on the basis of kinetic theory of
granular flow and the properties of particles, such as pressure and
To model the coal gasification in tapered fluidized bed gasifier,
the equations of energy and species transport for gas and solid
phases should be coupled with hydrodynamic equations of the
gasifier. The gas phase is considered to be a multicomponent
mixture of O2, N2, H2O, CO, CO2, H2, and CH4 while the solid phase
consists of raw coal, inert sand and char. The conservation equation
of species transport for ith species can be given by Ref. [1].
4 H. Askaripour / Energy 191 (2020) 116515

 !  The composition of raw coal was determined based on the

v


ag rg Yg;i þ V: ag rg !
v g Yg;i ¼  V: ag J g;i þ ag Rg;i þ Rhet;i proximate and ultimate analyses shown in Table 1. Because of small
vt percent of nitrogen and sulfur, the chemical reactions of these
(23) species were ignored and the following single-equation model was
! considered for the coal pyrolysis [31]:
where Yg;i , J g;i , Rg;i , and Rhet;i are the mass fraction, diffusion flux,
and the homogeneous and heterogeneous reaction rate for species k
Coal!ð1  hÞchar þ h volatile (R2)
i, respectively. The modified Fick’s law was employed to calculate
the diffusion flux of species i in the turbulent flow [1]: In which the reaction rate can be given by Ref. [31]:
   
! m 12581
J g;i ¼  rg Di;m þ t VYg;i (24) rc ¼ 2  105 exp Cc (30)
Sct T
In which
where Cc is the concentration of unreacted coal particles and h is
1X the pyrolysis coefficient. The value of h was set to 0.3 [31].
Di;m ¼ P X i (25)
j
Di;j 2.5. Homogeneous gas phase reactions
jsi

where Sct , Di;m , Xi , and Di;j are the turbulent Schmidt number, mass The following homogeneous gas phase reactions were consid-
diffusion coefficient of species i in the mixture, mole fraction of ered in this study:
species i, and binary diffusion coefficient of species i and j,
H2 þ 0:5O2 /H2 O (R3)
respectively.
Accounting the mechanisms of heat transfer in each phase and
the heat exchange between phases, the energy conservation CH4 þ 2O2 /CO2 þ 2H2 O (R4)
equations for gas and solid phases are obtained as follows [16]:
CO þ 0:5O2 /CO2 (R5)
v

 vpg
ag rg hg þ V: ag rg !
v g hg ¼ ag þ tg
vt vt CO þ H2 O4H2 þ CO2


 (R6)
: V!v g þ V: ag kg VTg þ hgs Tg  Ts þ Sgs hg þ DHg (26)
The first three reactions are the exothermic oxidation of H2, CH4,
and CO and the fourth one is the water-gas shift reaction. The ki-
v vps
ðas rs hs Þ þ V:ðas rs !
v s hs Þ ¼ as þ ts netic rate of these reactions are given below [32].
vt vt
!
  
: V v s þ V:ðas ks VTs Þ þ hgs Ts  Tg þ Ssg hs (27) 3430 1:5
r3 ¼ 5:159  1015 exp  T g CO2 C 1:5
H2 (31)
Tg
where h is the specific enthalpy, k is the thermal conductivity, T is
the temperature, hgs is the heat transfer coefficient between gas  
15700 1
and solid phases, and DHg is the heat of homogeneous gas phase r4 ¼ 3:552  1014 exp  T g CCH4 CO2 (32)
reactions. The heat transfer coefficient between phases is a function
Tg
of solid phase Nusselt number, Nus , and can be computed from  
Ref. [3]. 16000
r5 ¼ 1:0  1015 exp  CCO C 0:5
O2 (33)
Tg
6kg ag as Nus
hgs ¼ (28)  

d2s 1510 CCO2 CH2

r6 ¼ 2780 exp  CCO CH2 O 

Tg 0:0265 exp 3968 Tg
 
Nus ¼ 7  10ag þ 5a2g (34)
0 1
1
  1
 @1 þ 0:7Re0:2 3A
= =
s Pr þ 1:33  2:4ag þ 1:2a2g Re0:7
s Pr
3

2.6. Heterogeneous gasification reactions

(29)
The solid char particles produced via the pyrolysis reaction are
where Pr is the Prandtl number. gasified in heterogeneous reactions. The gasification reactions
depend on the gaseous species surrounding atmosphere of char
particles. The four heterogeneous reactions considered here are as
2.4. Reaction kinetics of coal pyrolysis follows:

C þ H2 O/CO þ H2 (R7)
The thermochemical decomposition of solid coal in the absence
of air or oxygen is termed pyrolysis and is a very complex process
resulting a mixture of gaseous species and carbonaceous particles C þ CO2 /2CO (R8)
known as char. Various models for pyrolysis reactions have been
proposed in the literature [30]. In this work, the reaction of coal C þ O2 /CO2 (R9)
pyrolysis and its products were considered as follows:
C þ 2H2 /CH4 (R10)
Coal / Char þ H2O þ Ash þ Volatile (CO, CH4, CO2, H2) (R1)
 H. Askaripour / Energy 191 (2020) 116515 5

The reaction kinetic and diffusion rate were both considered in

the heterogeneous reactions of char. The rate of above reactions can Dg Sh
kdiff ¼ (44)
be expressed as [11]: RTs ds

r7 ¼ k7;het CH2 O (35) Sh ¼ 2 þ 0:6Re1=2 Sc1=3 (45)

r8 ¼ k8;het CCO2 (36) where kdiff and kkin are the diffusion and the kinetic rate constants,
and Sh, Dg , R, and Sc are the Sherwood number, gas phase diffusion
r9 ¼ k9;het CO2 (37) coefficient, universal gas constant, and the Schmidt number,
respectively.

r10 ¼ k10;het CH2 (38)

2.7. Performance evaluation of gasification process
The heterogeneous rate constant, khet , is given by Ref. [33]:
!1 To assess the performance of gasification process in tapered
1 1 fluidized bed gasifier, lower heating value (LHV), higher heating
khet ¼ þ (39)
kdiff kkin value (HHV), carbon conversion efficiency (CCE), and cold gas ef-
ficiency (CGE) are defined as follows [10,18]:

 . 
LHVg MJ Nm3 ¼ 11:76  ð%COÞ þ 11:882  ð%H2 Þ þ 37:024  ð%CH4 Þ (46)

In which [11].
 .   . 
  HHVg MJ Nm3 ¼ LHVg MJ Nm3 þ 1:83  ð%H2 OÞ (47)
11200
k7;kin ¼ 1:04  103 Ts exp  (40)
Ts
Vg  1000  ð%CH4 þ %CO þ %CO2 Þ  12=22:4
CCEð%Þ ¼  100
  W  %C
15600
k8;kin ¼ 3:42Ts exp  (41) (48)
Ts
m_ g HHVg
  CGEð%Þ ¼  100 (49)
15600 m_ c HHVc
k9;kin ¼ 3:42Ts exp  (42)
Ts
where %CO, %H2 , %CH4 , and %CO2 are the gas species concentration,
Vg is the volumetric flow rate of product gas, W is the coal feeding
 
15600 rate, and %C is the carbon content in the ultimate analysis of coal. In
k10;kin ¼ 3:42  103 Ts exp  (43) addition, m_ g and m_ c are the mass flow rates, and HHVg and HHVc
Ts
are the higher heating values for the product gas and coal,
and [33]. respectively.

2.8. Initial and boundary conditions

Table 1
Properties of raw coal and operating conditions [24].
A schematic representation of the tapered fluidized bed gasifier
Proximate analysis (wt.%) is shown in Fig. 1. The gasifier is composed of a tapered section at
Moisture 2.6 the bottom connected to a cylindrical section at the top. As shown
Volatile matter 41.8 in this figure, inlet and outlet diameters of the gasifier are 10 and
Fixed carbon 54.1 22 cm, respectively, and the entire height of the gasifier is 2 m. The
Ash 1.5
velocity-inlet boundary condition was set for the gasifying agent (a
Ultimate analysis (wt.%)
Carbon 75.3 mixture of air and steam) and coal particles at the inlet, whereas
Hydrogen 5.4 the pressure-outlet boundary condition was set at the outlet of
Nitrogen 1.8 gasifier. Temperature and mass fractions of the gas species were
Oxygen 15.6
also set at the gasifier inlet. No-slip wall boundary condition was set
Sulfur 0.4
Ash 1.5
at the gasifier walls, and the heat flux and diffusion flux of gas
Bed materials species into the walls were considered to be zero. Initially, a given
Particle density (kg/m3) 1250 height of tapered gasifier was filled with inert sand with a volume
Particle size (mm) 0.62 fraction of 0.48, and the velocities of gas and solid phases were
Higher heating value (kJ/kg) 29695
considered to be zero.
Operating conditions Case #1 Case #2
Air supply, Fa (kg/h) 19.4 21.9
Steam supply, Fs (kg/h) 4.6 4.6 2.9. Solution procedure
Coal feed, Fc (kg/h) 8.0 8.0
Inlet temperature of air and steam, Tin (
C) 422 420
Governing equations of continuity, momentum, energy,
6 H. Askaripour / Energy 191 (2020) 116515

appropriate mesh size, the gasifier was simulated with the grid
numbers of 16  360, 22  400, and 27  440 and molar fractions of
CH4, CO, CO2, H2, and N2 in the product gas as well as temperature
distribution along the gasifier were compared. The results indicated
that increasing the grid number more than 22  400 (Dx ¼ 10 mm
and Dy ¼ 5 mm) insignificantly influences the simulation results.
Therefore, this mesh size was used in the rest of these simulations.
In the following subsections, a comparison of the species molar
fractions in the product gas between simulation results and
experimental data [24] is initially presented, then the effects of
different parameters including the tapered angle, gasifier temper-
ature, steam-to-air ratio, and the velocity of gasifying agent on the
product gas compositions, lower and higher heating values, cold
gas efficiency, and the carbon conversion efficiency are explored.
The simulation parameters and operating conditions of the tapered
gasifier are summarized in Table 2.

3.1. Validation

To verify the validity of the present modeling, validation with

experimental data is essential. In this study, experimental data
reported in Ref. [24] for dry compositions of the product gas in a
cylindrical gasifier were compared with the simulation results.
Ocampo et al. [24] considered a cylindrical reactor with a height of
2 m and a diameter of 22 cm and a mixture of coal and limestone
was introduced into the gasifier. They experimentally measured the
gas concentrations at various operating conditions such as inlet
temperature, and flow rates of gas and solid. The characteristics of
coal used in their experiments were the same as reported in Table 1.
Fig. 2(a) and (b) illustrates gas compositions at the gasifier outlet
for the two operating conditions expressed in Table 1. It can be seen
that the predictions obtained from simulation are in good agree-
ment with the experimental data and the mean absolute error for
molar fractions of the gaseous species are 1.4% and 3.2% for Fig. 2(a)
and (b), respectively; therefore, the validity of the present modeling
can be confirmed. However, the results of these figures indicate
that there is a small underestimation for H2 and CO2 molar fractions
as well as small overestimation for CO, CH4, and N2 molar fractions.
The first reason for the discrepancies between simulations and
experiments can be attributed to simplification of gasifier geometry
from 3D to 2D configuration. The second reason may be owing to
the uncertainty of kinetic parameters applied to heterogeneous
Fig. 1. A schematic representation of tapered fluidized bed gasifier. reactions, because different kinetic parameters were proposed in
the literature for heterogeneous reactions. As stated above, Ocampo
et al. [24] used a mixture of coal and limestone as inlet feed in their
experiments, whereas the coal was only considered in these sim-
turbulence, and species transport for gas and solid phases were
ulations. Ignoring the effects of chemical reactions relating to
solved using finite volume method (FVM) to simulate coal gasifi-
cation in tapered gasifier. The phase-coupled SIMPLE algorithm was
employed to couple the pressure and velocity equations, and the Table 2
first order upwind scheme was applied for the spatial discretization Values of simulation parameters and operating conditions used in the CFD
of volume fraction, momentum, energy, species, and turbulence. In simulation.
addition, first order implicit scheme was applied for the time dis- Parameter Value
cretization, and a time step of 3  104 s with a maximum number
Specularity coefficient 0.5
of 25 iterations for each time step were used in the simulations. The Particle-wall restitution coefficient 0.9
simulation runs were performed for 25 s, the initial 10 s was Particle-particle restitution coefficient 0.9
considered as the start-up period and the variables of interest Angle of internal friction (
) 30
Maximum packing limit (as,max) 0.64
(velocities, temperatures, and gas phase concentrations) were
Gasifier height (m) 2.0
averaged for the rest 15 s duration. Inlet diameter of gasifier (m) 0.1
Outlet diameter of gasifier (m) 0.22
Tapered angle (
) 3, 5, 7, 9, 11
3. Results and discussions u/umf of gasifying agent 1.6
Gasifier temperature 695 K
Despite increasing the number of grid points, i.e., decreasing the Inlet molar fraction of steam 0.275
mesh size, can usually provide better simulation results, it affects Molar fraction of O2 in air stream 0.21
Flow rate of coal (kg/h) 8.0
the complexity of computations. In order to determine the
 H. Askaripour / Energy 191 (2020) 116515
Fig. 2. Comparison of outlet molar fractions between experimental data and simulation results for the operating condition given in Table 1: (a) Case I; (b) Case II.
limestone on the gasification process may be the third reason for
these under- or overestimations.
3.2. Effects of tapered angle
To assess the effects of tapered angle on the performance of
tapered gasifier, five tapered angles of 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11
were
considered and the species concentrations, LHV, HHV, CGE, and CCE
of the product gas were examined. For all tapered angles, pressure
drop of tapered fluidized bed gasifier was obtained as a function of
superficial gas velocity via the hydrodynamic simulation and the
gas velocity at maximum bed pressure drop was considered as
minimum fluidization velocity. To similarly simulate the coal gasi-
fication for different tapered angles, inlet velocity of the gasifying
agent was set as 1.6 times the minimum fluidization velocity.
The effects of tapered angle on the molar fractions of CH4, CO,
CO2, H2, and H2O are shown in Fig. 3(a). It can be seen that with an
increase in tapered angle, the concentration of CH4 in the product
gas decreases while the concentrations of CO2 and H2 show an
opposite trend. It can be deduced that increasing tapered angle
strengthens the reaction (R4) and favors the reaction (R6) in the
forward direction, so the molar fraction of CH4 decreases and that of
CO2 and H2 increases. It can be also observed that as the tapered
angle increases, CO concentration increases up to the tapered angle
of 7
, and then decreases. The results obtained from the simulations
indicate that the amount of unreacted carbon in the outlet of
tapered gasifier lowers as the tapered angle goes up. The char
consumption rate occurs mainly through the reactions (R7) to (R9);
hence, it can be inferred that increasing tapered angle strengthens
the heterogeneous chemical reactions. As a result, with an increase
in tapered angle, the CO production rate via the reactions (R7) and
(R8) and the CO consumption rate via the reaction (R6) increase.
The opposite effects of these chemical reactions on CO concentra-
tion are the reason of the trend observed in Fig. 3(a).
Fig. 3(b) shows heating values of the product gas for different
tapered angles. It can be observed that increasing tapered angle
results in a decrease of the LHV. It can be seen from Equation (46)
that lower heating value is calculated based on the concentrations
of CH4, CO, and H2 in product gas. In addition, CH4 concentration
plays more important role in determining the LHV because the
combustion heat of CH4 is higher than that of CO and H2. From
7
Fig. 3(a), it can be also seen that the reduction slope of CH4 molar
fraction is higher than the increase slope of H2 molar fraction.
Hence, lower heating value of the product gas decreases with an
increase of the tapered angle. Moreover, this figure shows that HHV
of the product gas decreases with an increase in tapered angle. To
obtain the higher heating value, latent vaporization heat of water is
taken into account in addition to the combustion heat of the
product gas. From Fig. 3(a), it can be seen that the steam concen-
tration in the product gas decreases as the tapered angle increases;
therefore, HHV of the product gas diminishes.
The simulation results for CGE and CCE efficiencies of the
product gas versus tapered angle are shown in Fig. 3(c). It can be
observed that CGE increases as the tapered angle goes up from 3 to
5
while it insignificantly changes with a further increase of the
tapered angle from 5 to 11
. As mentioned before, the inlet velocity-
to-minimum fluidization velocity ratio was considered the same for
all tapered angles to provide similar fluidization conditions. The
hydrodynamic results indicate that with an increase of the tapered
angle, minimum fluidization velocity increases; as a result, the flow
rate of the product gas increases. Despite the HHV shown in
Fig. 3(b) decreases with an increase of the tapered angle from 3 to
5
, total higher heating value in terms of MJ for the product gas
increases. A fairly high increase in the outlet flow rate for the
tapered angle of 5
in comparison with 3
can justify the increase
observed for the total HHV as well as CGE of gasification process.
However, the results obtained for the outlet gas flow rate for
tapered angles of 5e11
indicate that increasing tapered angle
causes a small increase in the flow rate of the product gas. Hence,
the total HHV as well as CGE of the gasification slightly change as
the tapered angle goes up from 5 to 11
.
3.3. Effects of gasifier temperature
Gasifier temperature is a crucial variable affecting the gasifier
performance, so temperature was varied from 700 to 900 K in 50
C
increment and the species concentrations, LHV, HHV, CGE, and CCE
of the product gas were explored. The molar fractions of CH4, CO,
CO2, H2, and H2O as a function of gasifier temperature are illus-
trated in Fig. 4(a) and (b) for the tapered angles of 5 and 9
,
respectively. It can be seen that with an increase in gasifier tem-
perature, molar fraction of CH4 slightly increases for the tapered
8 H. Askaripour / Energy 191 (2020) 116515

Fig. 3. Effects of tapered angle on (a) product gas compositions; (b) heating values; and (c) efficiencies.

angle of 5
while that slightly decreases for the tapered angle of 9
.
It shows that, for CH4 species, the CH4 consumption rate in reaction
(R4) and CH4 production rate in reaction (R10) were almost the
same as the gasifier temperature increases, so CH4 concentration
slightly changes.
Fig. 4 indicates that H2 molar fraction varies little when the
temperature increases. As the temperature increases, the H2 con-
sumption in reaction (R6) increases because higher temperatures
favor the reactants in exothermic reactions. It can be inferred that
the reaction (R7) is strengthened with an increase in temperature,
so the net variations in H2 concentration is small. It can be also seen
that, for both tapered angles, increasing temperature from 700 to
800 K insignificantly affects molar fractions of CO and CO2, whereas
molar fraction of CO decreases and that of CO2 increases as the
temperature goes up from 800 to 900 K. Therefore, it can be
deduced that the reaction (R5) is strengthened with an increase of
the gasifier temperature from 800 to 900 K, which results in a
decrease of the CO concentration and increase of the CO2 concen-
tration. Of course, the change occurred in reaction (R4) with an
increase of the temperature has also positive effect on CO2
production.
The heating values of the product gas as a function of gasifier
temperature are illustrated in Fig. 5(a) and (b) for the tapered an-
gles of 5 and 9
, respectively. This figure indicates that both LHV
and HHV of the outlet gas decrease with an increase in tempera-
ture. As shown in Fig. 4, variations in CH4, CO, and H2
 H. Askaripour / Energy 191 (2020) 116515 9

Fig. 4. Effects of gasifier temperature on the product gas compositions for (a) q ¼ 5
and (b) q ¼ 9
.

concentrations in the temperature range of 700e800 K are small, results show that the flow rates of CH4, CO, and CO2 species vary
which causes a small decrease in LHV and HHV of the product gas similar to the trend observed for their molar fractions (Fig. 4) and
with an increase in temperature. Although variations in CH4 and H2 with an increase in temperature, the sum of CH4 and CO flow rates
concentrations in the temperature range of 800e900 K are rela- decrease with a larger intensity than that of which CO2 flow rate
tively small, the reduction slope of CO molar fraction is large; increases, hence CCE of the product gas diminishes.
accordingly, a large decrease in LHV and HHV of the product gas can
be seen in this temperature range.
3.4. Effects of steam-to-air ratio
The efficiencies of CGE and CCE as a function of gasifier tem-
perature are shown in Fig. 6(a) and (b) for the tapered angles of 5
In this section, the effects of steam-to-air ratio on the gas con-
and 9
, respectively. From this figure, it can be observed that
centrations, heating values, and efficiencies of the gasification
increasing temperature causes a decrease in CCE and CGE of the
process were studied. In this regard, the molar fraction of steam
product gas. The results obtained from the simulations indicate that
was varied in the range of 0e0.3 while the flow rate of gasifying
the flow rate of the product gas diminishes with an increase of the
agent (air and steam) was kept constant and the results obtained
gasifier temperature; consequently, total HHV in terms of MJ as
for the molar fractions of CH4, CO, CO2, H2, and H2O are shown in
well as CGE of the gasification process decrease. According to
Fig. 7(a) and (b) for the tapered angles of 5 and 9
, respectively.
Equation (48), CCE of the gasification process is calculated based on
It can be observed that the molar fraction of CH4 slightly
the molar flow rates of CH4, CO, and CO2 species. The simulation
changes with an increase of steam molar fraction, hence it can be

Fig. 5. Effects of gasifier temperature on LHV and HHV of the produced gas for (a) q ¼ 5
and (b) q ¼ 9
.
10 H. Askaripour / Energy 191 (2020) 116515

Fig. 6. Effects of gasifier temperature on CGE and CCE of the gasification process for (a) q ¼ 5
and (b) q ¼ 9
.

deduced that increasing amount of the steam in gasification pro-
cess insignificantly affects the reactions (R4) and (R10). It can be
also observed that as the steam molar fraction increases, H2 con-
centration is slightly affected for the tapered angle of 5
, whereas a
small decrease is observed for the tapered angle of 9
. It seems that
increasing amount of the steam in gasifier strengthens the reaction
(R3), which causes further consumption of H2 and production of
H2O. In addition, as depicted in this figure, CO and CO2 concen-
trations diminish with an increase of the steam molar fraction.
Examining simulation results indicates that the flow rate of these
two gas species have a decreasing trend; hence, increasing steam
molar fraction has negative effect on the reactions relating to the
production of CO and CO2.
The LHV and HHV of the product gas versus steam molar frac-
tion are depicted in Fig. 8(a) and (b) for the tapered angles of 5 and
9
, respectively. From this figure, a small decrease in LHV can be
seen as the molar fraction of steam increases, and the decrease
intensity for the tapered angle of 5
is higher than that for the
tapered angle of 9
. According to Equation (46), the decrease in
lower heating value with an increase of the steam molar fraction
can be justified with the decreasing trend of CO and H2 molar
fractions observed in Fig. 7. In addition, it can be seen that HHV
increases with an increase of the steam molar fraction, and the
increase intensity for tapered angle of 9
is higher than that for
tapered angle of 5
. The higher heating value is sum of the lower
heating value and the vaporization heat of water, so the ascending
trend of H2O molar fraction in the product gas (Fig. 7) is the reason
for the increase observed for HHV.
The CGE and CCE of tapered fluidized bed gasifier versus steam
molar fraction are shown in Fig. 9(a) and (b) for the tapered angles
of 5 and 9
, respectively. For both tapered angles, CGE of gasifica-
tion process is almost the same for the entire molar fractions of

Fig. 7. Effects of the flow rate of steam-to-air ratio on the product gas compositions for (a) q ¼ 5
and (b) q ¼ 9
.
 H. Askaripour / Energy 191 (2020) 116515 11

3
(b) LHV
HHV

Heating value (MJ/Nm )

3
2

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Mole fraction of inlet steam
Fig. 8. Effects of the flow rate of steam-to-air ratio on LHV and HHV of the produced gas for (a) q ¼ 5
and (b) q ¼ 9
.

steam. Investigating flow rate of the product gas shows a
descending trend with an increase of the steam molar fraction
while the trend of higher heating value is ascending (Fig. 8). Hence,
the multiplication of the flow rate and higher heating value, known
as total HHV, slightly alters which in turn CGE of the gasifier is
almost the same for all steam molar fractions. Besides, as shown in
this figure, CCE of the gasifier drops with an increase in steam molar
fraction. The reason is that, the flow rates of CO and CO2 species
drop and that of CH4 species slightly varies as the steam concen-
tration increases and as a result, CCE of the gasifier decreases.
3.5. Effects of velocity of gasifying agent
To examine the effects of gas velocity on the performance of
tapered gasifier, inlet velocity-to-minimum fluidization velocity
ratio was varied from 1.2 to 2.0 for the tapered angle of 5
and 1.4 to
2.2 for the tapered angle of 9
. The molar fractions of CH4, CO, CO2,
H2, and H2O as a function of velocity are shown in Fig. 10(a) and (b).
It can be seen that CH4 concentration slightly changes as the ve-
locity rises, hence variations in the velocity of gasifying agent
insignificantly affects the CH4 consumption rate in reaction (R4). In
addition, it seems that velocity variations cannot push the reaction
(R6) to the left/right hand, and consequently the molar fraction of
H2 slightly changes.
It can be also seen that with an increase of the velocity, CO and
CO2 concentrations show a descending and ascending trend,
respectively, and the variations intensity for tapered angle of 9
is
more than that for tapered angle of 5
. The results obtained from
simulations show that the carbon content in the gasifier outlet
slightly changes as the gas velocity increases, so it can be inferred

(b) CGE
60 CCE
Efficiency (%)

40

20

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Mole fraction of inlet steam
Fig. 9. Effects of the flow rate of steam-to-air ratio on CGE and CCE of the gasification process for (a) q ¼ 5
and (b) q ¼ 9
.
12 H. Askaripour / Energy 191 (2020) 116515

Fig. 10. Effects of the velocity of gasifying agent on the product gas compositions for (a) q ¼ 5
and (b) q ¼ 9
.

that the heterogeneous reactions (R7)-(R10) are affected a little
with the variations in the gas velocity. Therefore, reaction (R5) is
highly strengthened with an increase of the gas velocity that results
in a decrease of the CO molar fraction and increase of the CO2 molar
fraction.
The results of Fig. 11(a) and (b) display the calculated heating
values versus the velocity of gasifying agent for the tapered angles
of 5 and 9
, respectively. LHV and HHV of the product gas drop as
the velocity increases. The reason is that, CH4 and H2 concentra-
tions are influenced a little with an increase of the velocity while CO
concentration diminishes (Fig. 10) and thus the lower and higher
heating values decrease. The sharper drop in the heating values for
tapered angle of 9
in comparison with 5
is because of the trend of
the variations in CO molar fraction.
Fig. 12(a) and (b) displays the calculated gasification efficiencies
as a function of the gas velocity for the tapered angles of 5 and 9
,
respectively. As shown in this figure, the variations trend of CGE for
tapered angle of 5
is different from that for tapered angle of 9
. For
tapered angle of 5
, the CGE of gasifier monotonically goes up with
an increase of the gas velocity, whereas it increases up to u/
umf ¼ 1.8, and then decreases for the tapered angle of 9
. The results
regarding the flow rate of the product gas show an ascending trend
as the velocity of gasifying agent goes up. Although the higher
heating value diminishes with the velocity increase (Fig. 11), total
HHV (MJ), which is a multiplication of the gas flow rate and HHV,
shows a different trend. As a result, the trend depicted in Fig. 12 is
observed for carbon conversion efficiency of the gasifier. Besides, it
can be seen that higher velocities enhance CCE of the tapered
gasifier for both tapered angles. The CO and CO2 concentrations
play important role in determining the CCE of the gasifier owing to
higher molar fractions (Fig. 10). The trend of the variations
observed for the concentrations of CO and CO2 can justify the in-
crease of the CCE as the velocity of gasifying agent goes up.

Fig. 11. Effects of the velocity of gasifying agent on LHV and HHV of the produced gas for (a) q ¼ 5
and (b) q ¼ 9
.
 H. Askaripour / Energy 191 (2020) 116515 13

Fig. 12. Effects of the velocity of gasifying agent on CGE and CCE of the gasification process for (a) q ¼ 5
and (b) q ¼ 9
.

4. Conclusions CD drag coefficient

CGE cold gas efficiency
A two-dimensional CFD model was develop and validated for ds particle diameter, m
coal gasification in tapered fluidized bed gasifier to assess the ef- Di;j binary diffusion coefficient of species i and j
fects of tapered angle, velocity of gasifying agent, gasifier temper- Di;m mass diffusion coefficient of species i in the mixture, m2
ature, and steam-to-air ratio on the variations in lower and higher s1
heating values, product gas compositions, carbon conversion effi- ess coefficient of restitution
ciency, and cold gas efficiency. On the basis of the present simu- E activation energy, J kmol1
!
lations, the following conclusions can be drawn: g gravitational acceleration, m s2
g0;ss radial distribution function
a) With an increase in tapered angle, molar fraction of CH4 di- h specific enthalpy, J kge1
minishes while that of H2 and CO2 increases. In addition, hgs heat transfer coefficient between gas and solid phases, J
molar fraction of CO increases up to the tapered angle of 7
, me3 s‒1 K‒1
and then decreases. HHV higher heating value, MJ Nm‒3
b) Increasing tapered angle results in a decrease of the LHV and
I unit stress tensor
HHV, whereas the CCE of gasifier enhances.
I2D second invariant of the deviatory stress tensor, se2
c) The gasifier temperature slightly affects CH4 and H2 con- !
centrations while the molar fractions of CO and CO2 sharply J g;i diffusion flux of species i, kg me2 s‒1
vary in the temperature range of 800e900 K. k turbulent kinetic energy, m2 se2
d) As the gasifier temperature increases, the LHV, HHV, CGE, Kgs interphase momentum exchange coefficient, kg m‒3 s‒
and CCE of gasification process decrease. 1
e) With an increase in steam molar fraction, the molar fractions LHV lower heating value, MJ Nm‒3
of H2, CO, and CO2 drop. Nus solid phase Nusselt number
f) The LHV and HHV show a descending and ascending trend as p pressure, Pa
the steam molar fraction increases. In addition, with an in- Pr Prandtl number
crease in steam molar fraction, the CGE value remains nearly R universal gas constant, J mol‒1 K‒1
constant while the CCE value decreases. Rg homogeneous reaction rate, kmol m‒3 s‒1
g) Variations in the velocity of gasifying agent insignificantly Rhet heterogeneous reaction rate, kmol m‒3 s‒1
affect the CH4 and H2 molar fractions, whereas the molar Res solid Reynolds number
fraction of CO diminishes and that of CO2 increases. S mass source term, kg m‒3 s‒1
h) Increasing velocity of the gasifying agent results in a Sc Schmidt number
decrease of LHV and HHV of the product gas and the CCE of Sh Sherwood number
gasification process enhances. T temperature, K
!v velocity, m se1
w molecular weight, kg kmol‒1
Nomenclature
W coal feeding rate, kg h‒1
Xi mole fraction of species i
A pre-exponential factor, s1
Yg;i mass fraction of species i
C concentration, kmol m3
C1ε ; C2ε constant parameters
CCE carbon conversion efficiency
14 H. Askaripour / Energy 191 (2020) 116515

Greek Symbols [9] Deng Z, Xiiao R, Jin B, Huang H, Shen L, Song Q, Li Q. Computational fluid
a volume fraction dynamics modeling of coal gasification in a pressurized spout-fluid bed. En-
ergy Fuels 2008;22:1560e9.
g stoichiometric coefficient [10] Lv PM, Xiong ZH, Chang J, Wu CZ, Chen Y, Zhu JX. An experimental study on
gQs collisional dissipation of energy, kg m1 s3 biomass airesteam gasification in a fluidized bed. Bioresour Technol 2004;95:
DHg heat of homogeneous gas phase reaction, J m3 s1 95e101.
[11] Gerber S, Behrendt F, Oevermann M. An Eulerian modeling approach of wood
ε dissipation rate, m2 s3 gasification in a bubbling fluidized bed reactor using char as bed material. Fuel
h pyrolysis coefficient 2010;89:2903e17.
Qs granular temperature, m2 s2 [12] Song T, Wu J, Shen L, Xiao J. Experimental investigation on hydrogen pro-
duction from biomass gasification in interconnected fluidized beds. Biomass
k thermal conductivity, J m1 K1 s1 Bioenergy 2012;36:258e67.
l bulk viscosity, Pa s [13] Couto N, Silva V, Monteiro E, Brito P, Rouboa A. Using an Eulerian-granular 2-
m shear viscosity, Pa s D multiphase CFD model to simulate oxygen air enriched gasification of
agroindustrial residues. Renew Energy 2015;77:174e81.
mt turbulent viscosity, Pa s [14] Ku X, Li T, Løvås T. CFDeDEM simulation of biomass gasification with steam in
r density, kg m3 a fluidized bed reactor. Chem Eng Sci 2015;122:270e83.
sk inverse turbulent Prandtl number for k [15] Ismail TM, El-Salam MA, Monteiro E, Rouboa A. EulerianeEulerian CFD model
on fluidized bed gasifier using coffee husks as fuel. Appl Therm Eng 2016;106:
sε inverse turbulent Prandtl number for ε 1391e402.
t stress tensor, Pa [16] Xia Z, Chen C, Bi J, Li K, Jin Y. Modeling and simulation of catalytic coal
f angle of internal friction, deg gasification in a pressurized jetting fluidized bed with embedded high-speed
air jets. Chem Eng Sci 2016;152:624e35.
[17] Anil M, Rupesh S, Muraleedharan C, Arun P. Performance evaluation of flui-
Subscripts/Superscripts dised bed biomass gasifier using CFD. Energy Procedia 2016;90:154e62.
c Coal [18] Gonz
alez-V
azquez MP, García R, Gil MV, Pevida C, Rubiera F. Comparison of
the gasification performance of multiple biomass types in a bubbling fluidized
diff Diffusion bed. Energy Convers Manag 2018;176:309e23.
g gas phase [19] Liu L, Huang Y, Cao J, Liu C, Dong L, Xu L, Zha J. Experimental study of biomass
het Heterogeneous gasification with oxygen-enriched air in fluidized bed gasifier. Sci Total En-
viron 2018;626:423e33.
i the ithe species
[20] Qi T, Lei T, Yan B, Chen G, Li Z, Fatehi H, Wang Z, Bai XS. Biomass steam
kin Kinetic gasification in bubbling fluidized bed for higher-H2 syngas: CFD simulation
m Mixture with coarse grain model. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2019;44:6448e60.
[21] Meng F, Ma Q, Wang H, Liu Y, Wang D. Effect of gasifying agents on sawdust
max Maximum
gasification in a novel pilot scale bubbling fluidized bed system. Fuel
s solid phase 2019;249:112e8.
t Turbulent [22] Scott CD, Hancher CW. Use of a tapered fluidized bed as a continuous biore-
actor. Biotechnol Bioeng 1976;18:1393e403.
[23] Babu SP, Leipsiger S, Lee BS, Well SA. Solids mixing in batch operated tapered
References bed and non-tapered gas fluidized beds, fluidized bed fundam. Appl, AIChE,
Symp Ser 1973;69:49e57.
[1] Loha C, Gu S, Wilde JD, Mahanta P, Chatterjee PK. Advances in mathematical [24] Ocampo A, Arenas E, Chejne F, Espinel J, Londono C, Aguirre J, Perez JD. An
modeling of fluidized bed gasification. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;40: experimental study on gasification of Colombian coal in fluidised bed. Fuel
688e715. 2003;82:161e4.
[2] Pohorely M, Vosecky M, Hejdova P, Puncochar M, Skoblja S, Staf M, Vosta J, [25] Lun CKK, Savage SB, Jeffrey DJ, Chepurniy N. Kinetic theories for granular flow:
Koutsky B, Svoboda K. Gasification of coal and PET in fluidized bed reactor. inelastic particles in Couette flow and slightly inelastic particles in a general
Fuel 2006;85:2458e68. flow field. J Fluid Mech 1984;140:223e56.
[3] Wang X, Jin B, Zhong W. Three-dimensional simulation of fluidized bed coal [26] Gidaspow D. Multiphase flow and fluidization. Boston: Academic Press; 1994
gasification. Chem Eng Process 2009;48:695e705. [MA].
[4] Limtrakul S, Boonsrirat A, Vatanatham T. DEM modeling and simulation of a [27] Wen C, Yu YH. Mechanics of fluidization. Chem Eng Prog Symp Ser 1966;62:
catalytic gasesolid fluidized bed reactor: a spouted bed as a case study. Chem 100e11.
Eng Sci 2004;59:5225e31. [28] Ergun S. Fluid flow through packed columns. Chem Eng Prog 1952;48:89e94.
[5] Oevermann M, Gerber S, Behrendt F. Euler-Lagrange/DEM simulation of wood [29] Launder BE, Spalding DB. The numerical computation of turbulent flows.
gasification in a bubbling fluidized bed reactor. Particuology 2009;7:307e16. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1974;3:269e89.
[6] Zhou H, Flamant G, Gauthier D. DEM-LES of coal combustion in a bubbling [30] Di Blasi C. Modeling chemical and physical processes of wood and biomass
fluidized bed. Part II: coal combustion at the particle level. Chem Eng Sci gasification. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2008;34:47e90.
2004;59:4205e15. [31] Smoot LD, Smith PJ. Coal combustion and gasification. Plenum Press; 1985.
[7] Lathouwers D, Bellan J. Modelling of dense gasesolid reactive mixtures [32] Chejne F, Hernandez JP. Modelling and simulation of coal gasification process
applied to biomass pyrolysis in a fluidized bed. Int J Multiph Flow 2001;27: in fluidised bed. Fuel 2002;81:1687e702.
2155e87. [33] Liu H, Elkamel A, Lohi A, Biglari M. Computational fluid dynamics modeling of
[8] Yu L, Lu J, Zhang X, Zhang S. Numerical simulation of the bubbling fluidized biomass gasification in circulating fluidized-bed reactor using the Eulerian-
bed coal gasification by the kinetic theory of granular flow (KTGF). Fuel Eulerian approach. Ind Eng Chem Res 2013;52:18162e74.
2007;86:722e34.