Analysis of biomass gasification in bubbling

fluidized bed with two-fluid model

Cite as: J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 8, 063105 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4967717
Submitted: 04 May 2016 . Accepted: 29 October 2016 . Published Online: 17 November 2016

Juhui Chen , Weijie Yin, Shuai Wang, Cheng Meng, Guangbin Yu, Ting Hu, and Feng Lin

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Energy generation from fluidized bed gasification of rice husk

Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 5, 043111 (2013); https://
doi.org/10.1063/1.4816496

A time-lag model for biogas production by anaerobic digestion

Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 8, 063104 (2016); https://
doi.org/10.1063/1.4966160

Energy and exergy analysis of gas production from biomass intermittent gasification
Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 5, 063141 (2013); https://
doi.org/10.1063/1.4857395

J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 8, 063105 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4967717 8, 063105

© 2016 Author(s).
 JOURNAL OF RENEWABLE AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY 8, 063105 (2016)

Analysis of biomass gasification in bubbling fluidized bed

with two-fluid model
Juhui Chen,1,2,a) Weijie Yin,1 Shuai Wang,3,a) Cheng Meng,1 Guangbin Yu,1
Ting Hu,2 and Feng Lin2
1
School of Mechanical Engineering, Harbin University of Science and Technology,
Harbin 150080, Heilongjiang, China
2
No. 703 Research Institute, China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation, Harbin 150001, China
3
School of Energy Science and Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150001,
Heilongjiang, China
(Received 4 May 2016; accepted 29 October 2016; published online 15 November 2016)

The framework of theoretical method is two-fluid model coupled with reaction

process. The k-e model is used for gas phase, and the kinetic theory of granular flow is
employed for solid phase. In the simulation, gasification process consists of three parts:
pyrolysis, homogenous reaction, and heterogeneous reaction. In the first stage, biomass
particles crack into carbon particles and volatile gases upon entering the reactor.
Subsequently, the carbon particles and volatile gases react with oxygen, which includes
both homogenous reaction and heterogeneous reaction. The effect of equivalence ratio
(ER) is studied. It is found that all the products have same tendency with the increase
of ER. H2 and CH4 change linearly with ER; CO and CO2 change cubically with ER.
This is because the mechanism of formation of CO and CO2 is more complex than that
of H2 and CH4. H2 and CH4 are consumed by O2, so they tend to decrease with the
increase of ER, whose value corresponds to the amount of O2 fed. For CO and CO2,
however, things are more complicated: the extents at which CO and CO2 decrease are
converse. CO decreases significantly and then reaches a plateau and finally decreases
again, while CO2 decreases moderately at the beginning and then decreases sharply
and finally becomes flat. The conclusion is that when oxygen concentration is low,
increment of oxygen favors production of CO2, and when oxygen concentration
reaches a certain level, increment of oxygen favors production of CO, and when oxy-
gen concentration continually increases, increment of oxygen favors production of
CO2 again. Published by AIP Publishing. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4967717]

I. INTRODUCTION
With the depletion of fossil energy and pollution caused by burning coal, biomass as a
kind of renewable clean energy attracts more and more attention. Researchers worldwide have
done a lot of researches.1–5 Biomass gasification technology converts biomass into combustible
gases with high heating values, which improves energy efficiency. Experimental study of bio-
mass gasification is now the most preferred method. Baskara Sethupathy et al.6 studied the gasi-
fication of saw dust in a bubbling fluidized bed with steam and air as fluidizing and gasifying
agent, and obtained the most favorable reaction condition for saw dust gasification. There are
also researchers studying different gasifiers such as fixed bed and entrained flow gasifier.7–9
Loha et al.10 further studied the effect of temperature, equivalence ratio (ER) and steam to bio-
mass on the production of hydrogen and on the heating value of products. After that, Chen and
Wang11 turned their focus on both energy and exergy analysis and obtained the most optimal
condition for maximal energy and exergy efficiencies of biogases. Muresan et al.12 assessed
impacts of two different fluidizing gasification technologies on environment. In recent years,

a)
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed. Electronic addresses: chenjuhui@hit.edu.cn and
shuaiwang@hit.edu.cn

1941-7012/2016/8(6)/063105/12/$30.00 8, 063105-1 Published by AIP Publishing.

063105-2 Chen et al. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 8, 063105 (2016)

however, CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) plays a more and more important role in study-
ing fluidizing and reaction processes in fluidized bed. In simulation of fluidized bed, the most
used mathematical model is two-fluid model (TFM), which saves the computation cost and
can be applied to large-scale fluidized bed.13,14 Wang15 studied the combustion mechanism of
single seaweed particle using mathematical model. Besides TFM, the discrete element method
(DEM) is a new method for simulating a fluidized bed,16–18 which can describe the movement
of real particles, but will, however, cost a lot. When simulating industrial scale is fluidized,
the number of particles can reach the order of 7–8; so, it is unrealistic to use DEM to predict
the movement of each particle in the fluidized bed. Most of the time only a macroscale
description of particle movement is desired. So, in this case, TFM is still an advantageous
method over DEM, and hence, there is still much effort to implement and develop TFM.19–21
In this study, a 2-dimensional computation domain is established to investigate coupled
process of fluidization and reaction. Simulation results are validated by experimental results.
After validation, the CFD model is used to predict gas components and gas profile. It is found
that the tendencies of change of gasification products are the same with increase of ER. H2 and
CH4 decrease linearly with ER, while CO and CO2 decrease cubically with ER. This is because
the mechanisms of formation of CO and CO2 are more complicated than that of H2 and CH4.
This will be discussed in Section V.

II. MATHEMATICAL MODEL

A. Governing equations
Based on Eulerian-Eulerian approach, gas and solid phase are considered as continuum
phases. The mass conservation equation, momentum conservation equation, energy conservation
equation, and species transport equation are listed below:
Continuity equation:

@
eg q þ r  ðeg qg vg Þ ¼ Sg ; (1)
@t ð g Þ

@
ðesi qsi Þ þ r  ðesi qsi vsi Þ ¼ Ssi ; (2)
@t

where e, q, v, and S represent volume fraction, density, velocity, and mass source term, respec-
tively; the subscript g represents gas phase, si represents the ith solid phase.
Momentum equation of gas phase:

@ XN
e q v þ r  e q v v ¼ e rp þ e r  s þ e q g þ bgsi ðvsi  vg Þ; (3)
@t ð g Þ ð g Þ
g g g g g g g g g g g
i¼1

sg ¼ lg ½rvg þ ðrvg ÞT   2lg ðr  vg ÞI=3: (4)

Momentum equation of solid phase:

@
ðesi qsi vsi Þ þ r  ðesi qsi vsi vsi Þ ¼ esi rpg  rpsi þ esi r  ssi þ esi qsi g þ bðvg  vsi Þ; (5)
@t

ssi ¼ nsi r  vsi þ lsi f½rvsi þ ðrvsi ÞT   2ðr  vsi ÞIg=3; (6)

where p represents pressure term, s represents viscosity term, g represents gravitational force,
and b represents drag coefficient between gas and solid phase. Huilin-Gidaspow drag model is
used in the simulation.
063105-3 Chen et al. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 8, 063105 (2016)

Energy equation:

@     
eg qg Hg þ r  eg qg tg Hg ¼ r  kg rTg þ hgsi ðTg  Tsi Þ þ Sgsi Hg ; (7)
@t
@
ðesi qsi Hsi Þ þ r  ðesi qsi tsi Hsi Þ ¼ r  ðksi rTsi Þ þ hsig ðTsi  Tg Þ þ Ssig Hsi ; (8)
@t

where H represents enthalpy of gas or solid phase, k represents thermal conductivity, h repre-
sents convective heat transfer coefficient, and SH represents heat source of gas-solid phase
reaction.
Species transport equation:

@
v Yi Þ ¼ r  J~i þ Ri ;
ðqeYi Þ þ r  ðqe~ (9)
@t
 
l
J~i ¼  qDi;m þ t rYi ; (10)
Sct

where J~i represents transportation of species caused by concentration gradient; Di;m represents
diffusion coefficient of ith component, and Sct represents turbulent Simt number.

B. Turbulent model
As turbulent flow is very complex and the fluctuation of parameters is intense, it is hard to
give it an accurate numerical solution. So the averaged form of governing equation is proposed
to solve this dilemma: solve only the averaged governing equations. Averaging governing equa-
tion will, however, produce unknown terms, which need a turbulent model to describe.
Standard k-e turbulent model is used in the simulation, which is time-saving with accept-
able precision, and thus, is widely used in the industrial area. Equation of turbulent kinetic
energy k and equation of dissipation rate are listed below
 
@k lt
qg þ qg r  ðvg kÞ ¼ r  rk þ Gk  qg e; (11)
@t rk
 
@e lt e e2
qg þ qg r  ðvg eÞ ¼ r  re þ c1 Gk  qg c2 ; (12)
@t re k k

where k represents turbulent kinetic energy and e represents turbulent dissipation, both of which
are used to describe the unknown terms as mentioned above.

C. Boundary condition
For the wall, a no-slip boundary condition is adopted for the gas phase and a partial slip
boundary condition is applied for the particle phase. The detailed descriptions are as follows:

6ls es;max @us;w

ut;w ¼  pffiffiffiffiffi ; (13)
p/qs es g0 3h @n
pffiffiffi
ks h @hw 3pqs es u2s g0 h3=2
hw ¼  þ ; (14)
cw @n 6es;max cw
pffiffiffi  
3p 1  e2w qs es g0 h3=2
cw ¼ : (15)
4es;max
063105-4 Chen et al. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 8, 063105 (2016)

TABLE I. Ultimate and proximate analysis of rice husk.

Ultimate analysis wt. % Proximate analysis wt. %

Carbon 38.43 Volatile matter 55.54

Hydrogen 2.97 Fixed carbon 14.99
Sulfur 0.07 Moisture 9.95
Nitrogen 0.49 Ash 19.52
Oxygen 36.36
Ash 21.68

D. Reaction model
Rice husk is used as gasification fuel in the simulation, which is in accordance to the
experiment. The proximate analysis and ultimate analysis is provided in Table I24 as below
Reaction process of biomass in the bubbling fluidized bed includes biomass pyrolysis,
homogeneous reaction of gas phase, and heterogeneous reaction between carbon and gas phase.
Details of reaction are listed in Table II:22–24
Pyrolysis occurs first. After entering the reactor, biomass is pyrolyzed into carbon and gas
products.

C4:1 H3:79 O2:9 ! 1:77C þ 0:425H2 þ 1:35CO þ 0:51CO2 þ 0:47CH4 þ 0:53H2 O: (R1)

Homogeneous reactions are considered in the simulation. Arrhenius formula is used to cal-
culate homogeneous reactions rates.

CO þ 0:5O2 ! CO2 ; (R2)

H2 þ 0:5O2 ! H2 O; (R3)

CH4 þ 2O2 ! CO2 þ 2H2 O; (R4)

CO þ H2 O $ CO2 þ H2 ; (R5)

CH4 þ H2 O ! CO þ 3H2 : (R6)

TABLE II. Chemical reaction rates in this simulation.

Reaction rate Kinetic

(R1) r1 ¼ k1 [C4.1H3.79O2.9] k1 ¼ 1.43  10 000 exp(88.6/8314/Ts)

(R2) r2 ¼ k2[CO][O2]0.5 k2 ¼ 5.62  1012exp(16 000/T)
(R3) 1.5
r3 ¼ k3[H2] [O2] k3 ¼ 1.63  1011 T1.5exp(3430/T)
(R4) r4 ¼ k4[CH4][O2] k4 ¼ 3.552  1011exp(15 700/T)
(R5) r5 ¼ k5([CO][H2O][CO2][H2]/Keq) k5 ¼ 2.78  103exp(1510/T)
Keq ¼ 0.0265exp(3968/T)
(R6) r6 ¼ k6[CH4][H2O] k6 ¼ 3.0  105exp(15 042/T)
(R7) r7 ¼ k7[O2] k7 ¼ 5.957  102Texp(17 975/T)  6/dp
(R8) r8 ¼ k8[H2O]/(1 þ k8a[H2O] þ k8b[H2] þ k8c[CO]) k8 ¼ 1.195  105exp(1.29  108/R/TS)
k8a ¼ 31.6exp(3.01  107/R/TS)
k8b ¼ 5.36exp(5.98  107/R/TS)
k8c ¼ 120exp(2.55  107/R/TS)
(R9) r9 ¼ (6(1e)qsYc)/(dpqc) k9[CO2] k9 ¼ 4.1  106exp(29 787/T)
063105-5 Chen et al. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 8, 063105 (2016)

Heterogeneous reactions are considered in the simulation. Carbon oxidization and carbon gasifi-
cation are all considered in the simulation. For carbon oxidization, shrinking-core model is applied
to calculate the reaction rate. The assumption is that when oxidization reaction proceeds, the core
of the un-reacted coal shrinks. Shirking-core model considers the effect of carbon particle diameter
on the reaction rate: diameter dp is included in the oxidization reaction rate formula. Thus, the
change of volume of coal particle can be represented by the change of particle diameter, and the
shrinking of particle diameter can facilitate the oxidization process, which accords the reality.

2C þ 1:5O2 ! CO þ CO2 ; (R7)

C þ 1:2H2 O ! 0:8CO þ 0:2CO2 þ 1:2H2 ; (R8)

C þ CO2 ! 2CO: (R9)

III. CALCULATION CONDITION AND VALIDATION

The simulation is based on experiment conducted by Loha et al.24 and parameters are given
in Table III. In this simulation, constant temperature (1073.15 K) wall boundary condition is
used, which agrees with the experiment, in which electric heating coil is used to provide neces-
sary heat. Software used to simulate fluidizing and gasification process is ANSYS16.1/
FLUENT with self-compiling program of reaction rate. The simulated time is 50s, and averaged
results are obtained between 6 s and 50 s.
Fig. 1 shows the instantaneous variation of gas H2, CO, CO2, and CH4 at outlet between 0
and 50 s. It can be seen that gas productions increase significantly at the beginning and fluctu-
ate significantly before 5 s. After 6 s, the results tend to be stable. Thus, the results between 6
s and 50 s are chosen to be average.
Fig. 2 shows the comparison between experiment results and simulation results at outlet at
different conditions. It can be seen that the simulation results show good agreement with exper-
iment results. Simulation result of H2 is slightly higher than experiment result, whereas results
of CO and CO2 are slightly lower than experiment results. The reason may be that the changes
of coefficient of reaction between C and O2 with temperature are not considered, and thus, the
simulation results are slightly different from reality.

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Fig. 3 shows the volume fraction of bed between 46 and 50 s and velocity vector of sand
at 46 s and 47 s. It can be seen that the bed fluctuates and tends to be stable. From velocity
TABLE III. Parameters used for experiments by Loha et al. and simulations.

Parameters Experiment value Simulation value

3
Particle density (qs)/kg m 2300 2300
Particle diameter (d)/lm 250–700 500
Bed height (H)/m 0.15 0.15
Feeding height (h)/m 0.05 0.05
Inner diameter of reactor (d)/m 0.05 0.05
Height of reactor (Hb)/m 1.2 1.2
Volume fraction of bed … 0.45
Temperature in reactor (T)/K 800 800
Steam to biomass (S/B) 0.5 0.5
Equivalence ratio (ER) 0.3–0.4 0.3–0.7
Grid number … 25  500
Time step (D)/s … 0.0005
Reaction temperature (T)/K 1073.15 1073.15
063105-6 Chen et al. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 8, 063105 (2016)

FIG. 1. Mole fraction of gas species variation with time outlet.

vector, it can be seen that there is vortex around the feeding port, which is caused by the drop
of sand thrown to the free board by the air. The vortex facilitates the thermal exchange between
gas phase and solid phase and favors the reaction process.
Fig. 4 shows the instantaneous distribution of mole fraction of different gases at 46 s. It can
be seen that the overall concentration distribution of gases is low at the bottom and high at the
top. At the feeding port, however, the mole fractions of gases are high. Biomass is pyrolyzed upon
entering the reactor and releases combustible gases. At the same time, the released gases are
driven to the free board by the upward air, which causes low concentration of gas at bottom right
corner. Pyrolyzed products rise along the riser and react with steam and oxygen continuously, pro-
ducing combustible gases. When reaching the top, the gases accumulate to the maximum, and so
the outlet boasts the highest gas mole fraction. As for feeding port, the high gas mole fraction is
caused by the pyrolysis of biomass. After biomass pyrolysis, a large number of gas products are
produced and accumulate at the feeding port. It can be inferred from Arrhenius equation that high
gas concentration leads to high reaction rate and conversely leads to higher concentration.
As for reactant and fluidizing media, the situation is the opposite. In Fig. 4, it can be seen
that the mole fractions of H2O and N2 are high at the bottom right of reactor. This is because
the upward air impedes the diffusion of released gas products. Thus, steam and nitrogen domi-
nate the bottom right area. At the top area, however, nitrogen and steam are relatively low,
because steam is consumed in the reactor as it rises to the top. Though nitrogen is not con-
sumed, it is diluted by the gas products. As the equivalence ratio is less than one, there is no
oxygen left in the reactor.
Fig. 5 shows the distribution of mass fraction of carbon particles and ash. It can be seen
that carbon particles accumulate around the feeding port and are not completely consumed
because of its low reaction rate relative to homogeneous reaction. That is to say, the outlet
gases carry residual carbon particles, whereas biomass particles show different results. For
pyrolysis process is much quicker than other reaction processes, biomass particles pyrolyze
upon entering the reactor and completely transform into combustible gases and fixed carbon. It
can be seen from Fig. 6 that there is rare biomass at the feeding port and no biomass accumula-
tion in the reactor, in that, it is completely converted into carbon particles, ash, and gas prod-
ucts. Ash, due its low density, is carried out by the gas flow. Thus, when collecting the outlet
gases, separation of carbon and ash from combustible gases is required.

V. EFFECT OF EQUIVALENCE RATIO

Equivalence ratio (ER) represents weight of air per kg of dry biomass to weight of stoi-
chiometric air per kg of dry biomass. Air is the most commonly used fluidizing media, and
063105-7 Chen et al. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 8, 063105 (2016)

FIG. 2. Comparison between simulated and experimental gas compositions; (a) ER ¼ 0.3, S/B ¼ 0.5, T ¼ 800 K and (b)
ER ¼ 0.35, S/B ¼ 0.5, T ¼ 800 K.

also functions as a reactant, and so it is necessary to study the effect of oxygen on

gasification.
Fig. 6 shows the variation of gas products to equivalence ratio with steam to biomass (S/B)
fixed at 0.5. The ER range is between 0.3 and 0.7, and interval is set to 0.05 to obtain the mole
fraction. From Fig. 6, it can be seen that when ER increases, gasification products tend to
decrease. H2 is the most significantly affected component, whose mass fraction is linearly corre-
lated to ER. The fitting curve for calculated point is listed in Table IV.
From Table IV, it can be seen that H2 and CH4 are both linearly correlated to ER with R
above 0.97 and P below 0.01, which means the results have good significance. For CO and
063105-8 Chen et al. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 8, 063105 (2016)

FIG. 3. Instantaneous distribution of concentration and velocity of particles; (a) solid field colored by volume fraction and
(b) volume fraction and velocity vector.

CO2, third-degree polynomials are used as fitting curve, which both have good significance.
These correlations predict the value with fixed steam to biomass (S/B) at 0.5. The formation
and consumption process of CO and CO2 is very complex, which involves reaction between O2
and C producing CO and CO2, reaction between C and CO2 reversely producing CO, and
063105-9 Chen et al. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 8, 063105 (2016)

FIG. 4. Instantaneous molar fraction of gas species at 46 s.

reversible reaction between CO and H2O. All these process form a loop, because of which the
CO and CO2 change nonlinearly with O2. For CO, it decreases significantly as O2 increases and
reaches a plateau where RE equals to 0.4, and then decreases again when ER is larger than 0.6.
Reversely, CO2 changes moderately at the beginning and drops significantly midway, and then
becomes flat again, which revalidates the assumption that concentrations of CO and CO2 are
inter-influenced. In addition, it can be inferred that when oxygen concentration is low, incre-
ment of oxygen favors production of CO2, and when oxygen concentration reaches certain
level, increment of oxygen favors production of CO, and when oxygen concentration continu-
ally increases, increment of oxygen favors production of CO2 again.
063105-10 Chen et al. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 8, 063105 (2016)

FIG. 5. Instantaneous mass fraction at 46 s–50 s. (a) Instantaneous mass fraction of carbon and (b) instantaneous mass frac-
tion of ash.

The reason for this tendency could be ascribed to reactions involving CO, CO2, and O2. In
(R2), CO reacts with O2 and produces CO2. In (R8), CO reacts with H2O and produces CO2
and H2; at the same time, CO2 will also react with H2 and produces CO and H2O. It is intuitive
that CO will decreases with the increase of ER, because O2 consumes CO. However, it seems
counterintuitive that further increase of ER could lead to decrease of CO2. It can be inferred
from the fitting curve that when O2 is low, the increase of O2 have greater effect on (R2).
However, when O2 continuingly increases, it will have greater effect on (R8). The increase of
O2 may cause reverse proceeding of (R8) and thus lead to the decrease of CO2 and the plateau
of CO, because the production of CO by reverse (R8) counteracts the consumption of CO by
(R2). When ER is greater than 0.6, the dominant effect returns to (R2). That is to say, the
063105-11 Chen et al. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 8, 063105 (2016)

FIG. 6. Variation of gas composition with equivalence ratio.

TABLE IV. Fitting curve.

Components Fitting curve R P

H2 y ¼ 0.17586  0.13319x 0.97514 4.45  107

CO y ¼ 0.22927  0.64003x þ 1.21175x2  0.77535x3 0.8615 0.00435
CO2 y ¼ 0.16523 þ 0.05064x  0.14543x2 þ 0.1031x3 0.97575 5.73  105
CH4 y ¼ 0.04379  0.03067x 0.97441 4.93  107

increase of ER has greater effect on (R2), and thus, when ER increases, the consumption of CO
by (R2) is greater than the production of CO by reverse (R8).

VI. CONCLUSION
On the basis of two-fluid model, gasification process of biomass in the fluidized bed is simulated.
Characteristics of particle concentration, velocity, and gas components are studied. After analyzing var-
iation of gas products with equivalence ratio, fitting curves are obtained. Conclusions are as follows:
Influenced by the vortex formed by the drop of sand thrown up by the air, gasification pro-
cess is facilitated and thermal exchange between gas and solid phase is also enhanced.
Because of quick pyrolysis process, no biomass residual is left in the reactor. Because het-
erogeneous reaction is much slower than homogeneous reaction, there is considerable amount
of unreacted carbon particles. Ash, whose density is low, is carried out by the gas flow.
Variation of products concentration with equivalence ratio (ER) has great regularity: with
the increment of ER, all products tend to decrease. For further study, it can be seen that H2 and
CH4 are linearly correlated to ER, whereas CO and CO2 are fitted with third-degree polynomial.
When ER is low (lower than 0.4), increment of oxygen favors production of CO2; when oxygen
concentration increases to a certain level, it favors production of CO; when ER is high enough
(higher than 0.6), increment of ER favors production of CO2 again.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.
51406045), China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant No. 2016M590122), the Natural
Science Foundation of Heilongjiang Province of China (Grant No. E201441), Technology and
Innovation Youth Foundation of Harbin City of China (Grant No. 2015RAQXJ033), and Science
Funds for the Young Innovative Talents of HUST (Grant No. 201504).
063105-12 Chen et al. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 8, 063105 (2016)

1
M. A. Hamad, A. M. Radwan, D. A. Heggo, and T. Moustafa, “Hydrogen rich gas production from catalytic gasification
of biomass,” Renewable Energy 85, 1290–1300 (2016).
2
X. Lv, J. Xiao, Y. Du, L. Shen, and Y. Zhou, “Experimental study on biomass steam gasification for hydrogen-rich gas in
double-bed reactor,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 39, 20968–20978 (2014).
3
K. Im-orb, L. Simasatitkul, and A. Arpornwichanop, “Analysis of synthesis gas production with a flexible H2/CO ratio
from rice straw gasification,” Fuel 164, 361–373 (2016).
4
J. Li, M. C. Paul, P. L. Younger, I. Watson, M. Hossain, and S. Welch, “Prediction of high-temperature rapid combustion
behaviour of woody biomass particles,” Fuel 165, 205–214 (2016).
5
V. Silva and A. Rouboa, “Combining a 2-D multiphase CFD model with a response surface methodology to optimize the
gasification of Portuguese biomasses,” Energy Convers. Manage. 99, 28–40 (2015).
6
S. Baskara Sethupathy, V. Chokkalingam, and E. Natarajan, “An experimental exploration of the biomass gasification in
a fluidized bed,” J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 4, 043113 (2012).
7
J. J. Hernandez, G. Aranda-Almansa, and A. Bula, “Gasification of biomass wastes in an entrained flow gasifier: Effect of
the particle size and the residence time,” Fuel Process Technol. 91(6), 681–692 (2010).
8
S. Kern, C. Pfeifer, and H. Hofbauer, “Gasification of wood in a dual fluidized bed gasifier: Influence of fuel feeding on
process performance,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 90, 284–298 (2013).
9
J. Li, S. Liao, W. Dan, K. Jia, and X. Zhou, “Experimental study on catalytic steam gasification of municipal solid waste
for bioenergy production in a combined fixed bed reactor,” Biomass Bioenergy 46, 174–180 (2012).
10
C. Loha, H. Chattopadhyay, and P. K. Chatterjee, “Energy generation from fluidized bed gasification of rice husk,”
J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 5, 043111 (2013).
11
Z.-S. Chen and L.-Q. Wang, “Energy and exergy analysis of gas production from biomass intermittent gasification,”
J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 5, 063141 (2013).
12
M. Muresan, C. C. Cormos, and P. S. Agachi, “Comparative life cycle analysis for gasification-based hydrogen produc-
tion systems,” J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 6, 013131 (2014).
13
S. Ge, F. Behrendt, and M. Oevermann, “An Eulerian modeling approach of wood gasification in a bubbling fluidized
bed reactor using char as bed material,” Fuel 89(10), 2903–2917 (2010).
14
A. Hui Liu, R. J. Cattolica, R. Seiser, and C. Liao, “Three-dimensional full-loop simulation of a dual fluidized-bed bio-
mass gasifier,” Appl. Energy 160, 489–501 (2015).
15
S. Wang, Q. Wang, X. Jiang, S. Xu, H. Ji, Z. He, Y. Hu, and R. Wang, “Combustion mathematical simulation of single
seaweed particle in a bench-scale fluidized bed,” J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 7, 023137 (2015).
16
X. Ku, T. Li, and T. Løvås, “CFD–DEM simulation of biomass gasification with steam in a fluidized bed reactor,” Chem.
Eng. Sci. 122, 270–283(2015).
17
Y. Zhang, M. Ye, Y. Zhao, T. Gu, R. Xiao, and Z. Liu, “Emulsion phase expansion of Geldart a particles in bubbling flu-
idized bed methanation reactors: A CFD–DEM study,” Powder Technol. 275, 199–210 (2015).
18
J. Xie, W. Zhong, and B. Jin, “LES-Lagrangian modelling on gasification of combustible solid waste in a spouted bed,”
Can. J. Chem. Eng. 92, 1325–1333 (2014).
19
S. Benzarti, H. Mhiri, H. Bournot, and R. Occelli, “Numerical simulation of turbulent fluidized bed with Geldart B parti-
cles,” Adv. Powder Technol. 25, 1737–1747 (2014).
20
Y. Lu, T. Zhang, and X. Dong, “Bed to wall heat transfer in supercritical water fluidized bed: Comparison with the gas–-
solid fluidized bed,” Appl. Therm. Eng. 88, 297–305 (2015).
21
L. Hua, H. Zhao, J. Li, J. Wang, and Q. Zhu, “Eulerian–Eulerian simulation of irregular particles in dense gas–solid fluid-
ized beds,” Powder Technol. 284, 299–311 (2015).
22
V. Wilk and H. Hofbauer, “Analysis of optimization potential in commercial biomass gasification plants using process
simulation,” Fuel Process. Technol. 141(part1), 138–147 (2016).
23
E. Balu, U. Lee, and J. N. Chung, “High temperature steam gasification of woody biomass—A combined experimental
and mathematical modeling approach,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 40(41), 14104–14115 (2015).
24
C. Loha, H. Chattopadhyay, and P. K. Chatterjee, “Three dimensional kinetic modeling of fluidized bed biomass gasi-
fication,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 109, 53–64 (2014).