Energy 219 (2021) 119533

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

CFD-DEM simulation of air-blown gasification of biomass in a

bubbling fluidized bed gasifier: Effects of equivalence ratio and
fluidization number
In Sik Hwang a, Jungho Sohn a, Uen Do Lee b, Jungho Hwang a, *
a
Mechanical Engineering Department, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
b
Korea Institute of Industrial Technology, Chungcheongnam-do, Republic of Korea

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

Article history: In this study, air-blown gasification of biomass in a bubbling fluidized bed (BFB) gasifier was numerically
Received 17 August 2020 investigated. A discrete element model coupled with computational fluid dynamics (CFD-DEM), in which
Received in revised form gas is considered as continuum and particle is considered as discrete phase, was employed. The flow
1 December 2020
characteristics of the BFB were discussed and compared with the reported experimental data. Then, the
Accepted 3 December 2020
Available online 7 December 2020
gasification performance of the BFB was discussed for cases with varying fluidization number (FN) values
at a constant equivalence ratio (ER). In a parametric study, calculations were performed for various FN
values, and the ER value was fixed as 0.27. The formation of CO2 commenced inside the fluidized bed
Keywords:
Bubbling fluidized bed
region for FN values exceeding 3.6. When the FN value increased, slight decreases were observed in the
Gasification CO and H2 concentrations as well as CCE. Thus, an increase in FN beyond a certain value was not rec-
Biomass ommended. Another parametric study was performed for various combinations of FN & ER values. The
Fluidization number CGE increased for FN & ER values between 2.49 & 0.21 and 3.56 & 0.3, whereas it decreased for FN & ER
values exceeding 3.56 & 0.3. Therefore, the optimum FN & ER values were considered as 3.56 & 0.3.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction gasifier is challenging [2,3].

Increasing attention has been focused on clean energy and
renewable technologies owing to global environmental problems
caused by fossil fuels. Among these technologies, biomass gasifi-
cation is considered as the most efficient process for biomass
application. Biomass gasification is a thermochemical process that
converts biomass into a combination of carbon monoxide, carbon
dioxide, hydrogen, and methane [1]. Among various gasifiers, the
bubbling fluidized bed (BFB) gasifier is suitable for biomass gasifi-
cation owing to its advantageous characteristics that include mass/
heat transfer, outstanding mixing properties, and good tempera-
ture control. In a BFB gasifier, biomass and sand particles are flu-
idized by gasifying agents such as air, oxygen, steam, or their
combination. There are many complex physical and chemical pro-
cesses within a BFB gasifier, including particle heat-up, mixing and
segregation, moisture release and pyrolysis, devolatilization, and
char reaction. Therefore, a detailed study of gasification in a BFB
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hwangjh@yonsei.ac.kr (J. Hwang).
Computational fluid dynamic (CFD) models are popular for
investigating flow and chemical reaction in an FB gasifier. Specif-
ically, dense gasesolid flow models are required to investigate an
FB gasifier using CFD. Generally, all dense gasesolid flow CFD
models are divided into EulerianeEulerian (E-E) and
EulerianeLagrangian (E-L) approaches. In an E-E approach, fluid
and particle phases are considered as inter-penetrating continuum.
The E-E approach has dominated fluidization process modeling for
several years because it can easily calculate the macroscopic char-
acteristics of a system. However, given advancement in computer
technologies, the discrete characteristics of gasesolid flow were
examined via the E-L approach. In an E-L approach, gas is consid-
ered as a continuum and a particle is considered as a discrete phase.
When the particle phase is coupled with CFD and particleeparticle
interaction is determined via discrete element method (DEM), the
E-L approach is considered as the CFD-DEM model. The CFD-DEM
model can reveal the microscopic characteristics of a system at
the particle level because each particle consists of various proper-
ties such as density, temperature, diameter, and composition.
Furthermore, CFD-DEM model can depict the particleefluid/parti-
cle interaction, particle trajectories, and particle level transient

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.119533
0360-5442/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
I.S. Hwang, J. Sohn, U.D. Lee et al. Energy 219 (2021) 119533

forces, which is especially difficult, even impossible to obtain via an 2.2. Sand particles
E-E approach.
Currently, most studies on CFD-DEM adjust the focus for the The particle phase is calculated by using DEM based on the
hydrodynamics of an isothermal FB without mass/heat transfers study of Cundall and Strack [12]. The main characteristic of the DEM
and gasification reactions. For example, Agrawal et al. [4] exposed model is that the particle phase is considered to be composed of
particulate flow characteristics of cold flow simulation of BFB with discrete particles, and their behavior is calculated from the New-
different drag models. Ostermeier et al. [5] compared different tonian equations of motion. The forces due to particleeparticle
modeling approaches including TFM, dense discrete phase model, collisions are measured by the deformation, which is determined
and CFD-DEM model in BFB. The results indicated that their CFD- from the overlap between particle pairs. The colliding particles i
DEM model can adequately predict particle hydrodynamics of flu- and j are shown in Fig. 1, and the overlap between particle pairs of i

! !
ðd þd Þ !
idized bed. Furthermore, several studies considered chemical re- and j is expressed as d (d ¼
x j  x i
 i 2 j ). Specifically, x i and
actions [6e9]. Gerber and Oevermann [6] exploited a 2-D CFD-DEM !
x j denote the position vectors, di and dj denote the diameters, and
model into an FB reactor to investigate wood gasification. The
applied model included various processes requiring gasification ui and uj denote the angular velocities of particles i and j, respec-
such as pyrolysis, chemical reaction, and tar decomposition. Zhao tively. The equations of motion of particle i for translation and
and Yu [7] applied the CFD-DEM model into an FB reactor to rotation are as follows:
investigate biomass gasification. They considered quasi-3D gasifier
dimensions, in which the reactor thickness was narrow, and used dui ! X! !

!
mi ¼  Vi Vp þ F d þ F cn;ij ; þ F ct;ij þ mi g (1)
simplified reaction models. Gas composition, particle distribution, dt j
and chemical reaction on flow behavior were investigated. Hu et al.
[8] applied the CFD-DEM model into a quasi-3D dimension gasifier.
The effects of operating parameters on an FB reactor were inves- dui X
Ii ¼ Mi (2)
tigated, and relationships between gasification reactions and mix- dt N i
ing were analyzed. Ku et al. [9] applied the CFD-DEM model into a
quasi-3D dimension gasifier to analyze biomass gasification. They where mi denotes the particle i mass, ui denotes the particle i ve-
investigated the effects of steam/biomass ratio on BFB gasifier with !
locity, Vi denotes the particle i volume, g denotes the gravity ac-
respect to particle mixing, particle flow pattern, syngas composi-
celeration, Vp denotes the pressure drop, Fd denotes the drag force,
tion, and carbon conversion. However, the studies [6e9] used
Fcn;ij denotes the normal force on particle i due to contact with
simplified geometries due to which the description of complicated
particle j, denotes the tangential force on particle i due to contact
features of the flow was limited.
with particle j, Mi denotes torque, and Ii denotes the moment of
In this study, the integrated CFD-DEM model was used and in-
inertia of particle i.
cludes submodels accounting for turbulence, heat transfer, particle !
radiation, particle collision, drying, pyrolysis, and gasification re- The drag force F d is calculated as follows:
actions. The model was applied to a pilot-scale 3-D BFB gasifier (1  
ton/day) located in Korea Institute of Industrial Technology ! ! !
F d ¼b ug  ui (3)
(KITECH), Cheonan, South Korea. Simulation results were discussed
with respect to particle distributions, particle movements, gas
distribution, and gas composition in a BFB gasifier. After validation !
where b denotes the coefficient of gasesolid exchange and u g
with experimental data obtained by Kim et al. [10], the effects of
two gasifier input values (aeration airflow rate and biomass-
feeding rate) on the gasification performance were investigated in
the study. Combinations of these two input values were repre-
sented as equivalence ratio (ER) and fluidization number (FN).
Specifically, ER was selected because it is important for syngas
production and was therefore commonly used as one macroscopic
parameter for thermodynamically predicting the gasification per-
formance. However, thermodynamic prediction occasionally fails
owing to complicated transport phenomena due to the mixing
between biomass and sand particles. Therefore, FN was selected as
another macroscopic parameter because FN is related to the char-
acteristics of fluidization and mixing of biomass with sand particles
[11]. Hereafter, ER and FN were used as operating parameters, and
calculated results were arranged with respect to ER and FN.
Currently, many studies are conducted for different values of ER,
steam/biomass ratio, biomass size, and moisture in biomass.
However, there is a paucity of studies on the effect of FN on the
gasification performance.

2. Model description

2.1. Continuous phase

The gas phase is calculated by the continuity and conservation of

momentum (NeS) equations using ANSYS Fluent 17.2. The standard
k-ε model is applied as the turbulent model. Fig. 1. Coordinate system used in the description of the collision model.

2
I.S. Hwang, J. Sohn, U.D. Lee et al. Energy 219 (2021) 119533

denotes the gas velocity. The drag force denotes the important approaches mlimit .
parameter of gasesolid phase momentum exchange. In the study, Sand particle temperature can be determined from a simple
we apply the Gidaspow [13] model, which is combined with the heat balance considering convection and radiation as follows:
Wen and Yu [14] and Ergun [15] models. The coefficient of
dTi  

gasesolid exchange is expressed as follows: mi cp;i
4
¼ hAi Tg  Ti þ εi Ai s qR  Ti4 (9)
8 dt



>
>
!

>
>
>
>
ai rg

!u g  u i

where Ti denotes the temperature of particle i, Ai denotes the sur-
>
> 3
>
> C a2:65 ; ai  0:2 face area of particle i, Tg denotes the gas temperature, h denotes the
< 4 D di g
convective heat transfer coefficient, εi denotes the emissivity of
b¼

(4)
>
>
! !

particle i, s denotes the StefaneBoltzmann constant, and qR de-
>
> 1:75r a
u  u
> g i
i

> 150ai mg
2 g notes the radiation temperature. Furthermore, the discrete ordinate
>
>
> þ ; ai > 0:2
>
: ag d2 di (DO) radiation model is used for the radiative properties of gases.
i Time steps for solving the gas and particle are 1  103 s and 2 
4
10 s, respectively.
where ai denotes the particle volume fraction, ag denotes the gas
volume fraction, rg denotes the gas density, and mg denotes the gas
viscosity. Additionally, CD denotes the drag coefficient and is 2.3. Biomass
calculated as follows:
The DEM models used for sand particles are also used to
24 h  0:687 i simulate biomass. In the stage of inert heating and moisture
CD ¼ 1 þ 0:15 ag Rei (5)
ag Rei release, moisture releases until biomass particle reaches the
vaporization temperature. During the moisture release, mass
 
where Rei denotes the particle Reynolds number and expressed as dmvapor
! ! transfer occurs, and the evaporation rate dt
is calculated with
r j u  u jd
Rei ¼ g gm i i . the diffusion-controlled model [16,17], as follows:
g

The normal force of particle i due to contact with particle j, Fcn;ij ,  

is calculated by the SpringeDashpot model as follows: dmvapor gc ðShÞAi MH2o Psat ðTi Þ XH2O P
¼   (10)
   dt R Ti Tg
! ! ! !
F cn;ij ¼ K d þ g u ij , n ij n ij (6)
where mvapor denotes the moisture mass in the particle i, gc ðShÞ
denotes the mass transfer coefficient determined by the Ranz and
! ! Marshall Sherwood number, MH2O denotes the molar mass of H2O,
where u ij denotes the relative velocity of particle i to particle j, n ij
! ! Psat denotes the saturated vapor pressure, XH2O denotes the local
! x x
denotes the unit vector normal to the contact plane ( n ij ¼ !j !i ), bulk mole fraction of H2O, and P denotes the local absolute pres-
j x j x ij
sure. The diffusion-controlled model described above is compared
K denotes the spring stiffness, h denotes the restitution coefficient,
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi with the convection/diffusion-controlled model. Details are shown
floss denotes the loss factor (floss ¼ p2 þ ln2 h), tcoll denotes the in Supplementary Material.
qffiffiffiffiffi
m mi mj Heat transfer to the biomass particle also occurs in addition to
collision time scale (tcoll ¼ floss Kij where mij ¼ mi þm ), and g de-
j
mass transfer. A heat balance model containing phase change and
mij ln h
notes the damping coefficient (g ¼  2 tcoll ). convection and radiation is applied to calculate the heat transfer to
The tangential collision forces are calculated by the Coulomb the particle temperature:
friction as follows:
 dm
dTi  
! ! mi cp;i ¼ hAi Tg  Ti þ εi Ai s q4R  Ti4 þ i
h (11)
F ct;ij ¼ m F cn;ij (7) dt dt fg

where hfg denotes the latent heat.

where m denotes the friction coefficient. The friction coefficient is
In the devolatilization stage, the devolatilization process begins
determined by the relative tangential velocity magnitude (vrt ),
when the biomass temperature reaches a critical level. In this study,
8 a single-rate model is applied with a simple Arrhenius expression.
>
> ! !
>
>
 v vrt The devolatilization time of biomass is determined by calculating
>
> m þ m  m rt
2:0 ;vrt  vglide
>
> stick stick glide the amount of volatile matter. In addition, all the volatile species
>
> vglide vglide
< from devolatilization are assumed as CHO compounds, and the
mðvrt Þ¼ mglide ;vglide <vrt  vlimit composition is assumed from the proximate and ultimate analysis
>
>
>
> results of biomass. The devolatilization rate is calculated with the
>
> 1þvratio
>
> ;vrt >vlimit single-rate model [16,17], as follows:
> 1þ m
>
: ratio vratio
 
dmdevol E
(8) ¼  Aexp  mdevol (12)
dt RTi
where mstick denotes the coefficient of sticking friction, mglide de-
where mdevol denotes the volatile mass in the particle, A ¼ 3.12 
notes the coefficient of gliding friction, mlimit denotes the limit
105 s1 and E ¼ 7.4  107 J/kmol [18,19]. The single-rate model
friction coefficient of high velocity, vglide denotes the gliding ve-
described above is compared with constant-rate and two-
locity, vlimit denotes the limit velocity, and mratio denotes the ratio of competing-rates models. Details are shown in Supplementary
vrt vlimit
mglide to mlimit . Specifically, vratio is expressed as slope , where Material.
limit

slopelimit is a parameter that is related with how fast mðvrt Þ In the chemical reaction stage, to reflect turbulence effect on
3
I.S. Hwang, J. Sohn, U.D. Lee et al. Energy 219 (2021) 119533

Table 1
Kinetic parameters of reactions.

Reactions Ar (Units vary) Er (J/kmol) m a b c Ref

1 C<s> þ O2 / CO2 9.35  104 (1/s) 8.26  106 0 0 1 0 [21]

2 C<s> þ CO2 / 2CO 3.4  107 (1/s) 1.8  108 0 0 1 0 [21]
3 C<s> þ H2O / CO þ H2 1.4  108 (1/s) 1.8  108 0 0 1 0 [21]
4 C<s>þ2H2 / CH4 4.19  103 (1/s) 1.92  107 0 0 1 0 [21]
5 CO þ0.5O2 / CO2 2.239  1012 ((m3/kmol)0.75/s) 1.674  108 0 1 0.25 0.5 [H2O] [22]
6 H2 þ 0.5O2 / H2O 6.8  1015 ((m3/kmol)0.75/K1/s) 1.67  108 1 0.25 1.5 0 [22]
7 H2 þ CO2 / CO þ H2O 2.2  107 ((m3/kmol)0.5/s) 1.9  108 0 0.5 1 0 [23]
8 CO þ 3H2 / CH4 þ H2O 5.14  1014 ((m3/kmol)/s) 2.73  104 0 1 1 0 [24]
9 CO þ H2O / CO2 þ H2 2.34  1010 ((m3/kmol)0.5/s) 2.883  108 0 0.5 1 0 [25]
10 CH4 þ 2O2 / CO2 þ 2H2O 2.119  1011 ((m3/kmol)0.5/s) 2.43  107 0 0.2 1.3 0 [26]
11 C2H4 þ 3O2 / 2CO2 þ 2H2O 1  108 ((m3/kmol)3/s) 1.73  108 0 1 3 0 [27]
12 Volatile (CH1$684O0.61) / 2.12  1011 (1/s) 2.027  108 0 1 0 0 [22]
0.31CO þ 0.152CO2 þ 0.558H2 þ
0.106CH4 þ 0.035C2H4þ0.363C<s>

reaction, chemical reactions are calculated by the finite-rate/eddy-
dissipation model in which the slower rate between the finite-rate
and the eddy-dissipation is selected [20]. The chemical reaction
rate is calculated as follows:
Rrxn ¼ Ar Tgb eEa =RTg C1a C2b C3c (13)
where Ar denotes the pre-exponential factor, b denotes the tem-
perature exponent, Ea denotes the activation energy (J/kmol), R
denotes the universal gas constant, and C1 , C2 , and C3 denote the
molar concentrations of the first and second reactants and a third
species (kmol/m3), respectively. Furthermore, a, b, and c denote the
corresponding reaction order. In this study, biomass char gasifica-
tion reactions involve the reactions of O2, H2O, CO2, and various gas
phase chemical reactions are considered. Table 1 shows the various
reactions and kinetic parameters of involved reactions. In Table 1,
the volatile gas is assumed from CHO compounds (CH1$684O0.61)
that are determined from the proximate and ultimate analysis. The
proximate and ultimate analysis results are shown in Section 2.4.
2.4. Geometry and simulation condition
In this study, the experimental data are obtained from the BFB
gasifier of KITECH [10]. Fig. 2 shows the gasifier geometry and its
dimensions. The diameter and height of the gasifier is 0.4 m and
3.655 m, respectively. The CFD grids are generated via ANSYS
meshing, and the grid number is selected as 41,442 based on a grid
independence study. Discretization uncertainty and time efficiency
are also considered for selecting the grid number (See Supple-
mentary Material).
The gasifier is operated at atmospheric pressure, and the outlet
is open to ambient air. In the experimental setup, two cyclones are
situated behind the gasifier to separate between product gas and
sand, dust, and unburned-char. However, for the convenience of
simulation, cyclones are not considered in this simulation. In this
study, silica sand is applied as the sand material, which is classified

Fig. 2. (a) BFB gasifier schematics and (b) simulated domain.

4
I.S. Hwang, J. Sohn, U.D. Lee et al. Energy 219 (2021) 119533

Table 2 satisfy the condition. The temperature of preheated air is set as

Proximate and ultimate analysis results of biomass. 673 K (400  C). The BFB gasifier wall is surrounded by a thick re-
Feedstock Wood pellet fractory material, and thus the wall of BFB gasifier is set as adia-
Proximate analysis (as received wt.%)
batic. Furthermore, no-slip boundary conditions are applied at the
Moisture 9.8 wall and particleewall collisions are assumed as perfect elastic
Volatiles 72.7 collisions. More details are listed in Table 3.
Fixed carbon 16.7 The operating parameters of ER and FN are varied in this study.
Ash 0.8
ER is defined as follows:
Ultimate analysis (d.a.f. wt.%)
C 51.02
H 7.16 Actual air fuel ratio
O 41.73
ER ¼ (14)
Stoichiometric air fuel ratio
N 0.09
S 0.004 The actual air fuel ratio denotes the ratio between the aeration
LHV (MJ/kg) 18 airflow rate and biomass-feeding rate. To determine the stoichio-
Apparent density (kg/m3) 1050 metric air fuel ratio, the following stoichiometric reaction of
Bulk density (kg/m3) 600
biomass is used.

CH1:684 O0:61
in the Geldart B group. The diameter and density of the sand par- þ 1:116ðO2 þ 3:76N2 Þ/ CO2 þ 0:842H2 O
ðBiomassÞ
ticle are set as 250 mm and 2600 kg/m3, respectively. Sand particles
þ 4:196N2 (15)
are initially placed between the bottom of BFB and BFB height
corresponding to 1 m. The total number of sand particles is selected FN is defined as follows:
as 36,432 parcels (A parcel corresponds to a group of particles. One
parcel approximately corresponds to 2.01  105 particles) based on U
previous studies [9,16,28e30] and grid resolution test results pre- FN ¼ (16)
Umf
sented in Supplementary Material. Wood pellet is used as biomass
(4 8 mm  20 mm), and the proximate and ultimate analysis results where U denotes the superficial gas velocity determined from the
of the biomass are presented in Table 2. In the experiment, a uni- aeration airflow rate. The minimum fluidization velocity, Umf , de-
form amount of biomass is injected using a screw-type feeder. The notes the velocity where the particles begin to be suspended by the
screw-type feeder splits biomass into small debris, and thus the flow and is determined as follows:
biomass particle size becomes significantly lower than the wood
pellet size. Therefore, the diameter of biomass particle is set as Remf
1 mm in this study. The preheated chamber is located at the bottom Umf ¼ (17)
mg rg di
of the gasifier. The chamber includes an LPG gas burner, and
combustible gas is supplied to the gasifier via the distributor during where Remf denotes the particle Reynolds number calculated at the
the start-up. With the aid of LPG burner, aeration air is preheated,
and the biomass is sequentially and spontaneously combusted at
approximately 573e623 K (300e350  C). Therefore, the tempera- Table 4
ture inside the BFB gasifier rapidly increases up to 1073e1173 K Simulation conditions.

(800e900  C) at which the combustible gas barely exists and only FN 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4 4.4
char exists in biomass. The LPG burner is turned off when the ER 0.27
condition is achieved. Subsequently, biomass is continuously fed Biomass-feeding rate (kg/h) 25.5 29.8 34 38.2 42.5 46.8
Aeration airflow rate (kg/h) 35.85 41.90 47.80 53.71 59.75 65.80
from the biomass inlet when the temperature inside the BFB
Various combinations of FN & ER values
gasifier is 800  C. Therefore, in this study, the initial temperature of FN 2.49 2.84 3.2 3.56 3.91 4.26
gas and sand particles in the BFB gasifier is set to 1073 K (800  C) to ER 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.3 0.33 0.36
Biomass-feeding rate (kg/h) 34
Aeration airflow rate (kg/h) 37.18 42.49 47.80 53.11 58.14 63.74

Table 3
Overview of CFD-DEM simulation parameters.

Fluid time step 1  103 s

DEM time step 2  104 s

Total simulation time 20 s for fluidized bed motion
15 s for gasification
Number of continuous phase iteration 200
Convergence criterion 1  106 for energy eq.
1  103 for other eqs.
Sand particle diameter 250 mm
Sand particle density 2650 kg/m3
Drag law Gidaspow
Initial bed height 1m
Initial void fraction 0.5
Initial bed condition Sand only
Initial sand particle temperature 800  C
Maximum packing limit (εp;max ) 0.63
Inlet boundary condition Mass flow inlet (35.85 kg/s e 65.80 kg/s)
Outlet boundary condition Pressure outlet (1 atm)

5
I.S. Hwang, J. Sohn, U.D. Lee et al. Energy 219 (2021) 119533

Fig. 3. Temporal profiles of (ER ¼ 0.27, FN ¼ 3.2) (a) sand particle volume fraction and (b) particle velocity distribution and particle velocity vector.

minimum fluidization velocity. Specifically, Remf is determined gasification [31]. In this study, calculations are first performed for
from the following Wen and Yu equation: biomass-feeding rate of 34 kg/h and aeration air flow rate of
47.8 kg/h, thereby resulting in ER ¼ 0.27 and FN ¼ 3.2. They were
Ar ¼ 1650Remf þ 24:5Re2mf (18) used in the experimental study by Kim et al. [10]. Additionally,
different combinations of biomass-feeding rates and aeration
airflow rates are tested. These combinations lead to different FN
where Ar denotes the Archimedes number and is determined as
values ranging from 2.4 to 4.8. However, the ER value is maintained
follows:
as a constant at 0.27. The details are shown in Table 4.
  Calculations are also performed for various aeration airflow
rg d3i ri  rg g
Ar ¼ (19) rates from 37.18 kg/h to 63.74 kg/h with a constant biomass-feeding
m2g rate of 34 kg/h. In this case, FN value is varied from 2.49 to 2.84 to
3.2 to 3.56 to 3.91 to 4.26, whereas ER value is varied from 0.21 to
The ER commonly ranges from 0.2 to 0.4 in the biomass
6
I.S. Hwang, J. Sohn, U.D. Lee et al. Energy 219 (2021) 119533

Fig. 4. Temporal distributions for ER ¼ 0.27 and FN ¼ 3.2, (a) gas temperature, (b) H2O mole fraction, (c) CO2 mole fraction, (d) CO mole fraction, (e) H2 mole fraction, and (f) CH4
mole fraction.

0.24 to 0.27 to 0.3 to 0.33 to 0.36, respectively (See Table 4).

2.5. Evaluation parameters

Chemical energy of gas LHV  V_ g
CGE ¼ ¼
In this study, three evaluation parameters are introduced to Chemical energy of feed stock LHVbiomass  m_ biomass
calculate the performance of gasification process, namely carbon (21)
conversion efficiency (CCE), cold gas efficiency (CGE), and lower
heating value of gas (LHV). The CCE and CGE are defined as follows: where LHVbiomass denotes the lower heating value of biomass (see
Table 2), V_ g denotes the volumetric flow rate of gas, and m
_ biomass
Carbon in gasification residue
CCE ¼ 1  (20) denotes the mass flow rate of biomass. Specifically, LHV denotes the
Carbon in feedstock amount of heat generated from fully combusting a specified
quantity and is determined as follows [32]:
7
I.S. Hwang, J. Sohn, U.D. Lee et al.
Fig. 5. Results for ER ¼ 0.27 and FN ¼ 3.2 (a) vertical gas temperature profile along the
gasifier height at t ¼ 15 s and (b) gas composition of numerical simulation when
compared with experimental data.
 
MJ
LHV ¼ 35:8yCH4 þ 12:6yCO þ 10:8yH2
m3
where yCH4 , yCO , and yH2 denote the mole fractions of methane,
carbon monoxide, and hydrogen in the producer gas, respectively.
3. Results and discussion
In this study, numerical calculations are performed using CFD-
DEM for a biomass BFB gasifier that was experimentally exam-
ined by Kim et al. [10]. The numerical calculation results are first
obtained for the case of ER ¼ 0.27 & FN ¼ 3.2 to compare with the
experimental data obtained by Kim et al. [10]. Subsequently, for
other two cases involving ER ¼ 0.24 & FN ¼ 4.6 and ER ¼ 0.19 &
FN ¼ 3.7, calculations are performed, and the results are also
compared with experimental data obtained by Kim et al. [10]. Next,
calculated flow and characteristics of the BFB are discussed for
cases with varying FN values at a constant ER. Finally, various
combinations of FN & ER values are considered at a constant
biomass-feeding rate.
The temporal distribution of sand particle volume fraction is
shown in Fig. 3 (a). Specifically, ER ¼ 0.27 & FN ¼ 3.2 are used
(Biomass-feeding rate ¼ 34 kg/h and aeration air flow
Energy 219 (2021) 119533
rate ¼ 47.8 kg/h). At t ¼ 0, sand particles are uniformly packed in
the BFB gasifier. After aeration air is injected at t > 0, the sand
particles start to move and air bubbles inside the sand particles are
formed (See Fig. 3 (a)). When time elapses, air bubbles go up
through the sand particles. On the way up through the sand par-
ticles, the air bubbles withdraw around the sand particles. Thus,
sand particles are set in motion. When air bubbles reach the bed
surface, they burst, and the sand particles are ejected into the space
above the region of the fluidized bed (freeboard). Ejected sand
particles return into the fluidized bed, and thus the movement of
sand particles is significantly changed. This region is termed as a
splash zone. In the splash zone, sand particles and biomass are well
mixed, and thus it is anticipated that combustion and oxidation
reactions mainly occur in the splash zone. As shown in the tem-
poral profiles of particle velocity distribution and particle velocity
vector in Fig. 3(b), sand particles move severely in the splash zone
at t > 2. Hereafter, biomass is injected at t ¼ 2 s.
After the biomass is continuously fed from the biomass inlet, the
gas temperature in the freeboard region slightly decreases from the
preheated value (1073 K) and H2O concentration increases when
the gas temperature decreases because heat is absorbed for the
release of H2O contained in the biomass (as shown in the results for
t ¼ 3 s in Fig. 4(a) and Fig. 4(b)). At t ¼ 4 s, biomass is decomposed
into volatile species (CH1$684O0.61), and volatile species almost
immediately turn into CO, CO2, H2 and CH4 in the lower freeboard
region (See Fig. 4(c), (d), 4(e) and 4(f)). Additionally, the gas tem-
perature and CO2 concentration increase in the freeboard region
(See Fig. 4(a) and (c)) because combustion occurs. Increases in the
gas temperature also increases the release of H2O contained in
biomass, and thus H2O concentration appears in the most freeboard
region (See Fig. 4(b)). Conversely, the gas temperature and CO2
concentration in the lower freeboard region are not as high as in the
upper freeboard region because most of the heat generated from
combustion is used for the release of H2O and volatile species. At
t ¼ 5 s, the gas temperature and CO2 concentration in the upper
freeboard region decrease when compared to those at t ¼ 4 s, as
shown in Fig. 4(a) and (b), because gasification commences.
Simultaneously, gasification products (e.g., CO, H2, and CH4) are
formed in the upper freeboard region (See Fig. 4(d), (e), and 4(f)).
From t ¼ 8 se13 s, the gas temperature continues to decrease in the
upper freeboard region although it becomes constant at t > 13 s. For
any time in the lower freeboard, the concentration of CO2 is the
(22) highest (combustion mainly occurs in the splash zone. Please refer
to Supplementary Material) while the concentration of CO, H2, and
CH4 is the lowest. Therefore, it is assumed that gasification is
completely developed at t ¼ 13 s. Hereafter, the results obtained at
t ¼ 15 s are presented in the manuscript.
Fig. 5(a) shows the gas temperature profiles along the gasifier
height at t ¼ 15 s and compared with experimental data obtained
by Kim et al. [10]. In the numerical simulation, the gas temperature
in the fluidized bed region is assumed as 1073 K (800 C). However,
the measured gas temperature is slightly lower than 1073 K (800
 C) in the fluidized bed region due to heat loss to the wall. However,
the setup temperature is 1073 K. Except for a tiny gas temperature
difference (20 K) in the fluidized bed region, calculated results are
in good agreement with the measured results. The calculated gas
compositions are also compared with experimental data obtained
by Kim et al. [10] in Fig. 5(b).
So far, the characteristics of biomass gasification are discussed
for the case with ER ¼ 0.27 & FN ¼ 3.2 (Biomass-feeding
rate ¼ 34 kg/h and aeration air flow rate ¼ 47.8 kg/h). For the other
two cases with ER ¼ 0.24 & FN ¼ 4.6 and ER ¼ 0.19 & FN ¼ 3.7,
calculations are performed, and the results are also compared with
experimental data obtained by Kim et al. [10]. The biomass-feeding
rate and aeration airflow rate are 55 kg/h and 69.7 kg/h,
8
I.S. Hwang, J. Sohn, U.D. Lee et al. Energy 219 (2021) 119533

Fig. 6. Results for different conditions (a) vertical gas temperature profile along the gasifier height, and (b) gas composition of numerical simulation when compared with
experimental data.

9
I.S. Hwang, J. Sohn, U.D. Lee et al. Energy 219 (2021) 119533

Fig. 7. Spatial distribution of gas temperature for various FN values at a constant ER.

Fig. 8. Spatial gas distributions of CO2 mole fraction under various FN values at a constant ER.

respectively, for the case of ER ¼ 0.24 & FN ¼ 4.6, and 55 kg/h and
55.5 kg/h, respectively, for the case of ER ¼ 0.19 & FN ¼ 3.7. The
results are compared in Fig. 6. Figs. 5(a) and Figure 6(a) show that
the uniformity of temperature in the freeboard region is in the
order of ER ¼ 0.24 & FN ¼ 4.6, ER ¼ 0.19 & FN ¼ 3.7, and ER ¼ 0.27 &
FN ¼ 3.2. The results indicate that higher FN leads to better uni-
formity of temperature in the freeboard region. Given the gas
compositions shown in Figs. 5(b) and 6(b), the gasification perfor-
mance is in the order of ER ¼ 0.19 & FN ¼ 3.7, ER ¼ 0.24 & FN ¼ 4.6,
and ER ¼ 0.27 & FN ¼ 3.2. Thus, the results indicate that lower ER
causes better gasification performance.
Two parametric studies are performed to obtain more detailed
information on gasification performance. In a parametric study,
calculations are performed for various FN values ranging from 2.4
to 4.8 while the ER value is fixed as 0.27. The corresponding
biomass-feeding rates and aeration airflow rates are listed in
Table 4. The gas temperature in the lower freeboard region (1080 K)
does not change with any changes in the FN value. The gas tem-
perature in the middle and upper freeboard region (890 K) also
does not change with respect to FN values lower than 3.6. However,
it increases for FN values exceeding 3.6 (See Fig. 7). Thus, the
temperature difference between the lower freeboard region and
upper freeboard region continues to decrease when the FN value
increases from 3.6 to 4.8.

10
I.S. Hwang, J. Sohn, U.D. Lee et al.
Fig. 9. Effects of FN at a constant ER on (a) gas composition and (b) LHV, CCE, and CGE.
Fig. 8 shows the spatial distribution of CO2 with different values
of FN at a constant ER. The results indicate that the formation of CO2
commences inside the fluidized bed region for FN values exceeding
3.6. Spatial distributions of CO, H2, and CH4 are shown in the
Supplementary Material. Fig. 9(a) and Fig. 9(b) show the gas
composition and gasification performance, respectively. When the
FN value increases, the CO and H2 concentrations and CCE slightly
decrease while the CO2 concentration does not significantly change.
The CH4 concentration and CGE and LHV also slightly decrease for
FN values between 2.4 and 3.6. However, it rapidly decreases for FN
values exceeding 3.6. The phenomenon is explained with Fig. 10 as
follows:
Fig. 10(a) shows the spatial distribution of sand particle volume
fraction for different values of FN at ER ¼ 0.27. When FN value in-
creases, air bubbles disappear and sand particles move vigorously.
Fig. 10(b) shows the particle velocity inside the fluidized bed region.
11
Energy 219 (2021) 119533
When the FN value increases, particles of high velocity (green and
red colors) are observed in the splash zone and in most of the re-
gion of the bubbling zone. The excessively fast movement of sand
particles in the bubbling zone causes extremely high mixing of sand
particles with biomass, thereby resulting in slow diffusion of oxy-
gen from the air bubbles to the splash zone. Based on Liu et al. [27],
slow diffusion of oxygen encourages vigorous combustion that
occurs in the splash zone and also in the bubbling zone. From our
previous results in Fig. 8, combustion occurs in the bubbling zone
for FN values exceeding 3.6. In this situation, the unreacted char
reacts with O2 as opposed to CO2 and H2O, and thus the gasification
performance decreases. Thus, an increase in FN beyond a certain
value is not recommended.
After investigating the effects of FN at a constant ER (0.27) on
the gasification performance, another parametric study is per-
formed for various combinations of FN & ER values. Hence, FN
I.S. Hwang, J. Sohn, U.D. Lee et al.
Fig. 10. Results for various FN values at a constant ER (a) spatial distribution of particle volume fraction and (b) particle velocity.
values are varied from 2.49 to 2.84 to 3.2 to 3.56 to 3.91 to 4.26
while ER values are varied from 0.21 to 0.24 to 0.27 to 0.3 to 0.33 to
0.36, respectively. The biomass-feeding rate is fixed as 34 g/h while
the aeration airflow rate is varied, as shown in Table 4. Fig. 7 shows
the results for varying the FN value at ER ¼ 0.27. The results show
that the gas temperature in the middle and upper freeboard region
does not change for FN values lower than 3.6 although the FN value
increases from 3.6 to 4.8. However, as shown in Fig. 11, the gas
temperature in the middle and upper freeboard region increases
consistently when the FN & ER values increase. This is because
increases in ER in the fuel rich regime increases combustion (see Eq.
(12)). Thus, the gas temperature difference between the lower
freeboard region and the upper freeboard region decreases
12
Energy 219 (2021) 119533
consistently when the FN & ER values increase. Fig. 12 shows the
distribution of CO2 with various combinations of FN & ER values.
When the FN & ER values increase, the highest CO2 concentration
region becomes wider in the lower freeboard region. Spatial dis-
tributions of CO, H2, and CH4 are shown in the Supplementary
Material. Fig. 13(a) and Fig. 13(b) show gas composition and gasi-
fication performance, respectively. When the FN & ER values in-
crease, the CO2 concentration and CCE increase while CO, H2, and
CH4 concentration and LHV decrease. The CGE increases for FN & ER
values between 2.49 & 0.21 and 3.56 & 0.3. However, it decreases
for FN & ER values exceeding 3.56 & 0.3. The CGE trend is explained
via the LHV and volumetric gas flow rate. When FN & ER values
increase up to 3.56 & 0.3, the increase in gas flow rate exceeds the
I.S. Hwang, J. Sohn, U.D. Lee et al. Energy 219 (2021) 119533

Fig. 11. Spatial distribution of gas temperature for various combinations of FN and ER values.

Fig. 12. Spatial gas distributions of CO2 mole fraction under various combinations of FN and ER values.

decrease in LHV, and thus the CGE increases (see Eq. (19)). How-
ever, when FN & ER values further increase, the increase in gas flow
rate is less than the decrease in LHV, and thus the CGE decreases.
Based on the CGE trend, the optimum FN & ER values are consid-
ered as 3.56 & 0.3, respectively, where CGE reaches a maximum of
74.82%.
4. Conclusions
1) In a parametric study, calculations were performed for various
FN values, and the ER value was fixed as 0.27. The gas temper-
ature in the middle and upper freeboard region did not change
for FN values lower than 3.6, although it increased when the FN
value further increased to 4.8. The formation of CO2 commenced

13
I.S. Hwang, J. Sohn, U.D. Lee et al.
Fig. 13. Effects of various combinations of FN and ER values on (a) gas composition and (b) LHV, CCE, and CGE.
inside the fluidized bed region for FN values exceeding 3.6.
When the FN value increased, slight decreases were observed in
the CO and H2 concentrations as well as CCE, although the CO2
concentration did not exhibit a significant change. Slight de-
creases were observed in the CH4 concentration as well as CGE
and LHV for FN values between 2.4 and 3.6, whereas the values
14
Energy 219 (2021) 119533
rapidly decreased for FN values exceeding 3.6. Thus, an increase
in FN beyond a certain value was not recommended.
2) Another parametric study was performed for various combi-
nations of FN & ER values. When the FN & ER values increased,
the gas temperature in the middle and upper freeboard region
increased consistently. The highest CO2 concentration region
became wider in the lower freeboard region when the FN & ER
I.S. Hwang, J. Sohn, U.D. Lee et al.
values increased. When the FN & ER values increased, the CO2
concentration and CCE increased, whereas CO, H2, and CH4
concentration and LHV decreased. The CGE increased for FN &
ER values between 2.49 & 0.21 and 3.56 & 0.3, whereas it
decreased for FN & ER values exceeding 3.56 & 0.3. Therefore,
the optimum FN & ER values were considered as 3.56 & 0.3
under the selected experimental conditions.
Credit author statement
In Sik Hwang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation,
Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Writing e original draft,
Writing e review & editing. Jungho Sohn: Investigation, Visuali-
zation. Uen Do Lee: Validation. Jungho Hwang: Writing e review &
editing, Supervision, Project administration.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Korea Institute of Energy
Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) and the Ministry of
Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE) of the Republic of Korea (No.
20193010093000).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.119533.
References
[1] Dou B, Zhang H, Song Y, Zhao L, Jiang B, He M, Ruan C, Chen H, Xu Y. Hydrogen
production from the thermochemical conversion of biomass: issues and
challenges. Sustain Energ Fuels 2019;3:314e42.
[2] Smith PJ, Smoot LD. Detailed model for practical pulverized coal furnaces and
gasifiers. Bringham Young University; 1989.
[3] Baxter LL. Biomass-coal co-combustion: opportunity for affordable renewable
energy. Fuel 2005;84:1295e302.
[4] Agrawal V, Shinde Y, Shah MT, Utikar RP, Pareek VK, Joshi JB. Effect of drag
models on CFD-DEM predictions of bubbling fluidized beds with geldart D
particles. Adv Powder Technol 2018;29:2658e69.
[5] Ostermeier P, DeYoung S, Vandersickel A, Gleis S, Spliethoff H. Comprehensive
investigation and comparison of TFM, DenseDPM and CFD-DEM for dense
fluidized beds. Chem Eng Sci 2019;196:291e309.
[6] Gerber S, Oevermann M. A two dimensional Euler-Lagrangian model of wood
gasification in a charcoal bed- Part I: model description and base scenario.
Fuel 2014;115:385e400.
[7] Zhao L, Lu Y. Hydrogen production by biomass gasification in a supercritical
15
Energy 219 (2021) 119533
waterfluidized bed reactor: a CFD-DEM study. J Supercrit Fluids 2018;131:
26e36.
[8] Hu C, Luo K, Wang S, Sun L, Fan J. Influences of operating parameters on the
fluidized bed coal gasification process: a coarse-grained CFD-DEM study.
Chem Eng Sci 2019;195:693e706.
[9] Ku X, Li T, Lovas T. CFD-DEM simulation of biomass gasification with steam in
a fluidized bed reactor. Chem Eng Sci 2015;122:270e83.
[10] Kim YD, Yang CW, Kim BJ, Kim KS, Lee JW, Moon JH, Yang W, Yu TU, Lee UD.
Air-blown gasification of woody biomass in a bubbling fluidized bed gasifier.
Appl Energy 2013;112:414e20.
[11] Basu P. Biomass gasification and pyrolysis: practical design and theory. Aca-
demic Press; 2010.
[12] Cundall PA, Strack ODL. Discrete numerical model for granular assemblies.
Geotechnique 1979;29:47e65.
[13] Gidaspow D. Multiphase flow and fluidization: continuum and kinetic theory
descriptions. Academic Press; 1994.
[14] Wen CY, Yu YH. MechanicCs of fluidization. Chem Eng Prog Symp Ser
1996;162:110e1.
[15] Ergun S. Fluid flow through packed columns. Chem Eng Prog 1952;48:89e94.
[16] Wang S, Shen Y. CFD-DEM study of biomass gasification in a fluidized bed
reactor: effects of key operating parameters. Renew Energy 2020;159:
1146e64.
[17] Wang S, Luo K, Fan J. CFD-DEM coupled with thermochemical sub-models for
biomass gasification: validation and sensitivity analysis. Chem Eng Sci
2020;217:115550.
[18] Prakash N, Karunanithi T. Kinetic modeling in biomass pyrolysis-a review.
J Appl Sci Res 2008;4:1627e36.
[19] Abani N, Ghoniem AF. Large eddy simulations of coal gasification in an
entrained flow gasifier. Fuel 2013;104:664e80.
[20] Jeong HJ, Hwang IS, Park SS, Hwang J. Investigation on co-gasification of coal
and biomass in Shell gasifier by using a validated gasification model. Fuel
2017;196:371e7.
[21] Murugan PC, Sekhar SJ. Species eTransport CFD model for the gasification of
rice husk (Oryza Sativa) using downdraft gasifier. Comput Electron Agric
2017;1390:33e40.
[22] Westbrook CK, Dryer FL. Simplified reaction mechanisms for the oxidation of
hydrocarbon fuels in flames. Combust Sci Technol 1981;27:31e43.
[23] Ma J, Zitney SE. Computational fluid dynamic modeling of entrained-flow
gasifiers with improved physical and chemical submodels. Energy Fuel
2012;26:7195e219.
[24] Jess A. Mechanisms and kinetics of thermal reactions of aromatic hydrocar-
bons from pyrolysis of solid fuels. Fuel 1996;75:1441e8.
[25] Bustamante F, Enick RM, Killmeyer RP, Howard BH, Rothenberger KS,
Cugini AV, Morreale BD, Ciocco MV. Uncatalyzed and wall-catalyzed forward
water-gas shift reaction kinetics. AIChE J 2005;51:1440e54.
[26] Yan LB, Cao Y, Li XZ, He BS, Grace JR. Simulation of biomass-steam gasification
in fluidized bed reactors: model setup, comparisons and preliminary pre-
dictions. Bioresour Technol 2016;254:97e106.
[27] Liu H, Elkamel A, Lohi A, Biglari M. Computatonal fluid dynamics modeling of
biomass gasification in circulating fluidized-bed reactor using the Eulerian-
Eulerian approach. Ind Eng Chem Res 2013;52:18162e74.
[28] Ku X, Jin H, Lin J. Comparison of gasification performances between raw and
torrefied biomasses in an air-blown fluidized-bed gasifier. Chem Eng Sci
2017;168:235e49.
[29] Alobaid F. A particle-grid method for Euler-Lagrange approach. Powder
Technol 2015;286:342e60.
[30] Nikolopoulos A, Stroh A, Zeneli M, Alobaid F, Nikolopoulos N, Stro €hle J,
Karellas S, Epple B, Grammelis P. Numerical investigation and comparison of
coarse grain CFD e DEM and TFM in the case of a 1 MWth fluidized bed
carbonator simulation. Chem Eng Sci 2017;163:189e205.
[31] Kirsanovs V, Zandeckis A, Rochas C. Biomass gasification thermodynamic
model including tar and char. Argon Res 2016;14:1321e31.
[32] Kaewluan S, Pipatmanomai S. Potential of synthesis gas production from
rubber wood chip gasification in a bubbling fluidized bed gasifier. Energy
Convers Manag 2011;52:75e84.