Renewable Energy 163 (2021) 1455e1466

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Large eddy simulation of biomass gasification in a bubbling fluidized

bed based on the multiphase particle-in-cell method
Saurabh Gupta, Shikhar Choudhary, Suraj Kumar, Santanu De*
Combustion and Energy Conversion Systems Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur, Uttar
Pradesh, 208016, India

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

Article history: Numerical simulations of biomass gasification in a bubbling fluidized bed have been performed using a
Received 13 December 2019 hybrid approach, where filtered gas-phase governing equations are solved in a Eulerian framework, and
Received in revised form solid particles are modeled based on the multiphase-particle-in-cell method following Lagrangian sto-
4 April 2020
chastic parcel approach. A solver has been developed in OpenFOAM after incorporating both homoge-
Accepted 25 July 2020
Available online 7 August 2020
neous and heterogeneous gasification reactions. Filtered governing equations of gas-phase variables are
solved within the LES framework, where unresolved subgrid stresses and fluxes are obtained using the
subgrid kinetic energy equation closure model. The solver could demonstrate transient flow character-
Keywords:
Biomass gasification
istics of gas-solids flows in a fluidized bed, including formation, coalescence, and the eruption of bubbles
Multiphase particle-in-cell method (MP- at the bed surface. For different operating conditions such as steam/biomass ratio, equivalence ratio, and
PIC) gasifier temperature, predicted concentrations of product gases at the gasifier outlet yield a good
Particle-laden flows agreement with the experimental measurements.
Fluidized bed © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Hydrodynamics
OpenFOAM

1. Introduction the oldest commercial applications of FB technology, has been used

Biomass is a source of clean and renewable energy alternative to
fossil fuels, which is available from different sources, such as wood
processing industry (sawdust, cut-offs, bark), agricultural industry
(sugar cane bagasse, coconut shells, rice hulls, coffee husks, corn
stover, oilseed cakes, wheat straw), food processing industry
(organic waste, animal manure, and food residues), wastewater and
landfill municipal sewage residues, etc. [1,2]. Conventional utiliza-
tion of biomass during incineration results in a loss of thermal ef-
ficiency and increases emissions of harmful gases. Biomass
utilization technology based on gasification of carbonaceous feed-
stock makes it possible to add value to biomass and other agro-
industrial residues by using them as a source of industrial energy
with less SO2 and NOx emissions. During gasification, biomass is
converted into synthetic gas (also known as syngas) in the presence
of a gasification reagent in a high-temperature environment [3].
Fluidized bed (FB) technology offers advantages, such as excellent
heat and mass transfer characteristics, fuel flexibility, etc., over
other gasification methods [4]. The bubbling fluidized bed (BFB),
for many years for biomass gasification. In BFB, fluidizing gases at
low velocities are introduced, and thereby a longer residence time
is achieved for solid particles [5].
The BFB gasifiers are categorized as dense suspension systems,
where a bed of inert or catalytic materials is maintained at a uni-
form temperature and thereby eliminating localized hot spots [6].
For proper design, optimization, and scale-up of FB reactors, it
becomes indispensable to understand parameters that influence
the gasification process. In experiments, scaled-down models are
built to conduct a sensitivity analysis of relevant hydrodynamics
and gasification process parameters. However, such experiments
can be quite expensive and time-consuming [7]. Furthermore, it
becomes extremely difficult to investigate the effects of operating
conditions on the temporal and spatial variations of important
parameters, such as gas-solids mixing, species concentration,
temperature, etc., during plant operation.
With an increase in computational power, computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) has emerged as a virtual experimentation tool
which can be used to investigate multiphase reacting flow in the FB

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sde@iitk.ac.in, santanu80@gmail.com (S. De).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.07.127
0960-1481/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1456 S. Gupta et al. / Renewable Energy 163 (2021) 1455e1466
Nomenclature
A Acceleration, m=s2
As Surface area, m2
Cd Drag coefficient
Cv Specific heat of particle, J=ðkg:KÞ
d Diameter, m
D Mass diffusivity, m2 =s
f Particle probability distribution function
g Acceleration due to gravity, m=s2
h Enthalpy J=kg
Hd Heterogeneous index
k Reaction rate
Mw Molecular weight, kg=kmol
m Mass, kg
Nu Nusselt number
p Pressure, Pa
Pr Prandtl number
Re Reynolds number
R Universal gas constant, J=ðmol:KÞ
Sc Schmidt number
reactors [8]. A thoroughly validated comprehensive numerical
model can serve as a reliable tool to obtain detailed information
about salient features of the complex flow physics. In general, nu-
merical modeling of particle-laden flows may be sub-divided into
two approaches, namely, Eulerian-Eulerian (EE) and Eulerian-
Lagrangian (EL). The EE approach treats both gas-phase and solid
particles as interpenetrating continua and solves their governing
equations in the Eulerian framework [9]. The EE approach has been
applied successfully to study the hydrodynamics of large-scale FB
reactors due to its computational affordability and reasonable ac-
curacy [10]. Due to the continuum assumption of the particle phase,
the EE approach requires additional closure models for the particle-
phase, which is quite a challenging exercise. Since individual solid
particles are not treated separately, the EE approach cannot predict
the change in the size of solid particles due to heterogeneous
gasification reactions [11].
On the other hand, the EL approaches, such as the discrete
element method (DEM) and the discrete particle method (DPM)
track individual or a group of solid particles and resolve particle-
particle collisions in terms of the contact forces. For dense sus-
pension and large systems, where the number of particles could be
of the order of millions or even billions, the DEM/DPM becomes
unrealizable due to high computational cost [12]. The multiphase
particle-in-cell (MP-PIC) method is a hybrid EL approach, which
utilizes computational parcels of a group of solid particles having
identical properties such as diameter, position, velocity, tempera-
ture, composition, etc. [13]. Based on the parcel concept and an
isotropic particle stress model for particle-particle interaction,
normal stresses of particles are estimated using the mean particle
volume fraction on an Eulerian grid. This drastically reduces
computational expenses compared to conventional EL methods.
The MP-PIC method has been applied primarily to investigate
cold flow hydrodynamics in fluidized beds. Only a few studies are
available in the literature where the MP-PIC approach is used to
study multiphase reacting flows in the fluidized beds. Snider et al.
[14] investigated coal gasification in FB by coupling thermal trans-
port and chemical reactions with the MP-PIC method. Using the MP-
PIC method for FB gasification of forest residues, Xie et al. [15] ob-
tained a reasonable agreement in terms of carbon conversion effi-
ciency for specific values of equivalence ratio, steam-biomass ratio,
t Time, s
T Temperature, K
u Velocity, m=s
x Spatial location, m
Y Mass fraction
Greek letters
a Stoichiometric coefficient
b Interphase momentum transfer coefficient
ε Volume fraction
l Thermal conductivity of gas-phase, W=ðm:KÞ
m Viscosity, kg=ðm:sÞ
r Density, kg=m3
t Stress tensor, Pa
Subscript
i The i-th species
g Gas-phase
l Laminar
p Particle phase
t Turbulent
and reactor temperature. In their model, char conversion rates were
estimated from chemical kinetics of the heterogeneous reactions
after ignoring species diffusion, which may be critical towards an
accurate prediction of char conversion. Liu et al. [16] used the MP-PIC
method to examine solids distribution, temperature, and product gas
distribution in a dual FB gasification of biomass. Although results
yielded a reasonable agreement with the experimental data, dis-
crepancies were observed in theconcentrations of CO and CH4, and
the reactor temperature. Kraft et al. [17] compared bed pressure
drop, solids circulation rate, temperature, and composition of prod-
uct gas against the experimental data of biomass gasification in a
dual FB gasifier using a commercial package Barracuda. They omitted
important char gasification reactions, i.e., water-gas shift and Bou-
douard reactions from the reaction mechanism due to their slower
kinetics compared to drying and devolatilization processes. Recently,
Wang et al. [18] and Yan et al. [19] examined biomass gasification in a
spouted FB and a dual FB gasifier within the RANS framework after
integrating the MPPIC method and gasification kinetics in
OpenFOAM.
In this study, a customized solver is developed in OpenFOAM
after incorporating homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions
within an existing MP-PIC solver. Large eddy simulation (LES) is used
to resolve underlying gas-phase flow and scalar fields, where a
transport equation of subgrid kinetic energy is solved to obtain un-
resolved subgrid stresses and fluxes. The predictive capabilities of
the newly developed solver have been assessed for biomass gasifi-
cation in a BFB reactor studied experimentally by Loha et al. [20]. The
composition of product gases is compared with the experimental
data for different operating parameters, such as gasifier temperature,
equivalence ratio, and steam/biomass ratio. A detailed analysis of the
trends observed in the simulations due to the variation of the
operating parameters is presented with possible explanations. The
remainder of the article is organized as follows. In Section 2, gov-
erning equations for gas-solid flows in the EL framework are pre-
sented along with their constitutive closure models, boundary
conditions, and gasification kinetics models. Subsequently, the
geometrical configuration of the gasifier is discussed along with the
physical properties, operating conditions, and numerical technique
in Section 3. Numerical results from reacting gas-solid flows are
presented for the BFB gasifier in Section 4, and major conclusions are
 S. Gupta et al. / Renewable Energy 163 (2021) 1455e1466 1457

drawn in Section 5.
2. Mathematical formulation
In this section, the governing equations of gas and particle
phases are presented along with their constitutive closure models.
2.1. Governing equations for the gas phase
In LES, the filtered Navier-Stokes equations are solved for the
gas-phase along with the filtered transport equations for energy
and species mass conservation. For variable density, low-Mach
number incompressible flow, Favre-averaged (mass-weighted)
filtered velocity (ug Þ, sensible enthalpy ðhg ) and species mass
fractions ðYg;i ) are solved for the gas-phase. However, density (rg )
and thermodynamic pressure (p) are time-averaged quantities.
The filtered continuity equation is solved based on its conser-
vative form:
v

 mg;t
εg rg þ V: εg rg ug ¼ dm_ s
vt
Here, εg is the volume fraction of the gas-phase, and dm_ s is the
rate of mass production per unit volume due to heterogeneous
chemical reactions. The filtered momentum equation of gas-phase
is written as:
In Eq. (4), Tg is the filtered temperature of the gas, 4 is the
P s
viscous dissipation, and q_ D ¼ Ni¼1
V:ðεg rg D g hi VYi Þ is the enthalpy
diffusion term. The source term due to heterogeneous and homo-
geneous reactions are denoted as Sp;h ; and Sh , respectively. Further,
the effective thermal conductivity is lg ¼ lg þ lg;t , and the sgs
mg;t
conductivity is modeled as lg;t ¼ Prt , where turbulent Prandtl
number is Prt ¼ 0.9. The radiation source term Q_ is modeled by the
P-1 radiation model [23].
The filtered transport equation of gas-phase species mass frac-
tion (Yg;i ) is solved in order to obtain the gas-phase composition,
v



εg rg Yg;i þ V: εg rg ug Yg;i ¼ V: εg rg D g VYg;i þ m_ i;ch (5)
vt
where Yg;i is the mass fraction of the i-th species of the gas-phase
and m_ i;ch is the net production rate of the i-th species due to het-
erogeneous and homogeneous chemical reactions. In Eq. (5), the
effective mass diffusivity is D g ¼ D g;l þ D g;t , and the sgs mass
(1) diffusivity is D g;t ¼ Sct , where the turbulent Schmidt number is
Sct ¼ 0:9. The source terms arising due to the inter-phase transfer
of mass, momentum, and energy are discussed in Sec. 2.2.
2.2. Governing equations for the particle phase

v


 The evolution of particle phase is modeled by the MP-PIC

εg rg ug þ V: εg rg ug ug ¼  εg Vp þ V: εg tg þ εg rg g þ F method, where the particle dynamics is described by a transport
vt
equation of the particle distribution function (PDF), f ðxp , up ; mp ; Tp ;
(2)
tÞ [24].
In Eq. (2), g is the acceleration due to gravity, and F is the rate of
momentum exchange per unit volume between the gas and par- v v
 v
 f f
ðf Þ þ f up þ f Ap ¼ D (6)
ticle phases. The gas-phase stress tensor is, vt vxp vup tD
 


T 2 Here, fD denotes the particle distribution function of mass-
tg ¼ mg Vug þ Vug  V:ug I ; (3) averaged particle velocity, up and Ap are the velocity and acceler-
3
ation of the solid particles. Further, tD denotes the collision time
where the effective viscosity is the sum of the laminar and turbu- scale. The equation of motion for particles is,
lent (subgrid-scale) viscosities as, mg ¼ mg;l þ mg;t . In the present
dxp
work, gas-phase turbulence is modeled by solving a transport ¼ up (7)
equation of subgrid kinetic energy (ksgs ). In LES, scales larger than dt
the filter size ðDÞ are resolved, whereas remaining smaller scales The principal forces acting on the particles in the dense sus-
are modeled [21]. The subgrid-scale (sgs) viscosity is modeled as pension regime are hydrodynamic drag force, dynamic pressure
mg;t ¼ rg Ck k1=2 gradient, gravity, and force generated due to interparticle in-
sgs D, based on the model coefficient Ck ¼ 0.094 [22].
teractions. Based on these forces, the acceleration of discrete solid
The filtered transport equation of gas-phase sensible enthalpy is
particles is defined as:
given as,
  dup
 1 1
v

 vp
 ¼ b ug  up  Vp  Vtp þ g þ Fs (8)
εg rg hg þ V: εg rg ug hg ¼ εg þ ug :Vp þ V: εg lg VTg þ 4 dt rp εp rp
vt vt
þ q_ þ Q_ þ S þ S
D p;h h In Eq. (8), the inter-phase momentum transfer coefficient (b) is
(4) modeled as [25],

8

εp 1  εg m g rg  
>
>
> 150 þ 1:75εp ug  up  εg  0:5
>
> εg dp2 dp
>
>
>
> !
>
<

εp 1  εg mg rg  

b¼ þ 1:75εp ug  up Hd 0:5 < εg  0:8 (9)
> 150
> εg d2p dp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
: 3C εg εp rg u  u ε2:65
>
εg > 0:8
g p g
4 d dp
1458 S. Gupta et al. / Renewable Energy 163 (2021) 1455e1466

high-temperature environment [27,28]. Drying is followed by

In Eq. (9), the drag coefficient, Cd and the parameter Hd are, devolatilization, where dry biomass decomposes into volatile gases,
tar, and char. Chemical kinetics of tar formation and cracking are
still not well understood; therefore, in this study, the reaction ki-
netics of tar is not considered during simulations. Further, the tar
concentration in the product gas at the outlet of the gasifier was not
8
> 24   reported in the experiment. Drying and devolatilization may be
< 1 þ 0:15Re0:687
p ; Rep < 1000
Re expressed by the following reaction (R1):
Cd ¼ p (10)
>
:
0:44; Rep  1000 Biomass / a1 CðsÞ þ a2 CO þ a3 CO2 þ a4 H2 þ a5 CH4
X
þ a6 H2 O; where ai ¼ 1: (R1)
i

The values of stoichiometric coefficients (a) may be obtained

1096εg  134:6
Hd ¼ (11) from the proximate and ultimate analysis of feedstock under
ε3g þ 539:2ε2g  1307εg þ 791:7 consideration. In this study, the devolatilization process is modeled
 
The particle Reynolds number (in Eq. (10) and Eq. (11)) is ob- using a first-order kinetic rate model: k ¼ 1:49  105 exp 1340 Tp
tained in terms of the slip velocity between the phases and particle
ε r d   where, gaseous species CO, CO2, H2, and CH4 are defined as the
diameter dp as, Rep ¼ g g p ug  up . In Eq. (8) and Eq. (9), the
mg volatiles.
volume fraction of the particle phase is defined as,

mp
εp ¼ ∭ f dmp dup dTp (12) 2.3.2. Heterogeneous reactions
rp
After drying and devolatilization, a porous char structure re-
whereas, the volume fraction of the gas-phase is εg ¼ ð1 εp Þ and mains, which primarily consists of fixed carbon (or char) and ash.
the normal particle stress (tp ), used in Eq. (8), is obtained using the Char reacts with the surrounding volatile and fluidizing gases,
model proposed by Harris and Crighton [26], whereas ash remains unaffected during reactions. A simplified re-
action mechanism is considered for heterogeneous char conversion
Ps εbp processes (R2-R4), as shown in Table 1. The kinetics-diffusion
tp ¼

: (13) model [29] is used to describe the overall char conversion rate,
max εcp  εp ; x 1  εp

In Eq. (13), Ps ¼ 10 Pa and b ¼ 2 are constants, x ¼ 104 is a dmp;Ci rg RTg Yi Di ki


¼  As;p where i ¼ O2; CO2; H2 O
small value prescribed to remove singularity, and εcp ¼ 0:6 is the dt Mwi Di þ ki
closed pack volume fraction limit for particle phase. In Eq. (8), the (17)
interphase momentum exchange rate per unit volume (Fs ) is ob-
Here, mp;Ci denotes the remaining carbon mass in a particle
tained as,
which reacts with i-th species. In Eq. (17), the rates of species
   

 Vp dmp diffusion (Di ) and chemical kinetics (ki ) of i-th species are;
Fs ¼ ∭ f mp b ug  up  þ up dmp dup dTp : (14)
rp dt

0:75
Tp þ Tg 2
The energy equation of the particles based on lumped heat ca- Di ¼ Ci (18)
dp
pacity assumption is given as,
 
dTp 1 lg Nug;p
 b Ei
Cv ¼ Ap Tg  Tp (15) ki ¼ Ai Tp i exp ; (19)
dt mp dp RTp

In Eq. (15), Nusselt number for heat transfer between the gas
1=2
and solid particles is calculated as, Nug;p ¼ 2 þ 0:6Rep Pr1=3 .
interphase energy exchange rate, Sp;h is,
where, the mass diffusion constant is Ci ¼ 5:0 x 1012 s:K0:75 , Ai is
the pre-exponential factor, and Ei is the activation energy. For char
The
oxidation (R2), the reaction rate is calculated as [30]:


     kO2 ¼ Tp AO2 þ Tp BO2 (20)

2 dTp vmp 1
2
Sp;h ¼ ∭ f mp b up  ug  Cv  hp þ up  ug
dt vt 2 The particle shrinkage model is applied to estimate the change
dmp dup dTp (16) in particle diameter due to char conversion reactions. Assuming
constant particle density, the particle diameter ðdp Þ is related to the

2.3. Gasification kinetics Table 1

Heterogeneous reactions [19,29,30].

Biomass gasification consists of mainly four processes, drying, Reactions Kinetic Parameters (kmol/m3/s)
devolatilization, homogeneous, and heterogeneous reactions. ðR2Þ C þ 0:5O2 /CO AO2 ðsm1 K1 Þ ¼  1:68 x 102 ,
These processes and their rates are described briefly in this section. BO2 ðsm1 K1 Þ ¼ 1:32 x 105
ðR3Þ C þ H2 O /CO þ H2 AH2 O ðsm1 K1 Þ ¼ 45:6,
2.3.1. Drying and devolatilization EH2 O ðJ =kmolÞ ¼ 4:37 x 107 , bH2 O ¼ 1:0
Drying of biomass may be regarded as an instantaneous phe- ðR4Þ C þ CO2 /2CO ACO2 ðsm1 K1 Þ ¼ 8:3,
ECO2 ðJ =kmolÞ ¼ 4:37 x 107 , bCO2 ¼ 1:0
nomenon as moisture is released as soon as it is introduced in the
 S. Gupta et al. / Renewable Energy 163 (2021) 1455e1466 1459

Table 2
Homogeneous reactions [19,29].

Reactions Kinetic Parameters (kmol/m3 =s)

(R5) H2 þ 0:5 O2 /H2 O k5 ¼ 2:2 x 109 

expð  13109:63 =Tg Þ[H2 ][O2 ]
(R6) CO þ 0:5 O2 /CO2 k6 ¼ 1:0 x 1010 
expð  15154:25 =Tg Þ[CO]½O2 0:5 ½H2 O 0:5
ðR7Þ CH4 þ 2O2 / CO2 þ 2H2 O k7 ¼ 2:119 x 1011 
expð  24379:1 =Tg Þ ½CH4 0:2 ½O2 1:3
ðR8Þ CH4 þ H2 O/ CO þ 3H2 k8 ¼ 3:0  108  expð  1:26  108 =RTg Þ[CH4 ][H2 O]
ðR9Þ CO þ H2 O4 CO2 þ H2 k9f ¼ 2:78  103 expð  1:26  108 =RTg Þ[CO][H2 O]
k9b ¼ 9:59  104 expð  1:26  108 =RTg Þ[CO2 ][H2 ]

mass of the particle as follows, Table 4

Stoichiometric coefficients of the biomass components [20].
 1=3
6mp Coefficients Values
dp ¼ : (21)
prp a1 0.271782
a2 0.241719
a3 0.083873
a4 0.206606
a5 0.075696
2.3.3. Homogeneous reactions a6 0.120322
During gasification, various reactions take place in the gas-
phase simultaneously. Since the inclusion of a detailed reaction
mechanism becomes computationally expensive, a reduced reac-
tion mechanism is used in this study, covering major gas-phase husk [20] is given in Table 3. The values of stoichiometric co-
reactions (R5-R9) as listed in Table 2. The effect of turbulence- efficients (a), calculated from proximate analysis and ultimate
chemistry interaction is modeled by the partially stirred reactor analysis of rice husk, are shown in Table 4.
(PaSR) model, which calculates the reaction rates using a mixing
parameter based on the chemical and turbulent mixing time scales
3.2. Simulation setup
[31].

A uniform velocity profile is prescribed at the inlet, whereas the

3. Computational details
3.1. Experimental configuration
Numerical simulations are performed based on the experiments
performed by Loha et al. [20] in a laboratory-scale BFB gasifier. The
experimental setup consists of a cylindrical tube of 50 mm internal
diameter and 1200 mm length. Gasification reagents, a mixture of
air and steam, are supplied through a perforated distributor plate at
the bottom of the gasifier. Four electrical coils, each having a ca-
pacity of 2 kW is used to maintain the required bed temperature in
the gasifier. Rice husk is fed into the gasifier by two interconnected
screw feeders fitted with a hopper. The upper feeder is attached to a
variable speed drive system that regulates the biomass feed rate,
whereas a water-cooled lower screw feeder operated at a constant
speed, supplies biomass to the gasifier. Silica sand is used as the
inert bed material to improve the fluidization of the rice husk
particles and to maintain a uniform temperature in the bed. During
experiments, gas samples were collected periodically and analyzed
using a gas chromatograph after the composition becomes
statistically-stationary. The ultimate and proximate analysis of rice
no-slip boundary condition is specified along the reactor walls. At
the outlet of the gasifier, the Neumann boundary condition is used
for all variables except pressure, which is set at atmospheric pres-
sure. The biomass feed rate and mass flow rate of gasifying agents
are prescribed at their respective inlets. Particles are allowed to
leave the gasifier from the outlet section. During the simulation,
elasticity (tangential) and restitution (normal) coefficients for
particle-wall interaction are set as 0.99 and 0.3, respectively [32].
Since the density of the rice husk used in the experiments was not
reported in Loha et al. [20], we have taken the value from Kraft et al.
[33]. Also, the density the density of biomass particles particle is
assumed to remain constant throughout the gasifier. It may be
noted that during drying, devolatilization, and char reactions, the
density of biomass particles changes. Since the biomass feed rate is
very small in this study, any uncertainty associated with the
biomass particle density will not make a substantial impact on the
underlying hydrodynamics and product composition due to a suf-
ficiently higher difference in density of sand and biomass particles.
A summary of the simulation parameters used in the simulation is
provided in Table 5. More information on the experimental

Table 5
Table 3 Physical properties and operating conditions in the simulations [20].
Proximate and ultimate analysis of rice husk [20].
Parameters Values
Ultimate analysis wt. % Proximate analysis wt. %
Bed material particle diameter (mm) 0.5
Carbon 38.43 Volatile matter 55.54 Density of sand (kg=m3 ) 2300
Hydrogen 2.97 Fixed carbon 14.99 Initial biomass particle diameter (mm) 0.3
Sulfur 0.07 Moisture 9.95 Density of biomass (kg=m3 ) 750
Nitrogen 0.49 Ash 19.52 Biomass feed rate (kg/h) 0.35
Oxygen 36.36 Gasifier temperature ( C) 750, 800, 850
Ash 21.68 Steam/biomass (S/B) ratio 0.2, 0.5, 0.8
Equivalence ratio (ER) 0.3, 0.35, 0.4
1460 S. Gupta et al. / Renewable Energy 163 (2021) 1455e1466

configurations and operating conditions are available in Ref. [20].

3.3. Numerical schemes

Numerical simulations are performed using OpenFOAM 5.0, an

open-source CFD solver. The EL approach based solvers available in
OpenFOAM 5.0 cannot predict dense multiphase reactive suspen-
sion systems. Therefore, a customized solver ‘gas-
ificationMPPICFoam’ is developed starting from existing
‘coalChemistryFoam’ solver, which is based on dilute, gas-solids
reactive flows after neglecting inter-particle interactions. The
Lagrangian classes in OpenFOAM are organized based on templates,
where ‘coalChemistryFoam’ uses an instantiated host class ’coal-
Cloud’, which is nested within ‘KinematicCloud’, ‘ThermoCloud,’
‘ReactingCloud’, and ‘ReactingMultiphaseCloud’ classes and inherits
their functionality/methods. Each class adds new functionality to
the host class ’coalCloud’, e.g. ‘KinematicCloud’ class is responsible
for particle motion, the ‘ThermoCloud’ class for heat transfer, the
‘ReactingCloud’ class for liquid evaporation and phase change, and
the ‘ReactingMultiphaseCloud’ class for solid particle surface reac-
tion and devolatilization. To implement MPPIC functionality, a new
cloud class ‘coalMPPICCloud’ has been adapted from original ‘coal-
Cloud’ class as per the following hierarchy:
coalMPPICCloud < ReactingMultiphaseCloud < ReactingCloud
< ThermoCloud < MPPICCloud < KinematicCloud. In the ’coal-
MPPICCloud’ class, an additional layer of the ‘MPPICCloud’ has been
introduced between ‘KinematicCloud’ and ‘ThermoCloud’.
The solver ‘gasificationMPPICFoam’ solves Eulerian gas-phase
equations and evolves Lagrangian particles in an iterative manner.
Fig. 1. (a) Schematic diagram of the BFB gasifier based on the experimental configu-
A basic iteration loop consists of the evolution of position, velocity,
ration of Loha et al. [20], and (b) finite-volume grid used in simulations.
mass and temperature of each stochastic parcels, estimation of the
interphase source terms from the most recent Eulerian field, and
solution of the discretized gas-phase governing equations. A sys- particle diameter [35]; however, no such restriction exists for EL
tem of ordinary differential equations illustrating chemical re- models. Similar to the EE models, particle-particle interactions are
actions is solved by a stiff matrix solver. A library of the kinetic- not resolved by the grid in the MPPIC method. Therefore, particle
diffusion model is created to implement heterogeneous reactions. size is kept sufficiently smaller than the smallest grid size. LES re-
Moreover, a voidage term has been incorporated in the gas-phase sults are sensitive to the mesh resolution, where grid density in-
governing equations, which is an ensemble of all Lagrangian par- fluences not only the numerical discretization error but also the
ticles in a CFD cell. The Eulerian equations are solved using a subgrid-scale (SGS) model contribution. Therefore, a grid sensi-
collocated finite volume method (FVM), while solid particles are tivity study has been carried out to examine the effect of grid res-
tracked based on the Lagrangian stochastic parcel method. For olution on the numerical results. Fig. 2 shows the time-averaged
pressure-velocity coupling, the PIMPLE algorithm is used, which values of product mole fractions averaged over the exit-plane of
combines the semi-implicit method for pressure-linked equations the gasifier. The effect of grid resolution on the product gas
(SIMPLE) and pressure implicit with the splitting of operator (PISO) composition is shown in Fig. 2(a) for three different grids, Grid1
methods. The PIMPLE algorithm is defined as added PISO corrector (16480 cells), Grid2 (19480 cells), and Grid3 (22895 cells). Grid1
loops over the transient SIMPLE algorithm. A second-order central- shows a relatively large disagreement in the predicted mole frac-
difference scheme is used to discretize the advection and diffusion tions for the product species with the experimental data [20].
terms, whereas the temporal terms are integrated based on the However, numerical results obtained from Grid2 and Grid3 are in
Crank-Nicolson scheme. During the simulation, an adjustable time close agreement with the experimental values, with the average
step (Dt) is chosen with a prescribed value of Courant number of 0.5 deviation under 3%. Therefore, Grid2 (Fig. 1(b)) is selected here to
to maintain numerical accuracy and stability. carry out the remaining simulations without compromising nu-
merical accuracy.
4. Results and discussions The performance of the new solver is assessed by comparing
time-averaged statistics obtained from numerical simulations with
4.1. Grid sensitivity study available experimental data of Loha et al. [16]. Since the gas-solids
flows investigated herein are inherently unsteady, proper care must
Particle-laden flows in dense fluidized beds are characterized by be exercised in presenting time-averaged statistics. Time-averaged
dynamic heterogeneous structures involving bubbles and emulsion mole fractions of product gases at the outlet of the gasifier are
phase. Intensive interaction between the micro-scale of particles, shown in Fig. 2(b) for the intervals of 10e30 s, 10e40 s, 10e50 s, and
the mesoscale of bubbles, and the macro-scale of the bed (emul- 10e60 s. The average deviation in product gas composition be-
sion) in the BFB regime results in the formation and dissolution of tween time-averaged values for interval 10e50 s and 10e60 s is
time-dependent heterogeneous flow structures, e.g., bubbles/ under 1.5%, with the maximum deviation in any individual gas
strands at the mesoscale [34]. The grid size should be small enough, species is under 3%. Therefore, area-weighted averages of product
which can resolve the smallest of these structures. For EE models, gas mole fractions are reported at the gasifier exit-plane after time-
the recommended grid size should be of the order of ten times the
 S. Gupta et al. / Renewable Energy 163 (2021) 1455e1466
Fig. 2. Product gas composition (dry) at the gasifier outlet for (a) different grid sizes, and (b) time-averaged statistics at different time intervals (S/B ¼ 0.5, T ¼ 800 C and ER ¼ 0.35).
averaging within the interval of 10e60 s for all simulations with
different operating parameters.
4.2. Transient characteristics of the reactive flow
Transient characteristics of the gas-solid flows give us an insight
into the critical aspects of multiphase flow phenomena, involving
particle mixing/segregation, voidage distribution, and variations of
product species across the reactor. Consequently, this information
may be utilized to improve the flow/mixing characteristics and
thereby to identify the impact of various operating parameters on
the syngas yield.
4.2.1. Gas-solids hydrodynamics
Investigation of hydrodynamics in the gasifier carries great
Fig. 3. Instantaneous distributions of solid particles in the gasifier for gasifier tem-
perature of 800 C, S/B ¼ 0.5, and ER ¼ 0.35 at different time instances: (a) 0.001 s, (b)
10 s, (c) 20 s, (d) 30s, (e) 40 s, (f) 50 s, and (g) 60 s.
1461
importance as the chemical reaction yield is directly affected by the
gas-solids distribution. The numerical simulation is initialized by
randomly distributing sand particles in the gasifier up to a height of
300 mm. A gaseous mixture of steam and air is introduced from the
bottom inlet, whereas biomass particles consisting of fixed carbon,
volatile gases, and ash enter the gasifier from the biomass feed
inlet. As seen in Fig. 3, gasification reagent, a mixture of steam and
air, fluidizes sand particles, which subsequently facilitates the
diffusion of char particles in the packed bed. The biomass particles
are gradually distributed throughout the gasifier, and the mass
loading of biomass increases with time in the gasifier. The presence
of bubble-like structures in the fluidized bed is not distinctly
visible. The hot sand particles in the fluidized bed supply heat for
endothermic gasification reactions, and also increases the
Fig. 4. Distribution of solid particles by (a) fixed carbon and (b) ash content in the
gasifier for gasifier temperature of 800 C, S/B ratio ¼ 0.5, ER ¼ 0.35 at t ¼ 60 s.
1462 S. Gupta et al. / Renewable Energy 163 (2021) 1455e1466
residence time of lighter biomass particles and thereby increasing
the carbon conversion. Char particles react with fluidizing gases (O2
and H2O) following heterogeneous gasification reactions, and as
their size reduce, they become lighter and tend to move upward
towards the bed surface. When biomass particles become suffi-
ciently smaller, they get elutriated by the fluidizing gases and
eventually move out of the bed, which is noticeable from the
presence of suspending biomass particles in the freeboard region.
Char contains solid carbon as well as ash. Therefore, it is
essential to examine the effect of heterogeneous reactions on the
fixed carbon content in the char particles. Fig. 4 shows the distri-
bution of solid particles colored by fixed carbon and ash fraction.
The variation of carbon fraction demonstrates that the particles
having high carbon content are concentrated in a region adjacent to
the biomass feed inlet. Most of the heterogeneous char reactions
take place in the lower region of the bed in the presence of the
fluidizing gases, which is easily recognized from the contours of
fixed carbon, as shown in Fig. 4(a). As carbon content in solid
particles depletes, the highest concentration of ash is found in the
upper region of the bed.
Gas-phase flow characteristics in the gasifier are examined from
the instantaneous contours of voidage as shown in Fig. 5. From
these contours, typical features of the BFB regime, such as forma-
tion, coalescence, and eruption of bubbles, are captured in the
simulations. Larger values of voidage are noticed near the biomass
feed inlet due to the ingression of volatile gases. A fraction of
fluidizing gases forms smaller bubbles, whereas the remaining
gases fluidize the densely packed bed materials. In the vicinity of
the biomass inlet, volatile gases coalesce with smaller bubbles
ascending from the bottom inlet and ultimately form bigger bub-
bles. This phenomenon increases gas fraction in the nearby region
of biomass inlet, which also explains the rapid consumption of solid
carbon in this region. As the bubbles rise, particles also move in the
wake of the bubbles. After reaching the bed surface, bubbles erupt,
which leads to the scattering of particles. Subsequently, heavier
particles return to the bed, and lighter particles are carried away in
the freeboard.
Fig. 5. Instantaneous contours of voidage at the mid-plane for gasifier temperature of
800 C, S/B ratio ¼ 0.5, ER ¼ 0.35 at different time instances: (a) 0.001 s, (b) 10 s, (c)
20 s, (d) 30 s, (e) 40 s, (f) 50 s, and (g) 60 s.
4.2.2. Distribution of gas species
Fig. 6 depicts instantaneous contours of major gases partici-
pating in various conversion reactions across the BFB gasifier (T ¼
800 C, S=B ratio ¼ 0:5; ER ¼ 0:35). A large concentration of py-
rolysis gases (CH4, H2, CO, and CO2) arising due to drying and
devolatilization represented by reaction (R1) are seen in the vi-
cinity of the biomass inlet. Subsequently, volatile gases and char
particles react with the fluidizing gases (O2 and H2O) and create a
localized reaction zone in the bed dominated by heterogeneous
char conversion near the biomass inlet. The remaining portion of
the bed mostly remains unaffected. This particular behavior may be
related to the low biomass feed rate (0.35 kg/h) and a slower
fluidization state. The maximum concentration of H2 is found at the
bed in the vicinity of the biomass inlet, which is primarily due to
water-gas reaction (R3) and the forward water-gas shift reaction
(R9). Distribution of CO implies that the devolatilization (R1), par-
tial oxidation of char (R2), and Boudouard reaction (R4) are the
major reactions leading to the production of H2 in the bed. The
concentration of CH4 is limited near the inlet, where reaction (R1) is
dominant. There is no other source of CH4 except pyrolysis,
whereas CH4 gets depleted due to methane oxidation (R7) and to a
smaller extent due to methane reforming reactions (R8). CO2
emerges as the major product species, which is confirmed by its
strong presence in the bed and particularly in the freeboard region.
The predicted mass fraction of CO2 is slightly lower in the bed re-
gion. In the freeboard region, the mass fractions of all combustible
gas species (CO, CH4, and H2) remain stable, and their distribution
becomes even with increasing height. Distribution of fluidizing
gases, i.e., H2O, and O2, may furnish further insight into the varia-
tion in the product gas composition in the gasifier. Fig. 6(e) con-
firms that O2 remains concentrated only in a small portion of the
bed, where neither char nor combustible volatile gases are present.
In the vicinity of biomass inlet, O2 gets depleted due to fast
oxidation reactions, whereas H2O is consumed by the water-gas
reaction (R3) and the forward water-gas shift reaction (R9). The
concentration of H2O remains substantial in other parts of the
gasifier. Since O2 is exhausted within the bed, gasification kinetics
in the freeboard region is mainly driven by steam-assisted re-
actions, i.e., forward water gas shift reaction (R9) and methane
steam reforming reaction (R8). The forward water gas shift reaction
is the primary reason for the distribution of CO, H2, and CO2 in the
freeboard, whereas the concentration of CH4 is directly related to
the steam methane reforming reaction (R8) in the freeboard region.
Formation and consumption of different species along the height of
the gasifier may be understood from the profiles of time-averaged
values of the area-weighted species mass fractions, as shown in
Fig. 7. A large variation in species mass fractions is seen in the bed
region due to devolatilization and heterogeneous char reactions.
However, in the freeboard region, species mass fraction distribu-
tions show a minor variation along with the axial distance.
Fig. 8 depicts the contours of the heat release rate (HRR) in the
mid-section of the gasifier, which segregates the regions domi-
nated by the exothermic and endothermic reactions. Maximum
heat is generated due to exothermic reactions of the volatile gases
(R5, R6, and R7) and heterogeneous char reactions (R2), and as a
consequence, O2 is completely exhausted in the bed. The freeboard
region is dominated by the endothermic gasification reactions,
which is evident by the negative values of HRR.
4.3. Effect of operating parameters
A critical evaluation of the numerical model is performed by
comparing dry gas composition with the measured values in ex-
periments at the exit of the gasifier for different operating
 S. Gupta et al. / Renewable Energy 163 (2021) 1455e1466 1463

Fig. 6. Instantaneous contours of the mass fraction of product gases for gasifier temperature of 800 C, S/B ¼ 0.5 and ER ¼ 0.35 at t ¼ 60 s: (a) YH2 , (b) YCO , (c) YCH4 , (d) YCO2 , (e) YO2 ,
and (f) YH2 O .

Fig. 7. Axial variation in time-averaged values of area-weighted species mass fractions

for gasifier temperature of 800 C, S/B ¼ 0.5 and ER ¼ 0.35.

parameters, such as steam-to-biomass ratio, equivalence ratio, and

gasifier temperature.

4.3.1. Gasifier temperature

Chemical kinetics of homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions

and equilibrium composition of product gases in the gasifier are
highly influenced by the gasifier temperature. Fig. 9 shows the
variation of the predicted time-averaged values of mole fractions of
product gases with the gasifier temperature for an equivalence
ratio of 0.35 and a steam/biomass ratio of 0.5. A comparison is made Fig. 8. Instantaneous contours of the heat release rate along the mid-plane of the
with the experimental measurements [20]. Experimental data gasifier at t ¼ 60 s: T ¼ 800 C, S/B ¼ 0.5, and ER ¼ 0.35.

indicate that an increase in gasifier temperature augments H2 = CO

mole fraction ratio, reduces CO2 , and slightly alter CH4 mole frac-
temperature also confirms the trend observed during experiments.
tions. Numerical simulations could accurately predict the trend of
An increase in gasifier temperature intensifies endothermic char
increasing H2 fraction with increasing gasifier temperature except
conversion reactions, i.e., water-gas and Boudouard reactions,
some discrepancy observed at 850 C. Variation of CO mole fraction
which eventually enhances the yield of CO and H2 . The decrease in
with temperature is similar to those reported in experiments.
mole fraction of CO2 with an increase in gasifier temperature could
However, about 14% deviation is found from the measured values.
be related to Boudouard and reverse water-gas reactions at
Decreasing CO2 mole fraction with an increase in gasifier
1464 S. Gupta et al. / Renewable Energy 163 (2021) 1455e1466
Fig. 9. Variation of dry gas composition with the gasifier temperature for S/B
ratio ¼ 0.5, ER ¼ 0.35.
Fig. 10. Variation of dry gas composition with the steam-to-biomass ratio for gasifier
temperature of 800 C and ER ¼ 0.35).
elevated temperature. The mole fraction of CH4 does not change
significantly, which is consistent with the experiments. The rate
constants of devolatilization and heterogeneous reactions highly
depend on the reactor temperature. In present simulations, the rate
parameters of these reactions (R1-R4) are provided based on a
particular reactor temperature. However, in actual operation, the
local temperature changes, which may alter the reaction rate pa-
rameters, and hence product composition at the exit of the gasifier.
Also, we have neglected the thermal cracking of tar into gaseous
species (e.g., H2, CO), which occurs at high temperatures.
4.3.2. Steam-to-biomass ratio
The effect of the steam/biomass ratio on the composition of dry
product gases is shown in Fig. 10 for T ¼ 800 C and ER ¼ 0:35. The
mole fractions of the product gases are compared with the exper-
imental data for different steam/biomass ratio S/B ¼ 0.2, 0.5, 0.8. An
increase in S/B ratio increases H2 and CO2 while decreases CO mole
fraction, which is in agreement with the experiments. An increase
in S/B ratio raises steam concentration in the gasifier, which ulti-
mately yields a higher H2 concentration due to combined effects of
heterogeneous char gasification reaction (R3) in the bed region and
Fig. 11. Variation of dry gas composition with the equivalence ratio for gasifier tem-
perature of 800 C and, S/B ratio ¼ 0.5.
Fig. 12. Effect of steam-to-biomass (S/B) ratio, equivalence ratio and gasifier temper-
ature on carbon conversion efficiency.
forward water gas shift reaction (R9) in the freeboard region. An
increase in CO2 concentration is primarily due to the effect of water
gas shift reaction in the forward direction, which is also responsible
for the reduction in CO mole fraction. A slight reduction in CH4
concentration for higher S/B values is mainly due to the con-
sumption of CH4 due to the steam reforming of methane. Dis-
crepancies between the experiment and numerical predictions at
different temperature and S/B ratio may arise due to the pyrolysis
model [36], where different heating rates of the biomass particles
in the gasifier and feeding section are expected to alter yield of
volatile gases.
4.3.3. Equivalence ratio
An increase in equivalence ratio (ER) increases O2 supply, which
drives exothermic oxidation reactions and increases the tempera-
ture within the gasifier. Fig. 11 shows the effect of equivalence ratio,
ER ¼ 0:30; 0:35; and 0:4 on the dry product gas compositions for
the gasifier temperature of 800 C, and S/B ratio of 0.5. Oxidation
reactions are much faster than the gasification reactions, which
leads to the rapid consumption of O2 within the bed, as shown in
Fig. 6(e). An increase in O2 concentration results in higher
 S. Gupta et al. / Renewable Energy 163 (2021) 1455e1466
consumption of char and combustible gases and generates more
CO2. The ideal value of the ER depends on fixed carbon content in
the feedstock. For the sub-stoichiometric O2 supply, CO is produced
due to partial oxidation of char via heterogeneous reaction (R2). On
the other hand, when an excess supply of oxidizer is provided, O2
leaks into the freeboard region and burn combustible gases H2 , CO
and CH4 . Reduction in mole fractions of H2 , CO and CH4 with an
increase in ER is due to a direct consequence of reactions (R5), (R6)
and (R7). In these reactions, CO2 is the primary product, which also
explains an augmentation in CO2 with an increase in ER.
4.4. Carbon conversion efficiency
The carbon conversion efficiency is an important parameter that
is used to evaluate the gasification performance in a FB reactor. The
carbon conversion efficiency (CCE) is defined as the ratio of total
carbon content in the product gas stream at the gasifier outlet to
that in the biomass feed,


m_ YC;CO2 þ YC;CO þ YC;CH4 outlet
CCEð%Þ ¼ ; Prepared a part of the original draft manuscript. Suraj Kumar:
m_ biomass; inlet YC
where, YC;i is the carbon mass fraction of species i in the product
gas. In the denominator, YC denotes the carbon mass fraction pre-
sent in rice husk, as given by the ultimate analysis (see Table 1).
Fig. 12 presents the influence of steam-to-biomass ratio, equiva-
lence ratio, and gasifier temperature on the carbon conversion ef-
ficiency obtained in the simulations for the cases discussed in
Section 4.3. The carbon conversion efficiency increases with an
increase in gasifier temperature, equivalence ratio, and S/B ratio,
which is consistent with the experimental findings. Endothermic
gasification reactions depend on the temperature and concentra-
tions of reactants within the gasifier. The rates of devolatilization
and char conversion increase with an increase in gasifier temper-
ature, which also increases CCE. Also, a higher proportion of steam
and oxygen promotes gasification and oxidation reactions, which
lead to an increase in CCE with an increase in steam-to-biomass and
equivalence ratios. Apart from an increased chemical activity, car-
bon conversion is also affected by higher elutriation rates at higher
temperatures due to particle attrition and fragmentation, which is
not included in the present numerical solver.
5. Conclusions
A numerical solver is developed in OpenFOAM based on the MP-
PIC method for reactive gas-solids flows. The solver is used to
investigate biomass gasification in a BFB, where filtered governing
equations of gas-phase variables are solved within the LES frame-
work. Unresolved subgrid stresses and fluxes are obtained using
the subgrid kinetic energy equation closure model. The perfor-
mance of the numerical solver is assessed by comparing time-
averaged values of product gas composition at the outlet of the
gasifier with the experimental data for various operating parame-
ters, such as gasifier temperature, steam/biomass ratio, and
equivalence ratio. Transient characteristics of the gas-solids flows
indicate that the solver developed herein successfully captures the
evolution of the bubbling fluidized regime comprising of dynamic
bubble structures surrounded by the emulsion region. From the
bottom inlet, small bubbles of steam/air rise along the bed; they
coalesce with the volatile gases to form bigger bubbles near the
biomass inlet. Eventually, these bubbles erupt upon reaching the
bed surface. In the vicinity of the biomass inlet, heterogeneous
reactions dominate, which results in char consumption and pro-
duction of CO and H2 in the bed, whereas the water-gas shift
1465
reaction is the primary reason for the final distribution of CO, H2,
and CO2 in the freeboard region. The numerical results show that
mole fractions of CO and H2 as well as carbon conversion increase
with an increase in gasifier temperature and S/B ratio due to
endothermic char conversion reactions in the bed and forward
water gas shift reaction in the freeboard region. The mole fraction
of CO2 increases with an increases equivalence ratio as some of the
combustible gases H2 , CO, and CH4 react with excess O2. Numerical
results demonstrate that the developed solver may be utilized as a
reliable tool for the design and process optimization of dense FB
reactors.
Author contribution
Saurabh Gupta: Plan the outline of the manuscript and wrote
the manuscript. Developed numerical solver with Authors 2 and 3.
Developed research methodology, performed simulations, and
formal analysis of the data. Shikhar Choudhary: Developed nu-
merical solver jointly with Authors 1 and 3, and performed vali-
dations, numerical simulations, and visualization of results.
Developed numerical solver jointly with Authors 1 and 2. Santanu
De: Conceived the outline of the research work. Responsible for
funding acquisition, supervision, project administration, writing e
review, and editing.
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.
Acknowledgment
Financial support from the Ministry of Education (erstwhile
Ministry of Human Resource and Development), Government of
India under the IMPRINT initiative (project number: 7986) is
gratefully acknowledged. The authors would like to acknowledge
the high-performance computing (HPC) facility of IIT Kanpur
(www.iitk.ac.in/cc) used for numerical simulations.
References
[1] P. Parthasarathy, K.S. Narayanan, Hydrogen production from steam gasifica-
tion of biomass: influence of process parameters on hydrogen yieldeA review,
Renew. Energy 66 (2014) 570e579.
[2] Z. Zhang, S. Pang, Experimental investigation of tar formation and producer
gas composition in biomass steam gasification in a 100 kW dual fluidised bed
gasifier, Renew. Energy 132 (2019) 416e424.
€ransson, U. So
[3] K. Go €derlind, P. Engstrand, W. Zhang, An experimental study on
catalytic bed materials in a biomass dual fluidised bed gasifier, Renew. Energy
81 (2015) 251e261.
[4] M.W. Seo, J.H. Goo, S.D. Kim, S.H. Lee, Y.C. Choi, Gasification characteristics of
coal/biomass blend in a dual circulating fluidized bed reactor, Energy Fuel. 24
(2010) 3108e3118.
[5] K.V. Kumar, M. Bharath, V. Raghavan, B. Prasad, S. Chakravarthy,
T. Sundararajan, Gasification of high-ash Indian coal in bubbling fluidized bed
using air and steameAn experimental study, Appl. Therm. Eng. 116 (2017)
372e381.
[6] A. Kulkarni, R. Baker, N. Abdoulmomine, S. Adhikari, S. Bhavnani, Experi-
mental study of torrefied pine as a gasification fuel using a bubbling fluidized
bed gasifier, Renew. Energy 93 (2016) 460e468.
[7] D. Barisano, G. Canneto, F. Nanna, E. Alvino, G. Pinto, A. Villone, M. Carnevale,
V. Valerio, A. Battafarano, G. Braccio, Steam/oxygen biomass gasification at
pilot scale in an internally circulating bubbling fluidized bed reactor, Fuel
Process. Technol. 141 (2016) 74e81.
[8] N. Fernando, M. Narayana, A comprehensive two dimensional Computational
Fluid Dynamics model for an updraft biomass gasifier, Renew. Energy 99
(2016) 698e710.
[9] N. Couto, V. Silva, E. Monteiro, P. Brito, A. Rouboa, Using an Eulerian-granular
2-D multiphase CFD model to simulate oxygen air enriched gasification of
1466 S. Gupta et al. / Renewable Energy 163 (2021) 1455e1466
agroindustrial residues, Renew. Energy 77 (2015) 174e181.
[10] B. Lu, N. Zhang, W. Wang, J. Li, J.H. Chiu, S.G. Kang, 3-D full-loop simulation of
an industrial-scale circulating fluidized-bed boiler, AIChE J. 59 (2013)
1108e1117.
[11] S. Gerber, F. Behrendt, M. Oevermann, An Eulerian modeling approach of
wood gasification in a bubbling fluidized bed reactor using char as bed ma-
terial, Fuel 89 (2010) 2903e2917.
[12] X. Wang, B. Jin, W. Zhong, Three-dimensional simulation of fluidized bed coal
gasification, Chem. Eng. Process 48 (2009) 695e705.
[13] M.J. Andrews, P.J. O’Rourke, The multiphase particle-in-cell (MP-PIC) method
for dense particulate flows, Int. J. Multiphys. 22 (1996) 379e402.
[14] D.M. Snider, S.M. Clark, P.J. O’Rourke, EulerianeLagrangian method for three-
dimensional thermal reacting flow with application to coal gasifiers, Chem.
Eng. Sci. 66 (2011) 1285e1295.
[15] J. Xie, W. Zhong, B. Jin, Y. Shao, H. Liu, Simulation on gasification of forestry
residues in fluidized beds by EulerianeLagrangian approach, Bioresour.
Technol. 121 (2012) 36e46.
[16] H. Liu, R.J. Cattolica, R. Seiser, C.H. Liao, Three-dimensional full-loop simula-
tion of a dual fluidized-bed biomass gasifier, Appl. Energy 160 (2015)
489e501.
[17] S. Kraft, F. Kirnbauer, H. Hofbauer, CPFD simulations of an industrial-sized
dual fluidized bed steam gasification system of biomass with 8 MW fuel
input, Appl. Energy 190 (2017) 408e420.
[18] S. Wang, K. Luo, C. Hu, L. Sun, J. Fan, Impact of operating parameters on
biomass gasification in a fluidized bed reactor: an Eulerian-Lagrangian
approach, Powder Technol. 333 (2018) 304e316.
[19] L. Yan, C.J. Lim, G. Yue, B. He, J.R. Grace, Simulation of biomass-steam gasifi-
cation in fluidized bed reactors: model setup, comparisons and preliminary
predictions, Bioresour. Technol. 221 (2016) 625e635.
[20] C. Loha, H. Chattopadhyay, P.K. Chatterjee, Energy generation from fluidized
bed gasification of rice husk, J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 5 (2013).
[21] A. Yoshizawa, Statistical-theory for compressible turbulent shear flows, with
the application to subgrid modeling, Phys. Fluids 29 (1986) 2152e2164.
[22] Y. Liu, L. Zhou, C. Xu, Large-eddy simulation of swirling gas-particle flows
using a USM two-phase SGS stress model, Powder Technol. 198 (2010)
183e188.
[23] M.F. Modest, D.C. Haworth, Radiative Heat Transfer in Turbulent Combustion
Systems: Theory and Applications, Springer, 2016.
[24] D.M. Snider, An incompressible three-dimensional multiphase particle-in-cell
model for dense particle flows, J. Comput. Phys. 170 (2001) 523e549.
[25] Y. Wang, Z. Zou, H. Li, Q. Zhu, A new drag model for TFM simulation of
gasesolid bubbling fluidized beds with Geldart-B particles, Particuology 15
(2014) 151e159.
[26] S.E. Harris, D.G. Crighton, Solitons, solitary waves, and voidage disturbances in
gas-fluidized beds, J. Fluid Mech. 266 (1994) 243e276.
[27] Z. Zhang, S. Pang, Experimental investigation of biomass devolatilization in
steam gasification in a dual fluidised bed gasifier, Fuel 188 (2017) 628e635.
[28] P. Kaushal, R. Tyagi, Advanced simulation of biomass gasification in a fluidized
bed reactor using ASPEN PLUS, Renew. Energy 101 (2017) 629e636.
[29] X. Ku, T. Li, T. Løvås, CFDeDEM simulation of biomass gasification with steam
in a fluidized bed reactor, Chem. Eng. Sci. 122 (2015) 270e283.
[30] N. Abani, A.F. Ghoniem, Large eddy simulations of coal gasification in an
entrained flow gasifier, Fuel 104 (2013) 664e680.
[31] F.A. Williams, Combustion Theory, second ed., Benjamin Cummings, Califor-
nia, 1985.
[32] C.B. Solnordal, V. Kenche, T.D. Hadley, Y. Feng, P.J. Witt, K.-S. Lim, Simulation
of an internally circulating fluidized bed using a multiphase particle-in-cell
method, Powder Technol. 274 (2015) 123e134.
[33] S. Kraft, F. Kirnbauer, H. Hofbauer, Investigations using a cold flow model of
char mixing in the gasification reactor of a dual fluidized bed gasification
plant, Powder Technol. 316 (2017) 687e696.
[34] Z. Shi, W. Wang, J. Li, A bubble-based EMMS model for gasesolid bubbling
fluidization, Chem. Eng. Sci. 66 (2011) 5541e5555.
[35] K. Hong, S. Chen, W. Wang, J. Li, Fine-grid two-fluid modeling of fluidization of
Geldart A particles, Powder Technol. 296 (2016) 2e16.
[36] G. Bruni, R. Solimene, A. Marzocchella, P. Salatino, J. Yates, P. Lettieri,
M. Fiorentino, Self-segregation of high-volatile fuel particles during devola-
tilization in a fluidized bed reactor, Powder Technol. 128 (2002) 11e21.