Alexandria Engineering Journal (2020) 59, 3665–3679

H O S T E D BY
Alexandria University

Alexandria Engineering Journal

www.elsevier.com/locate/aej
www.sciencedirect.com

Experimental and numerical study of sawdust

air-gasification
A.S. El-Shafay *, A.A. Hegazi, E.S.B. Zeidan, S.H. El-Emam, F.M. Okasha

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Mansoura University, Egypt

Received 24 February 2020; revised 17 April 2020; accepted 11 June 2020

Available online 24 July 2020

KEYWORDS Abstract This work presents a numerical and experimental investigation of sawdust gasification in
Fluidized bed; a fluidized bed using air. The fluidized bed reactor was tested in the Faculty of Engineering, Man-
Biomass; soura University, Egypt. In the experimental part, the experiments were made in a fluidized bed
Gasification simulation; gasifier to optimize the gasifying of sawdust pellets using air. The syngas composed mainly of
Syngas CO, H2, CH4, and CO2 as in the typical gasification process. The obtained experimental results
showed that the syngas contents are strongly affected by the equivalence ratio and temperature.
Increasing of ER improves char burning to produce more CO2, but H2 gradually increased till
ER = 0.35 instead of CH4, CO and H2 increased as temperature increased. The temperature of
900 °C and an equivalence ratio of 0.35 is the right combination of sawdust gasification as operating
conditions. A kinetic-hydrodynamic one-dimensional model was developed and validated with
experimental results. This model is used to expect the effect of various operating parameters on
a biomass gasification performance, such as temperature, equivalence ratio, and different hydrody-
namic parameters. This model capable of expects the axial gas composition along the gasifier, as
well as the syngas composition and heating value of produced gas and the gasification efficiency
at the reactor outlet. The model results were in reasonable agreement with experimental results
and published results.
Ó 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria
University. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction ral resources such as the sun, the wind, geothermal heat, rain,
and biomass [1]. One of the more favorable ways to generate
Continuous population growth, fast increase of worldwide renewable energy is biomass gasification. Biomass can be con-
energy, depletable fossil fuel, and global warming led to search verted to clean combustible gases like hydrogen, methane, and
about alternative fuels to meet the energy demand. The carbon monoxide through the gasification process, this mix-
researchers are exploring renewable energy sources from natu- ture of gases, namely syngas. The meaning of biomass gasifica-
tion is converting solid biomass fuel to gaseous fuel through a
chain of reactions. The gasification process consists of drying,
* Corresponding author.
pyrolysis, combustion, and char gasification. The gasification
E-mail address: seshabana@yahoo.com (A.S. El-Shafay).
process used air, pure oxygen, carbon dioxide, and steam as
Peer review under responsibility of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria
agents. The gasifying agent type affects product gas quality
University.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2020.06.020
1110-0168 Ó 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
3666
Nomenclature
Symbol Description, unit
Abed Sectional of the bed, m2
Ab the sectional area of bubble phase, m2
Ae the sectional area of the emulsion phase, m2
Ar Archimedes number, –
C Molar concentration, kmol/m3
Cb Molar concentration in a bubble phase, kmol/m3
Ce Molar concentration in the emulsion phase, kmol/m3
dB Bubble diameter, m
dbm Mean bubble diameter along the bed, m
dp Particles diameter, m
D Internal reactor diameter, m
ER Equivalence ratio, dimensionless
HHV High heating value, MJ/Nm3
g Gravitational acceleration, m/s2
Heb Expanded (bubbling) bed height, m
Hmf Bed height at minimum fluidization, m
k Equilibrium constant, s
1
Kbe Mass interchange coefficient between bubble and
emulsion phase, s
1
Kce Mass interchange coefficient between cloud and
emulsion phase, s
1
LHV Low heating value, MJ/Nm3
mf Fuel flow rate, kg/h
Mw Molecular weight, kg/kmol
n Number of moles, kmol
PO2 O2 partial pressure, Pa
P Pressure, Pa
r Specific reaction rate, s
1
and its heating value. The gas–solid reactions and the gas-
phase reactions occurred in the gasification, the heat generated
from char combustion support the endothermic reactions [2].
Many types of reactors are used in gasification, depending
on the method of operation, the syngas production rate, the
running cost, and the type of biomass used, but all of which
face the problem of reducing the production of tar. Dogru
et al. [3] performed Hazelnut shells gasification as fuel using
air. Zainal et al. [4] used a downdraft gasifier using wood chips
and charcoal. The tests were performed at equivalence ratios
of 0.27–0.43 to study its effects on the rate of syngas genera-
tion rate, heating value, and gas composition. Gas production
per unit weight of fuel increased linearly with the equivalence
ratio. Jayah et al. [5] performed gasification in the downdraft
gasifier uses rubber wood as fuel. The parameters that affect
the produced syngas were examined by performing numerous
tests at different conditions. Hanaoka et al. [6] studied the
Oak and red pellets barks gasification of as biomass fuel in a
fixed bed gasifier at 1173 K and atmospheric pressure to
achieve the peak hydrogen yields. Wei et al. [7] investigated
the legume straw and sawdust pellets in the downdraft gasifier
by changing the operating conditions affecting the hydrogen
concentrations. The equivalence ratio and moisture content
have effects on gas yield concentrations [8]. The simulation
tools have become very useful to predict the optimal parame-
ters to be applied and the final products, therefore producing
the most suitable syngas for the desired utilization. Kinetics
A.S. El-Shafay et al.
Ru Universal gas constant, kJ/kmol.K
R Net reaction rate, s
1
Re,mf Reynolds number at minimum fluidization, dimen-
sionless
T Operating temperature, K
u0 Fluidization velocity, m/s
ue Rise velocity of emulsion phase, m/s
uB Rise velocity of the bubble phase, m/s
u*b The active gas velocity through the bubble phase,
m/s
ubm Mean rise velocity of the bubble phase, m/s
ubr Rise velocity of a single bubble, m/s
umf Minimum fluidization velocity, m/s
Vgas The volume of gas in the control volume, m3
X Mole fraction, dimensionless
z The axial distance measured from air distributor, m
Greek symbols
emf Bed voidage fraction at minimum fluidization,
dimensionless
qg Gas density, kg/m3
qg Solid particles density, kg/m3
d The fraction of bed consisting of bubbles, dimen-
sionless
m Dynamic viscosity, N.s/m2
U Solid particles sphericity, dimensionless
gcold The cold gas efficiency, dimensionless
model reduces the time needed to design and implement each
gasification experiment, using mathematical approaches and
developing specific codes regarding the type of feedstock, reac-
tor utilized and expected atmosphere [9]. The gasification pro-
cess modeling is an important numerical tool providing a
deeper understanding of the behavior of each process step
under unsteady conditions and the potential to develop an
appropriate control strategy [10]. Anil et al. [11] studied the
sawdust gasification in a fluidized bed as an agent using a
2D model and ANSYS FLUENT 15.0. The influence of steam
to fuel ratio, equivalence ratio, air preheating, and steam tem-
perature on produced gas composition was considered. As the
equivalence ratio rises from 0.15 to 0.4, the concentration of
hydrogen was reduced by 12%, and the changing of steam
to biomass ratio from 0.5 to 1.5. Different researchers con-
cerned the effects of temperature, pressure, residence time,
and bed material on syngas yields [12].
From the literature, it can be concluded that performing the
mathematical models to predict the results of the gasification
process for a single or multi-points within a limited range of
the operating parameters and also without exposure to the
effect of type of fuel. So, the originality of the present work
is to develop a comprehensive kinetic-hydrodynamic model
to investigate the biomass gasification performance in a flu-
idized bed using air as agent within a wide range. This model
usable for any type of fuel as well as capable to calculating the
tar production rate by considering the air flow rate and the
Experimental and numerical study of sawdust air-gasification
ultimate fuel analysis including in devolatilization equations,
as initial conditions. Also, considering the tar reactions rate
in this model. The results of the mathematical model are veri-
fied by comparing its results with the experimental results of
sawdust pellets gasification in the fluidized bed reactor.
2. Experimental work
2.1. Bed material and fuel
Silica sand of particle diameter 0.6–0.8 mm and density of
2800 kg/m3 was selected as the bed material. The fuel used is
sawdust pellets; the fuel density is 600 kg/m3. An ultimate
and proximate analysis, according to ASTM, was performed
on the biomass sample in Micro-Analytical Center-faculty of
Science, Cairo University, Egypt. The sawdust pellets samples
used for testing presented in the cylindrical shape of approxi-
mately within the ranges of 5–6 mm in diameter and 40–
50 mm in length. The ultimate analysis of sawdust, as pre-
sented in Table 1, shows that the C, H, O, N, and S contents
of fuel are 47.37%, 6.3%, 42%, and 0.12% on a dry basis. If
the elemental mass percent of each element in the sample is
known, and divide it to the molecular weight of each compo-
nent, so the atomic value of each component can be deter-
mined. So, the chemical formula of sawdust pellets fuel can
be written as CH1.59O0.67.
2.2. Description of the test rig
All tests were performed in the fluidized bed gasifier, which
located at the laboratory of fuels and engines in Mansoura
University-Egypt. The schematic view of the fluidized bed test
was shown in Fig. 1. The bed contains six portions: (i) the reac-
tor at atmospheric pressure, (ii) fuel feeding system, (iii) air
feeding system, (iv) flow metering system, gas cleaning, and
sampling section, (v) syngas analyzer and (vi) temperature con-
trol section. The reactor was fabricated from 1Cr18Ni9Ti
stainless steel column, the reactor enclosed by two separately
controlled electric ceramic heater bands; two pieces from
CRWS-185/240A type (1950 W, 980 °C as maximum operating
temperature) and two pieces from CRWS-245/240A (2600 W,
980 °C as maximum operating temperature) to generate the
external heat necessary for starting the gasification process.
Table 1 Sawdust pellets analysis.
Proximate analysis (wt.% dry basis)
Volatile matter (wt.% dry basis) 74.61
Fixed carbon (wt.% dry basis) 16.01
Ash (wt.% dry basis) 0.58
Moisture content(wt.% wet basis) 8.8
Total 100
Heating value (MJ/kg) 17.95
Ultimate analysis (wt.% dry basis)
C 47.37
H 6.3
O 42
N 0.12
S 0.0
3667
The reactor column is made of a cylindrical tube, 105 mm
inner diameter, and 3500 mm in height, it consists of four
flanged sections; each one has a particular function and can
be easily replaced or modified. An adjustable speed electrical
motor motivates the screw feeder. The feeder motor connects
to AC inverter (PSW-2000WS-type), the inverter used to regu-
late the fuel flow rate throughout change the speed of the screw
feeder. The cooling water jacket kept the feedstock relatively
lower temperature to avoid thermal decomposition. The dis-
tributor plate is used to maintain a high degree of fluidization
quality. Air is used as an agent; the air flows into the reactor
before the distributor; it was supplied by an air compressor
at a little higher atmospheric state. The operating temperature
is measured by calibrated K-type thermocouple coupled with a
temperature controller (XMTG-808, type) used to temperature
monitoring and maintained it at the desired value. A calibrated
rotameters used to measure the airflow rate delivered through
the distributor plate as well as dry syngas before entering to
syngas analyzer. A high-efficiency cyclone and fin filter used
for syngas cleaning from dust and other big particles. Syngas
concentrations are measured using a portable syngas analyzer
(ETG MCA-100 Syn, self-built-in calibration system). The gas
analyzer equipped with a vacuum pump to withdraw the gas,
the analyzer able to give CO2, O2, CO, H2, and CH4 concentra-
tions in addition to low heating value. The measuring ranges
and accuracy of the syngas analyzer are present in Table 3.
2.3. Experiments procedures
The experimental procedures’ used during the present work
were as follows:
At the start-up of the experiment, the gasifier was charged
by 4200 g of silica sand as a bed to provide established fluidiza-
tion and well heat transfer with a velocity of fluidization at
0.175 m/s. The inverter was adjusted to feed 12 kg/h from saw-
dust pellets (at calibrating the fuel feed system, it is found that
this is the lowest fuel flow rate gives regular and continuous
flow), and then loaded the biomass into the feeding hopper.
In the beginning, opening the cooling water valve to allow
water stream flow through the water jacket, which surrounds
the lower screw feeding. Then, the temperature controller
was adjusted to the desired temperature and switched on the
heaters to heating the reactor. After reach to set temperature
point in the gasifier (during 45 min from switched on the hea-
ters), the compressor of air was turned on; to introduce the air
through the air distributor plate into the reactor. Observing
the airflow meter and regulate the air volume flows through
the adjustable compressor valve. Then, the screw feeder was
turned on. The product gases stream passing from the sam-
pling tube to the filter immersed in the ice path. Once the oper-
ation was stabilized (after 10 min from temperature stability),
each experiment was repeated two times (time interval was
2 min between each reading), then, concentrations of CO,
CO2, CH4,and H2 as well heating value are displayed and
recorded using syngas analyzer. The produced syngas contain-
ing dust and small particles passed through a long sampling
tube at about 4500 mm; a cotton filter was situated at the
end of the syngas tube path, which surrounded by an ice bath
to cool and condensate the tar in the filter. The experiments
were conducted at various bed temperatures within the range
of 600–900 °C, different ER within the scope of 0.15–0.5.
3668 A.S. El-Shafay et al.

17
13 14

10

9
11
16

12 6
7
8 5

2
2 4
3 15

Fig. 1 Experimental test rigschematic illustration. 1. Air compressor, 2. Air accumulation tank, 3. Air vent, 4. Airflow valve, 5.
Rotameters, 6. Power inverter and temperature controller, 7. Thermocouple, 8. Semi cylinder heaters, 9. Fluidized bed, 10. Hopper, 11.
Upper fuel screw feeder, 12. Lower fuel screw feeder, 13. Cyclone, 14. Primary fin filter, 15. Ice bath, 16. Syngas analyzer, 17. Produced
syngas.

2.4. Parameters calculation mass balance of reactants and products can be formulated as
follows, (The flow rate of the fuel + air mass flow) = (H2,
a- The Equivalence ratio CH4, CO, CO2 and O2 mass flow rate) + (tar mass flow rate)
The actual air–fuel ratio divided by the + (N2 mass rate), i.e.
theoretical air–fuel ratio named the equivalence ratio; m_ f þ m_ air ¼ m_ H2 þ m_ CO þ m_ CO2 þ m_ CH4 þ m_ O2
ðA=FÞact þ m_ CH1:522 O0:028 þ m_ N2 s ð3Þ
ER ¼ ð1Þ
ðA=FÞst
Where y and x represent the number of oxygen atoms and
b- Cold gas efficiency hydrogen per number of one atom of carbon in the fuel,
The cold gas efficiency (gasification efficiency) is the ratio respectively.
between the energy flow in the syngas from the gasification m_ f : The flow rate of the fuel, kg/h
process and the energy contained within the biomass fuel. m_ a : The flow rate of the air, kg/h
The higher cold gas efficiency indicates better fuel conversion. mi:Species mass flow rate kg/h,

 i = H2, CO, CO2, CH4, O2,
Vgas ðNm3 =hrÞLHV of syngasses MJ=Nm3
gcold ¼ ð2Þ CH1.522O0.028, and N2
mf:act ðkg=hrÞ  LHV of bimass fuel ðMJ=kgÞ The mass of nitrogen in the products can be calculated as
follows;
2.5. Mass balance of experimental work : :
: : : : : : :
m ¼ ðm þ mÞ
ðm þ m þ m þ m þ m þ m Þ ð4Þ
N2 f air H2 CO CO2 CH4 O2 CH1:522 O0:028
The concentrations of significant gas species (H2, CH4, CO,
CO2, and O2) are measuring the usage of the syngas analyzer. The mass fraction of N2, yN2 is;
The concentrations of ash and char, as well as light hydrocar- :
m
bons (C2H2, C2H4, C2H6, and C3H8), can be neglected due to yN2 ¼ : N2
: : : : : :
its lower concentrations products [13]. The mass balance is use- ðm þ m þ m þ m þ m þ m þ mÞ
CO CO2 CH4 O2 CH1:522 O0:028 N2
ful to the checkout form the experiment’s procedures and its H2

results. The mass balance was made over the measured gas : :
:
: : : : : :
concentrations to calculate the remainder nitrogen concentra- ðm þ mÞ
ðm þ m þ m þ m þ m þ m Þ
f air H2 CO CO2 CH4 O2 CH1:522 O0:028
tions. The sample of mass balance calculations is present in ¼ : ð5Þ
:
Table 2. The tar yield can be expressed in the chemical formula ðm þ mÞ
air
as CH1.522O0.028 [14]. For m_ f (kg/h) as fuel mass flow rate the f
Experimental and numerical study of sawdust air-gasification 3669

Table 2 Sample of mass balance calculations.

Operating conditions ER CO (%) CO2 (%) CH4 (%) H2 (%) O2 (%) Tar (%) N2 (%) Tot. (%)
T = 600C 0.2 11.50 6.46 2.21 7.09 0.44 26.67 44.96 99.33
0.25 11.16 6.52 2.37 7.79 0.39 25.53 44.79 98.55
0.3 10.60 6.96 2.35 7.80 0.48 24.51 45.63 98.33
0.35 10.28 7.67 2.76 8.03 0.51 23.94 46.75 99.94
0.4 9.77 8.07 3.10 8.11 0.68 20.36 47.26 97.35
0.45 8.79 8.27 3.03 7.95 0.74 17.84 50.55 97.18
0.5 8.35 8.71 2.55 7.72 0.79 16.26 52.57 96.95
T = 900C 0.2 13.06 4.62 1.39 9.96 0.51 24.44 45.24 99.23
0.25 12.67 4.66 1.46 10.53 0.53 21.86 46.75 98.46
0.3 12.04 4.91 1.51 10.85 0.55 21.09 47.37 98.32
0.35 11.68 5.46 1.94 11.29 0.52 20.46 48.54 99.88
0.4 11.21 5.74 2.02 12.54 0.67 16.70 49.87 98.75
0.45 10.09 6.24 1.80 11.17 0.59 16.49 51.92 98.30
0.5 9.58 6.57 1.48 10.96 0.58 16.05 52.73 97.95

The mole fraction of N2, xN2 is; Where u are the measuring device standard uncertainty.
yN2 Table 4 shows the calculated uncertainty of all variables.
xN2 ¼ P 2 ð6Þ
MW; N2  N yi
i¼H2 MW; i
3. Theoretical work
Where;
xi  MW; i The fluidization process is a phenomenon by which the solid
yi ¼ PN2 ð7Þ particles behaved like a fluid when gas passed upwards
i¼H2 ðxi  MW; i Þ
through the bed (solid particles) at high velocity. To simulate
The mole fraction of tar yield in the syngas can be calcu- the gasification process within the reactor, the hydrodynamic
lated according to the following; sub-model was coupled with a kinetic-sub-model. The fluidized
bed is modeled as emulsion and bubble phases, according to
m_ tar ¼ N_ tar  MW;tar ðgm=hrÞ ð8Þ
two-phase theory [16]. The emulsion phase holds solids, and
: some gases used to keep the bed with a minimum fluidization
N state. The solid particles and gas are assumed to be mixed
tar
xtar ¼ : ð9Þ
N homogeneously. This simulation aims to study the effect of flu-
total idization velocity and the axial height from air distributor
So; plate on species concentration in both bubble and emulsion
: : phase, as well as, calculate the average axial species concentra-
N ¼ xtar  N ð10Þ tion at the reactor outlet.
tar total

And, 3.1. Hydrodynamics sub-model

m_ tar ¼ xtar ð%Þ  N_ total  MW;tar ðgm=hÞ ð11Þ
3.1.1. Assumptions
m_ total ¼ N_ total  MW;total ð12Þ The assumptions of the hydrodynamics sub-model as follow-
ing, [17].
Then;
PN2
m_ tar  i¼H2 MW; i
Proper mixing of particles that consists of char particles,
xtar ¼ P 2 ð%Þ ð13Þ ash, and bed material;
MW; tar  N _i
i¼H2 m
Any variants that occur in the conditions are assumed to be
axial-direction;
2.6. Uncertainty analysis As of height increases, the volumetric flow rate of gas yield
increases;
Based on the experimental range, the accuracy and uncertainty The dense bed and freeboard zone are the contents of the
(uF) for variable number (n) is calculated from Eq. (14) as reactor.
given by Ref. [15]. Percentage error of the instruments shown The height increase led to the decline of the solids volume
in Table 3. fraction, equivalent to the coalescence of the diameter of
2 31=2 the bubbles in the bed.
 2  2
@F @F
u þ u þ
6 @x1 1 @x2 2
7 ð14Þ The common hydrodynamic parameters and equations
uF ¼ 4  2  2 5
@F
u þ :::::::::::: þ @F
u used in hydrodynamic sub-model as following;
@x3 3 @xn n
3670 A.S. El-Shafay et al.

Table 3 Range, Accuracy, and percentage error for different measuring devices used in the experiments.
Relative error Relative accuracy Range Measured item Instrument
±1% ±0.05 m3/h 1.6–16 m3/h Air flow rate Rotameter
±0.3% ±0.1 °C (
50) –(+1300) °C temperature Thermocouple
±3% ±0.01% 0–25% O2 Syngas analyzer
±3% ±0.01% 0–30% CO2
±3.1% ±0.01% 0–70% H2
±3% ±0.01% 0–40% CH4
±3% ±0.01% 0–30% CO
±2.74% ±0.012 MJ/Nm3 0–50 MJ/Nm3 LHV

Table 4 Standard uncertainty and percentage error of all Table 5 Operating parameters and constants.
experimental variables. Parameter Value unit
% Error Standard Uncertainty Parameter Bed height over the distributor, Hb 0.173 m
±2.69% 0.01 Equivalence Ratio The bed diameter, D 0.105 M
±6.57% 0.91% Cold Gas Efficiency The density of sand particles, qs 2800 kg/m3
±6.03% 5.2 gm/h Tar flow rate Equivalence ratio, ER 0.15–0.5
Bed Material Sand
Mass of bed material, ms 4.2 kg

3.1.2. Hydrodynamic parameters

Minimum fluidization velocity (umf): the velocity of the gas at
which the solid particles start to move. The minimum fluidiza-
Table 6 Viscosities and molecular weights [22].
tion velocity can be calculated from Eq. (15), [18,19];
  Μj (N.s/m2)
qg :dp qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Species (j) Mwj (kg/kmol)


umf ¼ : 27:2 þ 0:0498  Ar - 27:2
2
ð15Þ CO lCO ¼ 0:34 T :10
0:6951
5 28.0101
lg
CO2 lCO2 ¼ 0:1782 T0:7892 :10
5 44.0095
H2O lH2 O ¼ 0:0183 T1:1035 :10
5 18.0152
d3p qg ðqs - qg Þg
Where; Ar ¼ ð16Þ H2 lH2 ¼ 0:1859 T0:6793 :10
5 2.0158
l2g
CH4 lCH4 ¼ 0:1536 T0:7569 :10
5 16.0423
The voidage fraction at minimum fluidization conditions O2 lO2 ¼ 0:1416 T0:5569 :10
5 32
(emf ) can be estimated according to the following correlation Tar ltar ¼ 3:73  10
7 þ 2:62  10
8 T 94
[19], where; N2 lN2 ¼ 0:4332 T0:6601 :10
5 28.0134
 0:021
qg
emf ¼ 0:586/ - 0:72 Ar - 0:029 ð17Þ
qp
- Emulsion phase
The particle sphericity (Ø) is the exterior surface area of a
sphere having asimilar volume as a particle divided by the sur- For the emulsion phase, the superficial rise velocity of the
face area of the particle, assume Ø=1. The sand density (qs) is emulsion part (ue) is equal to the minimum fluidization veloc-
presented in Table 5, considering ideal gas behavior; the gas ity (umf), i.e.
density (qg) is calculated from Eq. (18). Also, the gas mixture
ue ¼ umf ð21Þ
viscosity can be derivedfrom the Eq. (20), [20]:
P X 9


qg ¼ : Xj :Mwj ð18Þ
Ru:T j ¼ 1 - Bubble phase
Mwj is the molecular weight of species j, see Table 5, and Xj Bubble rise velocity (uB), it can be calculated using the fol-
is defined as follows: lowing equation:
Cj pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Xj ¼ P9 ð19Þ uB ¼ u0 - umf þ 0:711 g  dB ð22Þ
j ¼ 1 Cj
uB and dB are mean rise velocity of the bubbles in the bed
P9 
1=2  and the average bubble diameter over the bed, respectively.
j¼1 Xj :lj Mwj
lg ¼ P 
Bubble size (dB), the following correlation for an estimate
9 1=2  ð20Þ
j¼1 Xj : Mwj
the average bubble diameter over the bed,

0:4
Cj is the species (j)concentration, lj is the viscosity of spe- 0:30 u0
umf :½Heb 0:8
dB ¼ ð23Þ
cies j, see Table 6 g0:2
Experimental and numerical study of sawdust air-gasification 3671

The effective superficial velocity of the gas, along with the The inputs to the model are the ultimate analysis (C, H, and
bubble phase (ub ), can be estimated from Eq. (24). O (%)) and proximate analysis (moisture content (MC, %))
of the biomass.
u0 - ð1 - dÞumf

ub ¼ ð24Þ
d 1 mf ð1
MCÞ
CC;0 ¼ 0:144  Culti  kmol=m3 ð28Þ
Abed  uo Mw;C

1
- Bed height CCO;0 ¼ ½0:1474  Culti þ 0:2175  Oulti 
Abed  uo
The bubble gas fraction in the fluidized bed (d) is propor- mf ð1
MCÞ
 ð29Þ
tional to the inlet gas fluidization velocity. The following equa- Mw;CO
tion has been formulated by Abanades et al. [21];
u0 - umf 1
d¼ ð25Þ CCO2 ;0 ¼ ½0:03434  Culti þ 0:09865  Oulti 
ub þ 5umf -4ub :emf Abed  uo
mf ð1
MCÞ
Bed height at minimum fluidization velocity (Hmf), is the  ð30Þ
Mw;CO2
height bed with minimum fluidization velocity, Hmf calculated
as following [21]. 1
CH2 O;0 ¼ ½0:000983  Hulti þ 0:00101  Oulti þ MC
ms ¼ qs :ð1
emf Þ:Abed :Hmf ð26Þ Abed  uo
mf ð1
MCÞ
ms and Abed are mass of solid particles and reactor cross- 
section area, see Table 5. Mw;H2 O
Expanded bed height (Heb), is the bed height at bubbling flu- ð31Þ
idization condition. Extended bed height is calculated from the
following equation [21]. 1 mf ð1
MCÞ
CH2 ;0 ¼ ½0:032787  Hulti   ð32Þ
Abed  uo Mw;H2
Hmf
Heb ¼ ð27Þ
1
d 1
CCH4 ;0 ¼ ½0:066  Culti þ 0:154  Oulti 
Abed  uo
3.2. Kinetics sub-model mf ð1
MCÞ
 ð33Þ
Mw;CH4
The kinetics sub-model is designed for modeling of biomass
fuel gasification. This model assumed biomass fuel has 1
CO2 ;0 ¼ ½0:00481  ER ð34Þ
cylindrical-shaped geometry. Besides, the changes in variables Abed  uo
in the radial direction are negligible. The full assumptions that
were made while modeling the gasification unit are as follows 1
CN2 ;0 ¼ ½0:00181  ER ð35Þ
[26,27]: Abed  uo

3.2.1. Assumptions 1
Ctar;0 ¼ ½0:0606  Culti þ 0:0819  Hulti þ 0:056  Oulti 
Abed  uo
1. Steady-state, one-dimensional model; mf ð1
MCÞ

2. All gases are distributed uniformly in the emulsion phase; Mw;tar
3. Pyrolysis stage takes place suddenly, and the products are ð36Þ
volatiles and char;
4. The outcomes of devolatilization are CO, H2, CO2, H2O,
and CH4; 3.2.3. Reactions kinetics
5. Char particles are at a uniform and constant size spherically In the gasification reactions the biomass pellets are dried and
shaped; the char particles consist of only carbon (solid); pyrolyzed, the volatile matter and char particles are burned
and near the bottom of the bed. The remaining products from
6. The gasification of char starting in the bed and completed pyrolysis are tar and char. The produced char reacts with the
in the freeboard. gaseous components to generate syngas [26]. Table 7 shows
the main gasification reactions [26].
k:r1
3.2.2. Pyrolysis process RC ¼
r1 þ
r2
r3 ð37Þ
kþ1
The pyrolysis of biomass particles occurred at the entry of the
gasifier. The distribution of products is particularly sensitive to RCO ¼ r2 þ 2  r3
r4 þ r6
r7 þ r8 þ r9 þ 0:5633  r10 ð38Þ
the heat rate of the reactor. The pyrolysis reaction is swift and
r1
more reactive [16]. The species concentrations released from RCO2 ¼
r3 þ r4 þ r7 þ 0:1109  r10 ð39Þ
the pyrolysis step can consider as an initial condition for this kþ1
model. The equations (28–36) in this sub-model are the correla-
RH2 O ¼
r2 þ r5 þ 2r6
r7
r8 þ 0:761  r9 ð40Þ
tions identified from the data presented by Mirmoshtaghi [27].
3672 A.S. El-Shafay et al.

Table 7 The homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions involved in the fluidized bed, [26].
No. Chemical Reaction Specific reaction rate (kmol/m3.s)
r1
R1 C þ 2ðkþ2Þ
kþ2
O2 ! kþ1
k
C þ kþ1
1
CO2 k ¼ 3  108 expð30178
T Þ
1:2
r1 ¼ 1:5  106 expð
13078 T ÞPO2 ð1
XC Þ  CC
R2 r2
C þ H2 O ! CO þ H2 k2 ¼ 200expð
6000T Þ
r2 ¼ k2 CC CH2 O
R3 r3
C þ CO2 ! 2CO k3 ¼ 4:364expð
29844T Þ
r3 ¼ k3 CCO2
r4
R4 CO þ 0:5O2 ! CO2 k4 ¼ 3:98  1011 expð
20119 T Þ
r4 ¼ k4 :CCO :C0:25
O2 :CH2 O
0:5

r5
R5 H2 þ 0:5O2 ! H2 O k5 ¼ 2:19  109 expð
13127
T Þ
r5 ¼ k5 :CH2 :CO2
r6
R6 CH4 þ 1:5O2 ! CO þ 2H2 O k6 ¼ 1:585  107 expð
24157
T Þ
r6 ¼ k6 :CCH
0:7
4
:C 0:8
O2
r7
R7 CO þ H2 O ! CO2 þ H2 k7 ¼ 1:585  107 expð
24157
T Þ
CCO :CH
r7 ¼ 2:7  103 expð
1510
T ÞðCCO :CH2 O

2
k7
2
Þ
R8 r8
CH4 þ H2 O ! CO þ 3H2 k8 ¼ 2  10
3 expð
15000
T Þ
r8 ¼ k8 :CCH4 :CH2 O
r9
R9 tarðCH1:522 O0:028 Þ þ 0:876O2 ! CO k9 ¼ Mw;tar  9:2  106  expð
8650
T Þ
þ0:761  H2 O r9 ¼ k9 :Ctar
0:5
:CO2
Mw;tar ¼ 90 kg=kmol
R10 Tar combustion k10 ¼ 104:98  expð
93370
T Þ
r10
tarðCH1:522 O0:028 Þ ! 0:01733H2 r10 ¼ k10 :Ctar
þ0:0884CH4 þ 0:5633CO þ 0:1109CO2 þ 0:22tar

RH2 ¼ 2r2
r5 þ r7 þ 3r8 þ 0:01733  r10 ð41Þ between bubble and emulsion phases) + (generation of species
mass rate), i.e.
RCH4 ¼
r6
r8 þ 0:0884  r10 ð42Þ Emulsion Phase: mass balance of species j in the emulsion
phase, e,
kþ2  
RO2 ¼
r1
0:5r4
0:5r5
1:5r6 þ 0:87  r9 ð43Þ dC
2ðk þ 1Þ Ce;j þ dze;j Dz :Ae :umf ¼ Ce;j :Ae :umf
ð49Þ
þKbe ðCb;j
Ce;j Þ Ab :Dz þ Re;j :Ae :Dz:emf
RN2 ¼ 0:0 ð44Þ
The last term of Eq. (49) is the rate of species generation
Rtar ¼ - r9 - 0:88  r10 ð45Þ inspecies j due to net reaction rate (R) insidethe emulsion
phase, Eq. (49) can be rearranged and rewriting as in the fol-
The carbon conversion factor, XC, is defined as:
lowing format:
XC ¼ ðmf;0 - mf;t Þ=ðmf;0 - mf;ash Þ (46)
Where; mf,0 mf,t and mf,ash are the initial biomass mass (kg), dCe;j Kbe  d emf ð1
dÞ  Re;j
¼  ðCb;j
Ce;j Þ þ ð50Þ
a mass of biomass at time t, and mass of ash (kg), respectively. dz ue ue
The char conversion factor isrelated to the equivalence ratio z (m) and Re;j (kmol/m3.s)are the axial reactor height mea-
[23] given by; sured from air distributor, and net reaction rate for of species j,
XC ¼ 0:32 þ 0:82  ½1 - expð- ER=0:229Þ ð47Þ respectively.
Bubble Phase: mass balance of species j in a bubble phase,
PO2: partial pressure of O2 (atm),
b,
P: CO
pO2 ¼ P9 2 ð48Þ dCb;j Kbe Rb;j Fb;j
¼  ðCe;j
Cb;j Þ þ þ ð51Þ
j ¼ 1 Cj dz uB uB Abed  uB  d
The 1st part of the right-hand side in Eqs. (50) and (51) It
3.2.4. Mass balance in the fluidized bed (Theoretical work) represents the mass exchange of gas between the bubble and
The model assumed that the fluidized bed was divided into two emulsion phases, which is driven by concentration gradients.
phases: emulsion and bubble phases. The model is assuming The 2nd part in these equations represents the generation or
that no gasaccumulation of gas in the control volume, the syn- consumption of the jth species due to kinetic reactions. In the
gas outflow rate equals the inlet flow rate. Consider a small ele- bubble phase, the fuel particles tend to be more concentrated
ment of the fluidized bed, as shown in Fig. 2. For the jth near the bed surface during the devolatilization step. There-
gasiform elements under steady-state, its mass balance can fore, the last term in Eq. (51) Represent the distribution func-
be expressed as follow, (The mass rate accumulated in the ele- tion of species released during the devolatilization step, which
ment) = (mass flow rate into element) + (mass rate transfer suggested by Okasha [24]. Kbe, Kbc, and Kce are bubble-
Experimental and numerical study of sawdust air-gasification 3673

work. The comparison is represented in one-group figures;

Figs. 3 and 4. J. Gao et al. [25] studied the influence of equiv-
alence ratio on gas yield concentrations from sawdust using
air. As the equivalence ratio changing from 0.23 to 0.35, the
heating value of the generated syngas is 6.5–7.3 MJ/Nm3,
and the gasification efficiency of the gasification process is
53.3–63.8%. The lower heating value is 6.78–7.5 MJ/Nm3,
and the gasification efficiency of the gasification system is
54–66%. Comparing the results of the current study with the
results obtained by Gao et al. found that the difference
between them within acceptable range. This small variation
can be considered logically due to the different environmental

Fig. 2 Schematic of bubbling bed control volume.

emulsion mass transfer coefficient, bubble-cloud transfer coef-

ficient, and cloud-emulsion mass transfer coefficientis defined
as following [24]:
 
4  fb;j
Fb;j ¼  z3 ð52Þ
H4eb
 
: Xj
fb;j ¼ m ð53Þ
f Mwj
Where; fb,j: molar release rate in a bubble phase, (kmol/s).
Fb,j: molar concentration distribution function in bubble
phase during devolatilization step, (kmol/m.s).
z: bed height from distributor plate, m.
Kce : Kbc
Kbe ¼ ð54Þ
Kce þ Kbc
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Diff : emf
Kce ¼ 3:226 ð55Þ
d2:5
B
  pffiffiffiffi
4:5 umf 10:35 D
Kbc ¼ þð Þ ð56Þ
dB d1:25
B Fig. 3 CO vs. ER at T = 800 °C.

3.3. Numerical solution

The mass balance differential Eqs (50) and (51) have been
solved numerically based on the Dormand-Prince Runge-
Kutta 45 integration method using MATLAB 2016a code.
The hydrodynamic-kinetic model calculates the species con-
centrations in both emulsion and bubble phase from Eqs.
(50) and (51) through a system of ODEs. Then, the ODE sys-
tem was solved at each reactor height step (z), to calculate the
average species concentration. The adaptive step-size method
is used in this program due to the rapid growth of species con-
centration in the emulsion phase at near-bed bottom. These
equations are solved starting from the distributor (z = 0) to
the end of reactor (z = 2.5).

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Experimental results

4.1.1. Experimental results validation

A sample of experimental results was validated with the exper-
imental results obtained by J. Gao et al. [25]. The compared
work carried out under similar or close to conditions of present
Fig. 4 H2 vs. ER at T = 800 °C.
3674
conditions that were surrounding the performing of experi-
ments, and because of the variation in the reading accuracy.
4.1.2. Effect of equivalence ratio
The main advantages of using air are less cost, so air gasifica-
tion of biomass for generating syngas is one of the most eco-
nomical options for producing thermal power and fuels.
Fig. 5. Shows the gas composition versus equivalence ratio
at 900 °C. At the same temperature, high ER led to a higher
degree of combustion, which supplies more air into the gasifier
to produce more CO2 while CH4 remains almost the same with
increasing ER. At high ER, CO was reduced while H2 was
increased till ER = 0.35 then decreased after that due to the
oxidation of H2 and CO to H2O and CO2, and more air dilutes
the products that led to reducing the H2 yield. As well, low
availability of char in the gasifier at the high ER to produce
H2 through a water–gas shift reaction. Also, a higher degree
of oxidation reaction occurs, which contribute to the increas-
ing CO2 and decreasing of CO in the product gas through
the following reactions:
Oxidation reaction to produce CO:
C + 0.5O2 = CO
Oxidation reaction to produce CO2:
C + O2 = CO2
It’s clear from the reactions that, CO2 production consumes
more amount of O2 than CO, which explains why carbon diox-
ide is increasing quickly at higher ER.
4.1.3. Effect of gasifying temperature
Bed temperature affects syngas composition, heating value,
and gasification efficiency. The behavior of the reaction influ-
ences the effect of the temperature on the produced gas com-
position. The products formation in endothermic reactions
was improved at high temperatures about exothermic reac-
Fig. 5 Gas composition vs. ER at T = 900 °C.
A.S. El-Shafay et al.
tions. The gasification reaction is reversible, and the equilib-
rium reaction point can be shifted by changing the
temperature. The gasification reactions increase with a higher
gasification temperature. The gasification generated a com-
bustible gas enriched in CO, H2, and CH4. As shown in
Fig. 6. The combustible gas concentration increased with an
increase in temperature. Due to the decrease of char yield with
the temperature increase, the decrease of char increased with
the increase in temperature. The combustible gas concentra-
tion increased with the temperature increase due to the
decrease of char yield at higher temperatures. The temperature
increase led to a significant increase in combustible gas concen-
trations and heating value. The maximum operating tempera-
ture of the reactor is restricted by the melting point of ashes or
of the bed material. The temperature range for biomass gasifi-
cation is in a fluidized bed between approximately 600 °C and
900 °C. Fig. 7. Shows syngas lower heating value versus equiv-
alence ratio at different temperatures. The lower heating value
of the producer gas was slightly increased due to the increase
of H2 and CO contents in the syngas. The lower heating value
increased due to the oxidation reactions. The decreases in LHV
are due to be to lower production of H2, CO, and CH4. More-
over, at high ER, the nitrogen dilutes the produced gas and
results in its low energy content. The value of 0.35 correspond-
ing to higher LHV and higher production rate of H2 was
selected as the optimum ER. Fig. 8. Shows the cold gas effi-
ciency (gcold) versus equivalence ratio at different tempera-
tures. The cold gas efficiency directly related to the LHV of
the syngas and depends on the main combustible gases (CO,
H2, and CH4) concentration.
4.2. Theoretical results
4.2.1. Model validation
The mathematical model equations have been solved numeri-
cally to predict the average axial gas composition inside the
Fig. 6 Gas composition vs. T at ER = 0.35.
Experimental and numerical study of sawdust air-gasification 3675

Fig. 7 LHV vs. at ER. Fig. 9 Gas composition vs. ER at T = 800 °C, dp = 500 mm,
uo = 0.8 m/s, and z = 2.5 m.

the assumptions made; however, the trends are the same. Also,
there is a small variation between present theoretical study
results and Wang Y et al. [14] results. This difference may be
due to changes in fluidized bed bench geometry or bed material
specifications.

4.2.2. Effect of reactor height

Fig. 10. Shows the predicted axial gas composition inside the
bed at T = 800 °C, dp = 500 mm, uo = 0.8 m/s, ER = 0.3
passing through the bubbles and emulsion phases. The dense
region (above the distributor plate) has a high rate of char con-
sumption due to the relatively high concentration of oxygen at
the bed bottom. The increment rate of gas concentration is rel-

Fig. 8 Effect of the gasification temperature on cold gas

efficiency vs. ER.

bed as well as at the reactor outlet. The input variables of the

model are the agent type, reactor geometry and operating con-
ditions like ER, fluidization velocity, operating temperature as
well as bed and fuel specifications. Fig. 9. Shows the experi-
mental measurements and model predictions of gas composi-
tion at the reactor exit compared with Wang Yet al. [14]
results. The results indicate that the theoretical results for H2
and CH4 agree with the experimental data and Wang Y
et al. model results. While slight differences between the theo- Fig. 10 Reactor axial gas composition at T = 800 °C,
retical and measured data exist for CO and CO2, this is due to dp = 500 mm, uo = 0.8 m/s and ER = 0.3.
3676 A.S. El-Shafay et al.

atively low in the lower zone of the bed, and then the syngas
concentrations multiply with height by Eq.(51) and grow
quicker in the bubble phase as close to the bed surface. The
bed temperature increased in this region, and the common of
all the sub-processes of gasification takes place in the top part
of the bed. Carbon dioxide concentration increased in the
dense volume due to the absence of oxygen; the concentration
of carbon dioxide improved a little in the top part of the bed.
The shift gas reaction and partially steam reforming occur in
the bed and results in a slow increase of hydrogen and carbon
monoxide in the top part of the bed.

4.2.3. Effect of hydrodynamic parameters

Fig. 11 shows the gas composition versus bed particle diame-
ter, ER = 0.3, T = 800 °C, uo = 0.8 m/s, z = 2.5. The sand
is used as bed solid and the sand particle size within the range
of (400–800 mm). The increase of particle size increased the
minimum fluidization velocity. At the same fluidization veloc-
ity, increasing particle size resulted in a decrease of hydrogen
and carbon monoxide syngas concentrations, while the con-
centrations of carbon dioxide and methane almost the same.
There is a strong correlation between the fluidization velocity Fig. 12 Gas composition vs. fluidization velocity at ER = 0.3,
and the bed particle diameter. Many fluidization velocities T = 800 °C, dp = 500 mm and uo = 0.8 m/s and z = 2.5 m.
have been modeled (from 0.2 to 1.2 m/s) to explore the effect
of hydrodynamics on the gas concentration (see Fig. 12).
When the fluidization velocity increased, there is a chance
tant cause to change in kinetic parameters. For example, the
for the increase of turbulence to oxidizing of carbon dioxide
equivalent minimum fluidization velocity for 300 mm and
to become carbon monoxide and motivate steam-reforming
700 mm particles are 0.07 and 0.14 m/s, respectively. So, for
reaction to produce more hydrogen, as in Fig. 14. The growth
the equal fluidization velocity of 0.8 m/s, the bubbles mean
of particle size increased the minimum fluidization velocity.
diameter in the instance of lesser particle size is more signifi-
The biggest solids cause less bubbling as long as the fluidiza-
cant (e.g., 7 cm for 400 mm particles compared to 4 cm for
tion velocity is held constant to decrease the fluidization veloc-
800 mm particles), resulting in lower mass transfer coefficient.
ity with the same particle size. The changing of particle size
As additional increases in particle size would decrease the total
was probable to change the porous structure of the solid reac-
reacting surface area considerably. Figs. 13–20 show the influ-
ence of the hydrodynamic parameters on the syngas concentra-
tions mole fraction versus reactor height at ER = 0.2,
T = 600 °C, uo = 0.2 m/s.

Fig. 11 Gas composition vs. particles diameter at ER = 0.3, Fig. 13 CO vs. reactor height at different particle diameter at
T = 800 °C, uo = 0.8 m/s and z = 2.5 m. T = 600 °C, ER = 0.2 and uo = 0.2 m/s.
Experimental and numerical study of sawdust air-gasification 3677

Fig. 14 CO2 vs. reactor height at different particle diameter at Fig. 17 CO vs. reactor height at different fluidization velocity at
T = 600 °C, ER = 0.2 and uo = 0.2 m/s. T = 600 °C, ER = 0.2 and dp = 200 mms.

Fig. 15 CH4 vs. reactor height at different particle diameter at

T = 600 °C, ER = 0.2 and uo = 0.2 m/s. Fig. 18 CO2 vs. reactor height at different fluidization velocity at
T = 600 °C, ER = 0.2 and dp = 200 mm.

Fig. 16 H2 vs. reactor height at different particle diameter, Fig. 19 CH4 vs. reactor height at different fluidization velocity
T = 600 °C, ER = 0.2 and uo = 0.2 m/s. at T = 600 °C, ER = 0.2 and dp = 200 mm,
3678
Fig. 20 H2 vs. reactor height at different fluidization velocity at
T = 600 °C, ER = 0.2 and dp = 200 mm.
5. Conclusions
In the present study, experimental and numerical investiga-
tions of atmospheric fluidized bed sawdust gasification have
been carried out. The experiments were achieved at the temper-
ature range from 600 to 900 °C by an increment of 100 °C, and
the equivalence ratio ranges from 0.15 to 0.5 by an increase of
0.05. The syngas composed mainly of CO, H2, CH4, and CO2,
as in the typical gasification process. The obtained experimen-
tal results showed that the syngas composition is strongly
affected by the equivalence ratio and temperature. Increasing
ER improves char burning to produce more CO2, but H2 grad-
ually increased even ER = 0.35 instead of CH4, CO, and H2
increased with the temperature increase. Over the experiment
ranges, the LHV increased even 0.35 reached a peak of
8.31 MJ/Nm3 at 900 °C, and decreased again. Moreover, the
cold gas efficiency directly follows the LHV trend of the pro-
duced gases, which almost increase with temperature, but it
took the parabolic form with ER variation has peak point at
0.35; the maximum value of cold gas efficiency is 84.28% at
ER = 0.35 and 800 °C. The reaction kinetics-hydrodynamic
one-dimensional model developed in this study is capable of
predicting the performance of a fluidized bed at steady-state
operations. The mass balance and fluidized bed hydrodynam-
ics were taken into consideration. The input parameters for the
software program involved: biomass flow rate, fuel and bed
specifications, fluidization velocity, and gasifier geometry.
The prediction of axial syngas composition, syngas LHV,
and gasification efficiency at the gasifier exit was validated with
experimental and theoretical results. The axial gas composi-
tion, as well as the effect of bed particle size, fluidization veloc-
ity, and equivalence ratio on syngas concentration at the
reactor outlet, are predicted using the kinetics-hydrodynamic
model. The model results are in reasonable agreement with
the compared results, but there are an acceptable difference
between the results. This model will assist researchers, profes-
sionals, and industry people in identifying the optimized con-
ditions for sawdust gasification using different agents in a
fluidized bed.
A.S. El-Shafay et al.
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 research was funded by the combustion laboratory,
Faculty of Engineering, Mansoura, University, Egypt.
References
[1] J. Chang, D.Y.C. Leung, C.Z. Wu, Z.H. Yuan, A review on the
energy production, consumption, and prospect of renewable
energy in China, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 7 (5) (2003) 453–
468, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-0321(03)00065-0.
[2] P. Basu, Gasification Theory and Modeling of Gasifiers, First
Edit, Elsevier Inc., 2010, pp. 117–165.
[3] M. Dogru, C.R. Howarth, G. Akay, B. Keskinler, A.A. Malik,
Gasification of hazelnut shells in a downdraft gasifier, Energy 27
(5) (2002) 415–427.
[4] Z.A. Zainal, R. Ali, C.H. Lean, K.N. Seetharamu, Prediction of
performance of a downdraft gasifier using equilibrium modeling
for different biomass materials, Energy Convers. Manag. 42 (12)
(2001) 1499–1515, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(00)
00078-9.
[5] T.H. Jayah, L. Aye, R.J. Fuller, D.F. Stewart, Computer
simulation of a downdraft wood gasifier for tea drying, Biomass
Bioenergy 25 (4) (2003) 459–469.
[6] T. Hanaoka, S. Inoue, S. Uno, T. Ogi, T. Minowa, Effect of
woody biomass components on air-steam gasification, Biomass
Bioenergy 28 (1) (2005) 69–76.
[7] L. Wei, S. Xu, L. Zhang, C. Liu, H. Zhu, S. Liu, Steam
gasification of biomass for hydrogen-rich gas in a free-fall
reactor, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 32 (1) (2007) 24–31, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2006.06.002.
[8] Sheth, Pratik N. Modeling, simulation and experimental studies
on downdraft biomass gasifier. PhD diss., BITS Pilani, 2009.
[9] A. Ramos, E. Monteiro, A. Rouboa, Numerical approaches and
comprehensive models for gasification process: A review,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 110 (May) (2019) 188–206.
[10] K. Atsonios, A. Nesiadis, N. Detsios, K. Koutita, N.
Nikolopoulos, P. Grammelis, Review on dynamic process
modeling of gasification based biorefineries and bio-based heat
& power plants, Fuel Process. Technol. 197 (2020) 106188.
[11] M. Anil, S. Rupesh, C. Muraleedharan, P. Arun, Performance
Evaluation of Fluidised Bed Biomass Gasifier Using CFD,
Energy Procedia 90 (2016) 154–162, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.egypro.2016.11.180.
[12] P.M. Lv, Z.H. Xiong, J. Chang, C.Z. Wu, Y. Chen, J.X. Zhu,
An experimental study on biomass air–steam gasification in a
fluidized bed, Bioresour. Technol. 95 (2004) 95–101, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biortech.2004.02.003.
[13] J. Billaud, S. Valin, M. Peyrot, S. Salvador, Influence of H2O,
CO2 and O2 addition on biomass gasification in entrained flow
reactor conditions: Experiments and modeling, Fuel 166 (2016)
166–178, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.10.046.
[14] Y. Wang, C.M. Kinoshita, Kinetic model of biomass
gasification, Sol. Energy 51 (1) (1993) 19–25, https://doi.org/
10.1016/0038-092X(93)90037-O.
[15] J.P. Holman, Experimental Method for Engineers, sixth ed.,
McGraw-Hill, Singapore, 1994.
[16] A. Gómez-Barea, B. Leckner, Modeling of biomass gasification
in a fluidized bed, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 36 (4) (2010) 444–
509, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2009.12.002.
Experimental and numerical study of sawdust air-gasification
[17] S. Hamel, W. Krumm, Mathematical modeling and simulation
of bubbling fluidized bed gasifiers, Powder Technol. 120 (1–2)
(2001) 105–112.
[18] S. Suranani, V.R. Goli, Modeling fluidized bed combustion of
rice husk, International Conference on Chemical, Civil and
Environment engineering (ICCEE’2012), March 2012, pp. 24–
25.
[19] C.Y. Wen, Y.H. Yu, A generalized method for predicting the
minimum fluidization velocity, AIChE J. 12 (3) (1966) 610–612.
[20] S. Emad, A.A. Hegazi, S.H. El-Emam, F.M. Okasha, Dynamic
model of calcium looping carbonator using alternating bubbling
beds with gas switching, Fuel 208 (2017) 522–534, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.07.049.
[21] J.C. Abanades, E.J. Anthony, D.Y. Lu, C. Salvador, D.
Alvarez, Capture of CO2 from combustion gases in a fluidized
bed of CaO, AIChE J. 50 (7) (2004) 1614–1622.
[22] N.J. Themelis, Transport, and chemical rate phenomena.
Gordon and, Breach Publishers, 1995.
3679
[23] L. Damiani, A. Trucco, An experimental data based correction
method of biomass gasification equilibrium modeling, J. Sol.
Energy Eng. 132 (3) (2010) 31011.
[24] F. Okasha, Modeling combustion of straw-bitumen pellets in a
fluidized bed, Fuel Process. Technol. 88 (3) (2007) 281–293,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2006.10.012.
[25] J. Gao, Y. Zhao, S. Sun, H. Che, G. Zhao, J. Wu, Experiments
and numerical simulation of sawdust gasification in an air
cyclone gasifier, Chem. Eng. J. 213 (2012) 97–103, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.09.076.
[26] Q. Miao, J. Zhu, S. Barghi, C. Wu, X. Yin, Z. Zhou, Modeling
biomass gasification in circulating fluidized beds, Renewable
Energy 50 (2013) 655–661.
[27] Guilnaz Mirmoshtaghi, Biomass gasification in fluidized bed
gasifier: Modelling and simulation, Ph.D thesis, Mälardalen
University Press Dissertations, Sweden, 216 (2016) 1–84.