See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335881794

Modelling and Design Validation of Fluidized Bed Reactors for Co-Gasification

of Coal and Biomass to Study Hydrodynamics and Conversion

Conference Paper · January 2019

DOI: 10.5071/27thEUBCE2019-2CV.2.30

CITATIONS READS

0 157

3 authors, including:

Manu Jayanna
National Institute of Technology Karnataka
4 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fluidized bed gasification View project

CFD modelling of Downdraft Gasifier View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Manu Jayanna on 18 September 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 27th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 27-30 May 2019, Lisbon, Portugal

MODELING AND DESIGN VALIDATION OF FLUIDIZED BED REACTORS FOR CO-GASIFICATION OF

COAL AND BIOMASS TO STUDY HYDRODYNAMICS AND CONVERSION

Manu Ja,, Rahul Deva,Vasudeva Madava

aDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal
Mangalore - 575 025, Karnataka, India
Email: manuj6500@gmail.com, vasu@nitk.edu.in

ABSTRACT: The gasifier was designed with reaction chamber of 65mm diameter and 500 mm height. The study of
gas-solid hydrodynamics is essential in designing of fluidized bed gasifier. Drag force plays a critical role in
modeling fluidization behavior for gas-solid flow. This paper aims to study the effect of drag force on the fluidization
parameter for the presently designed gasifier using CFD approach. The Eulerian-Eulerian model, coupled with
different drag models was employed for this purpose. Time-averaged solid volume fraction, granular temperature,
axial velocity of the solid particle in a lateral direction, and a central axis of the reactor were examined for different
drag models like Syamlal O’Brien, Gidaspow, Mckeen and Representative unit cell. Effects of laminar and turbulent
models on flow behavior were also studied. The study concluded that the McKeen model shows a relatively flat
profile while estimating solid volume fraction while the RUC model overestimated the axial velocity of particles.
There was relatively no change in flow behavior for the laminar and turbulent model while predicting the axial
velocity of the solid particle in the lateral direction. The axial velocity of particles at a different packing factor was
studied and showed no such observable difference in predicting hydrodynamics flow behavior.
Keywords: Drag models, CFD, Design of fluidized bed, Frictional viscosity

1 INTRODUCTION investigated two eulerian dimension model to investigate

Presently, most of the thermal energy consumed in
the world is accumulated by burning petroleum products
and coal, which increases the futuristic demand due to
the scarcity of fossil fuels. The European Union (EU)
has set a vision for transition of the present system into a
low carbon energy system with reduced greenhouse gas
emissions to 40% reduction and increasing renewable
energy production by 27%. Biomass can be gasified
with the limited supply of air or steam and the syngas
can be used as an energy source.
In recent years, advancement in computational
technology, CFD is becoming an important tool for
understanding complex phenomenon in multiphase flow.
In CFD simulation between gas-solid flow, the two most
common modeling approaches used are Euler-Euler
approach [1] and Euler lagrangian approach [2]. In DEM
approach motion of individual particles is traced. In the
Euler-Euler method, both the phases are treated as a
mathematically interpenetrating continuum and
simultaneous equations are derived for both the phases
which make computations less expensive.
Therefore, Euler-Euler modeling is gaining attention
in cold flow studies of fluidized bed reactors. In Euler
Euler approach, the coupling is achieved through
interphase forces. In a fluidized bed reactor, virtual
forces are too small, hence can be neglected. Drag force
plays an important role in modeling fluidized bed
reactors; hence different drag models like Symalal
O’Brien and Gidaspow are frequently used [3]. Different
modeling approaches have been used to study
hydrodynamics in a fluidized bed. Matsen et al. analyzed
single bubble motion in the fluidized bed for analyzing
sluggy flow [4]. Tsuo simulated core annulus structure
of fluidized bed using two-phase model. Hydrodynamic
conversion in gas solid system became very popular
after the inclusion of kinetic theory of gases based on
Lun et al. [5]. This Kinetic theory of granular flow
(KTGF) model assumes Maxwellian or non-Maxwellian
distribution of particles for both dense and dilute phase
[6]. Huilin et al. Applied KTGF to study gas-solid
mixing in binary particles [7]. Vejahati et al.
the effect of different drag model [8]. Taghipour et al.
evaluated the effect of coefficient of restitution on the
hydrodynamics of bubbling bed reactor in dense gas-solid
[9]. Grace et al. suggested that selection of appropriate
wall boundary condition is very significant as it affects the
bed hydrodynamics [10].
In the present work, the empirical design of small
scale fluidized bed and its subsystem has been presented.
CFD modeling was also carried out to study the
hydrodynamics of bubbling bed. The Cold flow design
was based on the Euler-Euler approach where solid phase
properties were obtained by (KTGF). Different drag
models were incorporated in the model by utilizing user-
defined function. The effect of turbulence, laminar
models, effect of frictional viscosity was compared using
Gidaspow drag model. Time-averaged solid volume
fraction, granular temperature, axial velocity of the solid
particle in the lateral direction, and the central axis of the
reactor were examined for different drag models. Finally,
the objective is to design geometrical and CFD parameters
needed for small scale fluidized bed gasifier.
2 METHODOLOGY
All design calculations were developed for individual
subsystems of the gasifier system. In the first stage of
design, the equivalence ratio and amount of air needed for
gasification were calculated. The second stage comprised
of design of fluidization parameter followed by distributor
plate design in the third stage. The concluding stage
comprised of the verification of design considering the
Co-relations available in the literature.
2.1 Set of specifications
2.1.1 Feedstock
Based on a literature survey, it was found that the
mass flow rate of the feedstock generally used in fluidized
bed gasifier was 30 to 80 kg per hour. As this leads to
larger capital cost and increased workforce to operate,

865
 27th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 27-30 May 2019, Lisbon, Portugal

lower feed rates of 2-3 kg per hour (on wet basis) was 2.2.3 Diameter of reactor
selected. The diameter of the reactor is calculated by mass flow
rate,
2.1.2 Air factor    d b2 
  (4)
m =    u
The optimum air factor for fluidized bed reactor is air air 
 4 

sup
considered to be 0.25 to 0.35. The selection of From the above expression we get d bed= 65 mm
equivalence ratio depends upon the possible application Maximum velocity of the air is given by
of product gas. If the product gas has to be burnt directly
8  
 (d  (  − )  
g
=  ))
max  6   p
in the air , an equivalence ratio of 0.2 can be selected. If u (5)
the gas is used in the Internal combustion engine, then s g  C d g
the tar content has to be minimum, for which an Usup represents the superficial gas velocity which is 2 to 3
equivalence ratio of 0.4 is selected. For the present times the minimum fluidization velocity, dbed represents
study, an equivalence ratio of 0.25 is selected. the diameter of the bed.

2.1.3 Determination of air flow rate
Air flow rate is determined based on the equivalence
ratio. The air flow rate is needed to determine the
specifications of the compressor, distributor plate etc.
The amount of air required for stoichiometric
combustion was calculated from the direct empirical
relation [18]. The proximate and ultimate analysis were
taken from [4]
X = ER  ( % C  11.48 + % H 34.19 – %O  4.308)
air
2.2 Design of fluidization parameter
2.2.1 Determination of reactor volume and retention
time
The retention time of the gases is an important
parameter for two reasons mentioned below. firstly
higher retention time more time is provided for the
gases to remain in the gasifier so that tar cracking can
take place efficiently, thus increasing the yield. In
fluidized bed gasifier, prediction of actual volumetric
flow rate is difficult. As the volumetric flow rate is more
near the dense region where the reaction between char
and the gasifying agent takes place and less in the
freeboard region. Therefore, the average gas flow rate is
taken.
1  T +273   T +273  
=  q  b +q  o
avg 2  air  273  gas  273  
q (2)
   
Tb, To denotes the bed and outlet air temperature which
are assumed to be 1000°C and 900°C. Qgas, Qair denotes
the inlet gas and outlet gas flow rate. Outlet gas flow
rate is based on stoichiometric modeling. Since this
fluidized bed design is meant for gases to be burnt in IC
engine, the tar content has to be minimum so higher
retention time of 23 is taken.
Vr = Qavg × 23
Vr and Q are the volume of the reactor and volumetric
gas flow rate respectively.
2.2.2 Determination of geometric dimensions
Minimum fluidization velocity: It is that velocity at
which bed just start to fluidize where the drag force
exerted by fluid is equal to the weight of sand particles
and is given by,
 d2   3 
U = p    g  (  −  )    e mf  below.
mf  150     s g 
 1 − e 
 g   mf
Where umf is the minimum fluidization velocity, µg is the
viscocity of air, ρ is the density of solid and gases and
emf is bed voidage.
2.2.4 Minimum air flow rate
273 + Tr
Q = Q ( )
air , t air 273 (6)
2.2.5 Particle terminal velocity
It is that velocity at which particles will be entrained
and elutriated.
UT = 70 Umf (7)
(1)
2.2.6 Design of freeboard diameter and Bed Height To
allow disengagement of particulate particle, free board
height of 1.33 bed diameter is provided which is
Bed
approximately dia = 1.33 .Therefore, bed height is
Bed
hieght
found to be 48mm.
2.2.7 Size of bubble
Bubble grows in size as they move along the gasifier
tube and diminish in number so as to mantain constant
flow rate. The initial size of bubbles was determined by
type of distributor plate.
( )
0.5
db = g −0.25  U − U   h+h
 (8)
 mf  0
h is the bed hieght and h0 corresponds to the initial bubble
size which is taken as 0.005m.
2.3 Design procedure for distributor plate
Distributors are designed based on orifice theory. It
has been proved that bubbling fluidization is strongly
influenced by the type of distributor used. Fig. 1 depicts
the single inlet opening type distributor plate. Bed density
fluctuates at all flow rates and bed density varies with
height and gas channeling occur in this design. However,
for multiple inlet opening type of distributor plate bed
density is uniform and smaller bubble are formed which
gives better gas-solid mixing with less channelling of the
gas. But multiple type distributor plate has disadvantage
that it gives severe presure drop.
Distributor plate design is mostly empirical. Distributor
plate must have enough pressure drops to achieve equal
flow through openings. The pressure drop should always
be larger than the inherent resistance for the distribution of
the incoming gas. There has been some recommendation
for pressure drop in distributor plate which is summarized
(3)
pd = max(0.1p ;350mm(water);100p ) (10)
 min b
According to the empirical formula, pressure drop should
be the highest of the above three parameters presented in
equation (10).

866
 27th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 27-30 May 2019, Lisbon, Portugal

5mm) causes uneven air distrubution in the bed creating

turbulence.
Oc = A U  N = 11 (13)
or or or
Number of orifice needed are obtained from the equation
(13). To obtain the number of orifice in the distrubutor
plate, total number of orifice (Nor) is multiplied by the cross
below sectional area (Aor) of the distrubutor plate.

2.4 Fuel Feeding Subsystem

This system consists of hopper and screw arrangement
for the biomass storage and a feeding assembly as depicted
by Fig. 2.. The screw and feed arrangement is driven by
variable frequency drive (VFD) as a speed controller. The
feeding screw operates also like a dosing screw for
biomass.

Single orifice multiple orifice Sintered orifice

Figure 1: Gas solid mixing in different distributor plates.

2.3.1 Minimum pressure drop over the distributor Figure 2: Screw and feeder arrangement.
Fluidized bed gasifiers are designed to operate even
at minimum gas flow rates. They must deliver an equal
gas flow rate across the cross-sectional area of the bed. 3 DESIGN VERIFICATION
Hence minimum gas flow rates are considered to
determine the pressure drop across the distributor. 3.1 Residence time of gas
p =  H Two most important factor which should be determined
b b b
for verification of design for fluidized bed are a fraction of
pd , min = 0.1  P =1.27 cm of water
b bubble in contact with particles and residence time of gas
However, this is the minimum acceptable value flowing interstitially. Residence time indicates whether
compared to equation (10) which is 350 mm of water. there is enough time for the reaction to proceed. The
fraction of bubbles indicates contact efficency. The
2.3.2 Calculation of Reynolds number for flow residence time of gas flowing interstitially is given by
approaching the distributor Hb
U mf
where height of bed is taken as 0.15 m so residence
Reynolds number for flow approaching the distributor is
times is 1.7 seconds. Hence, Contact time between the gas
  d v and bed particles in the emulsion phase is 1.7 seconds
r g
given by (11)
 which is quite low. But it is sufficient for complete
g consumption of oxygen in the bed.
Vg is the minimum air flow rate given by
273 + Tr 3.2 Contact efficiency
Q =Q  The bubble diameter at the top of the gasifier tube is
air ,T air Tr
0.02 m and 0.05m at the bottom of the bed. Hence, it can be
2.3.3 Calculation of the velocity of the gas through the assumed that the mean size of bubbles db over the bed is
orifices 0.035 m. Similarly, the mean Velocity of the gas in the bed
The velocity of the air through the orifices of the is 1.106 m/s.
distributor is calculated by equation (12) Ub = 0.5  g  d +  u − u  (15)
0.5 b  mf 
 2  g P 
U = C  c d  (12) Hence, the residence time of bubbles in the bed is the ratio
or d    of bed height to the bubble velocity which is 0.12 second.
 g  The ratio at bubble velocity to interstitial gas velocity is
Where Pd is the pressure drop over the distributor which U
is 35 g/cm2, gc is the conversion factor given by 980g a= b e (16)
(cm/gs2) and Cd is 0.7. U
mf
The fraction of bubble gas in contact with particles is
2.3.4 Calculation of the number of Orifices
Given by,
For finding a number of orifice in the distributor plate
U
diameter of each orifice is considered as 3mm. Very cp
 e = 0.2 (17)
small diameter orifice (less than 3mm) causes clogging of U
the distrubutor plate and very large orifice (more than b

867
 27th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 27-30 May 2019, Lisbon, Portugal

The above value is equivalent to contact efficiency of 6 MATERIAL SPECIFICATION

20%. The obtained result is satisfactory.
Material specification used in fluidized bed gasifiers
are specifed in Table I. Both ceramics and metallic
4 DESIGN OF ELECTRICAL FURNACE materials are used for construction of distrubutor plates.
Ceramic materials are known for resistance for highly
The furnace body is fabricated of mild steel and corrosive gases at high temperature but they show low
welded with screw joint. strength against thermal shocks. Ceramics can erode in
very short time which increases the opening diameter of
4.1 Furnace structure the orifice which causes turbulence at the entrance of the
Inner chamber size : 12-inch cubical structure reactor.
Shell construction: Double walled fabricated with a mild
steel body and mild steel angled structure with proper Table I: Material used in fluidized bed
stiffeners with an opening at the top.
Insulation: Inner chamber made of high-density ceramic Equipments Specifications
fiber to withstand the temperature of 1000°C and Screw feeder Feed screw made up of SS 304 pipe,
insulated with high-grade ceramic fiber blanket to keep having size of 50mm dia, attached with
skin temperature less than 70°C.
½ HP gear motor
4.2 Heating system Air blower 1 HP single phase AC supply 1440 RPM
The heating chamber of the furnace is lined with Distributor plate Made up of SS 304 plate, having 8 mm
high quality siliminate groooved refractory. The heating thickness with 3 mm holes
element is kept working on all four sides. The heating
element is made of the iron-chromium-aluminium coil Hopper Hopper made up of SS 304 Sheet in
heating element 9Kw consisting of 440 volt three phase 2mm thickness
(Kanthal) AL wire. Fig.3 depicts the designed furnace. Gasification Muffle furnace made
Control system is housed in steel crucible and fitted on chamber with up of SS 316 pipe , having 65 mm dia,
to one to the front side of furnace with TAEI furnace and 800 mm Length. Covered 10KW
temperature controller with a temperature sensor of
electrical coil, Insulation with ceramic
accuracy ±5°C.
wool
Suction blower 1 HP single phase AC supply 1440 RPM
Cyclone Fabricated according to standard design
separator
Gasifier tube (65mm)

Electric coil (9Kw)

Figure 3 : Structure of electrical furnace

5 DESIGN OF CYCLONE SEPARATOR

A cyclone is an essentially settling chamber in

which gravitation acceleration is replaced by centrifugal
acceleration as depicted by fig 4. The dust laden gas
enters the cyclone enters tangentially and enters through
Figure 4: Design of cyclone seperetor
a central opening. Cyclones are employed if the particle
diameter is above 0.5mm. The design of cyclone was
made from empirical calculations. Inlet velocity of
15.2m/sec was recommended for efficient working of
cyclone. The empirical equations as shown in Table III
are applied to determine various dimensions. The
cyclone was designed for flow rate of 15kg/hour and
operating temperature of 600°C.

868
 27th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 27-30 May 2019, Lisbon, Portugal

Table II. Design of cyclone seperetor 7 COLD FLOW ANALYSIS IN FLUIDIZED BED

Sl Dimensions Size (m) Fomula The optimum efficiency of fluidization is dependent

no on the flow behavior of gas-solid phase. Knowledge about
1 Ad 0.00037m2 Ratio of gas the flow behavior is necessary for designing, scaling, and
flow rate to gas optimization of fluidized bed reactors. Hence cold flow
inlet velocity studies are conducted for studying hydrodynamics in a
2 Dc 0.054 fluidized bed. Gravity and drag forces are the most
3 Bc 0.013 Dc/4 important terms in the momentum equation of the granular
4 Hc 0.027 Dc/2 phase. This paper focuses on the effect of drag force in
5 Lc 0.108 Dc/2 fluidized bed reactors using different drag models.
6 Sc 0.00675 Dc/8
7 Zc 0.108 2 Dc 7.1 Mathematical Modeling of granular flow
8 Jc 0.0103 Dc/4 The commonly used multiphase model in simulating
fluidized bed is Euler-Euler model. Mixture model can
Table III : Desighn data of fluidized bed gasifier also predict the hydrodynamics of fluidized bed reactors
but the error obtained is large. Euler model will calculate
one transport equation for momentum and another for
Parameter Biomass Cogasifica Units
continuity phase. The continuity equation is solved per
tion phase as depicted by equation (18)
Gasifier type Bubbling Bubbling
bed bed 1  n

Mass flow rate of 2.5 2.5 kg/hr  ( g  g  + .( g  g u g ) =  (m sg −m gs ) (18)
 g  t  s =1
biomass
Equivalence ratio 0.3 0.4
Equation 18 is valid for both gas and solid phase. The
Mass flow rate of 3 .86 4.55 kg/hr right-hand side of the equation is valid where the mass
air transfer is involved between phases.
Retention time 23 23  
 ( g  g )  + .( g  u g ) = − g p + . +
Reactor volume 0.076 0.093 m3  t 
Gasifier internal 65 75 mm n
diameter  ( K (Us − Ug ) + m Usg − m gsUgs) + Fg + Flift + Fvm
sg sg
s =1
Minimum pressure 1.27 1.27 cm of
(19)
drop H2O The momentum equation between phases are depicted
Gas velocity in 50.9 50.9 m/sec by equation (19) where ρ is the hydrostatic force between
orifice the phases, K is the drag, Fg, Flift, Fvm are the gravitational,
Gas velocity 0.0027 m/sec
lift and virtual mass forces and . is the gas phase stress
approaching the
tensor which is given by,
distributor
T 2
Number of orifice 11 12  =   (.u +.u g ) +  ( +  ).u g I (20)
g g g g g 3 g
in distributor
Bed hieght 150 150 mm µ, λ are the dynamic and bulk viscosity I is the unit
tensor. The momentum equation for granular and gas
phase are quite similar but granular phase term appears in
Maximum velocity 0.61 0.61 m/sec the granular phase. In this modeling, new concept of
Mean particle 300-350 300-350 µ energy was introduced named as granular temperature.
The normal fluctuation in temperature is extended to
diameter
macro scale where the molecules are replaced by the
Contact efficiency 21 21 % particles. This theory is called KTGF (Kinetic theory of
granular flow) [5]. Generation of granular temperature is
Particle terminal 6.3 6.3 m/sec
due to stresses within the granular phase. The conservation
velocity equation for granular phase is represented by,
Size of bubble 49 mm 3 
( (   ) + .(  v )] =  : us −
2 t s s s s s s (21)
Mass balance 90-110 % 90-110 % .qs−  − 3K s
sg

Summary of fluidized bed design : Basic sizing of a g.  is granular phase stress tensor and is given by
fluidized bed gasifier on laboratory scale is depicted in [−Ps +  s s.us] − 2  s S (22)
s s
Table III. The results obtained from the design were
used as input data for cold modelling to depict the cold S is the deformation rate and is given by
s

flow behaviour. An outline of experimental setup in

shown in fig.5.

869
 27th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 27-30 May 2019, Lisbon, Portugal

1
Ss = 0.5[u +(u )T − [.u s I ] (23) (0.06Re)2 + 0.12Re(2 B − A)
s s 3 Vr , s = 0.5( A − 0.06Re] + 0.5[
The term .q s is the flux for granular energy,  is the + A2
dissipation of granular temperature, the algebraic (31)
equation for Collison energy is given by Lun et al and is 7.3.2 Gidaspow
depicted by The Gidaspow drag model is a combination of the
Wen and Yu drag model and the Ergun equation. Wen and
12(1 − e2 ) g yu drag model is valid when the internal force is negligible
ss 0 , ss
 s 2s 3 (24) which means that the viscous forces dominate the flow
ds  s
behavior.
Where ess is the coefficient of restitution which varies The Wen and Yu drag model is written has
from 0 to 1. Some of the closure models used in study of
3[  (1 −  )]
Cd (u −u ) g−2.65
the kinetic theory of granular flows is given below. g
Ksg = (32)
4d g s
7.2 Granular viscosity – Symalal et al p

= +
24
col skin
(25) Cd = [1 + 0.15( R )0.687 ] (33)
4   R g es
 s, col =  s sg 0, ss(1 + ess) g es
5  The Ergun equation is given by
150 (1 −  )2  (ug− us)((1 −  )
 d  s  ksg =
g g
+ 1.75
g g
(34)
 = s s
s.kin 6(3 − e )  ( d ) 2  d
ss g s s
(26)
 2  7.3.3 Mckeen drag model
1 + (1 + e ss )(3e ss −1) sg o, ss  The drag equation of McKeen [7] model is given by
 3 

Granular bulk viscosity – lun et al (   (u −u )    g −1.8 )

17.3 g s s
4 s ksg = ( + 0.336) (35)
 s = ( d ) (1 + e ) (27) Re ds
3 s ss 
Granular conductivity- Symalal et al [6] 7.3.4 RUC drag model
The Representative Unit Cell model is based on
15(d ) s s pressure drop through porous media. Originally proposed
K = by [8] Ruc model, it is based on the modification of ergun
4(41 − 33 )
(28) equation in which the viscous regime is determined by the
12 2 16
[1 +  (4 − 3) , g (41 − 33 ) , g Kozeny-Carman equation and the turbulent regime is
5 s o, ss 15 s determined by Burke-Plummer equation.

7.3 Drag models 26.8 g3  g (1 −  g )1.33

Ksg = +
In Euler–Euler modeling, the interaction between (1 − (1 −  g ) 0.33 )(1 − (1 −  g )0.67 ) 2  g d 2s
solid phase (Sand) and gas phases (air) is modeled by
the drag force Ksg. In this modeling different drag  s2  g (u g − u s )(1 −  g )
models are used for calculating the drag coefficient Kgs (1 − (1 −  g )0.67 ) 2 ds
which are as follows.
7.4 Initial and Boundary Conditions
7.3.1 Syamalal O’Brien The physical model of fluidized bed gasifier of height
The model is based on equation (29-30) shown 500mm and diameter 65mm filled with sand particles of
below and is derived for a single spherical particle 300µmm with a density 2500 kg/m3 and bed height 150
moving in air and modified with a relative velocity mm as shown in fig 6. The air was chosen as a fluidizing
correlation Vr. Drag Cd is assumed for a single particle agent with a velocity of 0.25 m/sec with no-slip boundary
drag model and is modified for relative velocity at walls. The atmospheric pressure boundary condition is
correlation given in equation (31) used at the outlet of the gasifier. Coefficient of restitution
   of 0.9 is for the present simulation. The calculation is
3 g s g
Ksg = Cd u − u (29) initiated by assuming that the bed is initially filled with
4 4d v2 s g
s r sand up to a height of 0.15 m. Phase coupled simple
4.8 algorithm which is an extension of SIMPLE algorithm is
Cd = [0.63 + ] (30) used for coupling velocity and pressure components
Re Different drag models were incorporated using User
Vr Defined Functions. The simulation is run for 25 seconds
Where Vr,s is the terminal velocity correlation for the and time-averaged value are taken for the last 20 seconds.
solid phase A small-time averaged value of 0.001 sec was used for
time discretization

870
 27th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 27-30 May 2019, Lisbon, Portugal

Syngas S
S Syngas
Analyzer 1
Analyzer
2
Cold flow studies
effect of drag, Gas
turbulence models Gas
Fresh Sample Sample for
on velocity of for GCMS
particles Water in GCMS
CHNS
O
TGA
A Cyclo Filter
ne Scrubber
I
Bubbling
Fluidized
Coal/
Bed
biomass Tar, PM,
Gasifier
Ash mixed
Water
Hot flow studies using ANSYS fluent
Effect of operating parameters Equivalence
ratio, Temperature, Particle Size, moisture
content

Air
Ash,
Char

Figure 5: Overview of research components (A-Gasifier Exit, C-thimble filter, D- Acetone containing impinger bottles in ice
box, S1- before cleaning, S2- after cleaning)
.
8 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

8.1 Numerical validation

As discussed above, this work deals with the study of
the performance of different drag models with and without
turbulence modeling. In the section, the effects of different
drag models on radial and axial velocity of particles,
granular temperature, solid volume fraction are discussed
500 mm and the model is validated with Taghipour et al. [9] and
shows good agreement.

150 mm

Figure 6: CFD modeling of fluidized bed.

Figure 7: Validation of axial velocity of sand particle at

0.46m/sec

871
 27th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 27-30 May 2019, Lisbon, Portugal

Syamlal
Gidaspow Mckeen RUC
Figure 8: Solid volume fraction at 0.25 sec using different drag model

Syamlal
Mckeen RUC
Gidaspow
Figure 9: Solid volume fraction at 1 sec using different drag model

872
 27th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 27-30 May 2019, Lisbon, Portugal

8.2 Effect time-averaged axial velocities of sand with of RUC and Symalal O’Brien model. [16] Concluded that
lateral distance Gidaspow, Syamlal–O’Brien model and Arastoopour
Fig.10 illustrates the comparison between time- model can accurately predict the solid volume fraction and
averaged axial velocities of sand in the radial direction the Gidaspow model drag model giving the best fit in
at the radial location of 0.15 m from the base. Core calculating the cold flow parameters
annulus structure of flow which consists of the central
region where sand particles are carried by air and
annular region where particles fall, are clearly predicted
by Representative unit cell, Syamlal-O’Brien (Modified)
and Gidaspow model. While the velocity predicted by
Mckeen is flat throughout the central position, there is
no variation between laminar and turbulent model when
Gidaspow drag model was used and the deviation
between laminar and turbulent models is less than 5%.

Figure 11: Solid volume fraction profile in lateral

direction

Figure 10: Axial velocity of particles vs lateral distance

for different drag models

The maximum deviation was observed in the wall

region while minimum deviation was found near-core
region. As the Reynolds number in bubbling bed gasifier
is low, the effect of turbulence is insignificant. So, in the
study of bubbling bed gasifier , it is recommended to
select laminar model unless Gerald A type particles are
used where turbulence modeling effect the particle
distribution velocity [10]. Figure 12: Granular tempreture of sand in lateral direction

8.3 Effect time averaged Solid volume fraction profile in

the lateral direction with lateral distance
Fig.11 depicts the time-averaged solid volume
fraction profile in the lateral direction from the distance
0.15m from the base with different drag models. Core
annulus flow is depicted well by the Gidaspow and
Symlal O’Brien drag model. There is little difference in
predicting solid volume fraction predicted by Gidaspow
and Symlal O’Brien while RUC models underpredicts
the solid volume fraction.

8.4 Effect of time-averaged solid volume fraction

variation along the height of the reactor with lateral
distance
Fig.12 depicts time averaged solid volume fraction
variation along the height of the reactor. Mckeen and
Gidaspow drag models predicted high solid volume
fraction. Solid volume fraction predicted by RUC and Figure 13: Time averged solid volume fraction along
Syamalal model was underpredicted. The change in height for different drag models with lateral distance
solid volume fraction at bed surface in Mckeen and
Gidaspow is sharp while it is relatively gradual in case

873
 27th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 27-30 May 2019, Lisbon, Portugal

8.5 Time averaged solid volume fraction along height

for different drag models with lateral distance
Fig.13 depicts the granular temperature measured by
Gidaspow laminar and turbulent model. Both the models
result in granular temperature which is very close to
each other. Laminar models result in higher granular
temperature near the central region of the reactor.

8.6 Effect of frictional viscosity and maximum packing

factor
The success of the Euler-Euler approach depends
upon the proper description of drag forces and solid
stress. The effect of drag forces on the hydrodynamics
of fluidized bed is discussed above. By introducing the
concept of solid pressure, well-known KTGF theory has
been established to compute solid stress. In computing
the drag forces and solid stress, the following important Figure 14: Axial velocity of particles at different packing
criteria must be considered. Firstly, the influence of factor
frictional stress on additional solid stress. Literature data
available on the effect of frictional stress on small scale
fluidized bed is very limited. For spouted bed reactors,
additional frictional stress plays an important role in the
annulus region because of high solid volume fraction in
the radial direction. [11] Proposed semi-empirical model
for normal frictional stress also proposed to sum up the
solid state stresses obtained from KTGF to frictional
stress model as it can capture both viscous and plastic
flow. [12]. Modified expression of asymmetrical part of
stress derived from Schaeffer to account strain state
fluctuation in quasi-static flow [13].
The second stage is the appropriate evaluation of
pseudo-fluid. Maximum packing factor and coefficient
of restitution are two parameters which effect solid state
frictional stress. These two parameters were just set
based on experience. Experimental data regarding the
study of effect on hydrodynamic behavior on frictional Figure 15: Axial velocity of particles at different packing
stress are very rare in open literature. The maximum factor
packing limit specifies the maximum volume fraction of
granular phase. Maximum packing limit is larger for Simplification from 3D to 2D results in some errors
polydispersed system. but are able to describe complex gas-solid flow well inside
Fig.14 depicts axial solid velocity of sand with the fluidized bed. Time-averaged solid volume fraction,
different packing factor at the velocity of 0.12m/sec and granular temperature, axial velocity of the solid particle in
lateral distance of 0.2m from the base. In order to a lateral direction, and the central axis of the reactor were
simulate the influence of α,max on the hydrodynamics of examined for different drag models like Syamlal O’Brien
fluidized bed packing factor are taken as 0.63, 0.59 and (Modified), Gidaspow, Mckeen and Representative unit
0.55 respectively. There is no much influence on cell drag models. It was concluded that core annulus
hydrodynamics with the decrease in packing factor at behavior of the bed was very well predicted by Gidaspow
lower fluidization velocity. and symalal drag model while Mckeen drag model could
Fig.15 depicts the solid velocity of sand with and not predict core annulus structure of the flow and
without frictional viscosity. The frictional viscosity predicted linear axial velocity and particle solid volume
describes the frictional behavior of the flow. The fraction. The effect of laminar and turbulent models on
mathematical models used in frictional regimes are flow behavior, the effect of solid volume fraction of
mostly based on the kinetic theory of granular flow. The particles at different packing factor and the effect of solid
calculation of frictional regimes is complicated and volume fraction with and without frictional viscosity were
takes high computational effort, thus the effect of studied. It was observed that error involved in measuring
frictional viscosity can be neglected. the axial velocity of particles by laminar and turbulent
models was less than 5%. The effect of axial solid volume
fraction of sand particles with the different packing factor
9 CONCLUSION of 0.63, 0.59 and 0.55 was studied and found that at lower
fluidization velocity there was no much influence on
Design of bubbling fluidized bed gasifier and its hydrodynamics with the decrease in packing factor. Effect
subsystem was performed for a pilot scale plant. The of frictional viscosity reveals there is no much deviation in
numerical calculation for gasifier and its subsystem were predicting solid volume fraction with and without
validated with empirical co-relations obtained from the frictional viscosity. The study concluded that the laminar
literature. The hydrodynamic behavior of 300 µm model without frictional viscosity can be used to predict
particle was predicted by using different drag models. the flow behavior very well in the pilot scale fluidized
bed.

874
 27th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 27-30 May 2019, Lisbon, Portugal

10 REFERENCES

[1] Loha C, Chattopadhyay H, Chatterjee PK.

Particuology Effect of coefficient of restitution in
Euler – Euler CFD simulation of fluidized-bed
hydrodynamics 2014;15:170–7.
[2] Inder R, Brink A, Hupa M. CFD modeling to study
fl uidized bed combustion and gasi fi cation
2013;52.
[3] Syamlal M, O´Brien TJ. Computer Simulation of
Bubbles in a Fluidized Bed. AICHE Symp 1989.
doi:10.2307/302397.
[4] Loha C, Chattopadhyay H, Chatterjee PK, Loha C,
Chattopadhyay H, Chatterjee PK. Energy
generation from fluidized bed gasification of rice
husk Energy generation from fluidized bed
gasification of rice husk 2013;043111.
doi:10.1063/1.4816496.
[5] Lun CKK, Savage SB, Jeffrey DJ, Chepurniy N.
Kinetic theories for granular flow: Inelastic
particles in Couette flow and slightly inelastic
particles in a general flowfield. J Fluid Mech 1984.
doi:10.1017/S0022112084000586.
[6] Ding Jianmin, Gidaspow D. A Bubbling
Fluidization Model Using Kinetic Theory of
Granular Flow. AIChE J 1990.
doi:10.1002/aic.690360404.
[7] Gibilaro LG, Di Felice R, Waldram SP, Foscolo
PU. Generalized friction factor and drag coefficient
correlations for fluid-particle interactions. Chem
Eng Sci 1985. doi:10.1016/0009-2509(85)80116-0.
[8] Du Plessis JP, Masliyah JH. Mathematical
modelling of flow through consolidated isotropic
porous media. Transp Porous Media 1988;3:145–
61. doi:10.1007/BF00820342.
[9] Taghipour F, Ellis N, Wong C. Experimental
and computational study of gas-solid fluidized bed
hydrodynamics. Chem Eng Sci 2005;60:6857–67.
doi:10.1016/j.ces.2005.05.044.
[10] Lindborg Hå, Lysberg M, Jakobsen HA. Practical
validation of the two-fluid model applied to dense
gas-solid flows in fluidized beds. Chem Eng Sci
2007. doi:10.1016/j.ces.2007.06.011.
[11] Johnson PC, Jackson R. Fric tionakollisional cons ti
tu tive relations for granular materials , with
application to plane shearing 1987:67–93.
[12] Srivastava A, Sundaresan S. Analysis of a frictional
– kinetic model for gas – particle flow
2003;129:72–85.
[13] Differential OF. instability in the Evolution
Equations Describing Incompressible Granular
Flow 1987;50:19–50.

875

View publication stats