Energy xxx (2016) 1e12

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

A modeling approach to co-firing biomass/coal blends in pulverized

coal utility boilers: Synergistic effects and emissions profiles

rez-Jeldres a, *, Pablo Cornejo b, Mauricio Flores c, Alfredo Gordon a,

n Pe
Rube
Ximena García a
a
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Concepcio
n, P.O. Box 160-C, Concepcio
n, Chile
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Concepcio
n, P.O. Box 160-C, Concepcio

n, Chile
c
n, P.O. Box 4051, Coronel, Chile
Technological Development Unit, University of Concepcio

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

Article history: Pulverized coal power plants in Chile are evaluating to reduce CO2 emissions by co-firing coal with
Received 7 November 2015 biomass, which is CO2-neutral. A computational fluid dynamics model was used in this study to predict
Received in revised form the performance of a 150 MW commercial boiler co-firing pulverized coal with pine sawdust. Synergistic
26 October 2016
effects were identified by burnout, thermal and hydrodynamic profiles. Co-firing was simulated with 5%
Accepted 21 November 2016
Available online xxx
of biomass substitution, and feeding in the first level of burners. The model was validated using data
from the power plant. The results show an expected decrease in SO2 emissions and a negligible reduction
in heat transferred to the water tubes (0.6%). Biomass presence increased the burning rate of fuel par-
Keywords:
Co-firing
ticles, as shown by higher CO2 emissions and a lower CO concentration, per unit of thermal power. The
Sawdust model reveals synergistic effects, proved by an increase in temperature, due to an early combustion of
Synergistic biomass particles, increase in the coal combustion rate, and a better temperature distribution in the
Pulverized coal boiler. These synergistic effects were compared with results obtained at bench scale reported in the
Tangentially boiler literature. Thus, it was concluded that a relatively small replacement of coal by biomass could signifi-
Biomass cantly improve the fuel combustion process and the boiler performance.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction hectares of native and forest plantations and an average yield of

The generation of electricity is the essential engine and the base
for sustainable economic development of a country. Thus, low-cost
power generation along with an independence from fossil fuels in
its energy matrix would allow South American countries to reduce
their fixed costs and offer the opportunity to enter into new mar-
kets. In recent years, Chile has made a great effort to include con-
ventional and unconventional renewable energies in their energy
matrix. However, the transition from conventional energy to
renewable energy sources and clean technologies to generate en-
ergy independence from fossil fuels is slow, requiring regulations to
introduce these technologies into the energy matrix [1]. In this
context, Chile has recently approved a new legal regulation that
demands the utilization of 10% of unconventional renewable en-
ergy in the thermoelectric sector [2].
As special feature, Chile accounts for more than 15 million
* Corresponding author.
20e40 m3/ha/y [3]. Furthermore, at about 4 million of tonnes/year
of woody residues (14,000 GWh/y) are produced from forestry
activities. These residues can replace an important fraction (viz.
25%) of the internal coal demand for electricity production in coal-
fired systems leading to a more sustainable energy matrix [3].
Therefore, there is an interesting opportunity to transform the
installed generation units into systems capable to process biomass/
coal blends, which will favor the reduction of fossil-derived emis-
sions as well as the increment in the share of local resources used
for energy production.
To achieve this goal, co-firing of coal with biomass has become a
feasible alternative to existing pulverized coal power plants.
However, extensive and costly field tests are frequently needed to
analyze the performance in existing utility boilers, and the co-firing
of coal with biomass may interfere with the normal operation of
the power plant [4]. Numerical simulations may be used to study
the co-firing process, predicting the behavior of the combustion
process within the boiler, reducing the number of experimental
tests by designing appropriate field tests, and establishing the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.11.116
0360-5442/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

rez-Jeldres R, et al., A modeling approach to co-firing biomass/coal blends in pulverized coal utility boilers:
Please cite this article in press as: Pe
Synergistic effects and emissions profiles, Energy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.11.116
2 R. P
erez-Jeldres et al. / Energy xxx (2016) 1e12

Nomenclature Abbreviations
BFG Blast Furnace Gases
A Pre-exponential constant [s
1] CEMS Continuous Emission Monitoring System
AP Particle area [m2] CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
CP Specific heat [kJ kg
1 K
1] COG Coke Oven Gas
Do Oxygen diffusion coefficient [m2 s
1] CPD Chemical Percolation Devolatilization model
E Activation Energy [kJ kmol
1] DO Discrete Ordinate radiation model
dP Particle diameter [m] DPM Discrete Phase Model
de Mean particle diameter [m] DTRM Discrete Transfer Radiation Method
h Convective coefficient [W m
2 K
1] EDM Eddy Dissipation Model
I Radiation intensity [W sr
1] EDC Eddy Dissipation Concept model
mP Mass particle [kg] EPA Environmental Protection Agency
mp,0 Initial mass particle [kg] FG Functional Group devolatilization model
mp,daf Initial mass dry ash free particle [kg] LHV Lower Heating Value [kJ kg
1]
R Surface kinetic rate [m2 s
1] PDF Probability Density Function for transport species
TP Particle temperature [K] PKE Palm kernel extract
T∞ Local temperature of the gas phase [K] RANS Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (equations)
Yi Mass fraction of the i-species [kg kg
1] RNG Renormalization Group model
RSM Reynolds Stress Model
Greek symbols RTE Radiative Transfer Equation
εP Absorption coefficient SST Shear Stress Transport model
ƟR Radiation temperature [K] SIMPLE Semi-implicit Method for Pressure-Linked Equations
g Dispersion factor TGA Thermogravimetric Analysis
s Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5.67  10
8 [W m
2 K
4]) WSGGM Weighted Sum of Gray Gases Model

optimum operating conditions. Among the different combustion
technologies, integration of a biomass firing system into a pulver-
ized coal boiler could be far more challenging than integration of a
biomass firing system into a grate-fired boiler or a fluidized bed
combustor because the burner aerodynamics and fuel properties
have a much greater impact on combustion and the formation of
pollutant emissions [5].
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has been applied success-
fully to study pulverized coal combustion and co-firing coal with
biomass in different aspects, e.g., to study the effects produced in
the performance of a low-NOX multi-fuel burner by substituting the
feed from coal to straw [6]. A significant number of CFD models
have been developed for co-firing of coal with biomass but only a
limited number of the CFD models have been applied on an in-
dustrial scale or have been validated by experimental tests in large
power plants (See Table 1),. Some of these models have been used
to study the influence of operational factors related to the biomass
feeding conditions: mean particle size, substitution level of coal by
biomass and feeding location in the furnace.
The main conclusions of the studies summarized in Table 1 are
as follows: 1) A limit exists in the maximum biomass substitution
level and particle size that can maintain a reasonable boiler effi-
ciency [4]. Some authors show a maximum of 20% of mass substi-
tution due to technical limitations [13], e.g. the milling capacity and
power consumption. Pallare
s et al. [4] propose to maintain the mill
power consumption at optimum values for a cost-efficient com-
bustion process. The mean diameter of the biomass particles must
be in the range of 0.5e1 mm. 2) The mean particles size is the most
influential factor in biomass combustion efficiency to obtain an
adequate burnout. Low mean particles diameter (0.5e1 mm) in-
crease the combustion rate and the temperature in the near burner
region, requiring low residence time and obtaining higher com-
bustion efficiencies than particles with mean diameters higher than
1 mm [4]. 3) Particles of biomass with larger diameters run the risk
of reaching the hopper without being completely burned. Thus, it is
desirable to feed these particles to the burners located at higher
elevations [7]. In the case of small-diameter biomass particles, CFD
simulation results show that if biomass is fed into the lowest level
of burners, higher temperatures and heat fluxes to the walls are
obtained, than when biomass is fed at higher levels [14]. 4) The
operational parameters are unaffected by co-firing biomass at a low
thermal loading [7]. However, the temperature at the furnace exit is
slightly increased at a low thermal loading of biomass, so there is no
expectation of intensification of slagging/fouling in the convective
zone [7]. However, higher ratios biomass/coal than 20 wt% in the
co-firing process could produce a decrease in the furnace exit
temperature, thus enhancing the possibility of slagging/fouling [9].
5) A decrease in SO2 and NOX emissions should be obtained because
of the lower contents of sulfur and nitrogen in the biomass fuel. A
reduced availability of nitrogen in the blend of course results in a
fuel NOX decrease [7]. 6) When biomass is incorporated into a co-
fired burner, or when an existing low NOX coal-fired burner is
retrofitted with biomass, the air supply should be finely tuned. The
air supply should be sufficient to ensure that the excess air will not
reduce the flame temperature but will provide sufficient oxygen in
zones where volatiles are released to promote the homogeneity
and char combustion [15]. Normally, in pulverized coal combustion,
an adequate air excess is normally between 15 and 20% [16].
These CFD models have been developed to study the macro-
scopic response of coal plants under co-firing conditions. However,
limited information is available about the possible synergies be-
tween coal and biomass during the combustion process. In this
field, thermogravimetric studies under an inert atmosphere and a
low heating rate of 5e50 K/min are typically used to study syner-
gistic effects during the co-firing process. The results are quite
controversial. Some studies indicate that no interactions occur in
the pyrolysis and combustion of coal-biomass blends [17e20],
whereas several other studies present an increase in the gas/vola-
tile yield and composition, so a higher reactivity of the coal-
biomass blends depends on the mixing ratio and temperature
[21e24]. Even if there is no interaction between the coal and the
biomass during the devolatilization process, the heat released from

rez-Jeldres R, et al., A modeling approach to co-firing biomass/coal blends in pulverized coal utility boilers:
Please cite this article in press as: Pe
Synergistic effects and emissions profiles, Energy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.11.116
 R. P
erez-Jeldres et al. / Energy xxx (2016) 1e12 3

Table 1
Resume of the pulverized combustion boilers models under co-firing condition.

Technology Fuels Turb. Devol. model Rad. Gas reaction Char comb. Ref
model model.

Pulverized Combustion Boiler Coal - Cyanara k-ε Single rate P-1 PDF Single film model [4]
350 MWe cardunculus
Front Wall burners
Replace:4% in energy basis
Pulverized combustion - Test Coal - Straw SST k-u Single rate DO Finite rate/eddy dissipation Single rate [6]
Facility
Low NOX Multiburner
Replace: 0e100% in mass basis
Pulverized Combustion Boiler Lignite - Cardoon k-ε Single rate P-1 Finite rate/eddy dissipation UDF - User Defined Function [7]
300 MWe
Tangentially burners
Replace: 5e10% in energy basis
Pulverized Furnace - Test Coal - k-ε RNG FG. DO Eddy dissipation Smith's Intrinsyc Model [8]
Facility Milled wood
0.5 MW PKE
Replace: 15e20% in energy Olive
basis. Miscanthus
Pulverized Furnace - Test Coal e k-ε RNG Two competing P-1 PDF Kinetics/diffusion limited rate [9]
Facility Wheat rates model
5.8 MW Straw
Replace: 10e20% in energy basis
Pulverized Combustion Coal k-ε CPD P-1 Eddy dissipation Kinetic/diffusion Model [10]
Tangentially Fired Utility Boiler BFG
200 MW COF
Replace: 20% in energy basis
Pulverized Combustion Coal - k-ε Single rate DTRM Three steps defined by the Three steps defined by the [11]
Tangentially Fired Utility Boiler Lignite authors authors
550 MW
Replace: 20e60% in energy basis
Pulverized Combustion Coal k-ε Two competing DO Finite rate Kinetics/diffusion limited rate [12]
Wall Fired Utility Boiler Wood chip rates model
700 MW Wood pellet
Replace: 0e100% in energy basis Sawdust

Note: BFG ¼ Blast Furnace Gases. CPD ¼ Chemical Percolation Devolatilization model. COG ¼ Coke Oven Gas. DO ¼ Discrete Ordinate radiation model. DTRM ¼ Discrete
transfer radiation method. FG ¼ Functional Group devolatilization model. PKE ¼ Palm kernel extract. RNG ¼ Renormalization Group. SST ¼ Shear Stress Transport.

homogeneous-heterogeneous combustion of biomass particles 2.1. Plant description

could generate a synergistic effect. This synergistic effect could be
manifested as a variation in burnout rates, exhaust gas concentra-
tions and temperature profiles.
Therefore, this study aims to answer three important questions:
i) On an industrial scale, if a small fraction of coal is replaced by
biomass, will synergistic effects be detected during co-firing? ii)
Because of the low LHV of biomass, will there be a substantial
decrease in heat flux that could affect evaporator tubes and steam
production? iii) By replacing 5% of the coal by biomass, would it be
possible to observe an increase in temperature and combustion
efficiency?
2. Description of fuel and facilities
The above-mentioned research questions are addressed by a
CFD model, which is implemented to simulate the process of co-
firing coal with sawdust in a commercial 150 MW utility boiler
located in Tocopilla, Chile. A commercial code (ANSYS FLUENT 14)
was used to solve the transport equations for momentum, energy
and mass. The model was validated using the results of a field test
(large-scale) operating with 100% pulverized coal. The co-firing
study was carried out for a mass-base replacement of 95/5 wt%
coal/sawdust mixture in the first level of burners. Sawdust is
considered to be derived from Pinus radiata, since this specie ac-
counts for more than 60% of forest plantations in the country.
Furthermore, Arteaga-Pe
rez et al. [25] have recently reported on
the environmental benefits of using it as fuel in co-firing stations.
The Tocopilla power plant consists of two pulverized coal utility
boilers (Unit 14 and Unit 15), with a total generation capacity of
300 MW. Unit 14 (U14) was designed by Mitsubishi Heavy In-
dustries to operate at 18.8 MPa absolute and 813 [K], resulting in a
steam evaporation capacity of 108 [kg s
1]. A schematic of the
installed boilers is presented in Fig. 1, indicating main furnace zones
(focus of the numerical model) and the distribution of fuel feeding
ports. The dimensions of the main cross section of the furnace are
9.0  9.2 [m]; the height of the boiler is 32.4 [m], and the com-
bustion chamber volume is 2130 [m3].
The boiler has four levels of burners, with four burners each,
which are tangentially distributed. During 100% of coal usage
(normal operation condition) in the power plant, the boiler burns
two types of fuels namely Adaro and Hatillo, which compositional
analysis and properties are summarized in Table 2 along with those
of sawdust. The modeled boiler (Unit 14) burns Adaro coal at in-
termediate burner levels and Hatillo coal in the upper and lower
burner levels, mainly to avoid an excessive flame temperature and
thus to prevent thermal NOX formation. A 5% (mass-based) of
replacement at the first level burners (level A) was considered for
modeling purposes. The conservative replacement used is due to
the necessity of the power plant to test the boiler and the mills,
operating at a small quantity of biomass and not to modify the
hydrodynamics within the boiler. The results of this work will allow
to the power plant to obtain the environmental authorization to
develop his co-firing test.
After milling (each level has its own rod mill), the pulverized

rez-Jeldres R, et al., A modeling approach to co-firing biomass/coal blends in pulverized coal utility boilers:
Please cite this article in press as: Pe
Synergistic effects and emissions profiles, Energy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.11.116
4 R. P
erez-Jeldres et al. / Energy xxx (2016) 1e12

Fig. 2. Unstructured mesh of a cross section of level-A burners.

The modeled zones were represented using a grid structure

Fig. 1. Burner levels and secondary air distribution.
fuel particles are pneumatically transported by the primary air to
the corresponding burner. The secondary air flow is fed by a wind-
box located between the burners, as shown in Fig. 1. The operating
conditions are shown in Table 2.
3. Mathematical model
The boiler geometry comprises a burners and a radiative/
convective zone (see Fig. 1). To simplify the model, the superheater
was not included because it has a negligible influence on the overall
combustion process, considering the low gas temperature at its
inlet and the low char and charcoal reactivity far from the reactive
zone [4].
based on a non-structured hexahedral mesh, as illustrated in Fig. 2,
where 96% of the cells have a quality equal to or lower than 0.6 (0
means a very good quality and 1 a very poor quality). To ensure the
independence of the results, several tests were performed to
evaluate the influence of the grid size on the results. The mesh was
refined, and the computations were repeated until the variation of
the results was lower than 5%, resulting in an optimal cell number
of approximately 322,000 cells.
3.1. Gas-solid reaction model
An Eulerian-Lagrangian approach was used to model the gas-
solid two-phase flow. The two-way coupling model was chosen
because the solid phase affects the transfer of mass, momentum
and energy in the gas phase. The latter was modeled using the
Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations, where the
Reynolds stress tensor is described by the Boussinesq hypothesis.
The RANS equations were coupled with a k-ε model to incorporate

Table 2
Fuel analysis, properties and feed conditions.

Adaro Coal Hatillo Coal Sawdust

Proximate analysis (wt% as received)

Fixed carbon (by difference) 33.6 44.9 11.5

Volatile matter 35.7 35.3 62.8
Moisture 27.7 14.2 25.4
Ash 2.93 5.68 0.30

Ultimate analysis (wt% dry ash free basis)

Carbon 72.7 79.0 48.9

Hydrogen 4.80 5.40 6.00
Oxygen 21.4 13.1 45.0
Nitrogen 0.92 1.70 0.10
Sulfur 0.18 0.80 0.01

Fuel properties/Burner feed level B/C A/D A

Lower heating value (as received) [kJ kg
1] 20,524 25,623 11,190
Rosin-Rammler dispersion factor (1) 0.678/1.419 1.092/1.008 1.092
Rosin-Rammler mean diameter [mm] (1) 0.090/0.150 0.110/0.090 0.110

Feed conditions/Burner level B/C A/D A

Primary air flow [kg s
1] 7.50/6.67 6.67/6.94 For co-firing conditions see Table 4.
Secondary air flow [kg s
1] 26.8/26.8 26.8/26.8
Primary air temperature [K] 884/884 884/884
Secondary air temperature [K] 1114/1114 1114/1114
Combustible mass flow [kg s
1] 4.00/3.97 4.3/4.03

Note: The symbol “/” separates the value corresponding to one level of burners from another level.

rez-Jeldres R, et al., A modeling approach to co-firing biomass/coal blends in pulverized coal utility boilers:
Please cite this article in press as: Pe
Synergistic effects and emissions profiles, Energy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.11.116
 R. P
erez-Jeldres et al. / Energy xxx (2016) 1e12
the turbulent viscosity. Different models for turbulence were
compared with a non-linear model, the Reynolds Stress Model
(RSM), proving that the k-ε model is capable of representing the
hydrodynamics of the system at a lesser computational cost than
the RSM but with a maximum difference of 10%. The SIMPLE al-
gorithm was used to predict the flow, temperature and gas con-
centrations within the boiler in addition to solving time-averaged
expressions for mass, momentum, and enthalpy of flue-gas species.
3.2. Discrete phase model
The discrete phase model (DPM) in a Lagrangian reference
system was used to describe the disperse solid phase. This model
idealizes the discrete phase as dispersed particles in the continuous
phase. The model calculates the trajectories, heat, momentum and
mass transfer to and from the particles. The trajectories were ob-
tained by the integration of the force balance in the particle. The
inertial force is thus equal to the forces acting on the particle
(weight and drag force). The drag coefficient for spherical particles
was calculated using the Morsi and Alexander correlation [26].
The discrete phases were modeled in separate ways for coal and
biomass particles. The Rosin-Rammler distribution was used to
characterize the fuel particle sizes (Eq. (1)), as presented in Table 2.
The mean diameter (dp) and dispersion factor (g) were calculated
from sieve fractions provided by the power plant. Coal and biomass
particles were assumed to have a spherical shape, which will in-
fluence the fluid-dynamic behavior and the particle heating rate.


g 
dp
Yd ¼ exp

de
3.3. Heat transfer mechanisms
Radiation was quantified using the discrete ordinates model
(DO). This model solves the radiative transfer equation (RTE) for a
three-dimensional finite number of angles, each associated with a
director vector fixed in the global Cartesian system. In the DO
model, the RTE equation becomes a transport equation for the ra-
diation intensity in spatial coordinates. In this study, transport
equations in five directions were solved. The solution method is
identical to the one used to solve the flux equations.
The heat transfer between the homogeneous and discrete
phases was calculated from the heat balance applied to the particle
(Eq. (2)), relating the particle temperature TP, the convective coef-
ficient (h) and the absorption/emission of radiation (εP ) at the
surface of the particle (AP).
dTP  
mp Cp ¼ hAP ðT∞
TP Þ þ 3 P AP s q4R
Tp4
dt
The radiation temperature (ƟR) was calculated from the incident
radiation by integrating the radiation intensity in all directions over
the solid angle.
UZ¼4p
1 ! !
q4R ¼ $ Ið r ; s Þ dU
4s
U¼0
The absorption coefficient (εp) was calculated using the
Weighted Sum of Gray Gases Model (WSGGM) as a function of the
concentration and partial pressures of H2O and CO2 and a charac-
teristic length. The wall temperature was assumed to reach the
steam saturation temperature, and the emissivity of the wall was
considered to be equal to 0.75, obtained from the literature [27].

rez-Jeldres R, et al., A modeling approach to co-firing biomass/coal blends in pulverized coal utility boilers:
Please cite this article in press as: Pe
Synergistic effects and emissions profiles, Energy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.11.116
5
3.4. Kinetics of coal and sawdust combustion
At the discrete phase, the mass and heat transfer rates over the
particles are calculated considering four stages: heating, drying,
devolatilization (char formation) and char oxidation. In the first
stage, the particle is heated until its temperature reaches the water
vaporization temperature (373 [K]). At this point, the temperature
of the particle remains constant, and the moisture content is
released during the endothermic drying. When the particle reaches
the devolatilization temperature and the moisture mass fraction is
zero, the devolatilization process begins and persists until all vol-
atile materials are released.
Zt
Zt
ðk1 þ k2 Þdt
mv ðtÞ
¼ ða1 $k1 þ a2 $k2 Þ$e 0 dt (4)
mp;0
mp;daf
0
E1 E2
k1 ¼ A1 $e
RT ; k2 ¼ A2 $e
RT (5)
The coal devolatilization rate was simulated using the well-
known two competing rates model (Eq. (4)). In the case of coal,
the values of activation energy and pre-exponential constants re-
ported by Kobayashi et al. [28] were used, while for biomass these
values were taken from Pallare
s et al. [4] (Table 3). This model was
selected because it can change the devolatilization rate as a func-
tion of the temperature. The model assumes that the light volatile
matter (higher H/C ratio) is released at low temperatures, and the
(1) heavier products (lower H/C ratio) are released at higher temper-
atures, having a higher release rate than the light products, e.g.,
pulverized coal combustion [29]. Mass stoichiometric factors for
low temperatures (a1) are assume to be equal to the VM content,
but at higher temperatures, the mass stoichiometric factor (a2) is
equal to 1.0, as recommended in Ref. [30]. The biomass devolatili-
zation was modeled using the single rate model expressed in an
Arrhenius form. Despite the LHV of biomass, the higher content of
VM in biomass is expected to promote the ignition of the coal
particles, being observed in the burnouts, temperatures and con-
centration profiles.
When the coal particle is dried and its volatile matter is released,
the coal particle burns until the char mass fraction is reduced to
zero. Under the normal operating conditions of pulverized-char
combustion, the char reaction will be partly controlled by the
diffusion of oxygen to the surface of the char (physical control),
itself a function of the particle diameter, and partly by intrinsic
chemical reaction kinetics or by a combination of pore diffusion and
reaction kinetics (chemical control) [16,31].
The diffusion of oxygen to the external surface of the particles
becomes the major rate-controlling influence for temperatures
(2) above 1823 [K]. For temperatures below 773 [K], chemical reactions
control the surface reaction rate [33]. For temperatures above 1005
[K] the diffusional effects become important, controlling the
Table 3
Combustion kinetics for coal and biomass [4,28,32].
(3)
Adaro Hatillo Sawdust
Devolatilization parameters
E - Activation Energy [kJ kmol
1] E1 ¼ 1.1  105 1.7  104
E2 ¼ 1.7  105
A - Pre-exponential constant A1 ¼ 2.0  105 7.7  1011
A2 ¼ 1.3  105
Heterogeneous combustion parameters
Echar - Activation Energy [kJ kmol
1] 8.3  104 9.25  104 1.2  105
C2 - Pre-exponential constant 2.0  10
3 2.35  10
3 9.3  10
3
6 R. P
erez-Jeldres et al. / Energy xxx (2016) 1e12
reaction velocity [34]. To include both effects, the heterogeneous
char combustion was simulated using the kinetic/diffusion surface
reaction model (Eq. (6)).
dmP rRg T∞ YO2 1 5. Results and discussion
¼
AP 1
dt MWO2 R þ D10
The overall rate is determined by oxygen diffusion to the surface
(D0) and the rate of surface reaction (R), which depend on tem-
perature and composition of the gaseous environment, as well as
the size, porosity and temperature of the particle [35]. The kinetic
rate (R) incorporates the effects of chemical reaction on internal
char surfaces (intrinsic reaction) and pore diffusion. The oxygen
diffusion rate and the charcoal/char reaction rate are calculated
using the field correlations [36]:
 0:75
Tp þ T∞
D0 ¼ C1
dP


E calculations using the same emission factors for coal combustion
R ¼ C2 exp
char
RTP
Because the pre-exponential factor and the activation energy
depend on fuel characteristics [35], the kinetic parameters were
calculated from Hurt and Mitchell's correlation [32] using the fuel
elemental analysis presented in Table 3. The diffusion rate is ex-
pected to be higher in biomass-derived char particles because the
biomass has a higher volatile matter content than coal and burns
rapidly leaving a highly porous char, thus accelerating the char
combustion as well [13].
For pulverized coal combustion, it has been shown that volatiles
are burned extremely quickly in areas close to the burner region
[37] and that the overall rate of reaction is controlled by turbulent
mixing in the reaction zone (Damko €hller number ≪1). Under these
assumptions, the eddy-dissipation model (EDM) is used to describe
the entire VM combustion process. Applications on the industrial
scale in pulverized coal combustion modeling show that EDM offers
a practical and reasonably accurate prediction to describe the ho-
mogeneous combustion process [10,38,39].
To verify the convergence of the results, mass balance monitors
were created for carbon, sulfur and mass flow. The convergence
criteria of these monitors was 1  10
3, while the relative
convergence criteria for energy, continuity and momentum equa-
tions were 1  10
6, 1  10
4 and 1  10
4, respectively. The tur-
bulence kinetic energy (k) and dissipation rate (ε) convergence
criteria was 1  10
3.
4. Case study
International experience has demonstrated that a maximum of
20 wt% substitution of coal by biomass in pulverized coal utility
boilers can be possible without changing the design parameters
[13]. In this research, we studied the performance of Unit 14 of
Tocopilla, operating with a 20% replacement of the coal mass flow
rate by feeding biomass into the burner level A. This replacement
corresponds to 5% of the total feedstock rate. The simulated con-
ditions used in this study are presented in Table 4. These were
proposed by the power plant and are quite conservative in order to
guarantee to his clients a continuous and steady supply of elec-
tricity during the co-firing. Because the replacement is mass-based,
and thus the efficiency and the power level would be affected. To
establish a comparative basis for emissions, between normal
operation (100% coal) and co-firing, the concentrations of CO and
SO2 are normalized by the power level. The flue gas concentrations
are measured in the chimney boiler using a continuous emissions

rez-Jeldres R, et al., A modeling approach to co-firing biomass/coal blends in pulverized coal utility boilers:
Please cite this article in press as: Pe
Synergistic effects and emissions profiles, Energy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.11.116
monitoring system (CEMS) under stationary conditions. For all of
the operational parameters, the gas concentrations represent the
mean value at the 95% level of confidence.
(6)
5.1. Model validation
The model was validated by comparing the simulated concen-
trations of CO2, SO2 and O2 with experimental data obtained for the
utility boiler (U14) operating with 100% coal and at the operation
conditions indicated in Table 2. In addition, the simulated and
experimental gas concentrations were compared with those
calculated from the EPA AP 42 [40] standards using the operational
conditions (see Fig. 3). The comparison shows that, for the studied
technology, the concentrations measured in U14 are similar to both
the model-predicted values and those determined by the EPA
(7)
standards.
By comparing the simulation results for co-firing with EPA AP 42
(8) and co-firing, both results show a decrease in the concentrations of
CO2 and SO2 and an increase in the O2 percentage. The increase of
7% in O2 presents the possibility of reducing secondary air to
optimize the combustion and to reduce the power consumption of
the induced draft fan, thus promoting an increase in the plant
efficiency.
To assure the independence of C-CO2 calculations from the
selected model, a sensitivity analysis using the eddy dissipation
concept model (EDCM) and the PDF-transport species (PDF) was
performed. The similarity in values obtained in the concentrations
of CO (5.5  10
5 for EDM, 7.34  10
5 for EDCM and 8.36  10
8
[mg Nm
3] for PDF) suggest that low concentrations of CO seem not
to have a relationship with the EDM but could be associated with
the particle size distribution. This distribution was obtained from
four samples in the discharge line from two of the four mills. It is
possible that the mills that were not sampled operate under
different particle size distributions than the sampled mills. How-
ever, in practical terms, this difference would not affect the quali-
tative analysis of the combustion. Considering the accuracy of the
model, it may be extended to the analysis of plants with similar
combustion technology operating under steady-state conditions.
5.2. Contour analysis
The burnout of char particles is a reference index to assess the
combustion performance of a fuel mixture under specific reaction
conditions. For level A of burners, the burnout zones for the co-
firing case reveals a decrease as compared to a normal operation
(Fig. 4). This could be due to a higher content of VM in biomass in
reference to that of coal (See Table 2). Abbas et al. [37] showed the
early ignition of sawdust volatiles produces a faster devolatilization
rate of the coal particles. The heat liberated by the combustion of
sawdust VM will affect the surrounding coal particles through the
acceleration of both heat transfer and the kinetics of the hetero-
geneous and homogeneous processes. Indeed, the previous state-
ment could be corroborated by analyzing the shape and area of the
burnouts zones for co-firing (Fig. 4), which suggest that a higher
number of particles have finished or are developing their com-
bustion process as compared to 100% of coal combustion.
If the morphology of the burnout contour is analyzed in terms of
distances and areas, one of the remarkable characteristics observed
is that the average area bounding the burnouts near the burner and
the average distance from the centroid area to the burner, both
remained constant (see Table 5). The analysis also revealed a
reduction of 26% in the burnouts and 17% in the area occupied by
 R. P
erez-Jeldres et al. / Energy xxx (2016) 1e12 7

Table 4
Operating conditions for the case study.

Operational variable/Burner level A B C D

Coal/Biomass flow rate [kg s
1] 3.22/0.81 4.03/0.00 3.97/0.00 4.03/0.00

Primary/Secondary air flow [kg s
1] 6.67/26.8 7.50/26.8 6.67/26.8 6.94/26.8
Primary/Secondary air temperature [K] 611/841 611/841 611/841 611/841
Boundary conditions.
Wall temperature [K] 373
Wall internal emissivity 0.75
Gauge pressure outlet [Pa]
3056

Note: The symbol “/” separates the value corresponding to one level of burners from another level.

Fig. 3. Flue gas concentrations from the model, experimental data and EPA AP 42 calculation.

Fig. 4. Contours of burnouts at the level of burners fed coal-sawdust blend (level A).

the burnouts into the flame vortex (zone enclosed by a dashed particles. The previous, suggests that combustion was brought
white line) associated with a major quantity of completely burned forward due to the catalytic effect of volatiles released from

rez-Jeldres R, et al., A modeling approach to co-firing biomass/coal blends in pulverized coal utility boilers:
Please cite this article in press as: Pe
Synergistic effects and emissions profiles, Energy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.11.116
8 R. P
erez-Jeldres et al. / Energy xxx (2016) 1e12
biomass, as reported by Gil et al. [41].
The contour of gas-phase temperature for burner in level A
(Fig. 5) suggests that high-temperature zone is localized close to the
burner, reaching a peak of 1820 [K] for pure coal combustion and
1710 [K] for co-firing. A slight decrease (7 [K]) in the mean tem-
perature allows inferring a better distribution of the flame tem-
perature. This trend will also benefit the ignition and burning of the
fuel particles as they are fed through the ignition ports to keep the
heat flux close to the boiler water tubes. This temperature decrease
was previously observed by Kastanaki and Vamvuka [42], during a
lab-scale study, where a comparative study on the reactivity and
kinetics of the combustion of coal-biomass blends using TGA, was
provided. Their results showed that for 0/20 wt% coal-wood blends,
the burnout (final) temperature of the blends was lowered by 4e10
[K].
The velocity field within the boiler is not excessively affected by
the inclusion of biomass, which can be corroborated by inspecting
both the confinement of the flame and the vortex profile (Fig. 6).
This visualization is consistent with the mean velocity values of flue
gas at burner level A, of 11.7 and 11.3 [m s
1] for coal combustion
and co-firing cases, respectively, indicating a 3% reduction of the
mean flue gas velocity. Similar results were obtained by Backreedy
et al. in a 1 [MW] pulverized coal combustion test facility [43]. The
study showed that if a smaller amount of the coal was replaced by
pinewood (3 wt%), the temperature and the velocity fields of the
base coal flame are not significantly changed because the replace-
ment was made on a mass basis. At higher percentages re-
placements (20, 40 and 60%), Bhuiyan et al. [11] showed a decrease
in the velocity, temperature and CO2 profiles within the boiler, so as
an increased in the unburned carbon in the ash.
The simulations yield a mean turbulence intensity value of 15.8%
for coal and 20.1% for co-firing conditions (see Fig. 7). These values
are close to those reported by Baxter [44] for pulverized coal
combustion (10% typical and 30% maximum). High levels of tur-
bulence are within expectations: the main feature of tangential
distribution of burners (which is the case of Unit 14) is the gener-
ation of high levels of turbulence, thus optimizing the fuel-air
mixture and improving the efficiency of the combustion.
Figs. 8 and 9 reveal a slight decrease of 0.6% in the radiation and
the total heat flux in the co-firing case. However, the mean
convective heat flux reached 32.8 [MW] for both cases. The mean
convective heat flux was calculated by subtracting the radiation
from the total heat flux. Therefore, the reduction in the total flux to
the walls is due only to the decrease in the radiation flux, which is
related to the decrease in the temperature of the flame, as a
consequence of the inclusion of biomass (see Fig. 5). The total heat
flux reveals a decrease in the heat flux on the hopper zone and a
constant radiation heat flux (See radiation heat flux contour).
Therefore, the reduction in the total heat flux could be associated
with a decrease in the velocity located in the hopper.
Table 5
Results of the morphology analysis of the burnout contour e Burner level A.
Burner ID Combustion of pure coal Co-firing coal-sawdust
blends
dburner [m] Area [m2] dburner [m]
E 1.07 1.4 1.14
F 1.33 1.6 1.14
G 1.18 1.2 1.12
H 1.00 1.6 1.34
Mean 1.14 1.5 1.18
Flame vortex n/c 19.9 n/c
Note: n/c e not calculated.

rez-Jeldres R, et al., A modeling approach to co-firing biomass/coal blends in pulverized coal utility boilers:
Please cite this article in press as: Pe
Synergistic effects and emissions profiles, Energy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.11.116
5.3. Flame vortex analysis
Because the combusting particles are concentrated in the flame
vortex, the concentration of the flue gas and the temperature gra-
dients are analyzed within this vortex (Fig. 10).
The calculations show a maximum reduction of 42% in the CO
concentration per unit of thermal power for co-firing but maintain
the position of the maximum CO peak. The CO concentrations
reached lower values in level A of the burners, being consistent
with the unburned profiles presented in Fig. 4, except for those
zones close to the burner where, due to the devolatilization process,
CO concentrations were higher.
A lower presence of CO is commonly associated with higher
combustion efficiency and an increase in the concentration of CO2.
In this study, the increase in emissions of CO2 shown in Fig. 10 is due
to the lower thermal power fed into the co-firing of coal with
sawdust than for pure coal combustion. Co-firing assays at pilot
plant scale [37], in which the partial replacement of coal is based on
energy, coincide in the increase of the CO2, which is a result of
earlier devolatilization of the sawdust. Furthermore, it allows
accelerating the combustion of coal particles as well. However,
even if the synergistic effect described is not considered, sawdust
inclusion enough for the same power fed than in the case of pure
coal will increase the emission of CO2, due to higher biomass flows
into the boiler to compensate the lower thermal power of that
biomass, thus increasing the amount of carbon present in the
combustor.
At the exit of the furnace, Fig. 10 shows a 5% decrease in SO2
emissions, by unit of thermal power, which is attributed to the
lower Sulfur content of the coal-sawdust blend (0.57 [kg MWh
1])
than for pure coal (0.6 [kg MWh
1]). In addition, a maximum of 10%
reduction of SO2 emissions is observed in the hopper zone. This
reduction not only is due to lesser content of Sulfur in the blend. In
fact, lower gas temperatures retard Sulfur oxidation and the higher
reactivity of sawdust than of coal allows a rapid decrease of particle
size and increasing entrainment which diminishes the possibility of
particles reaching the hopper [45].
A comparison of the temperature profiles shows similar tem-
perature values from the burner area to the exit of the furnace. The
maximum difference between the flame temperatures obtained
from burning blends of biomass-coal and pure coal was 180 [K], and
it occurred in the region of the hopper. For heights below 8 [m],
lower temperatures were observed in the co-firing of coal-sawdust
blends that in the combustion of pure coal. This trend is due to the
lower LHV of sawdust than of coal, as well as the sawdust is fed into
the first level of the burners (level A in Fig. 1), located at a height of
9 [m] (see Fig. 10). In addition, the high reactivity and volatile
content of sawdust, as compared to coal, allows a larger and faster
release of volatile matter, which burns at heights above the level of
burners [7]. Thus, a displacement of the temperature profile and a
mild temperature-increase at the exit of the hopper was obtained.
What is remarkable about this result is that a small amount of coal
replacement by sawdust allows keeping the temperature profile in
the regions of flow to the evaporator walls of the boiler.
5.4. Synergistic effect analysis
Area [m2]
The contour analysis, like the axial flame vortex variability, al-
1.4 lows the identification of synergistic effects during the co-firing
1.4
process. The decrease in the burnouts and the increase of the
1.1
1.9 temperature close to the water tubes lead to consideration of an
increase in the amount of fuel particles that has ended the com-
1.5
bustion process because the mean heat flux to the walls is slightly
16.5 decreased (0.5%).
The synergistic effect during co-firing of coal/biomass blends
 R. P
erez-Jeldres et al. / Energy xxx (2016) 1e12 9

Fig. 5. Contours of mean temperature at the level of burners fed coal-sawdust blend level A).

Fig. 6. Contours of flue gas velocity at the level of burners fed coal-sawdust blend (level A).

Fig. 7. Contours of turbulence intensity at the level of burners fed coal-sawdust blend (level A).

rez-Jeldres R, et al., A modeling approach to co-firing biomass/coal blends in pulverized coal utility boilers:
Please cite this article in press as: Pe
Synergistic effects and emissions profiles, Energy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.11.116
10 R. P
erez-Jeldres et al. / Energy xxx (2016) 1e12
Fig. 8. Contours of the total heat flux to the water tubes walls of the boiler.
Fig. 9. Contours of radiation heat flux to the water-tube walls of the boiler.
could be associated with an early release of heat during the com-
bustion of the biomass particles. The higher biomass reactivity
compared with coal, expressed in terms of activation energy and
pre-exponential factor (see Table 3), allows the biomass to begin
the devolatilization and homogeneous combustion process earlier
than coal, producing a heat release in the zones close to the burners

rez-Jeldres R, et al., A modeling approach to co-firing biomass/coal blends in pulverized coal utility boilers:
Please cite this article in press as: Pe
Synergistic effects and emissions profiles, Energy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.11.116
and therefore an increase in the local temperature, as shown in
Fig. 5. The increase in the gas temperature will allow the coal
particles to reach the devolatilization temperature earlier.
Analyzing the effect of temperature on the heterogeneous
combustion and using the kinetic/diffusion limited surface reaction
model, an augmentation of the gas temperature would result in an
increase in the temperature of the char/charcoal particles and a
decrease in the diffusional and surface kinetics resistances (see Eqs.
(6)e(8)). In a macroscopic pore model like the one used in this
study, the diffusional resistance is inversely proportional to the
average temperature between the particle and the environment
[46]. Thus, an increase in the temperature will induce the diffusion
of oxidant to the surface of the particle, favoring the reaction in
terms of oxidant availability. Meanwhile, the kinetic resistance is
inversely proportional to the surface reaction rate. For coal, this
reaction has been demonstrated to be of first order with an
Arrhenius-type dependence on the temperature. Furthermore, an
increase in temperature will lead to an exponential increase in the
reaction rate and a higher degree of conversion of the combusting
particles will be obtained [46], thus explaining the diminution of
the particle presence in the burnout contour and the CO concen-
tration and the increment in the CO2 concentrations (Figs. 4 and
10). According to the literature, similar effects are observed for
the combustion of char-charcoal blends. The literature reveals an
increase in the reactivity of the char particles is due to the increase
in the pre-exponential factor, while the activation energy remains
practically invariable [42].
6. Conclusions
A CFD model was validated using gas concentration values ob-
tained from a commercial power plant and calculations using EPA
factors. For coal combustion, the predictions of CO2 and O2 showed
relative errors close to 6.0% and 1.1%, respectively, while the relative
error for SO2 was below 9%. Biomass was fed into Level A at 5%, and
the SO2 and O2 concentrations per unit of thermal power decreased
by 5.0% and 1.1%, respectively. The proportional SO2 decrease re-
flected the negligible sulfur content of biomass. The concentration
of CO was maintained near zero, and CO2 (9.4%) was similar to the
reference conditions. The mean temperature of the flue gas
increased by approximately 2%, while the heat transferred to the
tubes decreased slightly (0.6%), as expected. The burnout
morphology analysis revealed a displacement in the direction of
the burnout centroid and 17% of the area occupied by the burnout
into the flame vortex, which is associated with a major quantity of
completely burned particles.
Following up the synergistic effect demonstrated on the labo-
ratory scale, here we are demonstrating analyzing the combustion
process step by step on an industrial scale. This effect could be
associated with the heat release, physically manifested as a tem-
perature increase, resulting in catalyzed combustion of the coal
particles in terms of diffusional and kinetic resistance diminution
and expressed as a decrease in the burnout particles, as an increase
in the particle conversion. We observed an increase in the CO2
concentration and the temperature of the flue gases and a decrease
in the CO2, CO and SO2 concentrations without greatly affecting the
vorticity, the residence time of the fuel particles, the radiative and
convective heat fluxes, the steam production or the temperature of
the flue gases. We observed a slight increase in the CO2 concen-
tration and the temperature of the flue gases and a decrease in the
CO and SO2 concentrations without greatly affecting the vorticity,
the residence time of the fuel particles, the radiative and convective
heat fluxes, or the steam production.
 R. P
erez-Jeldres et al. / Energy xxx (2016) 1e12
Fig. 10. Profiles of pollutant emissions and mean temperature per unit of thermal power. Orange arrows shows the location of the level A of burners. (For interpretation of the
references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the staff of Engie Chile Company for
their support in providing key information for the study, FONDEF
Project D09I1173, CONICYT - Becas Chile, CONICYT PAI 7813110021,
CONICYT/FONDAP Project-15130015 for its financial support, the
Technological Development Unit (UDT) and the Mechanical Engi-
neering Department of University of Concepcio
n for providing the
computing resources.
References
[1] Bo€hringer C, Hoffmann T, Rutherford TF, Arbor A. Alternative strategies for
promoting renewable energy in eu electricity markets. Appl Econ Quat 2007:
9e26.
[2] Chilean Mandatory #20257. “Modificaciones a la ley general de servicios

ctricos respectos de la generacio
ele
n de energía ele
ctrica con fuentes de
energía renovables no convencionales”. [n.d].
[3] Berg A, Bidart C, Espinoza D, Flores M, Moraga A, Müller N, et al. Reco-
mendaciones para la elaboracio
n de una Estrategia Nacional de Bioenergía.
Minist Energía 2013.

s J, Gil A, Corte
[4] Pallare
s C, Herce C. Numerical study of co-firing coal and Cynara
cardunculus in a 350 MWe utility boiler. Fuel Process Technol 2009;90:
1207e13.
[5] Yin C, Kaer S, Rosendahl L, Hvid S. Co-firing straw with coal in a swirl-
stabilized dual-feed burner: modelling and experimental validation. Bio-
resour Technol 2010;101:4169e78.
[6] Mandø M, Rosendahl L, Yin C, Sørensen H. Pulverized straw combustion in a
low-NOx multifuel burner: modeling the transition from coal to straw. Fuel
2010;89:3051e62.
[7] Karampinis E, Nikolopoulos N, Nikolopoulos A, Grammelis P, Kakaras E. Nu-
merical investigation Greek lignite/cardoon co-firing in a tangentially fired
furnace. Appl Energy 2012;97:514e24.
[8] Ma L, Gharebaghi M, Porter R, Pourkashanian M, Jones J, Williams A. Modelling
methods for co-fired pulverised fuel furnaces. Fuel 2009;88:2448e54.
[9] Ghenai C, Janajreh I. CFD analysis of the effects of co-firing biomass with coal.
Energy Convers Manag 2010;51:1694e701.
[10] Fang Q, Musa AAB, Wei Y, Luo Z, Zhou H. Numerical simulation of multifuel

rez-Jeldres R, et al., A modeling approach to co-firing biomass/coal blends in pulverized coal utility boilers:
Please cite this article in press as: Pe
Synergistic effects and emissions profiles, Energy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.11.116
11
combustion in a 200 MW tangentially fired utility boiler. Energy Fuels
2012;26:313e23.
[11] Bhuiyan A a, Naser J. CFD modelling of co-firing of biomass with coal under
oxy-fuel combustion in a large scale power plant. Fuel 2015;159:150e68.
[12] Tamura M, Watanabe S, Kotake N, Hasegawa M. Grinding and combustion
characteristics of woody biomass for co-firing with coal in pulverised coal
boilers. Fuel 2014;134:544e53.
[13] Sami M, Annamalai K, Wooldridge M. Co-firing of coal and biomass fuel
blends. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2001;27:171e214.
[14] Agraniotis M, Nikolopoulos N, Nikolopoulos A, Grammelis P, Kakaras E. Nu-
merical investigation of Solid Recovered Fuels' co-firing with brown coal in
large scale boilers - evaluation of different co-combustion modes. Fuel
2010;89:3693e709.
[15] Yin C, Rosendahl L, Kaer S, Condra T. Use of numerical modeling in design for
co-firing biomass in wall-fired burners. Chem Eng Sci 2004;59:3281e92.
[16] Smoot LD, Pratt DT. Pulverized-coal combustion and gasification: theory and
applications for continous flow processes. Springle U. S; 1979.
[17] Biagini E, Lippi F, Petarca L, Tognotti L. Devolatilization rate of biomasses and
coal-biomass blends: an experimental investigation. Fuel 2002;81:1041e50.
[18] Moghtaderi B, Meesri C, Wall TF. Pyrolytic characteristics of blended coal and
woody biomass. Fuel 2004;83:745e50.
[19] Vuthaluru HB. Investigations into the pyrolytic behaviour of coal/biomass
blends using thermogravimetric analysis. Bioresour Technol 2004;92:187e95.
[20] Lu KM, Lee WJ, Chen WH, Lin TC. Thermogravimetric analysis and kinetics of
co-pyrolysis of raw/torrefied wood and coal blends. Appl Energy 2013;105:
57e65.
[21] Haykiri-Acma H, Yaman S. Interaction between biomass and different rank
coals during co-pyrolysis. Renew Energy 2010;35:288e92.
[22] Wu Z, Wang S, Zhao J, Chen L, Meng H. Product distribution during Co-
pyrolysis of bituminous coal and lignocellulosic biomass major components
in a drop-tube furnace. Energy & Fuels 2015;29:4168e80.
[23] Wang M, Tian J, Roberts DG, Chang L, Xie K. Interactions between corncob and
lignite during temperature-programmed co-pyrolysis. Fuel 2015;142:102e8.
[24] Xu C, Hu S, Xiang J, Zhang L, Sun L, Shuai C, et al. Interaction and kinetic
analysis for coal and biomass co-gasification by TG-FTIR. Bioresour Technol
2014;154:313e21.
[25] Arteaga-pe
rez LE, Vega M, Rodríguez LC, Flores M, Zaror CA, Casas Y. Energy
for Sustainable Development Life-Cycle Assessment of coal e biomass based
electricity in Chile : focus on using raw vs torre fi ed wood. Energy Sustain Dev
2015;29:81e90.
[26] Morsi S. a., Alexander a. J. An investigation of particle trajectories in two-
phase flow systems. J Fluid Mech 2006;55:193.
12 R. P
erez-Jeldres et al. / Energy xxx (2016) 1e12

[27] Mueller C, Selenius M, Theis M, Skrifvars B-J, Backman R, Hupa M, et al.
Deposition behaviour of molten alkali-rich fly ashesddevelopment of a sub-
model for CFD applications. Proc Combust Inst 2005;30:2991e8.
[28] Kobayashi H, Howard J, Sarofim A. Symp. Combust. Coal devolatilization at
high temperatures, vol. 16. Elsevier; 1977. p. 411e25.
[29] Du X, Gopalakrishnan C, Annamalai K. Ignition and combustion of coal particle
streams. Fuel 1995;74:487e94.
[30] Kobayashi H. Coal devolatilization of pulverized coal at high temperature.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 1976.
[31] Baum MM, Street PJ. Predicting the combustion behaviour of coal particles.
Combust Sci Technol 1971;3:231e43.
[32] Hurt RH, Mitchell RE. Unified high-temperature char combustion kinetics for a
suite of coals of various rank. Symp Combust 1992;24:1243e50.
[33] Durie A. The science of victorian brown Coal : structure, properties and con-
sequences for utilization. Butterworth-Heinemann; 1991.
[34] Batchelder HR, Busche RM, Armstrong WP. Kinetics of coal gasification pro-
posed mechanism of gasification. Ind Eng Chem 1953;45:1856e78.
[35] Wang Y, Yan L. CFD studies on biomass thermochemical conversion. Int J Mol
Sci 2008;9:1108e30.
[36] Field MA. Rate of combustion of size-graded fractions of char from a low-rank
coal between 1 200K and 2000K. Combust Flame 1969;13:237e52.
[37] Abbas T, Costen P, Kandamby NH, Lockwood FC, Ou JJ. The influence of burner
injection mode on pulverized coal and biomass co- fired flames. Combust
Flame 1994;99:617e25.
[38] Xu G, Zhou W, Swanson LW, Moyeda DK, Nguyen Q. Evaluation of applying
low calorific fuel as reburn fuel in an opposed wall fired boiler. J Therm Sci
Eng Appl 2009;1:31007.
[39] Lundmark D, Mueller C, Skrifvars B-J, Hupa M. Computational fluid dynamic
modeling of combustion and ash deposition in a biomass-cofired bubbling
fluidized bed boiler. Clean Air Int J Energy a Clean Environ 2007;8:155e69.
[40] US Enviromental Protecion Agency-EPA. Compilation of air pollutant emission
factor - AP42. In: Stationary point and area sources. fifth ed., vol. I; 1995.
[41] Gil MV, Casal D, Pevida C, Pis JJ, Rubiera F. Thermal behaviour and kinetics of
coal/biomass blends during co-combustion. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:
5601e8.
[42] Kastanaki E, Vamvuka D. A comparative reactivity and kinetic study on the
combustion of coal-biomass char blends. Fuel 2006;85:1186e93.
[43] Backreedy R, Fletcher L, Jones J, Ma L, Pourkashanian M, Williams A. Co-firing
pulverised coal and biomass: a modeling approach. Proc Combust Inst
2005;30:2955e64.
[44] Baxter L. Ash deposit formation and deposit properties. In: A comprehensive
summary of research conducted at Sandia's combustion research facility;
2000.
[45] Wei X, Guo X, Li S, Han X, Schnell U, Scheffknecht G, et al. Detailed modeling
of NO x and SOX formation in Co-combustion of coal and biomass with
reduced kinetics. Energy Fuels 2012;26:3117e24.
[46] Smith I. The Combustion rates of coal chars: a Review. Combustion 1982:
1045e65.

rez-Jeldres R, et al., A modeling approach to co-firing biomass/coal blends in pulverized coal utility boilers:
Please cite this article in press as: Pe
Synergistic effects and emissions profiles, Energy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.11.116