You are on page 1of 9

JFUE 3518 No.

of Pages 9, Model 5+
17 April 2007 Disk Used

Fuel xxx (2007) xxx–xxx

2 Model development and validation: Co-combustion of residual

3 char, gases and volatile fuels in the fast fluidized combustion

4 chamber of a dual fluidized bed biomass gasifier

5 Priyanka Kaushal *, Tobias Pröll, Hermann Hofbauer
6 Vienna University of Technology, Institute of Chemical Engineering, Getreidemarkt 9/166, A-1060, Vienna, Austria
7 Received 20 November 2006; received in revised form 14 March 2007; accepted 20 March 2007

9 Abstract

10 A one-dimensional steady state model has been developed for the combustion reactor of a dual fluidized bed biomass steam gasifi-
11 cation system. The combustion reactor is operated as fast fluidized bed (riser) with staged air introduction (bottom, primary and second-
12 ary air). The main fuel i.e., residual biomass char (from the gasifier), is introduced together with the circulating bed material at the
13 bottom of the riser. The riser is divided into two zones: bottom zone (modelled according to modified two phase theory) and upper zone
14 (modelled with core-annulus approach). The model consists of sub-model for bed hydrodynamic, conversion and conservation. Biomass
15 char is assumed to be a homogeneous matrix of C, H and O and is modelled as partially volatile fuel. The exit gas composition and the

16 temperature profile predicted by the model are in good agreement with the measured value.
17  2007 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

18 Keywords: Model; Fluidized bed; Char combustion


20 1. Introduction steam as a gasification agent [1]. The fundamental idea of 35

the DFB concept is to divide the gasifier into two fluidized 36
21 Currently, biomass fuel provides 15% of world’s pri- bed reactors, a gasification reactor and a combustion reac- 37
22 mary energy and this fulfilment establishes biomass as tor. The energy needed for the endothermic gasification 38
23 world’s fourth largest energy source after oil, coal and reactions in the gasification reactor is provided by combus- 39

24 gas. Pyrolysis, gasification and combustion are the prime tion of residual biomass called char in a combustion reac- 40
25 technologies for thermal conversion of biomass. Gasifica- tor. The energy released during combustion is transported 41
26 tion is the process where, through thermal decomposition to the gasification reactor along with the circulating bed 42
27 in a low oxygen environment at temperatures of 800– material, thus making DFB gasifier a self sustained 43
28 900 C, organic matter is converted to combustible gases process. 44

29 with tars and chars as possible side-products. Air gasifica- The DFB gasifier can be regarded as a circulating fluid- 45
30 tion results in the inferior quality gas (4–7 MJ/Nm3 LHV). ized bed (CFB) system with the bubbling bed gasifier in the 46
31 Oxygen as a gasification agent produces superior quality return loop of the solids. A number of different CFB mod- 47
32 gas (10–16 MJ/Nm3 LHV) but requires additional costs els have been developed and reviewed [2,3] but most of 48
33 for oxygen production. A similar high quality gas can be them are developed for coal combustion, i.e., for combus- 49
34 produced by using a dual fluidized bed (DFB) system with tion of low volatile fuels. So far, biomass processing in 50
CFBs has received little attention [4] and only a few 51
Corresponding author. Tel.: +43 1 58801x15965; fax: +43 1 58801
attempts have been made to model biomass char as partial 52
15999. volatile fuel in CFB covering hydrodynamics and reaction 53
E-mail address: (P. Kaushal). kinetics. Further, confidentiality, numerous assumptions 54

0016-2361/$ - see front matter  2007 Published by Elsevier Ltd.


Please cite this article in press as: Kaushal P et al., Model development and validation: Co-combustion of residual ..., Fuel (2007),
JFUE 3518 No. of Pages 9, Model 5+
17 April 2007 Disk Used

2 P. Kaushal et al. / Fuel xxx (2007) xxx–xxx


A area (cross-sectional area) (m2) QEX gas exchange (m3/s)

a decay constant (m1) q specific combustion rate of carbon on external
Cp heat capacity (J/mol K) surface (kgcarbon/m2s)
D diameter of column (m) R universal gas constant (J/mol K)
D molecular diffusivity (m2/s) SB,E surface area of bubble in contact with emulsion
Da diameter of annulus (m) (m2)
Dc diameter of core (m) Schar surface area of char (m2)

dB bubble diameter (equivalent diameter of a Sh Sherwood number (–)
sphere) (m) T temperature (K)

dp particle diameter (m) U0 superficial velocity (m/s)
dchar char diameter (m) UB bubble velocity (m/s)
g gravity (m/s2) UB1 velocity of a single isolated bubble (m/s)
H_ enthalpy flow (J/s) UE velocity of gas in emulsion (m/s)
H(T) enthalpy at temperature T (J/mol) Umf minimum fluidization velocity (m/s)
DH 0f ;298 enthalpy of formation at 298.15 K (J/mol) Ut terminal velocity (m/s)

hm mass-transfer coefficient (kg/m2 s bar) Y correction factor for modified two phase theory
KB,E mass-transfer coefficient between bubble and (–)
emulsion (s1) y mole fraction (–)
Ki1 elutriation rate constant (kg/m2 s) z height (m)
kB,E mass-transfer coefficient between bubble and z0 height of dense zone (m)
emulsion (m/s)
k reaction rate constant (dependent) Greek symbols
Mc molecular weight of carbon (kg/mol) dB bubble fraction (–)
m_ mass flow rate (kg/s) emf porosity at minimum fluidization condition (–)
mbed mass hold-up (bed material) (kg) ez average porosity at height z (–)

mchar mass hold-up (char) (kg) e0 average porosity in dense zone (–)
N no of cells (–) e1 Porosity above TDH (–)
Nor number of orifices (–) / mechanism factor for primary surface product
n_ molar flow rate (mol/s) (1 for CO2, 2 for CO) (–)

n order of reaction (–) k air ratio (–)

P partial pressure (bar) l viscosity (Pa s)
QB volumetric flow rate in bubble (m3/s) qp density of particle (kg/m3)

55 varied in a wide range makes the evaluation and compari- The combustion reactor is divided into two zones 73
56 son of these models very difficult. Hence, a mathematical namely dense and transport zone, having different hydro- 74

57 model is developed for the riser to gain the better under- dynamic characteristics. Transport zone is further subdi- 75
58 standing of the process. The model is based on known vided into middle and upper zone as shown in Fig. 1. 76
59 approaches and with respect to the data available (for val- Preheated air is introduced into the riser at three different 77
60 idation) from the DFB gasification plant at Guessing/ points which are termed as bottom air, primary air and sec- 78
61 Austria. ondary air. Preheated gaseous fuel (i.e., recycled producer 79

gas from the gasifier) is also introduced into the reactor 80

62 2. Model development to control the temperature of the entire system. 81
Each zone is further divided into cells and within each 82
63 The present work focuses on the mathematical model- cell the local hydrodynamic, kinetic and thermodynamic 83
64 ling of the combustion reactor indicated by the broken line variables are evaluated. Cells are solved sequentially with 84
65 in Fig. 1. The boundaries of the investigated system are the output of the Nth cell considered as input for the 85
66 connecting chute at the bottom of the riser where bed mate- (N + 1)th cell. The energy conservation equation is solved 86
67 rial enters together with the residual biomass char from the across the entire zone, and it is assumed that within a zone 87
68 gasification reactor and the cyclone at the top of the riser the temperature is uniform. This assumption is based on, 88
69 where the hot solids are separated from the flue gas stream. efficient solids mixing and the dominance of the solid’s heat 89
70 The objective of this study is to develop a model to predict capacity within a fluidized bed. The inputs for the model 90
71 the gas phase concentration and temperature profile along are the riser geometry, particle properties, gas composition 91
72 the height of the reactor. and flow rate (Table 1) 92

Please cite this article in press as: Kaushal P et al., Model development and validation: Co-combustion of residual ..., Fuel (2007),
JFUE 3518 No. of Pages 9, Model 5+
17 April 2007 Disk Used

P. Kaushal et al. / Fuel xxx (2007) xxx–xxx 3

Flue gas The hydrodynamic parameters are evaluated based on 102

the properties of bed which is classified as Geldart group 103
boundary B. 104
Producer gas (Riser) The flow regime map of Grace [5] between dimensionless 105
velocity (U*) and dimensionless particle diameter (d p ) con- 106
firmed that the fluidization state of the dense bed is in bub- 107
bling mode. Gas balance based on superficial velocity is 108
U 0 ¼ U B dB þ ð1  dB Þemf U E : ð1Þ 110
Two phase theory (TPT) assumes that visible bubble flow 111

corresponds to the excess gas velocity i.e., (U0  Umf). 112
However, this theory tends to overestimate the bubble 113

flow. In order to limit the deviation from observations, 114
the modified two phase theory [6] is used, where 115
QB ¼ Y ðU 0  U mf Þ: ð2Þ 117
Y is always below unity and usually in the range from 0.7 118

Biomass Secondary
to 0.8. Y can also be 0.3 for coarse particles. The reported 119
air values of Y in literature scatter in a wide range [7]. Y is a 120
function of the height above the gas distributor and hence 121
Producer the correlation proposed by Johnsson et al. [8] is used to 122
Solid gas estimate the value of Y. 123
Primary  rffiffiffiffiffiffiffi0:4
air 0:26 þ 0:7 expð0:0033d p Þ A
Y ¼ 0:33
zþ4 : ð3Þ
½0:15 þ ðU 0  U mf Þ N or 125
Bubbles are formed as soon as the superficial gas veloc- 126
ity exceeds minimum fluidization velocity. The bubble size 127

Bottom air is one of the most critical parameters when modelling fluid- 128
ized beds, it affects the bubble rising velocity, the bubble 129
Fig. 1. Model structure and boundaries (1: dense zone, 2: middle zone, 3:
upper zone). fraction and the mass transfer between bubble and emul- 130
sion phase. As the bed height increases, bubbles coalesce 131

and the bubble size increases. The bubble size is calculated 132
93 Model assumptions: as a function of bed height and it is assumed that all bub- 133
bles at any cross section are of uniform size [9]. 134

94 The system is one-dimensional and in steady state.

95 Gases are ideal and in plug flow.  rffiffiffiffiffiffiffi0:8
0:4 A
96 Solids are uniform in size and well mixed. d B ¼ 0:54ðU 0  U mf Þ zþ4 g0:2 : ð4Þ
N or 136
97 Each of the three main zones has a uniform
98 temperature. Bubble’s interaction influences the bubble rising velocity 137

99 The mass transfer of a single gas species between the and the common adaptation for bubble rising velocity 138
100 emulsion phase and bubble phase is modelled by a given by Davidson and Harrison [10] is used in this work 139
101 mass-transfer coefficient (kBE).
U B ¼ U B;1 þ ðU 0  U mf Þ: ð5Þ 141

Table 1
For bubbles, the rising velocity of a single isolated bubble 142

Input parameters to the model (typical operating condition from Guessing is given below. 143
plant) pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
U B;1 ¼ 0:71 gd B ð6Þ 145
Diameter of column 0.61 (m)
Height of column 12 (m) There is no theoretical basis to support this correlation, 146
Diameter of particle 500E6 (m) however, numerical simulations [11,12] show that this 147
Diameter of coke 0.001 (m) approximation is reasonable. 148
Density of bed material 2960 (kg/m3) It is evident that a major part of the gas flows in the bub- 149
Density of coke 600 (kg/m3)
ble phase. Thus, the interphase mass transfer between bub- 150
Bed circulation 37 (kg/s)
Temperature of gasifier 883 (C) ble and emulsion phase is essential for the gas–solid 151
Bottom air feed rate 700 (Nm3/hr) reactions. The interphase mass transfer is modelled by a 152
Primary air feed rate 2222 (Nm3/hr) semi-empirical approach using a mass-transfer coefficient, 153
Secondary air feed rate 1043 (Nm3/hr) the exchange area and the concentration gradient accord- 154
Char composition (C, H, O) (0.82, 0.04, 0.14) (wt/wt)
ing to Sit and Grace [13] 155

Please cite this article in press as: Kaushal P et al., Model development and validation: Co-combustion of residual ..., Fuel (2007),
JFUE 3518 No. of Pages 9, Model 5+
17 April 2007 Disk Used

4 P. Kaushal et al. / Fuel xxx (2007) xxx–xxx

U mf 4emf DU B It is assumed that the annulus is maintained at minimum 195
K BE ¼ þ : ð7Þ fluidization conditions. The diameter of the core increases 196
157 4 pd B
with the height of the riser and is estimated from Eq. (13). 197
158 Fig. 2 shows the gas flow streams in the dense zone and the ea D2a þ ec D2c ¼ ez D2 : ð13Þ 200
159 gas exchange between the bubble and emulsion phase.
160 After the injection of primary air into the combustion reac- Unlike dense zone in the transport zone it is assumed that, 201
161 tor, the superficial gas velocity is increased and the reactor there is a single gas stream across both the core and annu- 202
162 operates in fast fluidization regime. Fast fluidized beds ex- lus. The local variables (e.g., reaction rate, hold-ups, etc.) 203
163 hibit strong radial gradients with respect to solid hold-up are calculated separately for core and annulus but the mass 204
164 and solid movement. Near the column walls the particle balances are applied across the whole cell as shown by the 205

165 moves downwards and the concentration of particles is broken line in Fig. 3. 206
166 higher than in the core of the reactor, where particles are Char combustion is in general a complex process due to 207

167 transported upwards. Different approaches are proposed the combination of different mechanisms as mass transfer, 208
168 to describe fast fluidized bed reactors [14–16]. In the pres- chemical reaction and heat transfer. In general, combustion 209
169 ent work, the transport zone is modelled by a simplified of char begins after the evolution of volatiles. Sometimes, 210
170 core-annulus approach. The axial mean voidage is calcu- especially for large particles, there is a significant overlap- 211
171 lated using an exponential decay function as proposed by ping of these processes. The char composition is an impor- 212

172 Zenz and Weil [17] tant model parameter and is assumed to be a homogeneous 213
173 matrix of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Carbon present in 214
ez  e1
¼ exp½aðz  z0 Þ: ð8Þ char is modelled as non-volatile fuel subject to heteroge- 215
175 e0  e1
neous oxidation with O2 and if no O2 is present then with 216
176 Unknown parameters in Eq. (8) are the decay factor ‘a’ and H2O. The primary products in the case of char combustion 217
are CO and CO2 represented by reaction A. 218
177 the porosity above transport disengaging height ‘e1’. The
178 value of ‘a’ varies widely in the literature and is approxi-
179 mately in the range of 2–6.4 m1 [18]. Cold flow studies ð1 þ bÞC þ ð1 þ ÞO2 ! bCO þ CO2 ; ðAÞ 220
180 of the process showed that the decay constant depends
181 on the fluidizing velocity to a higher power than one. Thus, where b is a stoichiometric coefficient for char combustion 221

182 the correlation proposed by Adanez et al. [19] was adopted. describing the ratio of CO to CO2 and is a function of sur- 222
face temperature [21]. Char gasification reaction (B) is also 223
184 aðU 0  U t Þ2 D0:6 ¼ K: ð9Þ considered in the model. 224
185 Based on the pressure drop measurement at standard con- k

C þ H2 O ! CO þ H2 : ðBÞ 226
186 ditions the constant K was determined to be K = 8.6. The
187 value of e1 is determined from the particle elutriation rate The carbon combustion model is based on the combined 227

188 constant Ki1 for a mono-sized bed material: effects of gas film diffusion and reaction kinetics on a 228
K i1 shrinking particle and it is assumed that the diameter of 229
1  e1 ¼ ð10Þ the char particle decreases while the density of the char re- 230
qp ðU 0  U t Þ
 2 mains constant. Oxidation occurs in a thin layer close to 231
Ut the particle surface and no ash layer is formed. The com- 232

K i1 ¼ 0:011qp 1  : ð11Þ
190 U0 bustion rate in term of mass transfer through the gas film 233
can be described as 234
191 The voidage in the core at a given height is calculated from 235
192 the mean porosity ez at that height [20] q ¼ hm ðP O2 ;g  P O2 ;s Þ ð14Þ
M c /ShD

194 eC ¼ 1  0:6ð1  ez Þ: ð12Þ hm ¼ : ð15Þ

d char RT 237

QEout (N) QBout (N)




QEout (N−1) QB out (N−1) N-1

Fig. 2. Gas balances in dense zone. Fig. 3. Gas balances in transport zone.

Please cite this article in press as: Kaushal P et al., Model development and validation: Co-combustion of residual ..., Fuel (2007),
JFUE 3518 No. of Pages 9, Model 5+
17 April 2007 Disk Used

P. Kaushal et al. / Fuel xxx (2007) xxx–xxx 5

238 The chemical reaction rate of carbon with oxygen per unit where as in transport zone char is distributed in cells in 274
239 time and per unit external surface area of the particle is such a way that the ratio of bed hold-up in adjacent cell 275
n is the same as the ratio of char hold-up. 276
242 q ¼ kP O2;S S char : ð16Þ
mbedkþ1 mcharkþ1
243 Eqs. (14) and (16) are solved under steady state assump- ¼ : ð18Þ
mbedk mchark 278
244 tion,. The data obtained from experiments allow minimiza-
245 tion of the root of mean square for the Arrhenius Globally across the entire zone, the char balance is formu- 279
246 expression [22]. lated as 280
247 The hydrogen and oxygen present in char are modelled m_ Char;out þ m_ Char;reacted ¼ m_ Char;in : ð19Þ 283
248 as volatile fuel. Hydrogen and oxygen are released in a way

249 that the char composition remains constant as conversion The general carbon balance of each zone is written as 284
250 proceeds. The hydrogen and oxygen released react to form

251 water (C). The ratio of CO, CO2, H2, O2 and H2O release is m_ cin ¼ m_ cout þ : ð20Þ
252 calculated from the combustion kinetics of carbon and bal- k¼1
dt 286
253 ances of char.
All feed rates are input parameters to the model. Because 287
1 of the assumption of uniform char concentration in the sol- 288
255 H2 þ 2 O2 () H2 O: ðCÞ
ids, the char exit rate and the char hold-up in the zone are 289

256 Carbon monoxide released from char is modelled to under- directly linked to each other. The char conversion rate 290
257 go combustion reaction and shift reaction from solid to gas is dependent on several parameters within 291
each cell and depends directly on the available char surface 292
CO þ O2 () CO2 ðDÞ area within the zone, the zone temperature and partial 293
2 pressures of the reactants, i.e., O2 or H2O. 294
259 CO þ H2 O () CO2 þ H2 : ðEÞ The energy balance is formulated globally across the 295
260 The effect of the CO shift reaction becomes pronounced entire zone using total enthalpies including the standard 296
261 when oxygen within a zone is consumed. As shown in enthalpy of formation with the assumption that the total 297
262 Fig. 1, a small amount of producer gas is also recycled into amount of energy entering the system is actually leaving 298
263 the middle zone of the combustion reactor. The combus- the system. 299

X X 300
264 tion kinetics and composition of the producer gas are given H_ out ¼ H_ in ð21Þ
265 in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. Z T
266 The elementary mass balances inside every single cell is H ðT Þ ¼ DH 0f;298 þ C p ðT Þ dT : ð22Þ
267 covered by the stoichiometry of the homogeneous and het- T ¼298:15 302

268 erogeneous reaction formulations. The mass balance for

The enthalpy of ideal gas mixtures is calculated using the 303
269 solid carbon and the energy balance are applied globally
NASA polynomials with coefficients reported by Burcat 304

270 across each of the three zones as indicated in Fig. 1.

and McBride [29]. The enthalpy of the inert bed material 305
271 Char is evenly distributed in each cell of dense zone as
is calculated by interpolation of data reported by Barin 306
1 [30]. The sensible heat of char is calculated using the corre- 307
273 mcK ¼ N ðmc Þ; ð17Þ
lations reported by Merrick [31]. The enthalpy of forma- 308

Table 2
Reaction rates
Reactions Reaction rate K Ref.
0.5 2
A (1+b)C +(1+b/2)O2 ! CO + CO2 q = K[PO2] Schar 8.56 · 10 exp(2237/T) [22]
B C + H2O ! CO + H2 q = K[PH2O]0.57 2.62 · 108 exp(237000/T) [23]

C H2 +1/2 O2 ! H2O rH2 = K[H2]1.5[O2] 1.63 · 109 T3/2 exp(3420/T) [24]

D CO + 1/2 O2 ! CO2 rCO = K[CO][O2]0.5[H2O]0.5 3.25 · 107 exp(15098/T) [25]
E CO +H2O ! H2 + CO2 rCO = K[CO][H2O] 0.03 e exp(7249/T) [26]
F CH4 + 3/2 O2 ! CO + 2H2O rCH4 = K[CH4]0.7[O2]0.8 4.68 · 1018 T0.5 exp(20087/T) [27]
G C2H4 + 2O2 ! 2CO + 2H2O rC2H4 = K[C2H4][O2] 1.0 · 1012 exp(20844/T) [28]
H C2H6 + 5/2 O2 ! 2CO + 3H2O rC2H6 = K[C2H6][O2] 2.34 · 1018 T0.5 exp(20087/T) [27]
I C3H8 ! C2H4+ CH4 rC3H8 = K[C3H8] 1.0 · 1012 exp(21145/T) [28]

Table 3
Producer gas composition
LHV (dry) Composition (vol%)
(MJ/Nm3) CO CO2 CH4 C2H4 C3H8 H2 H2O O2 N2
13.1 21 20 10 2 1 35 9 0 2

Please cite this article in press as: Kaushal P et al., Model development and validation: Co-combustion of residual ..., Fuel (2007),
JFUE 3518 No. of Pages 9, Model 5+
17 April 2007 Disk Used

6 P. Kaushal et al. / Fuel xxx (2007) xxx–xxx

309 tion for char is calculated from the heating value, estimated Mole fraction (-)

310 from ultimate analysis using the Boie formula [32]. H_ out is a 0 0.01 0.02

311 function of the exit temperature of the respective streams. * Sec. axis

312 Since a uniform temperature is assumed inside the zone, *EH2

313 the problem is reduced to the determination of the two BO2

314 variables char hold-up and temperature in order to fulfil
315 Eqs. (19) and (21). ECO2

Height of riser (m)

316 A two-dimensional Newton–Raphson algorithm is BCO2
317 applied where the components of the Jacobian matrix are 1
318 calculated analytically. The iteration is performed for each

319 of the three zones where the order is again from bottom
320 towards top of the combustion reactor. After convergence, BCO

321 the model yields the gas phase concentration profiles, the
322 temperature in each zone, the solid char flow rate leaving
323 the reactor and the apparent global air ratio k which is EO2

324 defined by neglecting the bypassing fraction of the char 0

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
325 (i.e., only the actually converted char is considered).
Mole fraction (-)

Fig. 4a. Gas composition profile in dense bed. B: bubble; E: emulsion.
_ O2 in
k¼ h P i :
_ O2 in  nfy
_ O2  0:5y CO  Cx Hy ðx þ 0:5yÞy Cx Hy g
327 ð23Þ

328 3. Results and discussion

Height of riser (m)

329 The solution of the mathematical model represents

330 simultaneous convergence of the conservation equation

331 (for which different subroutines have been defined). Table
332 1 lists the input parameters for a typical operation case. CO2
333 The average residence time of the gas in the combustion H2O
334 reactor is in the range of 1.0–1.5 s while the air ratio in O2

335 the standard condition is approximately 1.02. 2


336 3.1. Predicted profile of gas composition 0.00 0.10 0.20
Mole fraction (-)
337 Fig. 4a shows the concentration profile inside the bot- Fig. 4b. Average gas composition profile along height of riser.
338 tom bed (dense zone) separately for the bubble and emul-

339 sion phases. As can be seen, the concentration of oxygen

340 in emulsion phase goes down swiftly and when O2 is com- tion plant at Guessing because of the lack of measurents. 357
341 pletely consumed, the char gasification and shift reaction Therefore, to validate the model, the operating parameters 358
342 dominates; this can be observed by the increased concen- of the present model were adjusted in order to match with 359
343 tration of H2 and CO2 in emulsion phase at the relevant the operating parameters of the fluidized bed boiler at 360

344 heights. In the bubble phase, the concentrations of CO Chalmers University (Sweden), reported by Adanez et al. 361
345 and H2 are very low while that of oxygen is relatively high. [4]. Newton–Raphson method was used to iterate the wood 362
346 This is one of the major limitations of one-dimensional feed rate to fit the excess air ratio reported by Adanez et al. 363
347 model that it fails to explain the three-dimensional mixing Fig. 5 shows a comparison between the measured and pre- 364
348 effect. Nevertheless such behaviour of dense bed is often dicted oxygen concentrations along the height of riser. The 365
349 reported [4,33]. The overall gas composition profiles along oxygen profile predicted by the present model is in fair 366
350 the riser height are shown in Fig. 4b. The concentration agreement with the measured values [4,34]. As seen in 367
351 profiles of CO, CO2, H2 and H2O locally go down at the Fig. 5, an increase in oxygen concentration with height is 368
352 height of 2 and 4 m due to dilution effect caused by primary not realistic and as indicated by Amand et al. [33], it can 369
353 and secondary air addition. Results show that the producer be attributed to an insufficient penetration depth and mix- 370
354 gas added in the middle zone (rich in combustible gas) ing of the secondary air flow. Nevertheless Adanez et al. 371
355 quickly combusts to CO2 and H2O. The predicted gas-pro- investigated various possibilities to deal the mixing prob- 372
356 file inside the riser could not be verified at the demonstra- lem in one-dimensional model. 373

Please cite this article in press as: Kaushal P et al., Model development and validation: Co-combustion of residual ..., Fuel (2007),
JFUE 3518 No. of Pages 9, Model 5+
17 April 2007 Disk Used

P. Kaushal et al. / Fuel xxx (2007) xxx–xxx 7

3.2. Predicted temperature profile 374

10 Adanez et al. [4]
Present model At the demonstration plant at Guessing, the tempera- 375
Measured value ture inside the riser is measured at three different heights. 376
8 from the fluidized bed
boiler at Chalmers The predicted temperature profile is in good agreement 377
Height of riser (m)

University Sweden [4,34].

with the measured value (Fig. 6). A little over-prediction 378
6 Center line
in temperature is observed but the deviation in temperature 379
prediction is less than 5 K. 380
3.3. Effect of char diameter 381

2 Fig. 7 shows the effect of char feed rate on air ratio at 382

different char sizes. It should be noted that all the other 383
operating parameter were fixed except char feed rate and 384
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 size. Each curve in Fig. 7 were generated by changing the 385
Mole fraction O2 (-)
char feed rate at a given constant char size. Result shows 386
Fig. 5. Comparison of model prediction for O2 concentration. that with increase in char feed rate, the air ratio decreases. 387

The slope of the curve changes at an air ratio of 1, suggest- 388
ing that for lower char feed rates, char size have a very 389
prominent effect on char conversion. Simulation shows 390
that for constant char feed of 0.8 kg/s air ratio changes 391
from 0.85 to 0.93 when char size is changed from 4 to 392
Avg. temperature of zone
10 ( model prediction) 8 mm. Therefore, it can be concluded that smaller size 393
Measured temperature favours char conversion. The simulation results also show 394
that the residual char from the gasifier is only partly con- 395
Height of riser (m)


verted in the riser and the remaining un-combusted char 396

6 is circulated back into the gasification reactor and poten- 397
tially leads to an increase of char hold up in the dual fluid- 398

ized bed system. Fig. 8 shows the exit CO concentration for 399

the various points shown in Fig. 7. It can be seen in the fig- 400
ure, that for air ratio below 1, the CO concentration 401

0 increases abruptly. It also shows that irrespective of the 402


880 900 920 940 960 char size the CO concentration follows the same trend line 403
Temperature (°C)
suggesting that exit CO concentration is a strong function 404

Fig. 6. Measured and predicted temperature. of air ratio and is independent of char size. 405


dc = 4 mm
dc = 8 mm
dc = 12 mm Increasing char diameter
1 dc = 16 mm
UN Apparent air ratio (-)

dc = 20 mm
dc = 24 mm




0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Char feed rate (kg/s)

Fig. 7. Effect of char feed rate on apparent air ratio.

Please cite this article in press as: Kaushal P et al., Model development and validation: Co-combustion of residual ..., Fuel (2007),
JFUE 3518 No. of Pages 9, Model 5+
17 April 2007 Disk Used

8 P. Kaushal et al. / Fuel xxx (2007) xxx–xxx

References 435
dc = 4 mm

120 dc = 8 mm [1] Hofbauer H. CFB – steam gasification. 14th European biomass 436
dc = 12 mm conference and exhibition biomass for energy, industry and climate 437
dc = 16 mm protection. 17–21 October 2005, Paris, France. 438
100 dc = 20 mm [2] Grace JR, Avidan AA, Knowlton TM. Circulating fluidized bed- 439
dc = 24 mm s. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1997. 440
[3] Basu P. Combustion of coal in circulating fluidized-bed boilers: a 441
80 review. Chem Eng Sci 1999;54(22):5547–57. 442
CO (ppm x 10-3)

[4] Adanez J, Gayan P, de Diego LF, Garcia-Labiano F, Abad A. 443

Combustion of Wood Chips in a CFBC. Modeling and Validation. 444
60 445
Ind Eng Chem Res 2003;42(5):987–99.

[5] Grace JR. Fluidized beds as chemical reactors. In: Geldart D, editor. 446
40 Gas Fluidization Technology. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 447

1986. 448
[6] Grace JR, Clift R. The two phase theory of fluidization. Chem Eng 449
20 Sci 1974;29(2):327–34. 450
[7] Baeyens J. Gas fluidization, short course. University of Brad- 451
ford: Institute of Chemical Engineering; 1981. 452
0 [8] Johnsson F, Andersson S, Leckner B. Expansion of a freely bubbling 453
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 fluidized bed. Powder Technol 1991;68(2):117–23. 454

Apparent air ratio (-) [9] Darton RC, La Nauze RD, Davidson JF, Harrison D. Bubble growth 455
due to coalescence in fluidized beds. Trans Inst Chem Eng 456
Fig. 8. CO concentration in flue gas.
1977;55(4):274–80. 457
[10] Rowe PN. Experimental properties of bubbles. In: Davidson JF, 458
Harrison D, editors. Fluidization. London: Academic Press; 1971. p. 459
406 4. Conclusions 21–189. 460
[11] Davidson JF, Harrison D. Behaviour of a continuously bubbling
407 A one-dimensional steady state model of a riser has been fluidized bed. Chem Eng Sci 1966;21(9):731–8. 462
[12] Grace JR, Harrison D. Behaviour of freely bubbling bed. Chem Eng 463
408 developed to analyze the combustion of biomass char in Sci 1969;24(3):497–508. 464
409 circulating fluidized bed. The model is based on mass and [13] Sit SP, Grace JR. Interphase mass transfer in an aggregative fluidized 465
410 energy balances. The model includes different sub-models bed. Chem Eng Sci 1978;33(8):1115–22. 466

411 that are linked together to describe the overall combustion [14] Fane AG, Wen CY. Fluidized-bed reactors. In: Hetsroni G, editor. 467
412 process. The hydrodynamic sub-model highlights the phys- Handbook of multiphase systems. Washington: Hemisphere; 1982. 468
p. 8-105–51. 469
413 ical characteristics of the bed material while the reaction [15] Grace JR. Modeling and simulation of two-phase fluidized bed 470
414 sub-model deals with the chemical reactions in the different reactors. In: Lasa Hde. Editor. Chemical reactor design and technol- 471

415 zones of the combustion chamber (riser). The model is fuel ogy, Martinus Nijhoff; 1986, p. 245–89. 472
416 flexible and offers the opportunity to evaluate different fuel [16] Van Swaaij WPM. The design of gas–solids fluid bed and related 473
417 types over wide range of composition both for solid and reactors. In: Luss D, Weekman VW, editors. ACS Symp Ser 72. New 474

York: American Chemical Society; 1978. p. 193–222. 475

418 gases. Global reaction rates are used for the description [17] Zenz FA, Weil NA. A theoretical-empirical approach to the 476
419 of chemical kinetics. Model validations have been per- mechanism of particle entrainment from fluidized beds. AIChE J 477
420 formed with measured results obtained at both 8 MWth 1958;4(4):472–9. 478
421 dual fluidized bed gasification plant at Guessing, Austria [18] Löffler G, Kaiser S, Bosch K, Hofbauer H. Hydrodynamics of a dual 479
fluidized-bed gasifier – part I: simulation of a riser with gas injection 480

422 and with literature data on the 12 MWth circulating fluid-

and diffuser. Chem Eng Sci 2003;58(18):4197–213. 481
423 ized bed boiler at Chalmers University (Sweden). The pre- [19] Adanez J, Gayan P, Garcia-Labiano F, de Diego LF. Axial 482
424 dicted trends are qualitatively compared with the published voidage profiles in fast fluidized beds. Powder Technol 1994;81(3): 483
425 data [4,33] and it turns out that they are in fair agreement. 259–68. 484
426 The model predictions show that the gas composition var- [20] Namkung W, Kim SD. Gas back mixing in a circulating fluidized 485
bed. Powder Technol 1998;99(1):70–8. 486

427 ies significantly in the upper section above the secondary

[21] Arthur JA. Reaction between carbon and oxygen. Trans Faraday Soc 487
428 air injection. Simulation results also show that smaller size 1951;47:164–78. 488
429 of wood or char favours the overall performance of the [22] Winter F, Wartha C, Hofbauer H. Characterization and emission of 489
430 gasifier. single fuel particles under FBC condition. Third international 490
conference on combustion technologies for a clean environment, 3– 491
6 July 1995, Lisbon, Portugal. 492
431 Acknowledgement [23] Barrio M, Gobel B, Risnes H, Henriksen U, Hustad JE, Sorensen 493
LH. Steam gasification of wood and the effect of hydrogen inhibi- 494
tation on the chemical kinetics. Progress in thermochemical biomass 495
432 The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial sup- conversion, September 2000, Tirol, Austria. 496
433 port from RENET Austria (Knet/Kind public fund pro- [24] Vilienskii TV, Hezmalian DM. Dynamics of the combustion of 497
434 gram, Austria). pulverized fuel. energiya 1978, Moscow. 498

Please cite this article in press as: Kaushal P et al., Model development and validation: Co-combustion of residual ..., Fuel (2007),
JFUE 3518 No. of Pages 9, Model 5+
17 April 2007 Disk Used

P. Kaushal et al. / Fuel xxx (2007) xxx–xxx 9

499 [25] Dryer FL, Glassman I. High-temperature oxidation of CO and CH4. [31] Merrick D. Mathematical models of the thermal decomposition of 514
500 Fourteenth international symposium on combustion, The Combus- coal part 1–6. Fuel 1983;62(5):534–70. 515
501 tion Institute: Pittsburgh, PA, 1973, p. 987–1003. [32] Boie W. Vom Brennstoff zum Rauchgas – Feuerungstechnisches 516
502 [26] Weimer A, Clough D. Modeling a low pressure steam oxygen Rechnen mit Brennstoffkenngrößen und seine Vereinfachung mit 517
503 fluidized bed coal gasifying reactor. Chem Eng Sci 1981;36(3):548–67. Mitteln der Statistik, Teubner, Leipzig, 1957. 518
504 [27] Zimont VL, Trushin YM. Total combustion kinetics of hydrocarbon [33] Yan HM, Craig H, Zhang D. Mathematical modelling of a bubbling 519
505 fuels. Combust, Explosion Shockwaves 1969;5(4):567–73. fluidized bed coal gasifier and the significance of net flow. Fuel 520
506 [28] Van der Vaart DR. PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge, 1985, 1998;77(9/10):1067–79. 521
507 England. [34] Amand L, Lyngfelt A, Karlsson, M, Leckner B. Fuel loading of a 522
508 [29] Burcat A, McBride B. Ideal gas thermodynamic data for combustion fluidized bed combustor burning bituminous coal, peat or wood chips. 523
509 and air pollution use. Technion isreal Institute of Technology, Report A97-221 1999; Deparment of Energy Conversion, Chalmers 524
510 Aerospace Engineering Report, 1997, TAE 804 (Gar- University of Technology: Goeteborg, Sweden. (<http://www.entek. 525

511 chalmers. se/~leam/Input_model/Fuel_loading1/Charload_rev1.pdf>). 526
512 [30] Barin I. Thermochemical data of pure substance. 2nd ed. Ger- 527
513 many: VCH; 1993.


Please cite this article in press as: Kaushal P et al., Model development and validation: Co-combustion of residual ..., Fuel (2007),