Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Simulation of Air-Steam Gasi
Simulation of Air-Steam Gasi
Research paper
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 1 November 2015
Received in revised form
26 September 2016
Accepted 7 October 2016
Available online 21 October 2016
A comprehensive model was developed to simulate gasication of pine sawdust in the presence of both
air and steam. The proposed model improved upon the premise of an existing ASPEN PLUS-based
biomass gasication model. These enhancements include the addition of a temperature-dependent
pyrolysis model, an updated hydrodynamic model, more extensive gasication kinetics and the inclusion of tar formation and reaction kinetics. ASPEN PLUS was similarly used to simulate this process;
however, a more extensive FORTRAN subroutine was applied to appropriately model the complexities of
a Bubbling Fluidized Bed (BFB) gasier. To conrm validity, the accuracy of the model's predictions was
compared with actual experimental results. In addition, the relative accuracy of the comprehensive
model was compared to the original base-model to see if any improvement had been made.
Results show that the model predicts H2, CO, CO2, and CH4 composition with reasonable accuracy in
varying temperature, steam-to-biomass, and equivalence ratio conditions. Mean error between predicted
and experimental results is calculated to range from 6.1% to 37.6%. Highest relative accuracy was obtained
in CO composition prediction while the results with the least accuracy were for CH4 and CO2 estimation
at changing steam-to-biomass ratios and equivalence ratios. When compared to the original model, the
comprehensive model predictions of H2 and CO molar fractions are more accurate than those of CO2 and
CH4. For CO2 and CH4, the original model predicted with comparable or better accuracy when varying
steam-to-biomass ratio and equivalence ratios but the comprehensive model performed better at varying
temperatures.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Biomass gasication
Fluidized bed
Gasication kinetics
Simulation
FORTRAN
ASPEN PLUS
1. Introduction
Biomass or bioenergy has been identied as an important way of
reducing annual anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions,
contributing to over 12% of the world's fuel consumption in 2012
[1]. Although it is consumable, biomass can re-grow over a relatively short period of time and when harvested sustainably,
biomass can be a renewable source of energy. Through photosynthesis, the sun's energy is captured, converting carbon dioxide from
the air into complex organic compounds. In addition to these carbohydrates, biomass also contains a non-negligible amount of
moisture, and a small amount of inorganic residue known collectively as ash. Due to the low bulk density, long-distance
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: nader.mahinpey@ucalgary.ca (N. Mahinpey).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.10.002
0961-9534/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
158
2.2. Assumptions
The original model used the following assumptions:
- Process is isothermal and steady state.
- Biomass devolatilization occurs instantaneously and volatile
products mainly consist of H2, CO, CO2, CH4, and H2O.
- All the gases are uniformly distributed within the emulsion
phase.
- Particles are spherical and uniform in size and the average
diameter remains constant during the gasication according to
the shrinking core model.
- Char was only comprised of carbon and ash.
- Char gasication starts in the bed and continues in the
freeboard.
The following assumptions were introduced within the
comprehensive model:
- The products of biomass decomposition fall under one of ve
main product streams: char, tars, ash, volatiles, and water.
- Pyrolysis product composition is entirely temperature
dependent.
- Char consists of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
- Tar reactions are based on representative hydrocarbon species.
- Gas-solid reactions occur exclusively in the emulsion phase
within the bed.
All other assumptions (i.e. for hydrodynamics) identied by
Nikoo and Mahinpey were applied in this work.
2.3. Pyrolysis
This section explains the volatile stream composition as well as
the product stream yields. The pyrolysis compositions were estimated based on empirical equations.
2.3.1. Volatile stream composition
The nal volatile composition was based on a series of
temperature-dependent empirical equations developed by Neves
et al. [23]. These empirical relationships (Table 2) were derived
from analysis of collected data for conversion behaviour of a
biomass fuel particle, within a wide temperature range, and
considering a large variety of biomass fuels.
2.3.2. Product stream yields
The empirical equations derived by Neves et al. to predict carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen in produced char and tar from pyrolysis,
can be found in Table 3. These can be used to derive the mass
fractions of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen for the char and tar
product streams. The yields of each of the char, tar, gas, and water
streams can be determined using atomic balance, in conjunction
with known compositions of water and gas streams. The products
of pyrolysis then become the feedstock for the gasication process.
2.4. Hydrodynamics
2.4.1. Fluidized bed
Basic hydrodynamics for the bed and freeboard were based on
Nikoo and Mahinpey [5] and that paper can be referred to for
further details. To calculate the height of the bed at minimum
uidization conditions, a modied equation for pressure drop per
unit length of the reactor was applied. The following equation has
been adapted from Kunii and Levenspiel [24].
159
Table 1
Detailed comparison between the original Nikoo & Mahinpey model and the comprehensive model identied in this paper.
Original Model (Nikoo & Mahinpey [5])
Comprehensive Model
Feedstock
Gasifying Agent(s)
Simulator
Gasier Type
Pyrolysis Modeled?
Biomass
Air Steam
ASPEN PLUS, FORTRAN subroutine
BFB
No - Fixed component yields
Hydrodynamics Considered?
Biomass
Air Steam
ASPEN PLUS, FORTRAN subroutine
BFB
Yes - component yield modeled based on temperature dependent empirical
eq'n
Yes - bed (two phase theory, calculated height of the bed)/freeboard (particle
entrainment).
C l 2=2l 1O2 /l=l 1
CO 1=l 1CO2
C H2 O/CO H2
C CO2 /2CO
CO H2 O4CO2 H2
CH4 H2 O/CO 3H2
CO 1=2O2 /CO2
Yes - assumed tar composition and kinetic model
No
Tar Modeled?
No
Table 2
Empirical relationships for determining volatile post-pyrolysis composition in gas phase.
Stream
Variable
Equation
Reference
Gas
yCO2 ;gas
Gas
yCO;gas
Gas
yCH4 ;gas
Gas
yH2 ;gas
Gas
yC2 H4 ;gas
Table 3
Empirical relationships for determining carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen in produced char and tar from pyrolysis.
Stream
Variable
Equation
Char
yc;char
0:93 0:92*e0:42*10
2
*q
Char
yo;char
0:07 0:85*e0:48*10
2
*q
Char
yh;char
0:41*102 0:1*e0:24*10
Tar
yc;tar
[23]
Tar
yo;tar
[23]
Tar
yh;tar
[23]
hmf
mbed particles
At 1 mf rs rg
hf hmf 1
u0:937
r0:126
g
mf
(1)
[23]
(2)
*q
[23]
0:3h=
dbm db
dt
e
dbm db0
dbm 0:652
(4)
i0:4
hp
d2t u0 umf
4
db0 0:347
p
4
d2t
u0 umf
Nd
(5)
0:4
(6)
ub ubr u0 umf 0:71gdb 1=2 u0 umf
[23]
2
0:738
10:978 u0 umf
d1:006
r0:376
p
s
Reference
(3)
Mori and Wen [28] identied the following equations to determine bubble size db as a function of height within the bed. For
perforated plates, this is given as:
dt 1:3m
60 dp 450mm
u0 umf
48cm=s
Kunii and Levenspiel [24] postulated that the total void fraction,
consisting of the fractions occupied by both the bubbles and the
emulsion, could be estimated using the following equations:
f d 1 de
(7)
Where the void fractions for the bubbles and the emulsion
respectively are given by:
160
u0 umf
ub umf
(8)
e ymf
(9)
These equations are valid for fast bubbles, where ub > 5umf/mf.
2.5. Gasication/tar reactions
This part describes the main reactions used in the model.
2.5.1. Gasication reactions
All kinetic parameters were applied from the literature and can
be found in Table 4. For each reaction, multiplication by the void
volume is required to characterize the gas space within the bulk. As
shown in Table 4, the water-gas shift reaction is only assumed to be
reversible.
2.5.2. Tar reactions
As there are a multitude of actual tar compounds formed
following biomass decomposition, it was assumed that a tar compound of composition CaHbOc was formed post-pyrolysis. This is
then converted into a representative group of common tar compounds as identied in the unbalanced Equation (10) below.
C a H b Oc
Pyrolysis
C3 H6 O2 C7 H8 H2
Equivalence Ratio ER
(10)
Steamtobiomassratio
Massofsteamfedtogasifier
Massofbiomassfedtogasifier
(12)
Table 4
Gasication kinetic parameters.
#
Chemical Reaction
Reaction Rate
l2
l
1
C 2
l1O2 /l1 CO l1 CO2 l 70*e
2
3
4
3;070=
T
r * 1:48*10*e
C H2 O/CO H2
C CO2 /2CO
CO H2 O4CO2 H2
13;078=
T
26;460=
T
29;470=
T
r 1:12*108 *e
1;500=
T
r 3:1005*e
6
r 2:07*107 *e
r 2:7*e
5
Reference
C3 H6 O2 /0:5C6 H6 O 1:5H2 O
r
r
1:0*107 *e
7:0*1014 *e
3:3*1010 *e
C6 H6 O/0:5C10 H8 CO H2
[32,33]
[4]
*CCH4 CH2 O
100;000=
RT
C7 H8 H2 /C6 H6 CH4
[4,31]
0:31
*PCO
2
136;000=
RT
[6]
0:73
*PH
2O
.
3968
=T
* CCO CH2 O CCO2 CH2
0:0265e
15;000=
T
1:0*104 *e
[6]
*CC3 H6 O2
[6]
*CC6 H6 O
360;000=
RT
[6]
247;000=
RT
[6]
*CC210 H8
*CH0:7
2
*CC7 H8
*CH0:5
2
161
Table 5
Description of blocks used in ASPEN PLUS simulation.
Block
Block
Type
Description
B1
User Dened
Block
Mixer
Heater
B2
B3
RSS
N
X
yie yip 2
i1
MRSS
yie
RSS
N
MeanError
(13)
(14)
p
MRSS
(15)
Table 6
Characteristics of gasier inlet streams (biomass, air, steam) [34].
Pine Sawdust
Moisture Content (%)
8
Proximate Analysis (mass fraction %; dry basis)
Fixed Carbon
82.29
Volatile Matter
17.16
Ash
0.55
Ultimate Analysis (mass fraction %; dry ash free basis; daf)
C
50.54
H
7.08
O
41.11
N
0.15
S
0.57
Feed Rate (kg.h1)
0.445e0.512
3
Char Density (kg.m )
1300
Particle Size (mm)
0.3e0.45
Air
Temperature ( C)
65
Flow Rate (m3.h1) STP
0.5e0.7
Steam
Temperature ( C)
154
Flow Rate (kg.h1)
0e1.8
compositions that are reasonably close to what is seen experimentally. Predicted behavioural trends for each component were
also compared to those observed experimentally with good
agreement in the parameter ranges reviewed (temperature of
700e900 C, SBR of 0e3 and ER of 0.19e0.27). It should be noted
that all composition terms used in the tables and gures refer to the
molar fraction of the syngas produced from the gasication of
biomass. Also, all molar fractions are on a nitrogen-free dry basis.
3.1.1. Carbon monoxide/carbon dioxide in product gas
Comparing the output of the model with results obtained
experimentally (Fig. 2), it can be seen that the molar fraction of CO
is decreasing with temperature in both cases; although the model
shows slower decrease until 850 C. At higher temperatures, there
is a higher tendency toward oxidation of CO to CO2, which makes
the combustion reaction more dominant. Relatively speaking, the
increase in CO molar rate, from the increased reaction rate of the
combustion reaction with temperature, is not as large as other
product gases (i.e. H2). For CO2, the model shows a minimum at
800 C, corresponding with experimental data (Fig. 3).
At temperatures greater than 800 C, the oxidation of CO to CO2
becomes more prevalent and the molar percentage of CO2 in the
product gas begins to increase. Due to the complex mass transfer
limitations of the heterogeneous oxidation of CO to CO2 [30], this
equation was omitted from the model; however, varying the O2
coefcient in the combustion reaction with temperature provided a
reasonable approximation of its impact on the product gas
composition and the results correlated well with experimental
data. This may be due to the fact that the ratio of equilibrium
concentrations of CO2 and CO is a function of temperature [35].
In Figs. 4 and 5, change in CO molar percentage is examined with
Table 7
Reactor characteristics [34].
Bed Material
Mass of Silica Sand (g)
Particle Size Range (mm)
Average Particle Size (mm)
Reactor Conditions
Temperature ( C)
Pressure (Pa)
Reactor Size
Bed Diameter (mm)
Freeboard Diameter (mm)
Total Height (mm)
Perforated Plate
No. Perforations
30
0.2e0.3
0.275
700e900
1.05 * 105
40
60
1400
25
Table 8
Mean Error calculation between comprehensive model and experimental results.
Mean Error
H2
CO
CO2
CH4
11.4%
17.1%
12.9%
8.6%
6.1%
6.3%
9.6%
37.6%
27.1%
17.9%
29.4%
22.8%
162
Fig. 2. Effect of temperature on CO composition. Biomass feed rate: 0.445 kg/h; Air:
0.5 m3/h; Steam: 1.2 kg/h.
Fig. 3. Effect of temperature on CO2 composition. Biomass feed rate: 0.445 kg/h; Air:
0.5 m3/h; Steam: 1.2 kg/h.
Fig. 5. Effect of equivalence ratio on CO composition. Biomass feed rate: 0.512 kg/h;
Steam: 0.8 m3/h; Temperature: 800 C.
163
Fig. 7. Effect of equivalence ratio on CO2 composition. Biomass feed rate: 0.512 kg/h;
Steam: 0.8 m3/h; Temperature: 800 C.
Fig. 10. Effect of equivalence ratio on H2 composition. Biomass feed rate: 0.512 kg/h;
Steam: 0.8 m3/h; Temperature: 800 C.
Fig. 8. Effect of temperature on H2 composition. Biomass feed rate: 0.445 kg/h; Air:
0.5 m3/h; Steam: 1.2 kg/h.
Fig. 11. Effect of temperature on CH4 composition. Biomass feed rate: 0.445 kg/h; Air:
0.5 m3/h; Steam: 1.2 kg/h.
164
Fig. 12. Effect of steam-to-biomass ratio on CH4 composition. Biomass feed rate:
0.445 kg/h; Air: 0.5 m3/h; Temperature: 800 C.
As alluded to in section 3.1 and 3.2, there are many opportunities to improve and build upon the model presented here.
Namely: the inclusion of other hydrocarbon combustion reactions
(tar, CH4, etc.), further research and incorporation of the COoxidation reaction, and comprehensive modeling of mass and
heat transfer within the reactor. As mentioned earlier, there is some
uncertainty associated with empirical equations used for the estimation of the pyrolysis gas composition. Another source of error in
model prediction is that the char combustion reaction was not
considered as it is a mass transfer limited reaction. In addition, this
model should be tested against multiple experimental data sets to
truly understand the adaptively and robustness of this work.
4. Conclusion
Fig. 13. Effect of equivalence ratio on CH4 composition. Biomass feed rate: 0.512 kg/h;
Steam: 0.8 m3/h; Temperature: 800 C.
additional gasication reactions that inuence methane concentration (such as the char hydrogasication reaction) is also expected to improve results.
3.2. Comparison of comprehensive to original model
Comparing Tables 8 and 9 , it can be observed that for H2 and CO
compositions, the comprehensive model provides a more precise
prediction of actual results. For CO2 and CH4 composition, the
comprehensive model predicts with comparable or better accuracy
than the original in most conditions.
From the results, the implication that can be drawn is that inclusive and robust models are necessary to properly explain gasication, and to ensure high accuracy of prediction. It is also evident
that an improved understanding of each portion of the gasication
process is critical to modeling it correctly. For example, while the
introduction of empirical pyrolysis equations provided model
adaptively for variations in feedstock, it did not improve the predictive output of the model for CH4 yields in certain operating
conditions. Using a xed composition post-pyrolysis, the original
model showed better results than did the empirical temperaturedependent comprehensive model in predicting methane composition at various steam ow rates; although, the limited
Table 9
Mean Error calculation between original model [5] and experimental results.
Mean Error
H2
CO
CO2
CH4
36.1%
20.5%
19.8%
10.4%
11.4%
9.4%
30.1%
23.8%
23.1%
21.5%
27.1%
20.0%
SymbolDescription
a
Stoichiometric coefcient of char combustion reaction
b
Stoichiometric coefcient of char gasication reaction
l
Stoichiometric coefcient of char combustion reaction
q
Pyrolysis temperature (oC)
At
Area of reactor (m2)
Ci
Concentration of component i (mol.m3) [or kmol.m3 for
r* ]
db
Bubble diameter (cm)
db0
dbm
dp
dt
g
h
hf
hmf
m
N
Nd
Pi
r
r*
R
T
temp
u0
ub
ubr
umf
yip
yie
d
e
f
mf
rg
rs
Subscripts
C
Atomic Carbon
H
Atomic Hydrogen
i
Component
O
Atomic Oxygen
Abbreviation and acronyms
AbbreviationDescription
BFB
Bubbling Fluidized Bed
ER
Equivalence Ratio
SBR
Steam to Biomass ratio
RSS
Residual Sum of Squares
MRSS
Mean Residual Sum of Squares
References
[1] Key World Energy Statistics, International Energy Agency, 2015 n.d, http://
www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld_Statistics_
2015.pdf (accessed 01.08.16).
[2] NPCS Board of Consultants & Engineers, Biomass Based Products (Biochemicals,
Biofuels, Activated Carbon), Asia Pacic Business Press Inc., Delhi, 2015. https://
books.google.ca/books?idgR22BgAAQBAJ&pgPA19&lpgPA19&dqtransport
ingrawbiomassoveralongdistanceisnoteconomical&sourcebl&o
tsNxnAwbejV-&sig9aDrzSujcSSdi5VAx0HdH0xADcM&hlen&saX&ved0
ahUKEwi1u8CuqKvOAhVi44MKHQ4eD7UQ6AEIJjAC#vonepage&q.
[3] P. Basu, Biomass Gasication and Pyrolysis Handbook, Academic Press, Burlington, MA, 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374988-8.00001-5.
[4] Q. Miao, J. Zhu, S. Barghi, C. Wu, X. Yin, Z. Zhou, Modeling biomass gasication
in circulating uidized beds, Renew. Energy 50 (2013) 655e661, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2012.08.020.
[5] M.B. Nikoo, N. Mahinpey, Simulation of biomass gasication in uidized bed
reactor using ASPEN PLUS, Biomass Bioenergy 32 (12) (2008) 1245e1254,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.02.020.
[6] K. Umeki, K. Yamamoto, T. Namioka, K. Yoshikawa, High temperature steamonly gasication of woody biomass, Appl. Energy 87 (3) (2010) 791e798,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.09.035.
ransson, U. So
derlind, W. Zhang, K. Go
ransson, W. Zhang,
[7] J. He, K. Go
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
165
166
[32] J.C. Wurzenberger, S. Wallner, H. Raupenstrauch, J.G. Khinast, Thermal conversion of biomass: comprehensive reactor and particle modeling, AIChE J. 48
(10) (2002) 2398e2411, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aic.690481029.
mez-Barea, B. Leckner, Modeling of biomass gasication in uidized bed,
[33] A. Go
Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 36 (4) (2010) 444e509, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.pecs.2009.12.002.
[34] P. Lv, J. Chang, Z. Xiong, H. Huang, C. Wu, Y. Chen, J. Zhu, Biomass AirSteam
gasication in a uidized bed to produce hydrogen-rich gas, Energy & Fuels
17 (3) (2003) 677e682, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef020181l.
[35] R.R. Rajan, C.Y. Wen, A comprehensive model for uidized bed coal combustors, AIChE J. 26 (4) (1980) 642e655, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
aic.690260416.