Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 127 (2018) 271–291

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cep

Parametric investigation on biomass gasification in a fluidized bed gasifier T

and conceptual design of gasifier
Qingang Xionga, Mehdi Mihandoost Yeganehb, Ebrihim Yaghoubib, Asgar Asadic,
⁎ ⁎
Mohammad Hossein Doranehgardd, , Kun Honga,
a
National & Local Joint Engineering Research Center for Deep Utilization Technology of Rock-salt Resource, Jiangsu Provincial Engineering Laboratory for Biomass
Conversion and Process Integration, Huaiyin Institute of Technology, Huaian 223003, China
b
Iran University of Science and Technology, Narmak, Tehran, 1684613114, Iran
c
Center for CFD studies on Heat Engines, Cavitational Flows and Petroleum industries, Department of Mechanical Engineering,University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
d
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Alberta, T6G 2W2, Canada

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this study, rice husk gasification process, in a bubbling fluidized bed gasifier, was investigated. To simulate
Gasification gasification process, a kinetic model was used which comprises chemical kinetic and flow hydrodynamics. This
Biomass model is based on two phase fluidized theory, in which, it is assumed that there are two phases in the bed which
Fluidized bed there is mass and energy transfer between them. These two phases are bubble phase and emulsion phase
Kinetic model
(containing solid particles). In this model, it is assumed that temperature remains constant along the reactor.
Results had a satisfactory agreement with the existed experimental studies in the literature. A parametric study
carried out and the effects of different parameters were investigated. The results revealed that changes in the bed
diameter have a negligible effect on the gasifier performance. On the other hand, increment of reactor tem-
perature and bed height improve gasifier efficiency but, biomass humidity and inlet velocity of gasification
agent, affect gasifier efficiency diversely. Also, increase in the air to fuel humidity and the diameter of the bed
particles, at first, raise the efficiency, however, decreases the efficiency in continuation. Finally, in order to
obtain the maximum efficiency, the proper operational condition was specified.

1. Introduction technologies of hydrogen production from biomass, progress is impeded

Nowadays, computational methods have received more attention of
researchers than before. This fact is mainly due to much less costs and
relatively acceptable results of these methods in comparison to the
experimental methods in different aspects of Mechanical Engineering.
Enhanced oil recovery problems [1–9], biomass gasification [10–19]
and pyrolysis [20–29], chemical reactions [30–33], molecular dy-
namics [34,35], smoothed particle hydrodynamics [36], vibration
analysis and applications [37–42], spray and atomization technology
[40,43], droplet dynamics [44–46] and nanofluid applications [47–50]
are some of numerical research works done in the different facets of
Mechanical Engineering. One of the most important aspects of Me-
chanical Engineering is renewable energy which certainly needs to be
investigated in details.
Biomass energy will be a crucial constitution of renewable energy
system in the future and hydrogen production from biomass on a large
scale may contribute to a renewable development of energy and en-
vironment [51]. However, due to high-energy consumption in all the
and this technology remaining restricted to a laboratory scale [52]. The
available energy production processes from biomass can be divided into
two general categories: thermochemical and biological processes. Levin
et al. have reviewed different methods for hydrogen production via
biological procedures. These procedures have been discovered about a
century ago but they have not become practical yet [53]. Combustion,
pyrolysis, liquefaction and gasification are the four thermochemical
processes. Combustion is not a suitable hydrogen production for sus-
tainable development. The disadvantages of biomass liquefaction are
first, difficulty in achieving the operation conditions and second, low
production of hydrogen. Therefore, liquefaction is not favorable for
hydrogen production [54].
Pyrolysis can be further classified into slow pyrolysis and fast pyr-
olysis. As the products are mainly charcoal, slow pyrolysis is normally
not considered for hydrogen production. Fast pyrolysis is a high tem-
perature process, in which the biomass feedstock is heated rapidly in
the absence of air, to form vapor and subsequently condensed to a dark
brown mobile bio-liquid. Although most pyrolysis processes are

⁎
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: doranehg@ualberta.ca (M.H. Doranehgard), khong@hyit.edu.cn (K. Hong).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2018.04.003
Received 12 March 2018; Received in revised form 1 April 2018; Accepted 2 April 2018
Available online 05 April 2018
0255-2701/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Q. Xiong et al. Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 127 (2018) 271–291

Nomenclature Kt , i Total reaction rate constant including mass transfer, m/s

Ki Reaction rate constant
heat The formation enthalpy of CO2, kJ/mole Mc Mo Heat The formation enthalpy of CO2, kJ/mole
ṅ Molar rate, mole/s ṅ Molar rate, mole/s
ṁ Mass rate, kg/s ṁ Mass rate, kg/s
ρg Gas density, kg/m3 ρg Gas density, kg/m3
ρs Solid density, kg/m3 ρs Solid density, kg/m3lecular weight of carbon, kg/kmole
δb Bubble volume fraction P Gas pressure in Pascal
δe Emulsion volume fraction Re Reynolds number
δmf Bed void fraction at minimum fluidization velocity in Rbi Production rate of species i in bubble phase through che-
emulsion phase mical reactions, kmole/(m3.s)
μ Gas dynamic viscosity, kg/(m s) R ei Production rate of species i in emulsion phase through
τ Pyrolysis time, a function of the initial particle size, s chemical reactions, kmole/(m3.s)
Ar Archimedes number Rfi Production rate of species i in the freeboard through
Ci Gas concentration of species i, kmole/m3 chemical reactions, kmole/(m3.s)
Cbi Average molar concentration of species i in bubble phase, R Universal gas constant, 8.314 kJ/(kmole K)
kmole/m3 ri Reaction rate of reaction i, kmole/(m3.s)
Cei Average gas concentration of species i in emulsion phase, T Temperature, K
kmole/m3 t Time step
Cf i Average gas concentration of species i in the freeboard, Ugas Gas superficial velocity, m/s
kmole/m3 Ub Bubble velocity, m/s
CPyroi Gaseous species concentration within Pyrolysis products, Uf Average velocity in freeboard, m/s
kmol/m3 Umf Minimum fluidization velocity, m/s
CD drag coefficient Uo Inlet gas fluidization velocity, m/s
Mwi Molar weight of species i Ut Terminal velocity, m/s
D Bed diameter, m Ve Total volume of emulsion phase, m3
dp Bed Particles size f molar fraction
db Bubble diameter, mm
dbm The maximum bubble diameter, m Subscripts
dbo Initial bubble diameter, m
E Activation energy, kJ/kmole b Bubble
H Reactor Height, m be Bubble-Emulsion
Hb The height of the expanded bed, m c Carbon (char)
Hmf The height of the expanded bed at minimum fluidization, e Emulsion
m g gaseous
Kbe Mass transfer coefficient between emulsion phase and mf minimum fluidization
bubble phase, 1/s o Inlet gas
Km Mass transfer coefficient, m/s p Bed Particles
K Pre-exponential factor of pyrolysis reaction kinetics t terminal condition

designed for biofuel production, hydrogen can be produced directly
through fast or flash pyrolysis if high temperature and sufficient volatile
phase residence time are allowed. Also, hydrogen production can be
increased through steam reforming of produced hydrocarbons water
gas shift reaction between CO and water vapor. Temperature, heating
rate, residence time and type of catalyst used are important pyrolysis
process control parameters. In favor of gaseous products especially in
hydrogen production, high temperature, high heating rate and long
volatile phase residence time are required [55]. These parameters can
be regulated by selection among different reactor types and heat
transfer modes, such as gas–solid convective heat transfer and so-
lid–solid conductive heat transfer. Various investigations have been
conducted about heat transfer and features of different reactors. Ac-
cording to the results, it has been concluded that fluidized bed reactor

Table 1
Equations used for calculating hydrodynamic parameters.
[65] μg ( 27.22 + 0.0408Ar − 27.2) Minimum fluidization velocity
umf =
dp ρg

[68] 1 Terminal velocity

4(ρp − ρg )2g2 3
ut = dp ⎡ ⎤
⎢ 225ρg μg ⎥
⎣ ⎦
[69] 0.4 Bubble diameter after distributer
dbm = 0.652 (
π 2
d (u −umf )
4 t 0 )
[69] db0 = 0.00376(u0−umf )0.4 Max. bubble diameter
[61] − 0.3z Bubble diameter in reactor
db = dbm + (db0−dbm )e dt
[61] u −u Bubble volume fraction
δ b = 0 mf
ub − umf
[61] Bubble velocity considering emulsion
ubr = 0.711(g .db )0.5
db
dt (
< 0.125 , ubr = [0.711(g .db )0.5]1.2exp −
1.49db
dt ) 0.125 < db
dt
< 0.6
[61] ub = (u0−umf ) + ubr Bubble velocity in bed
[63] Kbe =
0.11 Transfer factor between bubble and emulsion
db

272
Q. Xiong et al.
Fig. 1. Bed fluidizing two phase model.
type exhibits higher heating rates and thus it appears to be the pro-
mising reactor type for hydrogen production from biomass pyrolysis
[56].
Unlike pyrolysis, gasification aims to produce gaseous products in-
stead of bio-oils and charcoal and hence, this process is more favorable
for hydrogen production than pyrolysis. Besides, in this process, solid
biomass is also gasified in the presence of O2. However, two dis-
advantages are associated with the usual process of biomass gasification
with oxygen. One is the low hydrogen content in product gas with the
dilution of N2 from air, and the other is high CO2 emission during the
gasification course [57]. To eliminate these disadvantages, biomass
gasification can be carried on by use of steam as the gasification agent.
Furthermore, steam gasification also has other advantages. It is capable
of maximizing the gas product with higher heating rates involved, ad-
vantageous residence time characteristics, and the efficient tar and char
reduction brought about by steam reforming. However, the steam ga-
sification reactions are endothermic as a whole and for proper opera-
tion of reactor, the activation energy for these reactions should be
provided. One method for providing the necessary heat input, is to use a
mixture of air and steam as the gasification agent which will, again,
result in the same disadvantages of air gasification [58,59].
In this research, gasification process of rice husk and rush wood, in a
bubbling fluidized bed gasifier, is investigated. With this regard, a two
phase, kinetic model is developed for simulating the gasification pro-
cess which is comprised of hydrodynamic parameters of reactor flow,
chemical reactions and species transport equations. In the current two
phase model for gasification, reactor is divided into two part, bed and
Table 2
Chemical reactions, considered in the simulation.
Rate of reaction (kmol/m3.s)
r1 = 1.5 × 106exp(−13078/T)PO2 (1−XC)1.2CC , λ = 3 × 108exp(30178/T)
r2 = k2CC CH2O , k2 = 200exp(−6000/T)
r3 = k3CCO2 , k3 = 4.364exp(−29844/T)
0.25 0.5 11
r4 = k 4CCO CO 2 CH2 O , k 4 = 3.98 × 10 exp(−20119/T)
r5 = k5CH2 CO2 , k5 = 2.19 × 109exp(−13127/T)
0.7 0.8
r6 = k 6CCH 4 CO2 , k 6 = 1.585 × 107exp(−24157/T)
CH2
r7 = 2.7 × 103exp
T (
−1510
) (C
CO CH2 O−CCO2 k ) , k7
7
= 1.585 ×
r8 = k 8CCH4 CH2O , k 8 = 2 × 10−3exp(−15000/T)
0.5
r9 = Mtar 9.2 × 106exp(−8650/T)Ctar CO2 , Mtar = 90 kg/kmol
r10 = 10 4.98exp(−93370/T)Ctar
Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 127 (2018) 271–291
freeboard. Bed contains solid and gas particles and freeboard is void of
solid particles. Two phase fluidizing theory was presented by Toomey
and Johnson in 1952 and its main hypothesis was that the reactor is
divided into two phase, bubble and emulsion. Bubble phase is made up
nearly completely of gas and emulsion phase is nearly completely solid
material and a limited amount of gas [60]. Among the presented two
phase models, bubbling bed model presented by Kunii and Levenspiel
[61] in 1969 and Bubble assemblage model by Kato & Wen [62] in
1969 have the most references in their field. Mass conservative equa-
tions for gaseous species written in bubble and emulsion phases. Ac-
cording to Sadaka et al. mass conservation regarding rate of entered to
volume control and exited mass from volume control and diffusion ef-
fects in inconsistent condition, for gaseous species each phase was
considered. This model assumes that bubble phase is empty of solid
particles and the distribution of the species uniform (along radius) [63].
Also, considering this equations with simplifying assumptions, Ramen
[64] obtained simplified differential equations. Radmanesh [65] mod-
eled conservative equations for these types in steady state. In this model
the effects of diffusion are ignored and also this model assumes that
there is tiny amount of solid (0.005 percent) in bubble phase. Finally, in
order to solve the generated system of equations, a code was generated,
based on Range Kuta method, in MATLAB software.
2. Modeling
In gasification processes, kinetic models are capable of providing
information about final products. In addition, these models provide
information about product distribution along the reactor since they
comprise the hydrodynamic of the flow inside the reactor. This feature,
is a vital criteria in designing, sizing, and optimization of the reactor
operational parameters [66].
The main purpose of this study is to investigate a bubbling fluidized
bed gasifier, regarding certain operational condition, by use of devel-
oping a two phase kinetic model. Also, the effect of gasifier dominant
parameters on its performance, are studied. At the end, an algorithm is
presented to design the gasifier based on the certain inputs. To kineti-
cally model the gasifier, flow hydrodynamic behavior, pyrolysis, con-
servation of mass and chemical kinetic reactions should be considered.
2.1. Flow hydrodynamic
This study is based on the following assumptions:
• Emulsion phase is in the minimum fluidization condition. Therefore,
gas velocity and bed void fraction are equal to the minimum flui-
dization condition.
• Pyrolysis process is assumed to be instantaneous which means that
once the biomass enters to the gasifier, it decomposes into char, tar,
and gas, immediately. In other word, in the presented model,
Chemical reactions
R1: C(s) +
λ+2
O →
λ
C +
1
CO2
2(λ + 1) 2 λ+1 λ+1
R2: C(s) + H2 O → CO + H2
R3: C(s) + CO2 → 2CO
R4: CO + 0.5O2 → CO2
R5: H2 + 0.5O2 → H2 O
R6: CH 4 + 1.5O2 → CO + 2H2 O
R7: CO + H2 O → CO2 + H2
107exp(−24157/T)
R8: CH 4 + H2 O → CO + 3H2
R9: tar(CH1.522 O0.028) + 0.876O2 → CO + 0.761H2 O
R10: tar(gas) → 0.01733H2 + 0.0884CH 4 + 0.5633CO + 0.1109CO2 + 0.22tarinert
273
Q. Xiong et al. Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 127 (2018) 271–291

Fig. 2. Solving method as a flowchart.

Table 3 Table 6
Silica sand particle’s properties. Modeled reactor geometric parameters.
Density (kg/m3) Diameter (mm) Reactor diameter 0.5 m

Silica sand particles 2650 150-450 Bed height 1.1 m

Freeboard height 2.5 m
Sand particle diameter 100-350 μm
Table 4
Rice husk properties.
this assumption is rational and experiments confirm it [67].
Rice husk [70]
• Regarding low velocity of the gas and absent of solid particles in
Approximate analysis (mass percentage) humidity 12.10 Freeboard section of reactor, a plug flow model is used for simu-
volatile matter percentage 70.36 lating the gasification process in this section.
(dry)
carbon percentage (dry) 15.07
• Bubbles are spherical and the volume of bubble phase increases by
ascending in bed.
Element analysis (mass percentage based
ash percentage (dry)
C
14.57
39.78 • Studied gaseous species are: H2, CH4, CO, CO2, H2O, O2, N2, tar, and
on dry) H 4.97 tarinert. Therefore, there are nine types of gases inside the reactor.
O 40.02 Also, because of relatively low temperature, nitrogen reactions are
N 0.46 neglected.
S 0.2
• Gaseous species are considered to be perfect gas.

In order to obtain the fluidizing situation in the bed, the velocity of

pyrolysis productions, which are determined according to experi-
the inlet fluid to the gasifier, is confined to a minimum and maximum
mental data, are considered as the boundary condition.
amount. For this, flow inlet velocity should be higher than minimum
• Char is assumed to be pure carbon. Also, solid particles remain in-
fluidization velocity umf and less than Terminal velocity ut. Equations
side the bed and don’t leave it.
• Gasifier is considered to be isothermal. In a fluidized bed reactor,
used for calculating hydrodynamic parameters are presented in Table 1.

Table 5
Comparing results of the modeling to the experiments.
Molar ratio of the gas ingredients Heating value Cold gas efficiency

H2 CH4 CO CO2 N2 RMS (MJ/m3) Relative error quantity Relative error

Experimental study [71] 7.09 9.09 17.29 16.81 49.73 – 6.266 – 66.6% –
Modeling [70] 8.96 9.77 16.67 21.68 42.92 3.85 6.573 4.9% 67.12% 0.78%
Current study 10.01 9.77 16.9 20.13 43.19 3.54 6.632 5.84% 68.2% 2.4%

274
Q. Xiong et al. Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 127 (2018) 271–291

Fig. 3. molar ratio changes in different reactor heights. A) ref. [70], b) current study.

2.2. Pyrolysis

Pyrolysis is an important step of gasification. Type and the amount

of its products affects the whole process. The composition of pyrolysis
products depends on the biomass type, temperature and heating rate.
This study employs Barghi et al. experimental model for rice husk
pyrolysis. Mathematical modeling of this model is presented by Eqs.
(1)–(7). In the mentioned equations fgas, fchar, ftar, stand for gas volume
fraction, pure carbon and produced tar from pyrolysis process respec-
tively. Also, fH2, fCH4, fCO, and fCO2 in gaseous products are hydrogen,
methane, monoxide carbon and dioxide carbon mass fraction. There-
fore, sum of the mass fraction of these four products must be equal to
one. It should be noted that the pyrolysis temperature is in Celsius
degrees unit.

f char = −7 ×10−7T3 + 1 ×10−3T 2−0.605T + 267.5 (1)

ftar = −3 ×10−5T 2 + 0.012T + 43.27 (2)

fgas = −5 ×10−5T 2 + 0.16T + 22.43 (3)

Fig. 4. mass fraction of the products from rice husk pyrolysis in different
temperatures. f H2 = −3 ×10−6T 2 + 0.024T−2.887 (4)

fCH4 = −2 ×10−5T 2 + 0.055T−11.9 (5)

fCO = 5 ×10−7T3−1 ×10−3T 2 + 0.703T + 84.49 (6)

fCO2 = 6 ×10−5T 2 + 0.114T−65.07 (7)

Generally, pyrolysis process is much faster than any other process

inside the gasifier reactor which makes it to be considered in-
stantaneous in many kinetic models and therefore, as a boundary
condition for mass conservative equations [65].

2.3. Mass conservative equations for species

Variation of the species along the reactor can be obtained by use of a

kinetic model based on species mass conservation. Therefore, mass
conservative equations should be solved for gas and solid species in
both bed and freeboard.

Fig. 5. Mass fraction of the gaseous products from rice husk pyrolysis in dif-
ferent temperatures.
2.3.1. Bed
To explain solid phase dynamics in bed, CCBM1 model is employed.
In the current study, the process is assumed to be steady state and the
diffusion effects are neglected. Considering Fig. 1, mass conservative
equations for bubble and emulsion phase are as follow:

1
Counter Current Back-Mixing

275
Q. Xiong et al. Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 127 (2018) 271–291

Fig. 6. changes in molar ratio along the rector for different gasification agent.

∂ (δ b ub Ci,b) simulating the process in this section. Ignoring the mass diffusion, mass
= −Kbeδ b (Ci,b−Ci,e) + δ b ∑ νji ri
∂z g−g (8) conservation equation for gaseous species is as follows. In the following
equation, ug is gas velocity in freeboard.
∂ ((1−δ b)u e Ci,e) K δ
= be b (Ci,b−Ci,e) + (1−δ b) ∑ νji ri ∂ (ug Ci)
∂z εmf g−g
∂z
= ∑ νji ri
g−g (11)
(1−δ b )(1−εmf )
+ ∑ νji ri
εmf s−g (9)

In the above equations, the term in the left hand side represents the
rate of mass changes in each phase according to convection. The first
term in the right side represents the rate of the mass changes between
bubble and emulsion phase and finally, the remained terms in the
equations, represent the rate of mass changes within the phases as a
result of chemical reaction. Mass conservative equation for char is as
follows.
∂CC 1
∂z
= ∑ νji ri
uc s −g
It can be seen that changes in carbon concentration is a function of
non-homogenous reactions and the mass conservation for char is solved
within emulsion phase.
2.3.2. Freeboard
Because of the low concentration of the solid particles and low ve-
locity of gas in freeboard section, plug flow model is suitable for
2.4. Kinetic of the reactions
Many different reactions take place inside the gasifier reactor. But
for simulation of the process, only the most important homogeneous
and heterogeneous reactions are considered. The list of the studied
chemical reactions along with the rate of each reaction are presented in
the following Table 2. The rate of reactions depends on parameters such
as species concentration and operational temperature.
(10)
2.5. Solving method
For solving the presented system of equations, a computational
Code was developed. The flowchart of the generated model can be seen
in Fig. 2.
In this study sand particles are considered to be Silica for reactor
bed and rice husk as the feed. Properties of Silica sand and rice husk can
be seen Table 3 and 4, respectively.

276
Q. Xiong et al.
Fig. 7. Outlet gas LHV for different ER, temperature, and gasification agent.
3. Results
3.1. Validation
To validate the results, experimental data presented by Wu et al.
[71] were used. Table 5, shows the comparison of simulation and ex-
perimental data. As it can be seen, there is an acceptable agreement
between the simulated and experimental data. The differences can arise
from the fact that in the simulation, rector was assumed to be iso-
thermal while in reality the temperature changes along the reactor.
Another reason can be the number of the studied chemical reactions. In
reality, many reactions take place in the reactor but in the simulation
only the most effective ones are considered. Finally, indetermination of
the parameters such as feed humidity, bed particles’ diameter, etc.
could be factors which caused this difference. It is worthy to mention
that the modeled reactor geometric parameters are presented in
Table 6.
Fig. 3 compares variation of the molar fraction of the species in this
study and the experimental study. Generally, the agreement between
results is satisfactory.
As mentioned above, the first step of gasification is pyrolysis step.
277
Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 127 (2018) 271–291
Figs. 4 and 5 depicts molar fraction of the products of the rice husk
pyrolysis at different temperatures. As temperature increases, the
amount of the produced gas increases, while tar and char decrease. In
gaseous products CH4 increases, CO decreases, CO2 and H2 remain al-
most constant.
Fig. 6 illustrates gasses molar fraction in reactor for rice husk in two
cases, gasification with air and oxygen at 800 °C. As it can be seen, most
of the molar fraction changes occur in bed. This is due to the fact that
oxygen is consumed very fast, and hence, reactions R1, R4, R5, R6, and
R9 are supposed to be deactivated after a while. Water vapor increases
at first however, decreases in the following. Because of the presence of
the oxygen in the beginning on the process, vapor producing reactions
comparing to vapor consuming reactions are dominant. After oxygen is
finished, the amount of the water vapor reduces. Also, CO2 increases
and in the middle of the bed reaches a nearly constant value. On the
other hand, CO reduces in the beginning then remains constant. As
expected, N2 remains constant during the process. Generally, gasifica-
tion with oxygen is similar to the air and the only differences are that,
there is no N2 in the process and comparing to air gasification, more CO
is produced. Therefore, the produced gas, in this case, has a higher
heating value.
Q. Xiong et al.
Fig. 8. Gasifier efficiency for different ER, humidity, and gasification agent.
3.2. Gasification efficiency and low heating value of the produced syngas
Gasification reactors have a standard operational temperature
range. In the presented model, minimum temperature for the rector
operation is 600 °C. the reason for this is the assumption of fast pyr-
olysis for the inlet fuel. Also, the maximum operational temperature for
the reactor is 900 °C, higher than this amount the bed particles would
start melting and forms heavier particles by sticking to each other
which would change the hydrodynamic properties of the bed. Fig. 7
depicts heating value of the gas for different equivalence ratios, tem-
peratures and gasification agents. According to this figure, increment of
the temperature will increase heating value. However, equivalence
ratio affects heating value adversely. As expected, using oxygen as the
gasification agent, heating value will increase by 30 percent.
Fig. 8 shows efficiency of the gasifier for different equivalence ra-
tios, temperatures and gasification agent. This figure signifies that
temperature increase affects efficiency directly, but as equivalence ratio
increases, at first efficiency increases then decreases. To explain this,
we should have a look on the efficiency definition. It is a function of
outlet gas flow rate and heating value. Multiplication of these two
parameters causes increment in the beginning but, however in the
continuation, the decreasing effect of the heating value dominates.
278
Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 127 (2018) 271–291
The maximum efficiency, in the case of rice husk gasification, occurs
at 900 °C and 0.31 equivalence ratio and its quantity will be 0.73. On
the other hand, in gasification by use of oxygen, the maximum effi-
ciency occurs at 900 °C and equivalence ratio of 0.33 and its quantity
will be 0.82.
Fig. 9 illustrates gas heating value for different equivalence ratios,
humidity, and gasification agents. As it can be seen, increment in bio-
mass humidity lessens the heating value since the amount of the water
vapor will rise in the produced gas and molar fraction of the H2, CH4,
and CO will be decreased. In gasification of rice husk by use of oxygen,
increment in humidity from 2 to 14 percent will lessen the heating
value by 11 and 16 percent respectively.
Fig. 10 shows gasifier efficiency for different equivalence ratios,
humidity and gasification agents. Conform to this figure, increment in
biomass humidity percentage causes reduction in reactor cold gas ef-
ficiency. This reduction for rice husk and oxygen will be 0.18 and 0.21
respectively.
Hydrodynamic of the flow also affects species’ interaction, heat
transfer between bed material and fuel. Hydrodynamics of the flow
affect the volume of bubble phase and subsequently the extent of the
bubble phase and emulsion and their growth. Fig. 11 illustrates heating
value of the produced gas and gasification agent efficiency for different
Q. Xiong et al.
Fig. 9. LHV for different ER, humidity, and gasification agent.
gasification agent inlet velocity. Increase of the gasification agent ve-
locity reduces heating value and efficiency. It can be declared that by
increasing velocity, fuel don’t have enough time to have reaction in
bed; in another word, residence time will be lessened. Therefore, the
heating value and reactor efficiency will be decreased.
Fig. 12 depicts heating value and efficiency versus bed height. In-
crease of the bed height has direct influence on heating value and ef-
ficiency; however the alteration is not considerable. As height in-
creases, residence time increases and Carbon conversion takes place
more and produced gas increases subsequently.
Fig. 13 shows the effect of bed diameter on heating value and ef-
ficiency. According to this figure, it can be concluded that the diameter
of the bed is not a dominant parameter in gasification. In the case of
gasification using oxygen, increment in bed diameter causes a tiny in-
crease in heating value and efficiency. This might be because of the fact
that increasing the diameter postpones the coagulation process and the
bubbles join less often. This can affect the interaction between fuel and
particles.
Fig. 14 shows heating value and efficiency for different bed parti-
cles’ diameter. For all four cases, by changing bed particle diameter, at
first, heating value and efficiency increases, then decreases. According
to the figure, diameter between 150–200 μm provides optimum hy-
drodynamics condition and the best interaction between fuel and bed
279
Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 127 (2018) 271–291
particle for reactor.
3.3. Molar fraction change profile for gaseous ingredients
Fig. 15 shows the gases molar fraction for different equivalence
ratios. Increasing the air to fuel ratio increases oxygen and nitrogen.
Oxygen is consumed during the process and only nitrogen remains at
the end. H2, CH4, and CO decreases with the increment in equivalence
ratio. CO2 for gasification using air remains constant however, in ga-
sification using oxygen, CO2 increases. Also, H2O increases in both
cases. The explanation for these changes is as follows. Increment in
equivalence ratio increases the amount of oxygen. Therefore, the usage
of the oxygen takes place faster and more CO2 and H2O will be pro-
duced. Also, oxygen consuming reactions consume H2, CH4, and CO and
their molar fraction will be decreases. In gasification using rice husk,
molar fraction of CH4 will be reduced and regarding the reduction in
gases with heating value such as H2, CH4, and CO, heating value of the
outlet gas should be decreases.
Fig. 16 focuses on the effect of humidity on the molar fraction of the
gaseous species. Increasing the humidity reduces the amount of CH4,
CO, and N2, but increases the amount of H2, CO2, and H2O. Increasing
the humidity increases the H2O inside the reactor and in this condition,
water-gas shift reaction will be dominant. Therefore, the amount of CO
Q. Xiong et al. Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 127 (2018) 271–291

Fig. 10. Gasifier efficiency for different ER, humidity, and gasification agent.

decreases however, H2 and CO2 increases. On the other hand, reaction investigated. Increasing inlet velocity increases the amount of CO2 and
between H2O and CH4 as a result of increment in H2O concentration, H2O but decreases the amount of CO. However, the amount of H2, CH4,
will be increased and the amount of CH4 will be decreased. This phe- and N2 is not affected by inlet velocity. These result reduce heating
nomenon happens in gasification using Rash wood as well. The only value of the outlet gas. This happens because, as the inlet velocity in-
differences are increment in the amount of CO2 and comparing to ga- creases, the residence time of the fuel inside the rector is decreased and
sification using rice husk, the amount of H2 will increase more. The incomplete interaction between fuel and bed particles will occur sub-
reason for this is that in water-gas shift reaction, the reaction is along sequently.
with the products. Hence, H2 increases and CO2 decreases.
Fig. 17 depicts changes in gaseous molar fraction with temperature.
3.4. Carbon conversion
Increment of the temperature causes faster consuming of the oxygen.
Because, in lower temperatures some of the inlet oxygen will remain in
Carbon conversion idiom refers to “the ratio of the amount of the
outlet gas. According to the figure, as long as oxygen is not consumed,
consumed carbon during gasification process to produced carbon from
the amount of H2, CH4, and CO decreases and the amount of CO2 and
biomass pyrolysis in the beginning of the process.” Therefore, as this
H2O increases. Once oxygen is completely consumed, the process is
parameter gets closer to unity, gasification performance will be better.
reversed so the amount of H2, CH4, and CO increases and the amount of
Fig. 19 illustrates carbon conversion for rice husk gasification in dif-
CO2 and H2O decreases. For temperatures higher than 650 °C, there is
ferent temperatures. As temperature rises, carbon conversion gets closer
no oxygen in produced syngas. The reactor is better to operate in the
to unity. Carbon conversion in oxygen gasification is better than the air
temperature that the oxygen is completely consumed. Also, increment
since in gasification using oxygen, comparing to air gasification, more
of the temperature, reduces CO2 considerably but, CH4 is not affected
oxygen is available for pure carbon (char).
by temperature. Finally, regarding the mentioned results, heating value
Fig. 20 shows carbon conversion for rice husk gasification in dif-
of the produced gas will be increased.
ferent bed heights. Bed height has direct effect on carbon conversion.
Fig. 18 shows the effect of gasification agent’s velocity on the molar
Increment in the height provides more time for reactions to take place
fraction of the gaseous species. Firstly, gasification using rice husk is
which means the residence time of the fuel increases.

280
Q. Xiong et al.
Fig. 11. LHV for outlet gas and gasifier efficiency for different gasification agent velocity.
3.5. Fluid bed gasifier design for determined power
In this section, fluidized bed gasifier for different outlet power is
designed and gasifier geometry, inlet fuel rate, and gasification agent’s
velocity proportionate to these powers is calculated. Selected primary
parameters can be seen in Table 7.
Designing was conducted for 1 and 2 MW, and for each case, two
different temperatures, two different bed particle diameter, and two
different gasification agent’s velocity was investigated which can be
seen in Tables 8 and 9. For selected certain initial parameters, proper
operational condition for the gasifier are obtained in order to achieve
the maximum efficiency and the heating value.
4. Conclusion
In this study, gasification process of rice husk and rash wood in a
bubbling fluidized bed was investigated. Kinetic model was employed
to simulate the processes. The results signify that:
281
Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 127 (2018) 271–291
• Using oxygen as gasification agent, instead of air, increases heating
value and gasifier efficiency.
• Increment in reactor temperature affects heating value and gasifier
efficiency directly.
• Increasing equivalence ratio at first, increases the efficiency, then
decreases it. However, equivalence ratio has adverse impact on
heating value of the outlet gas.
• As humidity increases, heating value and efficiency will be de-
creased. Therefore, using drier is more suitable.
• Diameter of the reactor has a negligible effect on the gasifier per-
formance, but, increasing the height of the reactor, causes increase
in efficiency, heating value, and carbon conversion.
• Increase in bed particle’s diameter, at first, increases the gasifier
efficiency and heating value, then, decreases the mentioned para-
meters.
Q. Xiong et al. Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 127 (2018) 271–291

Fig. 12. LHV for outlet gas and gasifier efficiency for different bed heights.

282
Q. Xiong et al. Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 127 (2018) 271–291

Fig. 13. outlet gas and gasifier efficiency for different bed diameters.

283
Q. Xiong et al. Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 127 (2018) 271–291

Fig. 14. outlet gas and gasifier efficiency for different particle diameter.

284
Q. Xiong et al. Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 127 (2018) 271–291

Fig. 15. Changes in molar ratio in different ER.

285
Q. Xiong et al. Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 127 (2018) 271–291

Fig. 16. Changes in molar ratio in different humidity.

286
Q. Xiong et al. Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 127 (2018) 271–291

Fig. 17. Changes in gases molar ratio in different temperatures.

287
Q. Xiong et al. Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 127 (2018) 271–291

Fig. 18. Changes in gases molar ratio in different velocities.

Fig. 19. Carbon conversion in different temperatures.

288
Q. Xiong et al. Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 127 (2018) 271–291

Fig. 20. Carbon conversion in different heights of the bed.

Table 7
Modeled reactor geometric parameters.
Feed rice husk

Bed particles Silica sand

Rice husk humidity 8 percent
Equivalence ratio 0.3

Table 8
The designed gasifier with the outlet power equal to 1 MW.
outlet power equal to 1 MW

Temperature (C) 750 × × × ×

850 × × × ×
Particle diameter (μm) 200 × × × ×
300 × × × ×
Ratio of inlet velocity to Umf 6 × × × ×
9 × × × ×
umf (m/s) 0.0424 0.0424 0.0932 0.0932 0.0424 0.0424 0.0932 0.0932
Superficial velocity of particles (m/s) 1.6358 1.6358 2.5436 2.5436 1.6358 1.6358 2.5436 2.5436
Feed rate (kg/s) 0.0748 0.0763 0.0759 0.0774 0.0650 0.0658 0.0658 0.0668
Reactor diameter (m) 0.07786 0.07862 0.6403 0.6466 0.7670 0.7717 0.6302 0.6348
Bed height (m) 01.0321 1.0370 0.9424 0.9456 1.0247 1.0277 0.9346 0.9376
Freeboard height (m) 1.5803 1.9142 2.0139 2.4391 1.5714 1.9007 2.0023 2.4227
Heat value (MJ/kg) 5.2387 5.2322 5.2687 5.1598 6.1401 6.0655 6.0667 5.9772
Efficiency 0.7949 0.7795 0.7835 0.7684 0.9150 0.9040 0.9035 0.8907

Table 9
The designed gasifier with the outlet power equal to 2 MW.
outlet power equal to 2 MW

Temperature (C) 750 × × × ×

850 × × × ×
Particle diameter (μm) 200 × × × ×
300 × × × ×
Ratio of inlet velocity to Umf 6 × × × ×
9 × × × ×
umf (m/s) 0.0424 0.0424 0.0932 0.0932 0.0424 0.0424 0.0932 0.0932
Superficial velocity of particles (m/s) 1.6358 1.6358 2.5436 2.5436 1.6358 1.6358 2.5436 2.5436
Feed rate (kg/s) 0.1499 0.1524 0.1519 0.1546 0.1300 0.1309 0.1313 0.1330
Reactor diameter (m) 1.1020 1.1110 0.9057 0.9137 1.0848 1.0885 0.8902 0.8959
Bed height (m) 1.2341 1.2396 1.1129 1.1179 1.2237 1.2259 1.1032 1.1068
Freeboard height (m) 1.8125 2.1947 2.2955 2.7799 1.8008 2.1763 2.2801 2.7586
Heat value (MJ/kg) 5.3280 5.2404 5.2626 5.1665 6.1382 6.0958 6.0804 6.00
Efficiency 0.7966 0.7809 0.7823 0.7696 0.9148 0.9085 0.9058 0.8942

289
Q. Xiong et al.
References
[1] M.H. Doranehgard, M. Siavashi, The effect of temperature dependent relative per-
meability on heavy oil recovery during hot water injection process using stream-
line-based simulation, Appl. Therm. Eng. 129 (2018) 106–116.
[2] M. Siavashi, M.H. Doranehgard, Particle swarm optimization of thermal enhanced
oil recovery from oilfields with temperature control, Appl. Therm. Eng. 123 (2017)
658–669.
[3] M. Ahmadpour, M. Siavashi, M.H. Doranehgard, Numerical simulation of two-phase
flow in fractured porous media using streamline simulation and IMPES methods and
comparing results with a commercial software, J. Cent. South Univ. 23 (10) (2016)
2630–2637.
[4] M. Siavashi, H. Garusi, S. Derakhshan, Numerical simulation and optimization of
steam-assisted gravity drainage with temperature, rate, and well distance control
using an efficient hybrid optimization technique, Numer. Heat Transf., Part A: Appl.
72 (9) (2017) 721–744.
[5] M. Ramezanpour, M. Siavashi, Application of SiO2–water nanofluid to enhance oil
recovery, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. (2018).
[6] M. Siavashi, M.J. Blunt, M. Raisee, et al., Three-dimensional streamline-based si-
mulation of non-isothermal two-phase flow in heterogeneous porous media,
Comput. Fluids 103 (2014) 116–131.
[7] M. Siavashi, M.R. Tehrani, A. Nakhaee, Efficient particle swarm optimization of
Well placement to enhance oil recovery using a novel streamline-based objective
function, J. Energy Res. Technol. 138 (5) (2016) 052903.
[8] M. Ahmadpour, M. Siavashi, M. Moghimi, Numerical simulation of two-phase mass
transport in three-dimensional naturally fractured reservoirs using discrete
streamlines, Numer. Heat Transf., Part A: Appl. 73 (7) (2018) 482–500.
[9] M. Siavashi, P. Pourafshary, M. Raisee, Application of space–time conservation
element and solution element method in streamline simulation, J. Pet. Sci. Eng.
96–97 (2012) 58–67.
[10] M.H. Doranehgard, H. Samadyar, M. Mesbah, et al., High-purity hydrogen pro-
duction with in situ CO 2 capture based on biomass gasification, Fuel 202 (2017)
29–35.
[11] Q. Xiong, L. Deng, W. Wang, et al., SPH method for two-fluid modeling of parti-
cle–fluid fluidization, Chem. Eng. Sci. 66 (9) (2011) 1859–1865.
[12] Q. Xiong, S. Aramideh, A. Passalacqua, et al., Characterizing effects of the shape of
screw conveyors in gas–solid fluidized beds using advanced numerical models, J.
Heat Transfer 137 (6) (2015) 061008.
[13] E. Yaghoubi, Q. Xiong, M.H. Doranehgard, et al., The effect of different operational
parameters on hydrogen rich syngas production from biomass gasification in a dual
fluidized bed gasifier, Chem. Eng. Process. - Process Intensif. (2018).
[14] M. Bidabadi, M. Harati, Q. Xiong, et al., Volatization & combustion of biomass
particles in random media: mathematical modeling and analyze the effect of lewis
number, Chem. Eng. Process. - Process Intensif. (2018).
[15] M. Bidabadi, Q. Xiong, M. Harati, et al., Study on the combustion of micro organic
dust particles in random media with considering effect of thermal resistance and
temperature difference between gas and particles, Chem. Eng. Process. - Process
Intensif. (2018).
[16] W. Gao, S. Wang, D.-X. Li, et al., Techno-economic evaluation of biomass-to-
synthesis gas (BtS) based on gasification, Energy Sources, Part B: Econ., Plan.,
Policy 13 (2) (2018) 83–90.
[17] Y. Zhang, B. Li, H. Li, et al., Thermodynamic evaluation of biomass gasification with
air in autothermal gasifiers, Thermochim. Acta 519 (1-2) (2011) 65–71.
[18] Y. Zhang, B. Li, H. Li, et al., Exergy analysis of hydrogen production via biomass
steam gasification and partial oxidation, Environ. Eng. Manage. J. (EEMJ) 10 (7)
(2011).
[19] Y. Zhang, B. Li, H. Li, et al., Exergy analysis of biomass utilization via steam gasi-
fication and partial oxidation, Thermochim. Acta 538 (2012) 21–28.
[20] Q. Xiong, J. Zhang, F. Xu, et al., Coupling DAEM and CFD for simulating biomass
fast pyrolysis in fluidized beds, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 117 (2016) 176–181.
[21] Q. Xiong, Y. Yang, F. Xu, et al., Overview of computational fluid dynamics simu-
lation of reactor-scale biomass pyrolysis, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 5 (4) (2017)
2783–2798.
[22] Q. Xiong, F. Xu, E. Ramirez, et al., Modeling the impact of bubbling bed hydro-
dynamics on tar yield and its fluctuations during biomass fast pyrolysis, Fuel 164
(2016) 11–17.
[23] Q. Xiong, S.-C. Kong, High-resolution particle-scale simulation of biomass pyrolysis,
ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 4 (10) (2016) 5456–5461.
[24] Q. Xiong, S.-C. Kong, Modeling effects of interphase transport coefficients on bio-
mass pyrolysis in fluidized beds, Powder Technol. 262 (2014) 96–105.
[25] Q. Xiong, S. Aramideh, A. Passalacqua, et al., BIOTC: an open-source CFD code for
simulating biomass fast pyrolysis, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185 (6) (2014)
1739–1746.
[26] Q. Xiong, S. Aramideh, S.C. Kong, Assessment of devolatilization schemes in pre-
dicting product yields of biomass fast pyrolysis, Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 33
(3) (2014) 756–761.
[27] Q. Xiong, S. Aramideh, S.-C. Kong, Modeling effects of operating conditions on
biomass fast pyrolysis in bubbling fluidized bed reactors, Energy Fuel 27 (10)
(2013) 5948–5956.
[28] S. Aramideh, Q. Xiong, S.-C. Kong, et al., Numerical simulation of biomass fast
pyrolysis in an auger reactor, Fuel 156 (2015) 234–242.
[29] Q. Xiong, S.-C. Kong, A. Passalacqua, Development of a generalized numerical
framework for simulating biomass fast pyrolysis in fluidized-bed reactors, Chem.
Eng. Sci. 99 (2013) 305–313.
[30] X. Niu, Q. Xiong, J. Pan, et al., Highly active and durable methanol electro-
290
Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 127 (2018) 271–291
oxidation catalyzed by small palladium nanoparticles inside sulfur-doped carbon
microsphere, Fuel 190 (2017) 174–181.
[31] E. Madadi-Kandjani, Q. Xiong, Validity of the spring-backed membrane model for
bubble–wall interactions with compliant walls, Comput. Fluids 96 (2014) 116–121.
[32] H. Lin, Q. Xiong, Y. Zhao, et al., Conversion of carbohydrates into 5‐hydro-
xymethylfurfural in a green reaction system of CO2‐water‐isopropanol, AlChE J. 63
(1) (2017) 257–265.
[33] S. Gur, T. Danielson, Q. Xiong, et al., Wavelet-based surrogate time series for
multiscale simulation of heterogeneous catalysis, Chem. Eng. Sci. 144 (2016)
165–175.
[34] J. Zhang, F. Xu, Y. Hong, et al., A comprehensive review on the molecular dynamics
simulation of the novel thermal properties of graphene, RSC Adv. 5 (109) (2015)
89415–89426.
[35] J. Zhang, Y. Hong, M. Liu, et al., Molecular dynamics simulation of the interfacial
thermal resistance between phosphorene and silicon substrate, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transfer 104 (2017) 871–877.
[36] Q. Xiong, B. Li, J. Xu, GPU-accelerated adaptive particle splitting and merging in
SPH, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184 (7) (2013) 1701–1707.
[37] A. Hajnayeb, M. Nikpour, S. Moradi, et al., A new reference tip-timing test bench
and simulator for blade synchronous and asynchronous vibrations, Meas. Sci.
Technol. 29 (2) (2018) 025203.
[38] R. Azizi, B. Attaran, A. Hajnayeb, et al., Improving accuracy of cavitation severity
detection in centrifugal pumps using a hybrid feature selection technique,
Measurement 108 (2017) 9–17.
[39] H.R. Foruzande, A. Hajnayeb, A. Yaghootian, Nanoscale piezoelectric vibration
energy harvester design, AIP Adv. 7 (9) (2017) 095122.
[40] A. Kaghazian, A. Hajnayeb, H. Foruzande, Free vibration analysis of a piezoelectric
nanobeam using nonlocal elasticity theory, Struct. Eng. Mech. 61 (5) (2017)
617–624.
[41] A. Hajnayeb, S. Khadem, M. Zamanian, Thermoelastic damping of a double-walled
carbon nanotube under electrostatic force, Micro Nano Lett. 6 (8) (2011) 698–703.
[42] R. Bavi, A. Hajnayeb, H.M. Sedighi, Comments on “Nonlinear phenomena, bi-
furcations, and routes to chaos in an asymmetrically supported rotor–stator contact
system” by Philip Varney and Itzhak Green, J. Sound Vib. 336 (2015) 207–226
Journal of Sound and Vibration, 2017. 409: p. 336-342.
[43] R. Attarzadeh, A. Dolatabadi, Numerical study of the effect of surface wettability on
performance of the spray cooling process, Int. J. Comput. Methods Exp. Meas. 4 (4)
(2016) 615–624.
[44] H. Shetabivash, A. Dolatabadi, Numerical investigation of air mediated droplet
bouncing on flat surfaces, AIP Adv. 7 (9) (2017) 095003.
[45] M. Mohammadi, M. Tembely, A. Dolatabadi, Predictive model of supercooled Water
droplet pinning/repulsion impacting a superhydrophobic surface: the role of the
gas–liquid interface temperature, Langmuir 33 (8) (2017) 1816–1825.
[46] M. Mohammadi, M. Tembely, A. Dolatabadi, Supercooled water droplet impacting
superhydrophobic surfaces in the presence of cold air flow, Appl. Sci. 7 (2) (2017)
130.
[47] A. Rahimi, A. Kasaeipoor, A. Amiri, et al., Lattice Boltzmann method based on Dual-
MRT model for three-dimensional natural convection and entropy generation in
CuO–water nanofluid filled cuboid enclosure included with discrete active walls,
Comput. Math. Appl. (2017).
[48] R.Y. Emami, M. Siavashi, G.S. Moghaddam, The effect of inclination angle and hot
wall configuration on Cu-water nanofluid natural convection inside a porous square
cavity, Adv. Powder Technol. (2018).
[49] S. Majid, J. Mohammad, Optimal selection of annulus radius ratio to enhance heat
transfer with minimum entropy generation in developing laminar forced convection
of water-Al2O3 nanofluid flow, J. Cent. South Univ. 24 (8) (2017) 1850–1865.
[50] M. Siavashi, A. Rostami, Two-phase simulation of non-Newtonian nanofluid natural
convection in a circular annulus partially or completely filled with porous media,
Int. J. Mech. Sci. 133 (2017) 689–703.
[51] Potential and prospect of biomass energy utilization, Academic Forum of Xiangshan
Conference, Beijing, China, 2005 p. p. 5.31–6.2.
[52] P. Lv, Z. Yuan, L. Ma, et al., Hydrogen-rich gas production from biomass air and
oxygen/steam gasification in a downdraft gasifier, Renew. Energy 32 (13) (2007)
2173–2185.
[53] D.B. Levin, L. Pitt, M. Love, Biohydrogen production: prospects and limitations to
practical application, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 29 (2) (2004) 173–185.
[54] M. Ni, D.Y.C. Leung, M.K.H. Leung, et al., An overview of hydrogen production
from biomass, Fuel Process. Technol. 87 (5) (2006) 461–472.
[55] A. Demirbaş, Gaseous products from biomass by pyrolysis and gasification: effects
of catalyst on hydrogen yield, Energy Conver. Manage. 43 (7) (2002) 897–909.
[56] A.V. Bridgwater, Principles and practice of biomass fast pyrolysis processes for li-
quids, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 51 (1) (1999) 3–22.
[57] X. Song, Z. Guo, Production of synthesis gas by co-gasifying coke and natural gas in
a fixed bed reactor, Energy 32 (10) (2007) 1972–1978.
[58] C. Franco, F. Pinto, I. Gulyurtlu, et al., The study of reactions influencing the bio-
mass steam gasification process☆, Fuel 82 (7) (2003) 835–842.
[59] L. Shen, Y. Gao, J. Xiao, Simulation of hydrogen production from biomass gasifi-
cation in interconnected fluidized beds, Biomass Bioenergy 32 (2) (2008) 120–127.
[60] W.E. Yang, Handbook of Fluidization and Fluid-Particle Systems, CRC Press, Boca
Raton, 2003.
[61] D.L.O. Kunii, Elsevier, Fluidization Engineering, (2013).
[62] K. Kato, C.Y. Wen, Bubble assemblage model for fluidized bed catalytic reactors,
Chem. Eng. Sci. 24 (8) (1969) 1351–1369.
[63] S.S. Sadaka, A.E. Ghaly, M.A. Sabbah, Two phase biomass air-steam gasification
model for fluidized bed reactors: Part I—model development, Biomass Bioenergy 22
(6) (2002) 439–462.
Q. Xiong et al.
[64] P. Raman, W.P. Walawender, L.T. Fan, et al., Mathematical model for the fluid-bed
gasification of biomass materials, Appl. Feedlot Manure 20 (1981).
[65] R. Radmanesh, J. Chaouki, C. Guy, Biomass Gasification in a Bubbling Fluidized Bed
Reactor: Experiments and Modeling vol. 52, (2006), pp. 4258–4272.
[66] D.A. Nemtsov, A. Zabaniotou, Mathematical modelling and simulation approaches
of agricultural residues air gasification in a bubbling fluidized bed reactor, Chem.
Eng. J. 143 (1) (2008) 10–31.
[67] K.G. Mansaray, A.E. Ghaly, A.M. Al-Taweel, et al., Air gasification of rice husk in a
dual distributor type fluidized bed gasifier, Biomass Bioenergy 17 (4) (1999)
315–332.
291
Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 127 (2018) 271–291
[68] J. RamÍRez, J.J. Martínez, S.L. Petro, Basic Design of a Fluidized Bed Gasifier for
Rice Husk on a Pilot Scale vol. 37, (2007).
[69] D. Andersson, M. Karlsson, Investigation of the Effects of Introducing
Hydrodynamic Parameters into a Kinetic Biomass Gasification Model for a Bubbling
Fluidized Bed, (2014) p. 55.
[70] Q. Miao, J. Zhu, S. Barghi, et al., Modeling biomass gasification in circulating
fluidized beds, Renew. Energ. 50 (2013) 655–661.
[71] C.-z. Wu, X.-l. Yin, L.-l. Ma, et al., Operational characteristics of a 1.2-MW biomass
gasification and power generation plant, Biotechnol. Adv. 27 (5) (2009) 588–592.