Energy Conversion and Management 168 (2018) 98–106

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

Biomass fast pyrolysis in screw reactors: Prediction of spent coffee grounds T

bio-oil production through a monodimensional model
⁎
Fábio Codignole Luz, Stefano Cordiner, Alessandro Manni , Vincenzo Mulone, Vittorio Rocco
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Italy

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

Keywords: In the context of renewable sources exploitation, the thermochemical conversion of biomass may give a sig-
Fast pyrolysis nificant contribution to the flexible and programmable production of electric and thermal power. From this
Distributed activation energy model perspective, the biomass fast pyrolysis conversion process is more than a promising technology but only few
Screw reactor models have been developed so far to describe the behavior of a screw reactor system. This paper is thus focused
Spent coffee grounds
on numerical modeling of a shaftless screw fast pyrolyzer with special attention on the residence time dis-
Residence time distribution
tribution and the definition of the kinetic framework, as well as the heat and mass transfer phenomena re-
presentation. A steady-state model with constant wall temperature has been developed to generate temperature
profile and conversion patterns along the reactor. Residence Time Distribution evaluation has been developed as
well to take into account non-ideal mass conveying characteristics of the proposed reactor design. The reaction
framework, considering the conductive, convective and radiative heat transfer mechanisms, is based on a 4
parallel Distributed Activation Energy Model. The structure includes the three major biomass pseudo-component
occurring in the biomass thermal degradation, namely cellulose hemicellulose and lignin, together with the
moisture evaporation process. The numerical results are compared with results collected experimentally from
the fast pyrolysis of spent coffee grounds in a lab-scale screw reactor. Numerical temperature profiles for both
the gas and solid phase are in good agreement with the experimental ones. The peak bio-oil production has been
observed in the range of 500 °C. The results also show a strong dependence of results on wall temperature and
gas-solid heating rate.

1. Introduction
The sustainability of the current energy model as well as its vul-
nerability to environmental changes are currently considered critical
issues for human development. The planning of effective policies for
carbon mitigation strategies towards sustainable energy conversion
schemes are then required that need to be supported by energy-eco-
nomic-environmental simulation models to assess their economic ef-
fectiveness [1] in the medium and long term [2]. The use of agricultural
residuals has emerged as a viable option [3] to support low carbon
policies and to meet both electric and thermal energy demands with
limited CO2 emissions [4] within the framework of the new distributed
generation paradigm [5]. However, the rather low energy volumetric
content of biomass is a serious shortcoming for this energy source,
especially when compared with traditional fossil fuels, that affects the
handling, storage and transportation phases of the energy production
process [6]. The intermediate conversion of solid biomass into liquid or
gaseous products through biochemical [7,8] or thermochemical
processes [9] improves the energy density characteristics of the fuel.
However, the strong dependence of the performances of these processes
from feedstock characteristics [10] and conversion technology design
aspects [11], makes the design process and then the cost effectiveness
of the entire system rather challenging. Thus the analysis of detailed
information collected from small to full scale experiments, such as those
reported in the available literature are valuable to this aim. As an ex-
ample in [12,9], t∗∗he performances of laboratory scale processes for
pyrolysis of biomass residuals is reported assessing the potential of this
technology. Moreover, new concepts of integrated systems for biofuels
production are currently under deep investigation [13]. In parallel, the
availability of modeling tools is of utmost importance to lead the de-
velopment of these technologies. In the last decades, numerical models
for wastes [14] and biomass conversion with advanced methods based
on three-dimensional modeling [15], have proved their usefulness to
describe, among other processes, torrefaction [16], gasification [17],
fixed bed systems [18] and pyrolysis [19].
Pyrolysis of agricultural residues and urban wastes has proved to be

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: fabio.codignole.luz@uniroma2.it (F. Codignole Luz), cordiner@uniroma2.it (S. Cordiner), alessandro.manni@uniroma2.it (A. Manni),
mulone@uniroma2.it (V. Mulone), rocco@uniroma2.it (V. Rocco).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.04.104

Available online 05 May 2018

0196-8904/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. Codignole Luz et al. Energy Conversion and Management 168 (2018) 98–106

Nomenclature Χ thickness of gas film, –

ΔH specific heat of reaction, J/kg
Parameters
Acronyms
A cross section, m2
C generic normalized species concentration, – BC Boundary Condition
Cp specific heat, J/kg⋅K DAEM Distributed Activation Energy Model
D cylinder diameter, m DEM Discrete Element Modeling
De equivalent cylinder diameter, m MOL Method Of Lines
E emissive power, W/m2 ODE Ordinary Differential Equation
F mass flux, view factor, kg/s, – RTD Residence Time distribution
h heat transfer coefficient, W/m2⋅K SCG Spent Coffee Grounds
H enthalpy, J/kg
HR Heating Rate, K/s Subscripts and superscripts
J radiosity, W/m2
K reaction rate constant, s−1 ab activated biomass
k thermal conductivity, W/m⋅K add added
L reactor length, m amb room environment
m mass, kg a-ua added per unit area
n screw run per second, – a-ul added per unit length
Npart numbers of particles, – ax axial
p atmospheric pressure, Pa b biomass
Pe Peclet number, – c char
pitch screw pitch, m cb covered bed
PM molecular weight, g/mol cd conductive coefficient
Q heat flux, W cv convective coefficient
q̇ unit length heat flux, W/m cw covered wall
R* ideal gas constant, J/K⋅mol eb exposed bed
Re Reynolds number, – ew exposed wall
t time, s exc exchange
T temperature, K g gas, gaseous phase, generic gas species
V velocity, m/s i solid velocity index
w mass% biomass fraction, – j cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin fractions
x char mass fraction, – k generic species index
y char fraction in whole solid bed, – m moisture
z axial coordinate, m N nitrogen
α screw angle, rad R radiative coefficient
ε char and biomass porosity, – reac reaction
∊ emissivity, – s solid
σ standard deviation, dimensionless reactor coordinate, J/ sup supplied
mol, – t tar
Ρ density, kg/m3 Tot total
Φ moisture mass% into wet biomass, – vb virgin biomass
Φ solid bed angle, rad w water, wall
τ transmissivity, dimensionless reactor time, –, – z axial coordinate

an effective process to this aim. Pyrolysis involves rapid feed heating up
with limited oxygen. Products can be classified into three main ones:
bio-liquids, biochar and syngas. The proportion of the three compo-
nents depends on the specific pyrolysis technique and on reaction
parameters [20]. Slow heating processes give maximum char yield with
moderate amounts of tar by-products, while greater liquid yields can be
obtained with high heating rates and short reaction times. The process
is considered slow if the heating time, required to reach the pyrolysis
temperature, is longer than the characteristic pyrolysis reaction time
(< 3 s). The fast pyrolysis process is considered whenever the main
target is the production of a liquid bio-fuel. The most important para-
meters of the process for the liquid yield are the following:
• High heating rate (100–500 K/s) and heat transfer characteristics
• Reaction temperature in the range 425–600 °C
• Short vapor residence time (< 3 s)
• Rapid product gas quenching
The fast pyrolysis process has been considered for residual mate-
rials, such as biomass [21] and wastes [20]. A number of fast pyrolysis
models, focused on the improvement of bio-oil production parameters,
has been developed so far and is available in the literature. Reviews of
the models are available in [22,23], wit∗∗h special regard in the latter
to the production of liquid biofuels. Most of these models are focused on
the analysis of the characteristic effects related to the optimization of
operating parameters, such as biomass and inert flows, maximum
temperature and heating rate [24], and are strongly connected to the
particular device. In this scenario, this paper aims at describing the
detailed operation of a screw reactor, which is a technology that pre-
sents some advantages in terms of flexibility. In the paper, the fast
pyrolysis process in the reactor is represented by means of a numerical
model. Few models have been developed so far in the literature to
describe a screw reactor based system designed for biomass fast pyr-
olysis; recently a specific dimensional analysis for such systems has
been proposed in [25]. In the present paper, the choice of the mono-
dimensional modeling approach has been considered reliable enough to

99
F. Codignole Luz et al.
describe this system since variations in concentration mostly take place
in the axial direction. Continuous reactors present non-ideal flow
characteristics, giving variations in terms of actual residence time oc-
curring due to stratification or undesired back mixing. This behavior
results in a variable residence time for the biomass particles, which can
be effectively described with a probabilistic approach. As the accuracy
in predicting the residence time distribution is a key aspect to model the
heat and mass transfer processes reliably, an axial dispersion model is
proposed in this paper that is considered to evaluate such phenomena
parameters by means of a three-dimensional discrete element model.
Special focus is also given to the definition of the chemical kinetics
framework, and of the mass and heat transfer processes including
conduction, convection and radiation mechanisms by means of a rotary
kiln approach [26]. The simple model here proposed aims at under-
standing the impact of the variation of the operating conditions men-
tioned on the most significant system performance parameters.
The paper is then organized as follows: firstly an overview of the
experimental setup and related pyrolysis modeling is presented; then,
evaluations of the Residence Time Distribution (RTD), and of the en-
ergy and mass transfer are discussed. Finally, experimental results are
presented and then used to both validate the numerical model and
perform a parametric analysis by varying the main design and operating
parameters.
2. Numerical methodology
The approach here proposed consists of the definition of a model,
characterizing the different aspects of each sub model, whose results
are compared with the experimental data collected in a test rig that is
described at the end of this section. Once validated, the model can be
used to provide a deeper knowledge of the inner behavior inside the
reactor in terms of fluid dynamic, thermal, or chemical response. A
simplified scheme of the screw reactor is here reported in Fig. 1.
2.1. Chemical kinetics framework
To estimate the optimal design parameters, reaction rates and
transport phenomena characterization are required. The common ap-
proach used to study the system kinetics is to use small samples sizing
(with a limited inertia, and with homogeneous inner temperature dis-
tribution) and heating rates as close as possible to the full scale system.
In the literature, a number of kinetic mechanisms have been already
proposed consisting of one or two step reactions [27]. In this work, a
Distributed Activation Energy Model (DEAM) [28] has been considered
to have a better characterization of the reaction kinetics. The kinetic
framework implemented is based upon the model proposed by Miller
and Bellan [29] where the energy required to activate the chemical
reactions of the three macro-components, namely, cellulose hemi-
cellulose and lignin, is taken into account. The evaluation of kinetic
constants has been implemented by means of the DAEM model along
Fig. 1. Screw reactor simplified scheme.
100
Energy Conversion and Management 168 (2018) 98–106
with different distribution functions, such as Gaussian or Logistic; re-
action rates have been then numerically integrated into MATLAB
through the Simpson’s 1/3rd rule. In order to take into account the
moisture evaporation, another parallel reaction has been further added
to the basic model. The whole scheme is summarized in Fig. 2.
2.2. Residence time distribution modeling: evaluation of the axial dispersion
effects
The conversion mechanism into reactors does not depend only on
the thermochemical parameters and the average residence time, but
also on the RTD. This depends on secondary patterns in the flow above
the average field. Particles in the reactor are in fact subject to two main
transport mechanisms: convection moving the biomass along the re-
actor, and another one depending on the particle dimension depending
on secondary mixing processes over the radial and axial directions, and
that can be described with a diffusion law. In fact, as reported in the
literature [30–33], in a reactor the solid phase trajectories do not co-
incide with the flow ones, so that residence time is not homogeneous.
The RTD of granular material may then assume very different dis-
tribution shapes, such as mono or multi modal peaked, depending on
the conveying system geometry and operating conditions (such as rpm).
2.2.1. The Fokker-Plank equation
Starting from the general whole mass balance equation, the problem
may be reduced to an equation to be solved numerically (Eq. (1)):
∂Ck →
+ ∇ ·(Ck Vk ) = ∇ ·[D∇ (Ck )] + Cks ̇
∂t (1)
→
where Ck is the concentration of a generic k-th species, Vk the local
velocity, Cks ̇ the chemical source term, while D is the mixing diffusion
coefficient. Since the screw velocity is high (1 rps) for fast pyrolysis, the
mixing process over the radial direction can be considered perfect so
that only the axial term Dax can be considered leading to Eq. (2):
∂Ck → ∂2Ck ∂C
= Dax ∇ ·∇Ck−∇ ·(Ck Vk ) + Cks ̇ = Dax −Vz k + Cks ̇
∂t ∂z 2 ∂z (2)
in which the average axial velocity Vz has been considered in the
convective term. A granular flow modeling occurring in the experi-
mental reactor, has been faced in [34] by means of a tridimensional
Discrete Element Modeling (DEM) approach, so that a cold RTD has
been evaluated and here used for the model calibration instead of ex-
perimental data. Based on the hypothesis of cold flow in the DEM ap-
proach, the reaction term can be avoided from the complete form of Eq.
(1), leading to:
∂Ck 1 ∂2Ck ∂Ck
= −
∂τ Peax ∂σ 2 ∂σ (3)
where Peax = Vz L/ Dax is the axial Peclet number while σ and τ are the
dimensionless reactor coordinate and time defined as σ = z / L and
F. Codignole Luz et al. Energy Conversion and Management 168 (2018) 98–106

Fig. 2. Kinetic framework.

τ = Vz t / L , respectively. This equation is very useful to represent the has been implemented through the definition of a framework pre-
dependence of the axial distribution on convection if compared with viously developed by the authors [35] under the following main as-
diffusion by means of the axial Peclet number. Eq. (3), also known as sumptions:
the Fokker-Plank equation, given the dependence on time and axial
coordinate is a well-known parabolic-hyperbolic (diffusion-convection) (1) Solid and gas phases are radially well mixed and therefore Tg and Ts
partial differential equation that can be solved by different numerical temperatures depend only on z coordinate.
methods. In this case, the Method Of Lines (MOL) has been considered. (2) Variable solid particle sizings.
(3) Gas phase behavior assumed as a perfect gas.
2.2.2. Solution method (4) DAEM kinetics framework based on Miller and Bellan framework
Spatial derivatives have been discretized by a first order forward [29].
Euler method and the consequent Ordinary Differential Equation (ODE)
system has been solved with the ODE15s. The number of grid points 2.3.1. Mass conservation equation
and tolerances have been setup in order to keep the Courant number According to Fig. 4, species k enters the control volume at position z
lower than unity to assure numerical stability. Danckwerts mixed with mass flow rate Fk. The mass flow rate of species k would change
Boundary Conditions (BC) have been used. The tracer injection has according to the reaction rate kk. The mass balance over the control
been faced with a Dirac delta function by means of a unitary pulse input volume for all the species written in the differential form can thus be
at the beginning of the simulation at the spatial coordinate zero. A evaluated as:
rather high number of grid points has been used, i.e. 1500, assuring grid nv
∂Fw,i ∂Fm,i
3
∂Fvb,j,i ∂Fab,j,i ∂Fc,j,i ∂Fg,j,i ∂Ft ,j,i
independence. A parametric analysis on the Peax (and consequently on ∑ + + ∑ + + + +
∂z ∂z ∂z ∂z ∂z ∂z ∂z
Dax since the product Vz L is fixed) ranging initially from 50 to 1000 has i=1 j=1
n
then been conducted. The minimum difference among the three-di- kk Fk
= ∑ ± =0
mensional DEM and convection-diffusion equation has been reached k=1 Vk (4)
with an axial Peclet number value of Peax = 357 and thus an axial
dispersion coefficient Dax ≅ 1·10−5 m2/s with an R2 = 0.985 indicating a that is obtained by summing all the species mass balance equations. In
good correlation. Eq. (4), the nv species velocities are evaluated according to the RTD.
The diffusion coefficient value highlights then a non-negligible ef- The subscripts vb, ab, w, m, c, g, and t represent virgin biomass, acti-
fect of the axial diffusion mechanism. Such an effect stresses the im- vated biomass, water, moisture, char, gas and tar, respectively. The
portance of considering the contribution of a RTD analysis. Once a products and the biomass terms are considered, according to the kinetic
continuous distribution has been evaluated, as reported in Fig. 3, the framework, grouped into cellulose hemicellulose and lignin (j index).
curve E(t) that is the RTD function, can be used as input for the heat and The gaseous phase velocity, that is shared by all the gaseous species and
mass transfer analysis. It is finally worth highlighting that the cold considered as ideal, can be simply derived by the total area
distribution has been assumed valid for the whole conversion process.

2.3. Reactor modeling

Heat transfer represents an important aspect for the design of fast

pyrolysis reactors, mainly to represent chemical kinetics accurately. In
comparison with other types, screw conveyors have unique features in
terms of heat transfer mechanisms, which can be considered similar to
rotary kilns (except for the time depth penetration), and thus the same
approach reported in [26] is used in this paper. Screw speed in fact,
similarly to kilns rotation speed, has a strong influence on heat transfer
coefficients, especially between the wall and the solid bed. The con-
servation and balance of heat Q and mass transfer Freac can be re-
presented schematically in Fig. 4, considering mass flux F of species k,
enthalpy H and velocity V, including reactants, products and inert
species (see nomenclature for details). Fig. 3. Diffusion equation solution over Numerical three-dimensional DEM
Once the RTD has been evaluated, heat and mass transfer modeling data.

101
F. Codignole Luz et al. Energy Conversion and Management 168 (2018) 98–106

n n
kk Fk,z ∂Tk
∑ Vk
ΔHk + ∑ Fk Cpk
∂z
= qȧ − ul
k=1 k=1 (6)

where H is the Fk mass flow specific heat of reaction, Cp the constant

pressure specific heat for the species k and q̇ the heat flow added per
unit length. The first term on the left-hand side represents the reactions
energy contribution, for which the kinetic, heat, and moisture eva-
poration process constants are evaluated according to [29,36,37]. As
already highlighted, since two phases are represented, at least two
equations must be solved to ensure the energy conservation. The first
one describes the energy flux related to the solid bed, including che-
mical reactions and energy exchange between the phases. The energy
Fig. 4. A control volume of the rotary kiln pyrolyzer.
balance over the solid bed can then be written as:

nv 3
conservation that in differential form is formulated as follows: ⎡ ⎤ ∂T
⎢∑ Fw,i Cpw + ∑ Fvb,j,i Cpb + Fab,j,i Cpb + Fc,j,i Cpc ⎥ s
n ∂z
⎡ ⎤ ⎣ i=1 j=1
⎦
∂ ⎢ ∑ Ak ⎥ nv 3 vn 3
⎣ k = 1 ⎦ = ∂ ⎛ FN ⎞ + 1 ⎡ 1 ∂Fw,i 1 ∂Fvb,j,i 1 ∂Fab,j,i ⎡ Fw,i km Fab,j,i k2,j Fab,j,i k3,j ⎤
∑ + ∑ + = −⎢∑ ΔHm + ∑ ΔH2 + ΔH3⎥ + qȧ − ul,s
Vi ⎢ ρw ∂z
⎜ ⎟
∂z ∂z ⎝ ρN Vg ⎠ i=1 j=1 ρb ∂z ρb ∂z Vi Vi Vi
⎣ ⎣ i=1 j=1
⎦
1 ∂Fc,j,i ⎤ ∂ ⎛ Fm,i ⎞ ∂ ⎛ Fg,j,i Ft ,j,i ⎞ + qė − ul (7)
+ + ⎟ + + =0
ρc ∂z ⎥
⎜
∂z ⎝ ρm Vg ⎠ ∂z ⎜ ρg Vg ρt Vg ⎟
⎦ ⎝ ⎠ (5) where q̇a − ul,s is the sum of unit length conductive and radiative heat flux
where Ak is the area associated with the species k and the term FN is for from wall to solid bed, and q̇e − ul the sum of convective and radiative
the sweeping nitrogen flow rate. This equation represents a constraint flux exchanged with the gas phase. For the reaction subscripts, refer to
for the whole mass conservation ensuring the total area conservation as the scheme reported in Fig. 2.
well. Given this equation, and then the gaseous phase velocity, the The last energy balance over the gas phase can be written similarly
momentum equation evaluation can be avoided. to the solid phase one. The energy balance over the gaseous phase can
be written as:
2.3.2. Energy conservation equation nv 3
The reactor, elaborating a multiphase flow, consists of two domains ⎡ ⎤ ∂Tg
⎢FN CpN + ∑ Fm,i Cpm + ∑ Fg,j,i Cpg + Ft ,j,i Cpt ⎥
that should be solved by means of two coupled energy balance equa- i=1 j=1 ∂z
⎣ ⎦
tions: one for the solid phase and one for the gaseous one. Moreover, nv 3
⎡ ∂Fm,i ∂Fg,j,i ∂Ft ,j,i ⎤
reaction energy contributions must be taken into account as well. + ⎢∑ Cpm + ∑ Cpg + Cpt⎥ (Tg−Ts )
Firstly, energy balance over the control volume can be evaluated ac- ∂z ∂ z ∂z
⎣ i=1 j=1
⎦
cording to Fig. 4. At steady state it can be calculated as follows in Eq. nv 3
Ft ,j,i k 4
(6), which is the global formulation of the energy balance equation over = −∑ ∑ ΔH4 + qȧ − ul,g −qė − ul
i=1 j=1 Vg (8)
the whole control volume:

Fig. 5. equivalent electric circuit.

102
F. Codignole Luz et al. Energy Conversion and Management 168 (2018) 98–106

where q̇a − ul,g represents the added unit length heat flux from exposed
wall to gas phase through convection and radiation, and q̇e − ul the ex-
changed convective flux with the solid phase. The set of equations just
shown are solved with MATLAB by means of the ODE15s solver since
the problem is stiff in nature. The problem gives a
[17n v + 4] × [17n v + 4] system, where n v is the number of sub-velocities
coming from the RTD evaluation. Furthermore, to solve the set of or-
dinary differential equations, initial conditions have been provided at
z = 0 . To solve the ODE set, models about heat transfer are required to
close the problem.
2.3.3. Heat transfer modeling
Given the geometry of the reactor, as schematized in Fig. 4, the
thermal energy externally provided flows into the solid bed and then to
the gas fraction across the exposed bed surface and through the covered
bed surface. At the exposed surface, the solid phase is heated by con-
vection and radiation while the bed covered region is heated mostly via
wall conduction. A heat transfer model can be represented by an
equivalent electric circuit as shown in Fig. 5. In this schematization
electric resistances represented by terms as 1/(hk Ak ) and voltage gen-
erators connected with an earthing (zero potential) are used in analogy
with gas, solid and wall temperatures. The circuit red branches re-
present the radiative heat fluxes.
According to the energy balance, heat transfer terms are represented
into the unit length thermal transmittance coefficients hk . Thus, the
heat transfer per unit length can be evaluated by means of the equations
reported in Table 1.
In Table 1, hcd is the conductive heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K),
hcv is the convective heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K) , and hr is the
radiative heat-transfer coefficient. Acw ,Aew ,Acb and Aeb are unit length
area evaluated for the covered wall, exposed wall, covered bed and
exposed bed [35], respectively.
cd
Differently from kiln reactors, in hcw − cb the time penetration depth
has been modified according to the specific application. For the ex-
planation of all symbols refer to the nomenclature.
2.4. Experimental setup
The experimental setup, as reported with a simplified scheme in
Fig. 1, is mainly composed of the following sub-systems: a feeder con-
trolling the biomass flow rate, a tube reactor where the pyrolysis pro-
cess takes place and a recovery section where the products are collected
for analysis. The reactor, made of AISI 304 steel, consists of a tube with
an external diameter of 20 mm, internal 18 mm, and reaction zone of
200 mm in which the screw, made of the same material, transports the
biomass particles from the injection point to the char collector bucket.
The screw presents a shaftless shape; the use of such a geometry, rather
than a classical one, allowed for optimizing the gaseous residence time
thus improving the bio oil yield. The temperature distribution inside the
reactor is a key aspect affecting the fast evolution of the pyrolysis
process. Thus, three zones with increasing temperature can be identi-
fied in the graphical abstract scheme in blue, red and orange, respec-
tively. Two 1 kW resistors have been mounted to sustain the high
temperature profile in the reactor. The ring resistors are controlled with
different set-points in order to have an accurate control of the tem-
(NREL) method [39]. According to [29], the amount of extractive is
summed with the hemicellulose pseudo-component for their similar
response behavior in the fast pyrolysis process.
3. Analysis of results
Numerical results of Spent Coffee Ground (SCG) fast pyrolysis are
here compared with the experimental ones in terms of product yields
over the reactor length. In Fig. 6, the continuous lines represent the
numerical results to be compared with the experimental ones (starred
lines) as collected at the reactor outlet; dashed lines indicates the wall
simulation temperature. In Figs. 7 and 8, experimental-numerical
temperature profiles and heat transfer mechanisms contributions are
reported. The main results obtained are summarized in Table 3.
3.1. Simulation parameters
Input and output parameters are given in Table 2. Biomass prop-
erties are reported while other constants are better detailed in [35].
Biomass, char, gas, tar and nitrogen Cp have been considered as tem-
perature dependent [40] while water and moisture have been con-
sidered constant. As already stated in the section describing the kinetics
of pyrolysis, the polymeric composition is a key aspect. For SCG, the
fractions of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin are 7%, 34% and 59%
with an accuracy of ± 3% [38], respectively. According to the men-
tioned framework, both the kinetic and related reaction energies are
taken from [29]. The reaction constants [36] and related conversion
enthalpies [29] have been used in the implemented heat and mass
transfer framework.
3.2. Discussion
The numerical results are here compared in the following para-
graphs with the experimental data for pyrolysis products and heat
transfer mechanisms, respectively.
3.2.1. Pyrolysis products
The numerical results reported in Fig. 6 with continuous lines are in
good agreement with the experimental results (dashed lines), especially
in terms of temperature prediction for the maximum bio-oil yield
(500 °C). It must be pointed out that by using simplified chemical re-
presentation, at the lowest temperature the biomass cannot be fully
consumed by the whole thermochemical degradation process. In this
case, the use of a DAEM framework is mandatory to predict accurately
Table 1
Heat transfer Equations.
Heat transfer model equations
Wall to bed cd r
qȧ − ul,s = (hcw − cb A cw + hew − eb A eb )(Tw−Ts )
Exchanged cv r
qė − ul = −(heb − g + heb − g ) A eb (Ts−Tg )
Wall to gas cv
qȧ − ul,g = (hew r
− g + hew − g ) A ew (Tw−Tg )
Conductive/Convective coefficients [26]
Covered wall- −1
D [(1 − y ) kb ρb Cpb + ykc ρc Cpc]·n·sinα cosα ⎞
cd ⎛χ p ⎞ + ⎜⎛2
covered bed hcw − cb = 1 ⎟

⎝ kg ⎠ ⎝ pitch
⎠
perature profile inside the reactor. The experimental reactor set-points [35]
and reactor operating conditions are the same as reported in Table 2 for Exposed wall- cv 0.575 −0.292 kg
hew − g = (1.54Reg Res )
gas De
the reactor simulation. As introduced before, biomass pyrolysis gives in
Exposed bed-gas cv 0.535 0.341 −0.341 kg
general three different products: char, condensable vapors and gas. To heb − g = (0.46Reg Res η )
De
monitor the internal temperature variations along the reactor z axis, a Radiative coefficients [35]
moving thermocouple has been inserted into the reactor measuring the Exposed wall- r (Jw − Js )(τg Feb − ew )
hew − eb =
solid temperature. Samples of biomass feedstock have been character- exposed bed Tw − Ts

ized by means of ultimate (with a Vario MACRO cube), proximate Exposed bed-gas r (Js − Eg )(∊g Feb − g )
heb −g =
Ts − Tg
(measuring moisture, light gas and ash content with a LECO TGA 701)
Exposed wall- r (Jw − Eg )(∊g Few − g )
and polymeric components analysis [38]. The polymeric analysis has hew −g =
gas Tw − Tg
been done attending the National Renewable Energy Laboratory

103
F. Codignole Luz et al. Energy Conversion and Management 168 (2018) 98–106

Table 2
Reactor parameters and biomass properties: initial and boundary conditions.
Parameter Symbols Units Values

Biomass mass flow Fb kg/h 0.5

Average axial velocity Vz m/s 0.016
Internal pressure p Pa 101,315
Moisture%w Φ – 0.06
Nitrogen volumetric flow FN NL/min 0.5
Reactor diameter D m 0.02
Reactor length L m 0.25
Screw angle α deg 40
Screw pitch pitch m 0.025
First wall temperature Twall,1 °C 7
Second wall temperature Twall,2 °C 350
Third wall temperature Twall,3 °C 450; 500; 550
Biomass density ρb kg/m3 600
Biomass thermal conductivity [40] kb W/m⋅K 0.11
Char and biomass porosity ε – 0.65
Char density ρc kg/m3 350
Char thermal conductivity [40] kc W/m⋅K 0.071
Gas molecular weight PMg g/mol 20
Gas thermal conductivity [40] kg W/m⋅K 0.026
Initial particles diameter dp m 8.5 · 10−4
Kinematic viscosity [40] ν m2/s 4 · 10−6
Nitrogen molecular weight PMN g/mol 28
Tar molecular weight PMt g/mol 60
Solid and wall emissivity ∊s ,∊w – 0.8
Gas emissivity ∊g – 0.2
Gas transmissivity τg – 0.8
View factors [26] Fw – 1

the low temperature reactions activation (see the activated SCG content
evolution A-SCG). It has already been highlighted that the peak of bio-
oil production, as provided by the model, is obtained at intermediate
temperature. This can be reasonably attributed to the incomplete bio-
mass conversion at lower temperature for the first step reactions, while
at the higher temperature secondary reaction can take place enabling
the bio-oil cracking and increasing the secondary gas yield. The con-
tribution of the DAEM capability is evidently relevant. Since the reac-
tions start at a low temperature, the primary reactions from activated
biomass to char gas and tar have enough time to evolve completely,
while the secondary reactions tar to gas start to take place. Secondary
reactions are clearly evident in Fig. 6 at 550 °C as a variation of the
slope is evident clearly.

3.2.2. Heat transfer mechanism

Furthermore, temperature profiles and heating fluxes for the dif-
ferent mechanisms, for both gaseous products and solid bed are shown
in Figs. 7 and 8. In Fig. 7, the numerical temperature evolution along
the reactor length are compared with the experimental data in the re-
actor central area. The experimental data can be referred to the solid
phase temperature since the thermocouple gets in contact with the
biomass. In this case, Figs. 7 and 8 highlight a small overestimation of
the model in the central area with respect to the experimental data. This
fact could be due to a small underestimation of the conductive heat
transfer term. At low temperature, in fact, the conductive heat flux
gives the highest contribution, while convective heat transfer gets more
important by increasing gaseous velocity as a result of the greater tar,
gas production and moisture evaporation. In the reactor area char-
acterized by higher temperature, due to the high volatile matter pro- Fig. 6. Conversion profiles at 450 °C, 500 °C, 550 °C.
duction rate (mainly bio-oil as vapor), the velocity increases con-
sistently and thus the convection term gets higher value. The radiative
errors. The only exception is the production of gas and biochar at the
heat flux becomes dominant only at high temperatures.
temperature of 450 °C; syngas production is underestimated, while char
In Table 3, the discussed experimental and numerical results are
yield is overestimated by the same absolute error of about 4 points. This
compared. The biomass moisture content is incorporated into the tar
error at that temperature can be attributed to the evaluation of the
yield similarly to what happens in the real experimental testing activ-
kinetic constants K2 and K4; a non-Gaussian form of the distributed
ities. In general, the numerical results appear in good agreement with
activation curve could mitigate this issue. The external thermal power
the experimental data in terms of oil fraction evolution with limited

104
F. Codignole Luz et al.
Fig. 7. Temperature profiles at 450 °C, 500 °C, 550 °C.
Qext requested both for the heating up and the endothermal reactions to
occur can be evaluated at about 200 W for all the cases. This value is in
line with the experimental result of 300 W that includes thermal losses
of about 100 W.
105
Energy Conversion and Management 168 (2018) 98–106
Fig. 8. Heat transfer mechanism profiles at 450 °C, 500 °C, 550 °C.
4. Conclusions
Coffee is one of the most consumed agricultural products thus
producing a large amount of waste in the food sector. For this reason, in
this work, a monodimensional model for the fast pyrolysis SCG in a
screw reactor has been developed and tested. Concerning the model,
RTD by means of a convection-diffusion equation has been solved with
F. Codignole Luz et al. Energy Conversion and Management 168 (2018) 98–106

Table 3
Comparison of experimental and numerical results.
Temp. Bio-Oil [w.%] Gas [w.%] Char [w.%] Unreacted (In Char)% Power supplied [W]

Exp. Model Error Exp. Model Error Exp. Model Error Model Qcd Qc Qsg Qext

450 °C 54.01 ± 0.23

53.33 −1.26 22.03 18.88 14.23 23.95 ± 0.20
27.79 16.03 6.24 157 35 14 192
500 °C 56.09 ± 0.22 56.58 +0.87 21.98 20.6 6.21 21.93 ± 0.19 22.82 4.06 1.66 170 45 14 215
550 °C 54.95 ± 0.24 54.15 −1.45 23.07 23.77 3.03 21.98 ± 0.18 22.08 0.45 0.58 181 56 14 237

the MOL. Coupled mass and energy equations with a DEAM kinetic
framework and heat transfer model have been adapted from kiln re-
actors theory, and validated via a comparison with experimental data.
The main results obtained can be synthesized as follows:
auger, batch and fluidized bed reactors. Energy 2015;93:2384–94.
[12] Stefano C, et al. Biomass pyrolysis modeling of systems at laboratory scale with
experimental validation. Int J Numer Meth Heat Fluid Flow 2018;28(2):413–38.
[13] Rezaei M, Mehrpooya M. Investigation of a new integrated biofuel production
process via fast pyrolysis, co-gasification and hydroupgrading. Energy Convers
Manage 2018;161:35–52.

• The oil concentration trends predicted over temperature are in line [14] Quek A, Balasubramanian R. Mathematical modeling of rubber tire pyrolysis. J Anal
Appl Pyrol 2012;95:1–13.
with the available literature data as well as experimental ones, with [15] Cordiner S, et al. A detailed study of a multi-MW biomass combustor by numerical
yields in the order of 56%. analysis: evaluation of fuel characteristics impact. Energy Procedia 2014;61:751–5.

• The peak of bio-oil production is obtained experimentally at the

[16] Park C, et al. Effect of process operating conditions in the biomass torrefaction: a
simulation study using one-dimensional reactor and process model. Energy
intermediate temperature of 500 °C. 2015;79:127–39.
• The numerical temperature profiles are in agreement with the ex- [17] Vakalis S, Patuzzi F, Baratieri M. Introduction of an energy efficiency tool for small
scale biomass gasifiers – a thermodynamic approach. Energy Convers Manage
perimental ones.
•
2017;131(Suppl. C):1–9.
The heating rate and residence times are in line with the literature [18] Chaurasia A. Modeling, simulation and optimization of downdraft gasifier: studies
data for the fast pyrolysis process. on chemical kinetics and operating conditions on the performance of the biomass

• Heat fluxes between walls and solid-gas phases are in line with re-
sults measured experimentally of about 300 W that includes losses
for an amount of about 100 W.
Concluding, the comprehensive MATLAB code is able to simulate
the fast pyrolysis process in a screw reactor by changing the main si-
mulation parameters (i.e. mass flow, pyrolysis temperature, inert gas
flow, biomass composition) in order to optimize the process yield.
Moreover, the paper shows the potential of using efficiently the SCG
waste with the aim of translating disposed value into remuneration.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Mr. Gianmarco Palma for his key
contribution in this research project. The author Fabio Codignole Luz
acknowledges CSF/CAPES (BEX-11965/13-4) – Brazilian Federal
Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education within the
Ministry of Education of Brazil.
References
[1] Fortes P, et al. Integrated technological-economic modeling platform for energy and
climate policy analysis. Energy 2014;73:716–30.
[2] Liu G, et al. General indicator for techno-economic assessment of renewable energy
resources. Energy Convers Manage 2018;156(Suppl. C):416–26.
[3] Kung C-C, Zhang N. Renewable energy from pyrolysis using crops and agricultural
residuals: an economic and environmental evaluation. Energy 2015;90(Part
2):1532–44.
[4] Tokimatsu K, Yasuoka R, Nishio M. Global zero emissions scenarios: the role of
biomass energy with carbon capture and storage by forested land use. Appl Energy
2016.
[5] Cordiner S, et al. Fuel cell based Hybrid Renewable Energy Systems for off-grid
telecom stations: data analysis from on field demonstration tests. Appl Energy 2016.
[6] Zhang F, et al. Cost, energy use and GHG emissions for forest biomass harvesting
operations. Energy 2016;114:1053–62.
[7] Luz FC, et al. Anaerobic digestion of liquid fraction coffee grounds at laboratory
scale: evaluation of the biogas yield. Energy Procedia 2017;105:1096–101.
[8] Luz FC, et al. Anaerobic digestion of coffee grounds soluble fraction at laboratory
scale: evaluation of the biomethane potential. Appl Energy 2017;207:166–75.
[9] Luz FC, et al. Analysis of residual biomass fast pyrolysis at laboratory scale: ex-
perimental and numerical evaluation of spent coffee powders energy content.
Energy Procedia 2017;105:817–22.
[10] Bhutto AW, et al. Insight into progress in pre-treatment of lignocellulosic biomass.
Energy 2017;122:724–45.
[11] Nam H, et al. Experimental investigation of pyrolysis of rice straw using bench-scale
gasification process. Energy 2016;116:1065–76.
[19] Ferreira SD, et al. Pyrolysis of Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) wastes in a screw
reactor. Energy Convers Manage 2015;92(Suppl. C):223–33.
[20] Lam SS, et al. Progress in waste oil to sustainable energy, with emphasis on pyr-
olysis techniques. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;53:741–53.
[21] Jeong J-Y, et al. Production of bio-oil rich in acetic acid and phenol from fast
pyrolysis of palm residues using a fluidized bed reactor: influence of activated
carbons. Bioresour Technol 2016;219:357–64.
[22] Di Blasi C. Modeling chemical and physical processes of wood and biomass pyr-
olysis. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2008;34(1):47–90.
[23] Bridgwater AV. Review of fast pyrolysis of biomass and product upgrading. Biomass
Bioenergy 2012;38:68–94.
[24] Yang S, Wu M, Wu C. Application of biomass fast pyrolysis part I: pyrolysis char-
acteristics and products. Energy 2014;66:162–71.
[25] Funke A, et al. Dimensional analysis of auger-type fast pyrolysis reactors. Energy
Technol 2017;5(1):119–29.
[26] Li SQ, et al. A mathematical model of heat transfer in a rotary kiln thermo-reactor.
Chem Eng Technol 2005;28(12):1480–9.
[27] Guo J, Lua A. Kinetic study on pyrolytic process of oil-palm solid waste using two-
step consecutive reaction model. Biomass Bioenergy 2001;20(3):223–33.
[28] Cai J, Wu W, Liu R. An overview of distributed activation energy model and its
application in the pyrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2014;36:236–46.
[29] Miller RS, Bellan J. A generalized biomass pyrolysis model based on superimposed
cellulose, hemicelluloseand liqnin kinetics. Combust Sci Technol
1997;126(1–6):97–137.
[30] Sievers DA, et al. Online residence time distribution measurement of thermo-
chemical biomass pretreatment reactors. Chem Eng Sci 2016;140:330–6.
[31] Nachenius R, et al. Residence time distributions of coarse biomass particles in a
screw conveyor reactor. Fuel Process Technol 2015;130:87–95.
[32] Gao Y, Muzzio FJ, Ierapetritou MG. A review of the residence time distribution
(RTD) applications in solid unit operations. Powder Technol 2012;228:416–23.
[33] Wes GWJ, Drinkenburg A, Stemerding S. Solids mixing and residence time dis-
tribution in a horizontal rotary drum reactor. Powder Technol 1976;13(2):177–84.
[34] Cordiner S, et al. Biomass fast pyrolysis process at laboratory scale: residence time
and heating up evaluation in a shaftless screw reactor by means of a discrete ele-
ment model approach. ICHMT DIGITAL LIBRARY ONLINE. Begel House Inc.; 2017
[in press].
[35] Luz FC, et al. Fast pyrolysis in a shaftless screw reactor: a 1-d numerical model. In:
SEEP2017. Bled, Slovenia; 2017.
[36] Cardoso C, et al. Determination of kinetic parameters and analytical pyrolysis of
tobacco waste and sorghum bagasse. J Anal Appl Pyrol 2011;92(2):392–400.
[37] Sharma R, Sheth PN, Gujrathi AM. Kinetic modeling and simulation: pyrolysis of
Jatropha residue de-oiled cake. Renew Energy 2016;86:554–62.
[38] Codignole Luz F, et al. Analysis of Residual Biomass fast pyrolysis at laboratory
scale: experimental and numerical evaluation of spent coffee powders energy
content. Energy Procedia 2017;105:817–22.
[39] NREL. Available from: < http://www.nrel.gov/bioenergy/biomass-compositional-
analysis.html > .
[40] Lu H, et al. Effects of particle shape and size on devolatilization of biomass particle.
Fuel 2010;89(5):1156–68.

106