pubs.acs.

org/engineeringau Article

High-Ash Low-Rank Coal Gasification: Process Modeling and

Multiobjective Optimization
Shailesh Pandey, Vimal Chandra Srivastava,* and Vimal Kumar
Cite This: https://doi.org/10.1021/acsengineeringau.2c00034 Read Online

ACCESS Metrics & More Article Recommendations *

sı Supporting Information
See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

ABSTRACT: The diversification of coal for its sustainable utilization in

producing liquid transportation fuel is inevitable in countries with huge
coal reserves. Gasification has been contemplated as one of the most
promising thermochemical routes to convert coal into high-quality syngas,
which can be utilized to produce liquid hydrocarbons through catalytic
Downloaded via 94.45.76.226 on April 15, 2023 at 13:22:52 (UTC).

Fischer−Tropsch (F-T) synthesis. Liquid transportation fuel production

through coal gasification could help deal with environmental challenges
and renewable energy development. The present study aims to develop an
equilibrium model of a downdraft fixed-bed gasifier using Aspen Plus
simulator to predict the syngas compositions obtained from the
gasification of high-ash low-rank coal at different operating conditions.
Air is used as a gasifying agent in the present study. The model validation
is done using published experimental and simulation results from previous
investigations. The sensitivity analysis is done to observe the influence of the major operating parameters, such as equivalence ratio
(ER), gasification temperature, and moisture content (MC), on the performance of the CL-RMC concerning syngas generation. The
gasification performance of CL-RMC is analyzed by defining various performance parameters such as syngas composition, hydrogen-
to-carbon monoxide (H2/CO), molar ratio, syngas yield (YSyngas), the lower heating value of syngas (LHVSyngas), cold gas efficiency
(CGE), and carbon conversion efficiency (CCE). The combined effects of the major operating parameters are studied through the
response surface methodology (RSM) using the design of experiments. The optimized condition of the major operational
parameters is determined for a target value of a H2/CO molar ratio of 1 and the maximum CGE and CCE using the multiobjective
optimization approach. The high-degree accurate regression model equations were generated for the H2/CO molar ratio, CGE, and
CCE using the variance analysis (ANOVA) tool. The optimal conditions of the major operating parameters, i.e., ER, gasification
temperature, MC for the H2/CO molar ratio of 1, and the maximum CGE and CCE, are found to be 0.5, 655 °C, and 16.36 wt %,
respectively. The corresponding optimal values of CGE and CCE are obtained as 22 and 16.36%, respectively, with a cumulative
composite desirability value of 0.7348. The findings of the present investigation can be decisive for future developmental projects in
countries concerning the utilization of high-ash low-rank coal in liquid fuel production through the gasification route.
KEYWORDS: Aspen Plus, coal gasification, high-ash low-rank Indian coal, sensitivity analysis, response surface methodology

1. INTRODUCTION
Despite the penetration of renewable sources in energy
generation, coal is still consumed as the primary source in
emerging economies, including India, South Africa, and China.
As per current statistics, about 36% of the global power
generation and 28% of the worldwide energy demand are
fulfilled only by coal.1 The total estimated coal reserve in the
world is about 861 billion tonnes; India has the third largest
coal reserve after the United States of America and Russia.2
Coal fulfills 60% of India’s energy demand and is responsible
for about 70% of the total electricity generation.2,3 Many
countries, such as China, South Africa, India, Turkey, the
Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, etc., utilize high-ash or
high-moisture coal for electricity generation, estimated to be
about 45% of the global coal reserves.2,4 About 87% of the total
coal reserves in India are either bituminous or sub-bituminous
© XXXX The Authors. Published by
American Chemical Society
A ACS Eng. Au XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
type having low calorific values and high moisture, ash, and
sulfur contents primarily utilized in power generation.5 The use
of low-rank coal in conventional routes suffers for various
reasons, such as high gaseous and solid pollutant emissions
into the atmosphere, a large quantity of ash disposal, and low
efficiency. Therefore, in emerging economies that are expecting
accelerating industrialization in the future, it is vital to address
the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission issue from the major
contributing sectors in a realistic way without compromising
Received: September 1, 2022
Revised: November 23, 2022
Accepted: November 23, 2022
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsengineeringau.2c00034
ACS Engineering Au
Table 1. Previous Investigations vs Present Study on High-Ash Low-Rank Indian Coal Gasification
modeling
gasification system gasifying agent yes no modeling technique
Previous Investigations
fixed bed steam √ ×
fixed-bed (cogasification) air−steam √ ×
fluidized bed/fixed bed air−steam √ ×
fluidized bed air−steam √ ×
fluidized bed air−steam √ ×
fluidized bed air−steam √ ×
moving bed air−steam √ ×
entrained flow tubular air √ ×
Present Investigation
fixed bed air √ ×
the country’s economic growth. The prospect of addressing the
emission issue through a renewable-only policy does not
convey the major problem of economy-wide emission
abatement in developing countries.6
It is suggested that developing countries having abundant
low-rank coal reserves can utilize their coals to transform large
portions of their growing chemical industries into a gas-
ification-integrated industrial economy to ensure less GHG
emissions without compromising economic growth.3,5,6 There-
fore, cleaner liquid transportation fuel production by utilizing
low-rank coal and using an economical and efficient indirect
coal-to-liquid (ICTL) technology can emerge as one of the
most promising routes in countries looking for future growth
in coal gasification sectors.6,7 ICTL is a two-step process in
which the first step involves clean syngas production through
coal gasification and purification. Syngas converts to various
liquid fuels in the second step through catalytic Fischer−
Tropsch (F-T) synthesis. An advanced Synthol reactor or
SASOL is regarded as the most accepted catalytic FT reactor
technology used to produce liquid fuels, such as gasoline, light
olefins, diesel, etc., from coal-derived syngas.8,9
The first step of coal gasification is a complex thermochem-
ical process used to convert coal into synthesis gas or syngas
through four significant steps: drying, pyrolysis, partial
oxidation, and reduction.10 The syngas produced from coal
gasification consists of hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide
(CO), methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2), small hydro-
carbons, and also some contaminants.1,2,4 Syngas is a building
block for liquid transportation fuel production as well as
various other fuels such as synthetic natural gas, methanol, and
dimethyl ether (DME).11,12 The quality of syngas produced
from the coal gasification process depends on coal contents,
oxidizing agents, and the gasifier type. Among various types of
gasifiers, fixed-, fluidized-, and entrained-bed gasifiers are most
commonly used in industrial applications. The main
advantages of fixed bed downdraft gasification over other
gasifiers are such as easy fabrication and operation, low tar
production, and high-ash feedstock handling capacity.5 It is
reported that fixed-bed downdraft gasification is a more
economical pathway for syngas production as compared to
fluidized-bed gasification.10 Entrained-bed gasifiers lose their
efficiency while handling high-ash coal due to slag formation.2
The most common oxidizing agents used in coal gasification
are air, steam, pure oxygen, and CO2 or their combinations.
Coal gasification using air is considered the cheapest and most
widely adapted route due to the easy availability and
abundance of air in nature.11,12
pubs.acs.org/engineeringau Article
optimization
yes no optimization technique refs
MATLAB × √ 30
Aspen Plus × √ 31
MATLAB √ × MATLAB 32
Aspen Plus × √ 33
Aspen Plus × √ 34
FLUENT × √ 35
FORTRAN × √ 36
FLUENT × √ 37
Aspen Plus √ × RSM present study
Generally, syngas derived from coal using air consists of 50−
60 vol % nitrogen.8,13 The utilization of N2-rich syngas in
liquid transportation fuel production could be an alternative to
classical routes with N2-free syngas.14,15 The generation of such
N2-free syngas, in classical liquid fuel production technologies
such as SASOL and Hydrocarbon Research Inc., from coal
gasification requires an expensive air separation unit (ASU) to
separate N2 from the air.7,8,16 Though using N2-rich syngas in
liquid transportation fuel production may require a larger
equipment size (because of the presence of additional N2),
however, it eliminates the requirement of air separation plants
to feed only O2 to the gasification reactor.17−19 The additional
benefit of N2-rich syngas in the liquid transportation fuel
production process is the elimination of the requirement of a
recycle loop or recycle compressor.20,21 In addition, the N2 in
syngas also helps in the removal of the enormous heat
generated by the catalytic FT-synthesis reactions. Thus, these
benefits of the use of N2-rich syngas balance the higher cost
due to the potential high equipment size during the use of N2-
free syngas.13,22 A continuous coal or biomass to liquid via
gasification and F-T synthesis process has gained attention in
recent years because of its capacity to produce cleaner liquid
transportation fuels and various value-added chemicals.23 In
such processes, syngas is first derived from coal or biomass
using air as an oxidant, and then syngas is cleaned in the
purification step to remove impurities such as small char
particles, moisture, sulfur, ammonia, oxygen, and tar. After the
cleaning step, this N2-rich syngas is used in a catalytic reactor
to produce cleaner liquid fuels.24 For instance, Yan et al.13
reported the successful pilot-scale demonstration of such a
continuous process in their study to convert biosyngas derived
from wood chips having a composition of 47% N2, 21% CO,
18% H2, 12% CO2, and 2% CH4 to aviation turbine range
liquid fuel in a catalytic reactor. Lu et al.21 synthesized gasoline
range hydrocarbons with improved octane quality using N2-
rich cleaned biosyngas with a H2/CO molar ratio of 1
produced from a downdraft fixed-bed gasifier using ambient air
as a gasification medium.
Experimental investigations of syngas production from the
coal gasification process need proper resources and are time-
consuming. Therefore, process modeling can be proven as the
best practice for reducing capital costs and time manage-
ment.25 It has been previously utilized by many researchers to
explore coal gasification processes under different operating
conditions.26,27 For instance, Shahabuddin and Bhattacharya28
performed the process modeling for the gasification of
Victoria’s Loy Yang coal using Aspen Plus simulator. Their
B https://doi.org/10.1021/acsengineeringau.2c00034
ACS Eng. Au XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
ACS Engineering Au pubs.acs.org/engineeringau
study investigated the production of hydrogen-rich syngas
using various gasifying agents such as pure oxygen, steam−
oxygen, and CO2−steam mixtures. The maximum H2/CO
molar ratio was obtained as 0.74 using a steam−O2 mixture as
a gasifying agent. Li et al.29 reported the design and modeling
of an ash agglomerating fluidized-bed gasifier using Aspen Plus
for low-rank Chinese coal to produce synthetic natural gas
(SNG).30−37 The exergy and energy efficiencies of the system
were observed to be 55.3 and 61.5%, respectively, and the
production cost (in CYN or Chinese Yuan) of SNG was found
to be 1.87 CNY/Nm3 by considering the coal price of 250
CNY/t in economic analysis. From the studies cited above, it
can be inferred that utilizing the Aspen Plus simulation tool in
modeling coal gasification processes involving multiple
operating variables is very effective.
Based on the literature survey and the comparative
assessment presented in Table 1, it is evident that the study
involving both the simulation and the multifactor optimization
of the gasification of high-ash Indian coal in fixed-bed gasifiers
using air as an oxidant is scarce. Previous investigations only
focused on analyzing the gasification performance concerning
conventional parametric variations. Therefore, there is an
urgent need to optimize coal gasification process parameters to
obtain the optimal responses concerning envisioned syngas
application in liquid transportation fuel production. To tackle
this problem, RSM is the most exemplary multifactor
optimization method, which uses collective mathematical and
statistical approaches for multiobjective optimization in any
process. RSM has been previously integrated with gasification
process modeling as well as in other fields of research. For
example, Singh and Tirkey24 modeled a downdraft gasifier
using Aspen Plus to study the gasification performance of
Syzygium cumini biomass in an air environment with respect
to hydrogen-rich syngas production. They optimized operating
parameters such as an equivalence ratio at 0.32 and gasification
temperature at 887.87 °C to obtain optimal values of the
hydrogen concentration in syngas as a 0.1 mole fraction, higher
heating value (HHV) of syngas as 3.96 MJ/kg, and cold gas
efficiency (CGE) as 25.23%. Simsek and Uslu38 used RSM to
optimize the CI engine running parameters for the optimum
biodiesel production from canola, safflower, and waste
vegetable oil. Nazari et al.39 optimized the reaction parameters
using RSM for bio-oil production through co-liquefaction of
waste-activated sludge and birchwood sawdust. Liang et al.40
utilized RSM in a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system to
control NOx emission. It is suggested that the H2/CO molar
ratio in syngas, carbon conversion, and gasification efficiency
are the most influencing parameters that need to be considered
during syngas generation for liquid fuel production.7,41 The
novelty of the present work can be inferred from the literature
cited above and the comparative assessment done in Table 1.
Furthermore, the moisture content has not been considered in
previous optimization studies involving high-ash low-rank
Indian coal, which offers another advantage to the present
study.
Therefore, the present study aims to address the research
gap by integrating RSM as a multiobjective optimization tool
coupled with a robust Aspen Plus model to achieve optimal
conditions of syngas generation from high-ash low-rank Indian
coal in a downdraft fixed-bed gasifier with air as a gasifying
agent. For this, an attempt has been made to develop an
equilibrium model of a four-zone downdraft fixed-bed gasifier
using Aspen Plus simulation software. Simulation results of the
C https://doi.org/10.1021/acsengineeringau.2c00034
Article
present model are compared with both the experimental and
the published simulation data to check the reliability of the
present model. The validated model is then used to study the
gasification performance of high-ash low-rank Indian coal in an
air medium to produce high-quality syngas, which can be later
utilized in liquid transportation fuel production. Sensitivity
analysis is performed to study the effect of various operating
parameters such as equivalence ratio (ER), gasification
temperature, and moisture content (MC) on the dry-basis
composition (mol %) of CO, H2, CO2, and CH4 in syngas,
total syngas yield (YSyngas), H2 to CO molar ratio (H2/CO),
the lower heating value of syngas (LHVSyngas), cold gas
efficiency (CGE), and carbon conversion efficiency (CCE).
The multiobjective optimization of gasification parameters is
done using the response surface methodology (RSM). The ER,
gasification temperature, and MC are selected as independent
variables (operating parameters). At the same time, the H2/
CO molar ratio, CGE, and CCE are targeted as the
optimization study’s response variables (performance param-
eters).
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1. Sample Collection and Primary Characterization
The coal sample selected for the performance evaluation was
directly collected from a coal mine, the Rajmahal coal mine
(Eastern Coalfields Limited) located in the eastern part of
India and coded as CL-RMC in this study. The collected raw
CL-RMC was first pulverized with the help of a hammer and
then passed through an IS-sieve having an aperture size of 212
μm for sizing. The moisture content (MC), volatile matter
(VM), fixed carbon (FC), and ash content (Ash) of the CL-
RMC were estimated through proximate analysis performed as
per the ASTM D-(3172−3175). The quantity of carbon (C),
hydrogen (H), nitrogen (N), oxygen (O), and sulfur (S) in
CL-RMC were obtained from the ultimate analysis, carried out
using a 2400-CHNS/O Series-II system of Perkin Elmer as per
ASTM D3176-15 standards. The proximate and ultimate
analyses obtained for CL-RMC are compared with similar
Indian lignite coal reported in a previous study.42 The chemical
formula of the CL-RMC is calculated using the elemental
compositions obtained from the ultimate analysis.
The higher heating value of the CL-RMC (HHVCoal) is
calculated using a correlation based on the proximate analysis
developed by Majumder et al.43,44
HHVcoal (MJ/kg) = 0.03 (ash) 0.11 (MC) + 0.33
(VM) + 0.35 (FC) (1)
In eq 1, the ash, MC, VM, and FC values are taken on the
as-received basis in wt %.
The proximate and ultimate analyses, chemical formula, and
the higher heating value of the CL-RMC are given in Table 2.
2.2. Gasification Model
The gasification model used in the present study is an
equilibrium model. The model calculates the syngas
composition based on the Gibbs free energy minimization, as
described by Kombe et al.45 The approach of thermodynamic
modeling and mass and energy balances used in the present
study are reported in the Supporting Information file.
ACS Eng. Au XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
ACS Engineering Au pubs.acs.org/engineeringau Article

Table 2. Proximate and Ultimate Analysis of Coal (CL- The lower heating value of coal, LHVcoal, is estimated using
RMC) eq 646
42
(*air dried LHVcoal(MJ/kg) = HHVcoal 2.803 × (9H + MC) (6)
components CL-RMC (*dry basis) basis)
moisture (MC) (wt %) 4.9 In eq 6, H and MC represent hydrogen and the moisture
volatile matter (VM) (wt %) 38.48 37.9 content of the coal in weight percent (wt %), respectively. The
fixed carbon (FC) (wt %) 41.96 42.2 HHVcoal (MJ/kg) is estimated using eq 145
ash (wt %) 19.56 19.9
C (wt %) 56.64 55.03
Ysyngas × 12 × (CO% + CO2 % + CH4%)
CCE (%) =
H (wt %) 4.25 3.95 22.4 × C
N (wt %) 1.01 1.12
× 100 (7)
O (wt %) 16.98
S (wt %) 1.56 0.39 In eq 7, CO, CO2, and CH4% denote the compositions of
empirical formulae CH0.894O0.225N0.015S0.01 carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and methane in syngas in
dry HHV (MJ/kg) 25.48 20.68 volume percentage (vol %) on a dry basis, respectively, and C
is the elemental carbon in coal in wt % on a dry basis.
2.3. Operating and Performance Parameters 2.4. Model Development
The major operating parameters are the equivalence ratio Model development in the present study is performed using
(ER), gasification temperature, and moisture content (MC) of Aspen Plus simulation software. Aspen Plus is the most widely
the coal. The gasification performance of CL-RMC is evaluated used simulation tool to simulate the gasification process of the
in terms of various performance parameters such as syngas different types of solid fuels.47−50
composition, H2/CO molar ratio in syngas, syngas yield The structure of the simulation streams is defined based on
(YSyngas), the lower heating value of syngas (LHVSyngas), cold the stream class selected. The MIXCINC stream class is
gas efficiency (CGE), and carbon conversion efficiency (CCE). selected to model the coal gasification process in the present
The operating parameter, ER and performance parameters study. This stream class consists of three substreams, i.e.,
such as YSyngas, LHVSyngas, CGE, and CCE used in the present MIXED, CISOLID, and NC. The Peng−Robinson (PR)
study are defined as follows: model was used to estimate the thermodynamic properties of
ER relates to both availabilities of oxygen for combustion various species involved in the gasification process.48 The
and the attainability of gasification temperature. In the present nonconventional model, such as HCOALGEN, is used to
study, ER was calculated as per the definition given in eq 22 estimate the heat capacity, the heat of formation, and the heat
of combustion of nonconventional components like coal and
i mass of actual air yz ij mass of stoichiometric air yz
ER = jjj zz /jj zz ash. The DCOALIGT model was used to calculate the density
k mass of coal { k mass of coal { of nonconventional components (coal and ash).47
(2) 2.5. Model Assumptions
The YSyngas, LHVSyngas, CGE, and CCE were estimated using The equilibrium modeling of the coal gasification process in a
eqs 3−723,24 downdraft fixed-bed gasifier is done based on various
flow rate of syngas (Nm 3/h) assumptions as follows:45,47
Ysyngas =
flow rate of coal feed (kg/h) (3) (1) The simulation is zero-dimensional, and the reaction
processes in coal gasification are assumed to be
LHVsyngas (MJ/Nm3) = 35.81xCH4 + 12.63xCO + 10.79x H2 isothermal and at a steady state.
(4) (2) Particle size distribution of the coal is not considered in
where, xi denotes the volume fractions of each component of the simulation.
the syngas on a dry basis. (3) The gasifier unit is assumed to be in a state of
Ysyngas × LHVsyngas thermodynamic equilibrium, which means all the
CGE (%) = × 100 reactants take sufficient residence time in the reactor
LHVcoal (5) so that the reaction system approaches the state of

Table 3. Major Reactions Occurring in Different Zones of the Gasifier

reaction no. reaction reaction type nature

R1 H2O → steam coal drying endothermic
R2 coal → char + volatiles coal devolatilization
R3 C + 0.5O2 → CO char partial combustion exothermic
R4 C + CO2 ⇌ 2CO Boudouard reaction endothermic
R5 C+ H2O ⇌ H2 + CO water−gas reaction endothermic
R6 C + 2H2 ⇌ CH4 methane formation enxothermic
R7 CO + 0.5O2 → CO2 CO partial combustion enothermic
R8 H2 + 0.5O2 → H2O hydrogen partial oxidation exothermic
R9 CO + H2O ⇌ CO2 + H2 water−gas shift reaction exothermic
R10 CH4 + H2O ⇌ CO + 3H2 steam−methane reforming endothermic

D https://doi.org/10.1021/acsengineeringau.2c00034
ACS Eng. Au XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
ACS Engineering Au
Figure 1. Process flowsheet for equilibrium modeling of the coal gasification process in a downdraft fixed-bed gasifier.
chemical equilibrium. This assumption has been adopted
to make simulation easier.
(4) The coal feeds are initially in standard conditions (25 °C
and 1 atm).
(5) The final product from the gasification unit is composed
of nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2), hydrogen (H2), carbon
monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), and methane
(CH4), and all these gaseous components behaved as
ideal gases.
(6) The sulfur present in coal samples does not take part in a
chemical equilibrium reaction, and the formation of
various sulfur-associated pollutants is neglected in the
process.
(7) The char produced from gasification consists of solid
carbon (C) and ash alone. The tar formation is
neglected.
2.6. Process Flowsheet and Simulation Procedure
The actual gasification process is usually performed in a single
reaction vessel system. The process occurs in a series of steps
within the reaction vessel, which can be designated as process
steps. Generally, the process of coal gasification in a downdraft
fixed-bed gasifier is described by dividing the overall process
into different reaction zones. The typical reactions occurring in
different zones of the gasifier are given in Table 3.48−50 The
process flowsheet of the coal gasification process in a
downdraft fixed-bed gasifier using air as an oxidant is shown
in Figure 1. The details of unit operations and Aspen Plus
blocks are given in Table S1 in the Supporting Information file.
In the first step, the CL-RMC denoted as WET-COAL in
the process flowsheet is fed into a dryer to remove the
moisture content. In the WET-COAL stream, coal (CL-RMC)
is defined as a nonconventional component by utilizing
proximate and ultimate analyses. The coal drying process is
simulated using the RStoic type Aspen Plus reactor model,
pubs.acs.org/engineeringau Article
designated as the R-DRY block in the process flowsheet on the
basis of the global coal drying stoichiometric reaction as given
in eq 8.
coal (wet) 0.0555084 H 2O (8)
The coal drying in the R-DRY block is controlled using a
calculator block depicted as the MOIST-CALCULATOR in
the process flowsheet. The calculator block uses the following
FORTRAN statement in terms of moisture conversion
(CONV) to control the coal drying process.
ij H O H 2Oout yzz
CONV = jjj 2 in z
j 100 H 2Oout zz
k { (9)
In eq 9, H2Oin and H2Oout are the percentage moisture
contents of coal in the WET-COAL stream and IN−SEP
stream, respectively.
The Aspen Plus default separator model, FLASH2,
represents the FLSH-DRY block in the process flowsheet.
The moisture content removed from the WET-COAL stream
is separated from the DRY-COAL stream as a MOISTURE
stream from the FLSH-DRY separator. The second step
involves the devolatilization of dry coal (DRY-COAL) in the
R-DCMP block to convert the nonconventional components
of coal into conventional volatiles and char. The R-DCMP
block in the process flowsheet is simulated using an RYield-
type reactor model. The volatiles obtained from the R-DCMP
block are composed of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen,
and sulfur, and char is composed of ash and carbon (solid).
The actual distribution of the yields of conventional
components inside the R-DCMP block is controlled by a
FORTRAN statement written in a calculator block DCMP-
CALCULATOR, as shown in the process flowsheet. The R-
CMB block (RGibbs reactor model) in the process flowsheet is
used to simulate the partial-oxidation zone of the gasifier,
E https://doi.org/10.1021/acsengineeringau.2c00034
ACS Eng. Au XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
ACS Engineering Au pubs.acs.org/engineeringau Article
n
where the air is supplied as an oxidant to gasify decomposed
components. Thereafter, the product from R-CMB is sent to SSR = (yi yj )2
the R-GSFR block for reduction, which is simulated using an i=1 (12)
RGibbs Aspen Plus reactor model. The R-CMB and R-GSFR n
n
y2
i=1 i
blocks are based on the concept of Gibbs free energy SST = yi2
minimization and are responsible for determining the final i=1
n (13)
composition of syngas. The governing reactions of the
reduction zones are R4−R6 and R9−R10. Finally, the syngas where observations and model-fitted observations are denoted
and unreacted carbon and ash coming out of the R-GSFR were by yi and yj. The statistical significance of a model and its
separated in the SYN−SEP block as SYNGAS and SOLID, various terms are defined based on the value of a critical model
respectively. The Aspen Plus solid separator model SSPLIT parameter known as the p-value. The p-value tests the null
was used to simulate the SYN−SEP block of the process hypothesis to determine the relationship between the
flowsheet. independent and dependent variables in a regression model.
The p-value should be less than 0.05 for a significant factor in
2.7. Response Surface Methodology (RSM)
the regression model. The formula used to calculate R2 is given
In this study, the statistical analysis was performed by the as eq 14
response surface methodology (RSM) using the design of
SSR
experiments (DOE) technique. The objective is to develop a R2 = 1
regression-based mathematical model for characterizing system SST (14)
performance and then optimizing the process performance by 2.7.1. Multiobjective Optimization. During the multi-
considering the interactions between the major factors. Three objective optimization study, ER, gasification temperature, and
input parameters, such as ER, gasification temperature, and MC were taken as independent or decision variables, and the
MC in the ranges of 0.1−0.5, 500−1050 °C, and 4−40%, were H2/CO molar ratio, CGE (%), and CCE (%) were chosen as
considered for the analysis. Aspen Plus model results obtained response variables. Determining the best optimal condition
in the present study were used as response variables in Minitab depends on the dimensionless desirability value, which ranges
statistical analysis software to develop a design matrix. The from 0 to 1. The d value is 0 for unacceptable responses and 1
regression model equations between input and response for desirable responses.49,50 The optimization is performed to
variables were constructed by the analysis of variance target the H2/CO molar ratio value to 1, along with
(ANOVA) technique. In the present study, the two-level full maximizing CGE (%) and CCE (%). The inbuilt optimizer
factorial with a central composite design (CCD) with α = 1 tool in Minitab statistical software has been employed to
was implemented. The stepwise backward elimination method achieve the best operational conditions of the current process.
is further used to remove the model terms that were not 2.8. Model Validation
statistically significant, and the value of α for the corresponding
objective was chosen as 0.1. A total of 20 runs performed in Model validation was performed to test the accuracy of the
Aspen Plus, which consisted of six cube points, six center simulated model. The experimental results reported in studies
points in the cube, and six axial points in the cube. The coded published by Jayah et al.51 and Upadhyay et al.52 were used to
values of 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 ER, 500, 775, and 1050 °C validate the present model. The model was also validated using
gasification temperature, and 4, 22, and 40% MC were assigned published simulation results reported by Kombe et al.45 The
as −1, 0, and +1 respectively. ANOVA utilizes 90% of the feedstock characterizations used in studies selected for result
significance level to create a regression model for response comparison are given in Table 4. In the study by Jayah et al.,51
variables and to assess the regression model quality and
significance of input factors and their combined effects. The Table 4. Proximate and Ultimate Analysis of the Feedstocks
regression equations are polynomial quadratic-type equations Used for Validation
used to express the relationship between independent and rubber sugarcane indian
response variables. A general polynomial quadratic equation feedstocks wood51 bagasse45 lignite52
can be written as5,45 Proximate Analysis (Dry Basis wt %)
n n n 1 n volatile matter (VM) 80.1 80.5 47.3
y= 0
+ x +
i i
x2 +
ii i
xx +
ij i j
fixed carbon (FC) 19.2 16.2 24.3
i=1 i=1 i=1 j= 1 (10) ash 0.7 3.3 28.4
Ultimate Analysis (Dry Basis wt %)
In eq 10, y represents the response variable, x stands for the C 50.6 48.1 40.6
independent variable, n denotes the number of factors, β H 6.5 5.9 4.8
denotes the coefficients of the quadratic equation, and φ N 0.2 0.15 1.6
represents the statistical error. O 42 42.55 16
A statistical parameter to assess the accuracy of the S 0 0 8.6
regression model is denoted by R2adj and expressed by the
following formula.48
rubber wood was gasified in a laboratory-scale downdraft
2 SSR/n p (1 R2)(n 1) gasifier at 900 °C and 1 atm using air as an oxidant. In their
R adj =1 =1 study, a total of nine experiments were performed, out of
SST/n 1 1 p (11)
which the results obtained from the first four sets of
In eq 11, SSR and SST represent the square of the residual experiments were selected for validation, performed at the
error and the total sum of the square error, respectively, and air-to-fuel ratios of 2.02, 2.2, 2.34, and 1.96. The comparisons
calculated as per eqs 12 and 13 of dry-basis concentrations of CO, H2, CO2, and N2 gases are
F https://doi.org/10.1021/acsengineeringau.2c00034
ACS Eng. Au XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
ACS Engineering Au
Figure 2. Comparison of (a) CO (mol %), (b) H2 (mol %), (c) CO2 (mol %), and (d) N2 (mol %) between the present model results and
experimental results of Jayah et al.51 and the simulation results of Kombe et al.45 (e) Comparison of the dry gas output (kg/h) between the present
model results and experimental results of Upadhyay et al.52
shown in Figure 2a−d, respectively. The concentrations of
CH4 were not considered for validation as the predicted value
of CH4 concentrations was found as close to zero. The
concentrations of CH4 were also found as negligible in the
studies published by Jarungthammachote and Dutta53 and
Baratieri et al.54 Under-prediction of CH4 concentration in
equilibrium modeling is very common due to complete
conversion of CH4, whereas due to a short residence time,
the actual gasifiers are unable to achieve the state of
thermodynamic equilibrium. The absence of CH4 as the
main constituent of product gases confirms the reliability of the
present simulation model.48 In the second experimental
work,52 the air−steam gasification of Indian low-rank high-
ash type lignite coal was performed in a fixed-bed gasifier in the
range of the steam to lignite ratio of 0 to 0.48. The dry-basis
compositions of gases are compared and are shown in Figure
2e. The validation with experimental studies here is done by
pubs.acs.org/engineeringau Article
fixing the moisture contents of the feedstocks and gasification
temperature at 4.04% and 1000 °C, respectively.
The deviation of the developed model predictions with
experimental results was quantified by defining a statistical
parameter, i.e., root-mean-square error (RMSE), which is
expressed as eq 15.48,49
(X e X p)2
RMSE =
N (15)
where Xe is the result obtained from experimental works and
Xp is the prediction from the developed simulation model. N is
the total number of data sets. The average RMSE is calculated
for dry gas molar compositions of N2, H2, CO, CO2, and the
dry gas output (kg/h) as given in Table S3 in the Supporting
File. The maximum and minimum RMSE values were found
for the dry gas output (kg/h) and H2 (mol %) as 2.89 and 1.8,
G https://doi.org/10.1021/acsengineeringau.2c00034
ACS Eng. Au XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
ACS Engineering Au pubs.acs.org/engineeringau Article

Figure 3. Effect of ER on (a) dry syngas composition (mol %), (b) H2/CO molar ratio (mol/mol), (c) YSyngas (Nm3/kg) and LHVSyngas (MJ/
Nm3), and (d) CGE (%) and CCE (%).

respectively. These RMSE values are perfectly acceptable on
the basis of the consideration that the simulation model
ignores the reaction kinetics and fluid hydrodynamics inside
the gasification system.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. Sensitivity Analysis
3.1.1. Effect of ER. As per the definition of ER used in the
present study, increasing the ER value or increasing the air
supply results in coal gasification reactions approaching
combustion; decreasing the ER value or reducing the oxidant
supply causes reactions approaching pyrolysis.55 The ER range
selected was 0.1−0.5, and the gasifier was assumed to be
initially operated at 900 °C and 1 atm. The sensitivity analysis
with respect to ER is depicted in Figure 3.
The influence of ER on dry-basis concentrations (mol %) of
CO, H2, CO2, and CH4 in the syngas, is shown in Figure 3a.
On increasing ER, the concentrations of H2 decrease in the
syngas, while an opposite trend was observed in the case of
CO2. This is due to the shifting of the process from pyrolysis to
gasification.56 The change in the concentration of CO in
syngas on increasing air supply was found to be marginal (less
than 1%) in the present study as it rose from 29.92 to 30.81%
H https://doi.org/10.1021/acsengineeringau.2c00034
in the selected ER range. This may be due to increased carbon
conversion on the enhanced air supply. The concentration of
CH4 decreases with increasing ER due to the availability of less
H2 as a reactant, as per the methanation reaction, R6. The
compositions of H2 and CO2 in the product gas were initially
obtained as 52.14 and 1.34%, respectively, at ER = 0.1. On
increasing the ER, the concentrations of H2 and CO2 in syngas
were recorded as 28.24 and 1.44%, respectively, at ER = 0.5. As
depicted in Figure 3b, The ER negatively affected the H2/CO
molar ratio as it decreased by enhancing the ER values. The
H2/CO molar ratio decreased from 1.74 to 0.91 with a
negative trend in the selected ER range. Similar observations
with respect to the effects of ER on H2, N2, CH4, and CO2
concentrations in syngas and the H2/CO molar ratio have
been made by other authors in their literature.48,49,56 The N2
concentration in syngas was not depicted since N2 only
behaves as a dilute component in the subsequent catalytic F-T
synthesis. At any point, its concentration can be estimated by
subtracting the sum of concentrations of other components
from 100%.23
Figure 3c depicts the variation of YSyngas and LHVSyngas with
ER. An increasing trend in YSyngas and a decreasing trend in
LHVSyngas were observed when the ER values were increased
from 0.1 to 0.5. The YSyngas increased from 0.867 Nm3/kg at
ACS Eng. Au XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
ACS Engineering Au
Figure 4. Effect of temperature on (a) dry syngas composition (mol %), (b) H2/CO molar ratio (mol/mol), (c) YSyngas (Nm3/kg) and LHVSyngas
(MJ/Nm3), and (d) CGE (%) and CCE (%).
ER = 0.1 to 1.62 Nm3/kg at ER = 0.5. A similar trend was
reported by Lahijani et al.57 They experimentally investigated
the gasification performance of sawdust and palm empty fruit
bunch (EBF) in a bubbling fluidized bed and reported the
increasing trend of YSyngas and decreasing trend of LHVSyngas
with ER. The LHVSyngas decreased from 9.79 to 7.05 MJ/Nm3
on increasing ER from 0.1 to 0.5. The LHVSyngas decreased on
increasing ER due to reduced compositions of CO, H2, and
CH4 and an enhanced concentration of N2 in syngas due to an
increased air supply.23,57
The effect of ER on CGE and CCE is illustrated in Figure
3d. Both the CGE and CCE values were enhanced with an
increase in ER. The CGE increased from 35.03% at ER = 0.1
and to 47.35% at ER = 0.5. This significant change in CGE was
due to simultaneous variation of the syngas yield and LHVsyngas
with ER. The CCE was initially recorded as 26.60% at ER =
0.1, and then it increased to 50.24% at ER = 0.5. Similar trends
of CGE and CCE were observed in the simulation work
published by Favas et al.56 and in the experimental studies
reported by Lahijani et al.57 and Jamin et al.58
3.1.2. Effect of Gasification Temperature. In the coal
gasification process, temperature has been proven as the most
crucial parameter to maintain syngas consistency in the
product gas stream. The gasification temperature influences
the chemical reactions (i.e., R1−R10) occurring in different
pubs.acs.org/engineeringau Article
zones of the gasifier. Therefore, both the quality and the
concentration of gaseous species changes in the product gas
stream because of changes in the gasification temper-
ature.23,58,59 The temperature range of 500−1050 °C was
selected for the sensitivity analysis. Figure 4 represents the
effect of temperature variation on the dry gas compositions,
H2/CO molar ratio, YSyngas, LHVSyngas, CGE, and CCE.
From Figure 4a, it can be observed that the concentrations
of CO and H2 in the syngas are improved due to temperature
enhancement. However, a continuous decrease in the
compositions of CO2 and CH4 was observed in temperature
increments. The variation in compositions of these gases with
temperature is due to the endothermic nature of reactions R4
(Boudouard), R5 (water−gas), and R10 (steam−methane
reforming), and the exothermic nature of reactions, R6
(methanation) and R9 (water−gas shift). As per Le Chatelier’s
principle, the equilibrium of an endothermic reaction shifted
toward the product direction on increasing the reaction
temperature, while exothermic reactions behave in just the
opposite manner.43,45 The concentrations of CO and H2 in
syngas increase with an increase in temperature due to
reactions R4, R5, and R10, and the concentrations of CH4 and
CO2 decrease due to equilibrium shifts of reactions R6 and R9
toward the reactant direction. Less formation of H2 at higher
temperatures is due to the insufficient availability of steam or
I https://doi.org/10.1021/acsengineeringau.2c00034
ACS Eng. Au XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
ACS Engineering Au
Figure 5. Effect of MC on (a) dry syngas composition (mol %), (b) H2/CO molar ratio (mol/mol), (c) YSyngas (Nm3/kg) and LHVSyngas (MJ/
Nm3), and (d) CGE (%) and CCE (%).
CH4 in reactions R5 and R10. The CO concentration increases
from 2.7% at 500 °C to 33% at 1050 °C. The CO 2
concentration decreases from 15.44 to 0.05% in the selected
temperature range. The H2 concentration in syngas increases
from 17. 04 to 28.58% due to temperature enhancement. On
increasing the temperature from 500 to 1050 °C, the CH4
concentration in syngas decreases from 5.07 to 0.04%. The
simulation result of the present study was found to be
consistent with previous data reported by other authors.45,48,51
As shown in Figure 4b, there is a decrease in the H2/CO molar
ratio value that was observed on temperature increment. The
H2/CO molar ratio decreases from 6.29 to 0.82 in the selected
temperature range. The plot of H2/CO molar ratio with
temperature shows similar trends as was reported in the study
published by Han et al.23
The effect of temperature on YSyngas and LHVSyngas is shown
in Figure 4c. A total of 37.38% increase in the YSyngas value was
noted on increasing the temperature from 500 to 1050 °C. The
increase in the YSyngas value between 500 and 850 °C was
higher due to the domination of pyrolysis over gasification in
the lower temperature range, which results in more syngas
generation.45 Simulation results obtained for YSyngas in the
present study were found consistent with the findings of Han
et al.23 The behavior of LHVSyngas with respect to temperature
enhancement was found similar to YSyngas. It was due to more
product generation from the reactions R4, R5, and R10 at
pubs.acs.org/engineeringau Article
higher temperatures. LHVSyngas increased from 3.99 MJ/Nm3
at 500 °C to 7.37 MJ/Nm3 at 1050 °C. A similar trend of
LHVSyngas with temperature was reported by Lahijani et al.57
Figure 4d depicts the effect of gasification temperature on
CGE and CCE. Both CGE and CCE proportionally increase
with temperature enhancement. About 49.73% CGE is
achieved up to a temperature of 850 °C, and after that, only
a 2.14% increase in the CGE value was observed on further
increase in temperature up to the maximum value. An increase
in CGE was due to shifting the equilibrium of the reactions R4,
R5, and R10 toward the product direction at higher
temperatures. The carbon consumption increases in endother-
mic reactions R4, R5, and R10 due to an increase in
temperature.48,51 The maximum values of CGE and CCE
were obtained as 51. 87 and 54.88%, respectively, at 1050 °C.
3.1.3. Effect of MC (%). The sensitivity analysis of the coal
gasification process concerning the moisture content in the
coal has been studied in the MC range of 4−40 wt %. Figure 5
represents the variation of various performance parameters
with MC.
Moisture present in the coal or MC takes part in the
chemical equilibrium system inside the gasifier as per reactions
R5, R9, and R10. MC also causes temperature reduction of the
oxidation zone of the gasifier due to the extra energy required
for coal drying. It helps the pyrolysis reaction by providing
more steam produced via autogeneration.45,48 At lower MC,
J https://doi.org/10.1021/acsengineeringau.2c00034
ACS Eng. Au XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
ACS Engineering Au
Figure 6. Optimization of the H2/CO molar ratio. (a) Pareto chart for the standardized effect, (b) contour plot of interaction effects of
temperature (°C) and ER, (c) contour plot of interaction effects of MC (%) and ER, and the (d) contour plot of interaction effects of MC (%) and
temperature (°C).
the equilibrium of the water−gas shift reaction, R5, shifts
toward the product direction due to the high temperature of
the oxidation zone. On increasing the MC, the reaction
equilibrium changes its direction toward the reactant side and
produces more CO, and reduces H2 concentrations. As shown
in Figure 5a, the CO concentration increases from 33.90% at
MC = 4% to 34.08% at MC = 40%. The H2 concentration in
syngas was found to be decreased from 28.74 to 21.5%, while
the increase in the CO2 concentration was found to be
marginal. The sensitivity results with respect to MC were
validated against the experimental data reported by Han et al.23
in which, the moisture content of wood chips was increased
from 0 to 30 wt %. The effect of MC on the H2/CO molar
ratio is illustrated in Figure 5b. The H2/CO molar ratio
decreased from 0.84 to 0.63. This may be due to the effect of
MC on the temperature and reactant concentration of the
water−gas shift reaction, R9, and also due to an increase in the
concentration of CO on moisture addition.
The effect of moisture content on YSyngas and LHVSyngas is
presented in Figure 5c. The YSyngas decreased gradually from
pubs.acs.org/engineeringau Article
1.71 Nm3/kg at MC = 4% to 1.43 Nm3/kg at MC = 40%. The
LHVSyngas decreased from 7.39 to 6.63 MJ/Nm3 on increasing
the MC from 4 to 40%. Similar observations for the effect of
MC enhancement on YSyngas and HHVSysngas were reported by
Singh and Tirkey.47
The variation in CGE and CCE values with MC enhance-
ment is illustrated in Figure 5d. The CGE decreased from
49.67 to 37.24% in the selected MC range, i.e., 4−40%. A
similar trend of CGE was observed in simulation studies
published by Singh and Tirkey47 and Kombe et al.45 The CCE
decreases with an increase in the MC value. The CCE
decreased from 52.19 to 39.13%, increasing the MC from 4 to
40%.
3.2. Response Surface Methodology
3.2.1. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Regression
analysis was performed based on the design matrix given in
Table S3 in the Supporting Information File. The ANOVA
results of response variables such as the H2/CO molar ratio,
CGE (%), and CCE (%) involving only significant terms are
shown in Tables S4−S6 in the Supporting Information File.
K https://doi.org/10.1021/acsengineeringau.2c00034
ACS Eng. Au XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
ACS Engineering Au pubs.acs.org/engineeringau Article

Figure 7. Optimization of CGE (%). (a) Pareto chart for the standardized effect, (b) contour plot of interaction effects of temperature (°C) and
ER, (c) contour plot of interaction effects of MC (%) and ER, and the (d) contour plot of interaction effects of MC (%) and temperature (°C).

The F-values and the P-values were used to check the statistical regression model is sufficiently accurate for predicting the
importance of the regression model, factors, and its various
terms, as listed in Tables S4−S6. A higher F-value means a response variables. The regression model equations in uncoded
higher significance of the source on the response variable.60 A
P-value less than 0.05 is assumed to be significant.61 The units, including only the significant terms, are illustrated as eqs
backward elimination approach is used to remove non-
significant terms from the regression models. As shown in
Tables S4−S6, for all of the response variables, each term of 16−18.
linear models, square term of temperature (°C), and the two-
way interaction terms of ER and temperature (°C) and
temperature (°C) and MC (%) are observed to be significant. H 2 /CO molar ratio
The accuracy of regression models is assessed on the basis of = 51.44 29.12 ER 0.09869 temperature (°C)
coefficients of determinations (R2, R2Adj, and R2Pred) given in 0.0855 MC (%)
Table S7. The values of R2 were observed to be 98.22, 99.28,
and 99.35% for the regression models of the H2/CO molar + 0.000048 temperature (°C) × temperature (°C)
ratio, CGE (%), and CCE (%), respectively. The R2Adj values
the H2/CO molar ratio, CGE (%), and CCE (%) were 97.40, + 0.02733 ER × temperature (°C) + 0.000080 temperatu
98.94, and 99.04%, respectively. On the basis of values of re (°C) × MC (%)
coefficients of determinations, it can be said that the developed (16)

L https://doi.org/10.1021/acsengineeringau.2c00034
ACS Eng. Au XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
ACS Engineering Au
Figure 8. Optimization of CCE (%). (a) Pareto chart for the standardized effect, (b) contour plot of interaction effects of temperature (°C) and
ER, (c) contour plot of interaction effects of MC (%) and ER, and the (d) contour plot of interaction effects of MC (%) and temperature (°C).
CGE (%) = 41.29 40.59 ER + 0.1721
temperature (°C) 0.0866 MC (5%)
0.000094 temperature (°C) × temperature (°C)
+ 0.07456 ER × temperature (°C) 0.000270
temperature (°C) × MC (%)
CCE (%) = 38.88 11.99 ER + 0.1419
temperature (°C) 0.0194 MC (%)
0.000078 temperature (°C) × temperature (°C)
+ 0.07551 ER × temperature (°C) 0.000223
temperature (°C) × MC (%)
The Pareto charts of the standardized effect of factors ER,
temperature (°C), and MC (%) on the H2/CO molar ratio,
CGE (%), and CCE (%) are shown in Figures 6a, 7a, and 8a,
pubs.acs.org/engineeringau Article
respectively. The linear term of temperature (°C) is found to
be the most significant, while the two-way interaction terms of
temperature (°C) and MC (%) as the least significant in
predicting all three response variables.
3.2.2. Interaction Effects of Decision Variables. The
combination effect of independent parameters on the response
(17) variable was studied to determine the optimum operating
conditions for the present gasification system. Contour plots as
in Figure 6b−d and surface plots as in Figure S1a−c of the
supplementary information file depict the combination effects
of ER, gasification temperature (°C), and MC (%) on the H2/
CO molar ratio. As shown in Figures 6b and S1a, the H2/CO
molar ratio close to 1 is attained at the regions of low ER and
high gasification temperature. The H2/CO molar ratio value of
unity is obtained at low ER and high MC (%), as shown in
(18)
Figures 6c and S1b. From Figures 6b−d and S1a−c, it can be
concluded that the value of the H2/CO molar ratio approaches
unity in conditions of lower ER, high gasification temperature,
and high MC. The decrease in the H2/CO molar ratio was due
M https://doi.org/10.1021/acsengineeringau.2c00034
ACS Eng. Au XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
ACS Engineering Au pubs.acs.org/engineeringau
to decreases in the H2 concentration on increasing the
temperature and reducing the oxidant supply. The value of the
H2/CO molar ratio attains close to 1 because there is an
increase in the H2 composition at higher temperatures as per
the water−gas shift reaction (R9) and simultaneously
increased generation of CO due to the lower oxidant supply
(low ER) and higher MC (%) as per steam−methane
reforming (R10).23,41
The combined effect of factors (ER, gasification temperature
(°C), and MC (%)) on CGE (%) is illustrated in contour
plots, as in Figure 7b−d and surface plots as in Figure S2a−c in
the Supporting Information File. The maximum CGE (%) is
attained at the region of high ER and gasification temperature
as depicted in Figures 7b and S2a. The CGE (%) is greater
than 45% in this condition. As depicted in Figures 7c and S2b,
a CGE (%) greater than 42% is attained at the region of low
ER and low MC (%). The CGE (%) greater than 45% is also
attained at high temperatures and low MC, as shown in Figures
7d and S2c. This indicates that the CGE (%) maximizes in the
condition of high ER, high gasification temperature, and low
MC of the CL-RMC. The increased combustible gas
concentrations in these conditions are responsible for max-
imizing the CGE value.
Contour plots as in Figure 8b−d and surface plots as in
Figure S3a−c of the Supporting Information file depict the
combined effect of ER, gasification temperature (°C), and MC
(%) on CCE (%). Figures 8b and S3a indicate that the higher
CCE is attained at the region of higher ER and high
gasification temperatures. The maximum CCE (%) of greater
than 50% is attained in this condition. A CCE greater than
45% is also achieved in the region of high ER and low MC, as
shown in Figures 8c and S3b. A CCE larger than 40% is
simultaneously attained in the region of high temperatures and
low MC, as depicted in Figures 8d and S3c. This concludes
that the CCE value maximizes in the condition of high ER,
high gasification temperature, and low MC of CL-RMC.
3.2.3. Multiobjective Optimization. The optimal gas-
ification condition for CL-RMC was achieved on the basis of
targeting the H2/CO molar ratio to 1 and maximizing CGE
(%) and CCE (%). The H2/CO molar ratio close to 1 in the
syngas is the most suitable for utilizing syngas in liquid
transportation fuel production through a catalytic F-T
synthesis process.7,8,11 For this target value of the H2/CO
molar ratio, the optimal zones are manifested in red color in
Figure 6b,d and in yellow color in Figure 6c. The optimal
zones of the maximum CGE and CCE are manifested in purple
color, as shown in Figures 7c,d and 8c,d, respectively.
The optimized results of the H2/CO molar ratio, CGE (%),
and CCE (%) are shown in Figure S4 as the RSM optimizer
plot in Supporting Information File S1. The optimum values of
decision variables ER, gasification temperature, and MC for the
target values of the H2/CO molar ratio as 1 and the maximum
CGE (%) and CCE (%) are obtained as 0.5, 1048.35 °C, and
4.08%, respectively. Under the optimal conditions, the CGE
(%) and CCE (%) are found as 52.88 and 56.74%, respectively.
The composite desirability of 1 is attained in this optimization
study.
4. CONCLUSIONS
The present study reports an equilibrium modeling of a
downdraft fixed-bed gasifier to study the gasification perform-
ance of high-ash low-rank Indian coal using air as a gasifying
agent. The developed model is validated with published
N https://doi.org/10.1021/acsengineeringau.2c00034
Article
experimental and simulation results. The sensitivity analysis is
performed to observe the influence of operating parameters
ER, gasification temperature, and MC on the dry-basis syngas
composition, H2/CO molar ratio, YSyngas, LHVSyngas, CGE, and
CCE. The RSM is used for regression analysis and multi-
objective optimization. The significance and the combined
effects of decision variables, i.e., ER, gasification temperature,
and MC on the H2/CO molar ratio, CGE, and CCE, are
studied with the help of the Pareto chart, contour plots, and
surface plots. The multiobjective optimization is performed for
the H2/CO molar ratio of 1 and the maximum CGE and CCE.
The optimal values of decision variables ER, gasification
temperature, and MC were obtained as 0.5, 1048.35 °C, and
4.08%, respectively. The corresponding optimal values of CGE
and CCE were obtained as 52.88 and 56.74%, respectively.
The combination of simulation and multiobjective optimiza-
tion is proven as an effective method for determining the
optimal conditions for the gasification of CL-RMC in the
present study.
■
*
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
sı Supporting Information
The Supporting Information is available free of charge at
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsengineeringau.2c00034.
Theoretical background of the equilibrium gasification
model; details of unit operations and Aspen plus block-
type-used gasification process flowsheet; RSME calcu-
lations; RSM design matrix; ANOVA results of the H2/
CO molar ratio, CGE(%), and CCE(%); coefficients of
determination in RSM analysis; surface plot of the H2/
CO molar ratio, CGE(%), and CCE(%); and the RSM
optimizer plot (PDF)
■ AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
Vimal Chandra Srivastava − Department of Chemical
Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee
247667 Uttarakhand, India; orcid.org/0000-0001-5321-
7981; Phone: +91-1332-285889; Email: vimalcsr@
yahoo.co.in, vimal.srivastava@ch.iitr.ac.in; Fax: +91-1332-
276535
Authors
Shailesh Pandey − Department of Chemical Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee 247667
Uttarakhand, India; orcid.org/0000-0003-1706-5364
Vimal Kumar − Department of Chemical Engineering, Indian
Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee 247667
Uttarakhand, India; orcid.org/0000-0002-2140-7454
Complete contact information is available at:
https://pubs.acs.org/10.1021/acsengineeringau.2c00034
Author Contributions
CRediT: Shailesh Pandey conceptualization (equal), data
curation (equal), investigation (equal), methodology (equal),
software (equal), writing-original draft (equal); Vimal
Chandra Srivastava conceptualization (equal), funding
acquisition (equal), investigation (equal), project administra-
tion (equal), supervision (equal), writing-review & editing
(equal); Vimal Kumar formal analysis (equal), investigation
ACS Eng. Au XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
ACS Engineering Au pubs.acs.org/engineeringau Article

(equal), project administration (equal), supervision (equal), coal coal

writing-original draft (equal), writing-review & editing (equal). i species i
Notes in input
j species j
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
k species k
■ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are thankful to Coal India Limited (CIL), Ranchi,
out
rxn
syngas
output
reaction
syngas from gasification
India, for providing financial help for carrying out this work.

■
Ak
NOMENCLATURE
total atoms present in the k element of the
■ REFERENCES
(1) https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/
global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-
gasification system
review-2022-full-report.pdf. (Accessed on: August 03, 2022)
Aadj SSE adjusted sum of the square error (2) Gupta, S.; De, S. An experimental investigation of high-ash coal
a actual amount of air required for gasification gasification in a pilot-scale bubbling fluidized bed reactor. Energy
aik number of atoms of the k element in each molecule 2022, 244, No. 122868.
of the component, i in the species matrix. (3) Prabhansu; Karmakar, M. K.; Chandra, P.; Chatterjee, P. K. A
C weight percent of carbon in coal (%) review on the fuel gas cleaning technologies in gasification process. J.
CCE efficiency of carbon conversion (%) Environ. Chem. Eng. 2015, 3, 689−702.
CGE cold gas efficiency (%) (4) Burnard, K.; Bhattacharya, S.Power Generation from Coal; IEA
DF degree of freedom Energy Papers, Article No. 2011/14: OECD iLibrary, 2011.
ER equivalence ratio (5) Singh, D. K.; Tirkey, J. V. Performance optimization through
response surface methodology of an integrated coal gasification and
fi fugacity of the pure species, i
CI engine fuelled with diesel and low-grade coal-based producer gas.
fȋ fugacity of species i in solution Energy 2022, 238, No. 121982.
Gt total Gibbs free energy of the gasification system (6) Mukherjee, A.; Maity, A.; Chatterjee, S. Enabling a gasification
(kJ) and carbon capture economy in India: An integrated techno-
G0i the standard Gibbs free energy of component i, (kJ) economic analysis. Fuel 2020, 263, No. 116595.
ΔG0fi the standard Gibbs free energy of the formation (7) Lu, Y.; Lee, T. Influence of the feed gas composition on the
component i, (kJ/mol) Fischer-Tropsch synthesis in commercial operations. J. Nat. Gas
H weight percent of hydrogen in coal (%) Chem. 2007, 16, 329−341.
Ḣ rate of enthalpies in gasification product streams (8) Steynberg, A. P.; Nel, H. G. Clean coal conversion options using
(kJ/h) Fischer−Tropsch technology. Fuel 2004, 83, 765−770.
(9) Lamprecht, D.; Nel, R.; Leckel, D. Production of on-specification
HHVcoal higher heating value of coal (MJ/kg)
fuels in coal-to-liquid (CTL) Fischer−Tropsch plants based on fixed-
L Lagrange’s multiplier function bed dry bottom coal gasification. Energy Fuels 2010, 24, 1479−1486.
LHVCoal lower heating value of syngas (MJ/Nm3) (10) Zang, G.; Jia, J.; Shi, Y.; Sharma, T.; Ratner, A. Modeling and
LHVsyngas lower heating value of syngas economic analysis of waste tire gasification in fluidized and fixed bed
MC moisture content of the coal (%) gasifiers. Waste Manage. 2019, 89, 201−211.
N weight percent of nitrogen in coal (%) (11) Leibbrandt, N. H.; Aboyade, A. O.; Knoetze, J. H.; Görgens, J.
Nt total number of moles present in the gasification F. Process efficiency of biofuel production via gasification and
system Fischer−Tropsch synthesis. Fuel 2013, 109, 484−492.
ngas number of moles of gas produced from 1 mole of (12) Kumar, M.; Srivastava, V. C. Simulation of a Fluidized-Bed
coal (mol/mol of coal) Reactor for Dimethyl Ether Synthesis. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2010, 33,
1967−1978.
ni number of moles of species i
(13) Yan, Q.; Yu, F.; Liu, J.; Street, J.; Gao, J.; Cai, Z.; Zhang, J.
O weight percent of oxygen in coal (%) Catalytic conversion wood syngas to synthetic aviation turbine fuels
P pressure of the gasification system (bar) over a multifunctional catalyst. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 127, 281−
Q̇ rxn the rate of heat of the gasification reaction (kJ/h) 290.
R universal gas constant (= 8.314 J/mol·K) (14) Tijmensen, M. J.; Faaij, A. P.; Hamelinck, C. N.; van
RMSE root-mean-square error Hardeveld, M. R. M. Exploration of the possibilities for production
RSM response surface methodology of Fischer Tropsch liquids and power via biomass gasification.
S weight percent of sulfur in coal (%) Biomass Bioenergy 2002, 23, 129−152.
T temperature (°C) (15) Lu, Y.; Yan, Q.; Han, J.; Cao, B.; Street, J.; Yu, F. Fischer−
xi volume fraction of gases in syngas on a dry basis Tropsch synthesis of olefin-rich liquid hydrocarbons from biomass-
derived syngas over carbon-encapsulated iron carbide/iron nano-
Yc mass fraction of carbon in coal
particles catalyst. Fuel 2017, 193, 369−384.
YSyngas yield of syngas (Nm3/kg) (16) Jess, A.; Popp, R.; Hedden, K. Fischer−Tropsch-synthesis with
Greek Letters nitrogen-rich syngas: fundamentals and reactor design aspects. Appl.
μ chemical potential Catal., A 1999, 186, 321−342.
φ Fugacity coefficient (17) Gupta, P. K.; Kumar, V.; Maity, S. Renewable fuels from
different carbonaceous feedstocks: a sustainable route through
λk Lagrange’s multiplier functions Fischer−Tropsch synthesis. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2021, 96,
Superscript 853−868.
° represents the standard state (i.e., 25 °C, 1 atm) (18) Moazami, N.; Mahmoudi, H.; Panahifar, P.; Rahbar, K.;
Tsolakis, A.; Wyszynski, M. L. Mathematical modeling and perform-
Subscript ance study of Fischer-Tropsch synthesis of liquid fuel over cobalt-
air air silica. Energy Procedia 2015, 75, 62−71.

O https://doi.org/10.1021/acsengineeringau.2c00034
ACS Eng. Au XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
ACS Engineering Au pubs.acs.org/engineeringau
(19) Mahmoudi, H.; Jahangiri, H.; Doustdar, O.; Akbari, N.; Wood,
J.; Tsolakis, A.; Wyszynski, M. L. Maximizing paraffin to olefin ratio
employing simulated nitrogen-rich syngas via Fischer-Tropsch process
over Co3O4/SiO2 catalysts. Fuel Process. Technol. 2020, 208,
No. 106477.
(20) Moazami, N.; Wyszynski, M. L.; Mahmoudi, H.; Tsolakis, A.;
Zou, Z.; Panahifar, P.; Rahbar, K. Modelling of a fixed bed reactor for
Fischer−Tropsch synthesis of simulated N2-rich syngas over Co/
SiO2: Hydrocarbon production. Fuel 2015, 154, 140−145.
(21) Lu, Y.; Hu, J.; Han, J.; Yu, F. Synthesis of gasoline-range
hydrocarbons from nitrogen-rich syngas over a Mo/HZSM-5 bi-
functional catalyst. J. Energy Inst. 2016, 89, 782−92.
(22) Spyrakis, S.; Panopoulos, K.; Kakaras, E. Synthesis, modeling
and exergy analysis of atmospheric air blown biomass gasification for
Fischer-Tropsch process. Int. J. Thermodyn. 2009, 12, 187−192.
(23) Han, J.; Liang, Y.; Hu, J.; Qin, L.; Street, J.; Lu, Y.; Yu, F.
Modeling downdraft biomass gasification process by restricting
chemical reaction equilibrium with Aspen Plus. Energy Convers.
Manage. 2017, 153, 641−648.
(24) Singh, D. K.; Tirkey, J. V. Modeling and multi-objective
optimization of variable air gasification performance parameters using
Syzygium cumini biomass by integrating Aspen Plus with Response
surface methodology (RSM). Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46,
18816−18831.
(25) Mutlu, Ö . Ç .; Zeng, T. Challenges and opportunities of
modeling biomass gasification in Aspen Plus: A review. Chem. Eng.
Technol. 2020, 43, 1674−1689.
(26) Li, X.; Grace, J. R.; Watkinson, A. P.; Lim, C. J.; Ergüdenler, A.
Equilibrium modeling of gasification: a free energy minimization
approach and its application to a circulating fluidized bed coal gasifier.
Fuel 2001, 80, 195−207.
(27) Haryanto, A.; Fernando, S. D.; Pordesimo, L. O.; Adhikari, S.
Upgrading of syngas derived from biomass gasification: A
thermodynamic analysis. Biomass Bioenergy 2009, 33, 882−889.
(28) Shahabuddin, M.; Bhattacharya, S. Process modelling for the
production of hydrogen-rich gas from gasification of coal using
oxygen, CO2 and steam reactants. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46,
24051−24059.
(29) Li, G.; Liu, Z.; Liu, F.; Weng, Y.; Ma, S.; Zhang, Y.
Thermodynamic analysis and techno-economic assessment of
synthetic natural gas production via ash agglomerating fluidized bed
gasification using coal as fuel. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45,
27359−27368.
(30) Yadav, V. K.; Shankar, R.; Kumar, V. Numerical simulation for
the steam gasification of single char particle. Chem. Pap. 2021, 75,
863−72.
(31) Pati, S.; De, S. Model development and thermodynamic
analysis of biomass co-gasification using Aspen Plus. Indian Chem.
Eng. 2021, 63, 172−83.
(32) Sharma, V.; Agarwal, V. K. Equilibrium modeling and
optimization for gasification of high-ash Indian coals by the gibbs
free energy minimization method. Process Integr. Optim. Sustainability
2019, 3, 487−504.
(33) Paul, T. R.; Nath, H.; Chauhan, V.; Sahoo, A. Gasification
studies of high ash Indian coals using Aspen Plus simulation. Mater.
Today: Proc. 2021, 46, 6149−6155.
(34) Jain, A. A.; Mehra, A.; Ranade, V. V. Modeling and simulation
of a fluidized bed gasifier. Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2018, 13, No. e2155.
(35) Singh, G. K.; Mohanty, B.; Mondal, P.; Chavan, P.; Datta, S.
Modeling and simulation of a pilot-scale bubbling fluidized bed
gasifier for the gasification of high ash Indian coal using Eulerian
granular approach. Int. J. Chem. React. Eng. 2016, 14, 417−431.
(36) Singh, N.; Raghavan, V.; Sundararajan, T. Mathematical
modeling of gasification of high-ash Indian coals in moving bed
gasification system. Int. J. Energy Res. 2014, 38, 737−54.
(37) Ajilkumar, A.; Shet, U. S.; Sundararajan, T. Numerical
simulation of pressure effects on the gasification of australian and
indian coals in a tubular gasifier. Heat Transfer Eng. 2010, 31, 495−
508.
P https://doi.org/10.1021/acsengineeringau.2c00034
Article
(38) Simsek, S.; Uslu, S. Determination of a diesel engine operating
parameters powered with canola, safflower and waste vegetable oil
based biodiesel combination using response surface methodology
(RSM). Fuel 2020, 270, No. 117496.
(39) Nazari, L.; Yuan, Z.; Ray, M. B.; Xu, C. C. Co-conversion of
waste activated sludge and sawdust through hydrothermal liquefac-
tion: optimization of reaction parameters using response surface
methodology. Appl. Energy 2017, 203, 1−10.
(40) Liang, X.; Zhao, B.; Zhang, F.; Liu, Q. Compact research for
maritime selective catalytic reduction reactor based on response
surface methodology. Appl. Energy 2019, 254, No. 113702.
(41) Agrawal, V.; Srivastava, V. C. Simulation of fluidized bed
reactor for producing synthesis gas by catalytic CH4−CO2 reforming.
J. CO2 Util. 2014, 5, 10−16.
(42) Mukherjee, A. K.; Alam, M. M.; Mazumdar, S. K.; Haque, R.;
Gowrisankaran, S. Physico-chemical properties and petrographic
characteristics of the Kapurdi lignite deposit, Barmer Basin, Rajasthan,
India. Int. J. Coal Geol. 1992, 21, 31−44.
(43) Shabbar, S.; Janajreh, I. Thermodynamic equilibrium analysis of
coal gasification using Gibbs energy minimization method. Energy
Convers. Manage. 2013, 65, 755−763.
(44) Majumder, A. K.; Jain, R.; Banerjee, P.; Barnwal, J. P.
Development of a new proximate analysis based correlation to predict
calorific value of coal. Fuel 2008, 87, 3077−3081.
(45) Kombe, E. Y.; Lang’at, N.; Njogu, P.; Malessa, R.; Weber, C. T.;
Njoka, F.; Krause, U. Numerical investigation of sugarcane bagasse
gasification using Aspen Plus and response surface methodology.
Energy Convers. Manage. 2022, 254, No. 115198.
(46) Demirbas, A. Effects of moisture and hydrogen content on the
heating value of fuels. Energy Sources, Part A 2007, 29, 649−655.
(47) Singh, D. K.; Tirkey, J. V. Process modelling and
thermodynamic performance optimization of biomass air gasification
fuelled with waste poultry litter pellet by integrating Aspen Plus with
RSM. Biomass Bioenergy 2022, 158, 31−48.
(48) Tavares, R.; Monteiro, E.; Tabet, F.; Rouboa, A. Numerical
investigation of optimum operating conditions for syngas and
hydrogen production from biomass gasification using Aspen Plus.
Renewable Energy 2020, 146, 1309−1314.
(49) Zaman, S. A.; Roy, D.; Ghosh, S. Process modeling and
optimization for biomass steam-gasification employing response
surface methodology. Biomass Bioenergy 2020, 143, No. 105847.
(50) Zaman, S. A.; Ghosh, S. A generic input−output approach in
developing and optimizing an Aspen Plus steam-gasification model for
biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 337, No. 125412.
(51) Jayah, T. H.; Aye, L.; Fuller, R. J.; Stewart, D. F. Computer
simulation of a downdraft wood gasifier for tea drying. Biomass
Bioenergy 2003, 25, 459−469.
(52) Upadhyay, D. S.; Panchal, K. R.; Sakhiya, A. K.; Patel, R. N. Air-
Steam gasification of lignite in a fixed bed gasifier: Influence of steam
to lignite ratio on performance of downdraft gasifier. Energy 2020,
211, No. 118187.
(53) Jarungthammachote, S.; Dutta, A. Thermodynamic equilibrium
model and second law analysis of a downdraft waste gasifier. Energy
2007, 32, 1660−1669.
(54) Baratieri, M.; Baggio, P.; Fiori, L.; Grigiante, M. Biomass as an
energy source: thermodynamic constraints on the performance of the
conversion process. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 7063−7073.
(55) Gai, C.; Dong, Y. Experimental study on non-woody biomass
gasification in a downdraft gasifier. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2012, 37,
4935−4944.
(56) Favas, J.; Monteiro, E.; Rouboa, A. Hydrogen production using
plasma gasification with steam injection. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017,
42, 10997−11005.
(57) Lahijani, P.; Zainal, Z. A. Gasification of palm empty fruit
bunch in a bubbling fluidized bed: a performance and agglomeration
study. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 2068−2076.
(58) Jamin, N. A.; Saleh, S.; Samad, N. A. Influences of Gasification
Temperature and Equivalence Ratio on Fluidized Bed Gasification of
ACS Eng. Au XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
ACS Engineering Au pubs.acs.org/engineeringau Article

Raw and Torrefied Wood Wastes. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2020, 80, 127−
132.
(59) Renganathan, T.; Yadav, M. V.; Pushpavanam, S.; Voolapalli, R.
K.; Cho, Y. S. CO2 utilization for gasification of carbonaceous
feedstocks: a thermodynamic analysis. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2012, 83, 159−
170.
(60) Mondal, B.; Srivastava, V. C.; Kushwaha, J. P.; Bhatnagar, R.;
Singh, S.; Mall, I. D. Parametric and multiple response optimization
for the electrochemical treatment of textile printing dye-bath effluent.
Sep. Purif. Technol. 2013, 109, 135−143.
(61) Patidar, R.; Srivastava, V. C. Mechanistic insight into
ultrasound-induced enhancement of electrochemical oxidation of
ofloxacin: Multi-response optimization and cost analysis. Chemosphere
2020, 257, No. 127121.

Recommended by ACS
Syngas Production for Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis from
Rubber Wood Pellets and Eucalyptus Wood Chips in a Pilot
Horizontal Gasifier with CaO as a Tar Removal Catalyst
Nantana Lamart Slatter, Witchakorn Charusiri, et al.
NOVEMBER 30, 2022
ACS OMEGA READ

Chemical Looping Combustion of a Biomass Char in Fe2O3-,

CuO-, and SrFeO3−δ-Based Oxygen Carriers
K. Y. Kwong, E. J. Marek, et al.
JUNE 14, 2022
ENERGY & FUELS READ

Techno-economic Analysis of Biogas Conversion to Liquid

Hydrocarbon Fuels through Production of Lean-Hydrogen
Syngas
Tomy Hos and Moti Herskowitz
JUNE 09, 2022
ACS ENGINEERING AU READ

Experimental and Theoretical Studies on Water-Added

Thermal Processing of Model Biosyngas for Improving
Hydrogen Production and Restraining Soot Formation
Svatopluk Chytil, Jim Patel, et al.
JUNE 25, 2022
INDUSTRIAL & ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY RESEARCH READ
Get More Suggestions >

Q https://doi.org/10.1021/acsengineeringau.2c00034
ACS Eng. Au XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX