Fuel 79 (2000) 69–77

www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Modeling of coal gasification in an internally circulating fluidized bed

reactor with draught tube
Y.J. Kim, J.M. Lee 1, S.D. Kim*
Department of Chemical Engineering and Energy & Environment Research Center, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Taejon 305-701,
South Korea
Accepted 14 June 1999

Abstract
A predictive mathematical model is proposed based on the bed hydrodynamics, reaction kinetics and the empirical correlation of pyrolysis
yields to predict gasification characteristics in an internally circulating fluidized bed gasifier with a draught tube. With the justifiable
assumptions, steady state mathematical equations are derived and solved numerically. The simulated results of product gas composition,
gas yield, carbon conversion, cold gas efficiency and calorific value of the product gas in each reaction region are compared with the obtained
experimental data. The proposed model can explain the reaction behavior in the present reactor system within the range of variables studied.
q 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Modeling; Gasification; Internally circulating fluidized bed; Draught tube

1. Introduction particles in the annulus region may provide much higher

Gasification in a fluidized bed can be utilized to convert
coal [1–7], biomass [8] and waste materials [8,9] into fuel/
synthesis gas. The intrinsic problems of coal conversion to
heat or fuel/synthesis gases in fluidized beds are: high
carbon losses due to coal shattering, and subsequent elutria-
tion of fines, and low conversion of reactant gases due to gas
bypassing [3,7,10–13]. To solve these problems a draught
tube was inserted in a fluidized bed to divide the fluidized
bed into two reaction zones [10–16]. Two reaction zones
can be attained for coal combustion with air feeding in the
draught tube and coal gasification with steam feeding in the
annulus zone [10–15], or vice versa [16]. By fluidizing
solids in the draught tube at a velocity about 7–10 times
of minimum fluidizing velocity (Umf) and the annulus at
0:7–1:5Umf , it is possible to induce a gross circulation of
bed material up the draught and down to the annulus region.
Solid circulation within the reactor provides energy transfer
from the combustion zone into the gasification zone and
significantly reduces elutriation of fine coal particles from
the reactor [17]. The longer residence time of fine char
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 1 82-42-869-3913; fax: 1 82-42-869-
3910.
E-mail address: kimsd@cais.kaist.ac.kr (S.D. Kim)
1
Present address: Power Generation Research Laboratory, Korea Elec-
tric Power Research Institute, Taejon 305-380, South Korea.
0016-2361/00/$ - see front matter q 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0016-236 1(99)00128-3
conversion level compared to a conventional fluidized bed
gasifier. By installing a gas separator over the draught tube,
high-calorific value gas in the annulus (gasification) zone
can be obtained. To increase the calorific value of the
product gas in the annulus zone, a draught tube having
orifices at the bottom part was devised based on the findings
in previous studies [12–18].
The internally circulating fluidized bed (ICFB) is similar
in many ways to the traditional circulating fluidized bed
(CFB). The main differences are in the modes of solid circu-
lation and fluidization. Various reactor models have been
proposed for conventional CFB but models for ICFB are
quite sparse. To develop good reactor models, the bed
hydrodynamics and the reaction kinetics are needed to
predict reactor performance. Several CFB modeling
approaches lead to the models with different degrees of
sophistication [19]. While cyclone, downer or annulus in
CFB are commonly treated as the well mixed or plug flow
systems; modeling for the riser regions varies a lot from
homogeneous [20] to heterogeneous modeling [21–26],
from single region [20] to multiple region modeling [21–
23] and from zero- to three-dimensional modeling [24–26].
The existing models cannot be directly applied to the intern-
ally circulating fluidized bed gasifier (ICFBG) due to the
different flow behavior in the riser (draught tube).
A predictive model is developed to describe and
characterize the performance of ICFBG with all the key
70 Y.J. Kim et al. / Fuel 79 (2000) 69–77
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the internally circulating fluidized bed gasi-
fier. 1. flow meter, 2. steam generator, 3. orifice meter, 4. air plenum, 5.
distributor, 6. overflow drain, 7. viewport, 8. draft tube, 9. main body, 10.
separator, 11. freeboard, 12. screw feeder, 13. coal hopper, 14. cyclone, 15.
condenser, 16. collector, 17. dust filter, 18. condenser, 19. gas sampling
bottle, 20. I.D. fan.
operating parameters such as reaction temperature (780–
9008C), oxygen/coal ratio (0.30–0.53), coal-feeding rate
(5.3–12.1 kg h 21), and steam/coal ratio (0.30–0.81). The
proposed model is based on the bed hydrodynamics [18],
reaction kinetics for combustion and gasification of coal [5]
as well as the empirical correlation of pyrolysis yields [5]. In
the proposed model, the ICFB is divided into two parts,
namely the draught tube region being considered as a well
mixed fluidized bed reactor and the annulus region being
considered as a plug flow moving bed reactor.
2. Experimental
Experiments were carried out in a stainless steel column
(0.3 m i.d. and 2.7 m high) with a centrally located draught
tube (0.1 m i.d. and 0.9 m high) as shown in Fig. 1. The air
plenum was divided into two parts to supply air into the
draught tube and steam into the annulus sections separately.
For air supply to the draught tube, a distributor (0.1 m i.d.)
with seven bubble caps …4 holes × 2:5 mm i:d: in each
bubble cap was used. Also, a conical plate having inclined
angle of 608 relative to the horizontal plane with 18 bubble
Table 1
Analyses of Australian coal and char preparation
Proximate analysis Wt%, db Ultimate analysis Wt%, daf
Volatile matter 26.37 C 68.10
Fixed carbon 63.91 H 4.58
Ash 9.72 O 25.38
Heating value (cal g 21) 6273 N 1.62
S 0.32
caps was used for steam supply into the annulus section.
Four evenly spaced 30 mm diameter holes were drilled on
the walls of the draught tube 40 mm above its bottom for
solids circulation. A gas separator was installed to separate
the gas streams emanating from the annulus and draught
tube zones. To heat the reactor to ignition temperature of
the coal (ù5008C) an electric heater (16 kW) was installed
at the main reactor wall. The reactor was insulated by
Kaowool to prevent heat loss through the reactor wall. An
ash-drain port was installed at the bottom of the reactor and
an overflow drain port was mounted 1.1 m above the
distributor. The freeboard (0.45 m i.d.) section was
expanded to reduced particle entrainment from the reactor.
The coal was fed into the top of the reactor through a screw
feeder, which was connected, to a coal hopper and a variable
DC motor controller regulated the coal-feeding rate. Two
cyclones (0.08 m i.d. and 0.32 m high) were installed at the
outlet of the reactor. The product gas was cooled through a
condenser and entrained fines in the product gas were
collected in a bag filter. The gas sampling probes were
mounted at the outlet of the condenser. At the beginning
of the experiment, only air was fed into the reactor until the
bed temperature reached 450–5008C by the electric heating.
Thereafter, the electric heater was turned off and coal was
fed into the gasifier. When the desired reaction temperature
was reached, steam was introduced into the gasifier. When
the gasifer operation reached steady state, the product gases
from the draught tube and annulus zones were sampled, and
the amount of collected particles in the cyclone was
measured. The product gas was analyzed by using gas chro-
matography (HP 5890 series II). Particles size of the bed
material (sand) was 390 mm and the static bed height was
0.8 m from the distributor. The proximate and ultimate
analyses of the coal (defaultdp: 1–5 mm) are given in
Table 1.
default3. Modeling of ICFBG
To formulate a mathematical model, the ICFB is divided
into two parts, namely the draught tube region being consid-
ered as a well mixed fluidized bed reactor and the annulus
region being considered as a plug flow moving bed reactor.
In the annulus region, the bed material (sand) and char move
downward under gravity flow and the gases (steam and
 Y.J. Kim et al. / Fuel 79 (2000) 69–77 71

Table 2
Kinetic parameters for the reactions

Reaction Temperature range (8C) k0 () E (kJ mol 21) Reference

4 21 21
500–575 7:58 × 10 s atm 113
Combustion 575–700 0.44 s 21 atm 21 27.6 Lee et al. [5]
700–800 0.045 s 21 atm 21 9.6
Gasification 700–850 6:47 × 103 s21 atm21 167 Lee et al. [5]
H2 1 1=2O2 ! H2 O – 3:09 × 1011 m3 mol21 s21 99.8 Haslam [35]
CO 1 1=2O2 ! CO2 – 8:83 × 1011 m3 mol21 s21 99.8 Tesner [36]

bypassed air) flow upward [27]. The following assumptions
are made for the modeling of the ICFBG system.
1. The gasifier is operating under steady state and
isothermal conditions.
2. Since the annulus zone (gasification) occupies almost the
entire reactor volume, it can be assumed that the feeding
coal from the top of the reactor enters the annulus region
only and the particles are withdrawn from the overflow in
the annulus region.
3. The hydrodynamics of the draught tube region (fluidized
bed) are described by the two-phase theory of fluidization
[3,6,28–30]. The bubble phase is plug flow without parti-
cles and emulsion phase is completely mixed flow at the
incipient fluidization condition.
4. Drying and devolatilization of the particles take place in
the freeboard regions of ICFBG and the products of vola-
tiles are distributed uniformly between the annulus and
draught tube regions. The obtained char contains only
carbon and ash.
5. In the freeboard region, homogeneous reactions occur
and the gas phase is free of solids in plug flow.
6. At the distributor level …z ˆ 0†, gas bypassing occurs
from the draught tube to the annulus zone and vice
versa, thus gas concentrations of each reaction zone
after gas bypassing are the inlet concentrations of each
zone.
3.1. Combustion and gasification
The overall coal gasification involves pyrolysis and the
homogeneous reactions in the freeboard region, and the
heterogeneous reactions in the main bed region. The follow-
ing heterogeneous reactions are assumed to occur between
solid carbon and gaseous reactants [5]:
Combustion reactions [5,27,29,31]
C 1 aO2 ! 2…1 2 a†CO 1 …2a 2 1†CO2 : …
Steam gasification reactions [5,32]
C 1 H2 O ! CO 1 H2 …
C 1 bH2 O ! …2 2 b†CO 1 …b 2 1†CO2 1 bH2 …5†
Here a is a system constant, dependent on the reaction
conditions, which determines the primary product distribu-
tion of CO in the combustion products [27]. The molar ratio
of CO/CO2 in the combustion reaction follows the Arrhe-
nius temperature relation. There are different expressions to
calculate the distribution of combustion products [33,34].
According to Arthur [33], for the atmospheric beds, this is
given by
 
6234
CO=CO2 ˆ 2400 exp 2 ; …6†
Ts
where Ts (surface temperature of the char particle) is
assumed equal to the bed temperature. The a can be deter-
mined as a function of temperature from Eq. (6). Values of
a at 1023 and 1173 K are 0.58 and 0.54, respectively. In the
given experimental temperature range, a does not produce
any significant effect on the model prediction.
In Eq. (5), …2 2 b†=b represents the fraction of steam
consumed by the reaction path (2) and 2…b 2 1†=b repre-
sents the fraction of steam consumed by the reaction path
(4). Matsui et al. [32] experimentally determined b that
decreases with increasing temperature in the range of 1.1–
1.5 at 750–9008C. In this study, b value from Matsui et al.
[32] was adopted for the modeling of coal gasification.
In a previous study [5], the rate equations for combustion
and steam gasification are determined based on the shrink-
ing-core model as
dX
ˆ kpnO2 or H2 O …1 2 X†2=3 ; …7†
dt
where X and pO2 or H2 O are carbon conversion and partial
pressure of O2 or H2O, respectively. The activation energies
and the reaction rate constants for the combustion and steam
gasification reactions are determined from an Arrhenius plot
with the data obtained from the thermobalance reactor.
1† In addition to the above heterogeneous reactions, gas
phase combustion reactions of H2 and CO may occur.
2† H2 1 1=2O2 ! H2 O r3 ˆ k3 CH2 2 CO2 =CCO …8†

CO 1 1=2O2 ! CO2 r4 ˆ k4 CCO CO2 …9†

CO 1 H2 O ! CO2 1 H2 …3†
where ri and ki are the reaction rate and the reaction rate
C 1 2H2 O ! CO2 1 2H2 …4† constant of reaction i, respectively. The overall reaction
72 Y.J. Kim et al. / Fuel 79 (2000) 69–77

orders of the homogeneous are second order [28,37] and the 1

Fi;d ˆ Fi;a
0
fad 1 Fi;d
0
…1 2 fda †; …14†
rate constant (k) can be represented by the Arrhenius expres-
sion. Weimer and Clough [28] and Ma et al. [29] who
Va1 ˆ Va0 …1 2 fad † 1 Vd0 fda ; …15†
considered homogeneous combustion reactions in their
models used the above rate expression.
The values of the frequency factor (k0) and activation Vd1 ˆ Va0 fad 1 Vd0 …1 2 fda †; …16†
energy (E) of each reaction used in the model prediction
are deduced from the literature as shown in Table 2. fad ˆ 5:06…Ud0 =Umf †0:885 …Ua0 =Umf †0:082 ; …17†

3.2. Coal pyrolysis
Lee et al. [5] measured the product gas yield from pyro-
lysis in a fluidized bed reactor using the same coal in this
study and compared the results with the empirical correla-
tions of Ma et al. [29] and Loison and Chauvin [38]. They
found that their correlations [29,38] do not predict our pyro-
lysis data accurately. Therefore, the following assumptions
are made for modeling of ICFBG to determine the overall
reactor performance since the amount of gas produced from
coal pyrolysis contributes greatly to the total gas production
from the ICFBG. Drying and devolatilization of coal occur
instantaneously in the freeboard region of ICFB. The
obtained product gas yields from pyrolysis in a fluidized
bed reactor are given by [5]:
yH2 ˆ 8:233 × 1025 T 2 0:073;
yCO ˆ 2:168 × 1024 T 2 0:102;
…
26
yCO2 ˆ 2:999 × 10 T 1 0:039;
yCH4 ˆ 2:561 × 1025 T 1 0:011
where T is in Kelvin and yi (kg/h) is the gas yield to coal-
feed ratio (kg/h) from pyrolysis on a dry ash-free basis. The
distribution of the pyrolysis products affects the composi-
tions of gas produced in each region of the gasifier. Thus, in
the present model, fraction of pyrolysis in the draught region
can be assumed to be 0.5 from the experimental data.
3.3. Boundary conditions
In the ICFBG, the following boundary conditions can be
made:
At the distributor level (z ˆ 0), gas concentrations of
each reaction zones can be obtained from assumption (6).
The fraction of gas bypassing from the draught tube to the
annulus (fda) and from the annulus to the draught tube (fad)
have been correlated from the data of Ahn [18].
In the moving bed (annulus region)
1
Ci;a ˆ Fi;a
1
=Va1 i ˆ H2 O; O2 ; N2 ; H2 ; CO; CO2 …
In the fluidized bed (draught tube region)
1
Ci;d ˆ Fi;d
1
=Vd1 i ˆ H2 O; O2 ; N2 ; H2 ; CO; CO2 ; …
where
1
Fi;a ˆ Fi;a
0
…1 2 fad † 1 Fi;d
0
fda ; …
fda ˆ 2:18…Ud0 =Umf †20:467 …Ua0 =Umf †20:048 : …18†
Here, C, F, V and U represent the concentration, molar feed
rate, volumetric flow rate of gas and gas velocity, respec-
tively. The subscripts i, a and d denote gas components
(H2O, O2, N2, H2, CO and CO2), the annulus region and
the draught tube region while the superscripts 0 and 1 denote
the inlet condition and boundary condition at the bottom of
the reactor.
At the top of the annulus region …z ˆ H†, the carbon
balance can be written as follows: The sum of carbon feed
rate from the draught tube to the annulus and that from the
coal hopper equals the sum of carbon feed rate in the down-
ward moving bed (annulus region) and carbon discharge
from the reactor.
Wfc …1 2 Xd † 1 Fc fchar ˆ Wfc …1 2 XaH † 1 Fc fchar …1 2 XaH †;
…19†
10† where W, fc, Fc, fchar and XaH are mass flow rate of circulating
solids, weight fraction of carbon in the bed, coal feed rate,
weight fraction of char in the coal and carbon conversion at
the top of the annulus region, respectively.
3.4. In the annulus region (moving bed)
Mathematical models for a moving bed gasifier have been
reported in the literature [27,31,39–41]. In a moving bed
gasifier, the coal moves downward under gravity flow and a
mixture of steam and bypassed air flow upward countercur-
rently.
Since the annulus moving bed is assumed as a pseudo-
plug flow reactor, the steady state mass balances for fixed
carbon, reactant and product gases can be written as
For carbon:
dX
ˆ {k1 pnO2 1 k2 pnH2 O }…1 2 X†2=3 : …20†
dt
For reactant and product gases
RO2 ˆ 2dCO2 =dt ˆ k1 PnO2 …1 2 X†2=3 …rs fc =MB †a 1 0:5r3
11† 1 0:5r4 ; …21†
12† RH2 O ˆ 2dCH2 O =dt ˆ k2 PnH2 O …1 2 X†2=3 …rs fc =MB †b 2 r3 ;
…22†
13† RH2 ˆ 2dCH2 =dt ˆ 2RH2 O ; …23†
 Y.J. Kim et al. / Fuel 79 (2000) 69–77 73

Table 3
Basic equations in the draught tube region (fluidized bed)

1. Two phase model parameters

(a) Minimum fluidizing velocity [42] …1mf ˆ 0:5; 1m ˆ 0:4; rs ˆ 2:4†
Umf ˆ …m=rg dp †{‰28:72 1 0:0494dp3 rg …rs 2 rg †g=m2 Š1=2 2 28:7}
p
(b) Bubble volume fraction [43] d ˆ 1 2 ‰1 1 ……U 2 Umf †=0:35 gDt †Š21
(c) Bubble-rise velocity Ub ˆ …Ud 2 2…1 2 d†Umf †=Umf
(d) Interchange coefficient between the bubble and emulsion phases [44] Kbe ˆ 11=db
2. Mass-balance equation
(a) Gas phase reaction rate equations in emulsion phase
RO2 ˆ 2dCO2 =dt ˆ k1 POn 2 …1 2 X†2=3 …rs fc =MB †a 1 0:5r3 1 0:5r4
RH2 O ˆ 2dC H2 O =dt ˆ k2 PHn 2 O …1 2 X†2=3 …rs fc =MB †b 2 r3
RH2 ˆ 2dCH2 =dt ˆ 2RH2 O
RCO ˆ 2dCCO =dt ˆ 2{2…1 2 a†k1 POn 2 1 …2 2 b†k2 PHn 2 O }…1 2 X†2=3 …rs fc =MB † 1 r4
RCO2 ˆ 2dCCO2 =dt ˆ 2{…2a 2 1†k1 POn 2 1 …b 2 1†k2 PHn 2 O }…1 2 X†2=3 …rs fc =MB † 2 r4
(b) Gas phase reaction rate equations in bubble phase
RO2 ˆ 2dCO2 =dt ˆ 0:5r3 1 0:5r4
RH2 O ˆ 2dC H2 O =dt ˆ 2r3
RH2 ˆ 2dCH2 =dt ˆ 2RH2 O
RCO ˆ 2dCCO =dt ˆ r4
RCO2 ˆ 2dCCO2 =dt ˆ 2r4
(c) Reactant gas mass balances …i ˆ O2 ; H2 O; H2 ; CO; CO2 ; N2 †
2Ub dCi;b =dz ˆ Kbe …Ci;b 2 Ci;e † 1 Ri;b
2…1 2 d†Umf dCi;e =dz ˆ …1 2 d†…1 2 1mf †Ri;e 2 dKbe …Ci;b 2 Ci;e †

RCO ˆ 2dCCO =dt ˆ 2{2…1 2 a†k1 PnO2 1 …2 2 b†k2 PnH2 O } fluidization condition and static bed height, respectively.
In steady state, solid falling velocity (us) is obtained from
× …1 2 X†2=3 …rs fc =MB † 1 r4 ; …24† the solid circulation rate and bulk density of solid (r bulk) in
the annulus region as
RCO2 ˆ 2dCCO2 =dt ˆ 2{…2a 2 1†k1 PnO2 1 …b 2 1†k2 PnH2 O } Ws
us ˆ : …29†
rbulk
× …1 2 X† …rs fc =MB † 2 r4 ;
2=3
…25†
From the above differential equations and boundary
where r s and MB are solid density and molecular weight of conditions, carbon conversion and product gas compositions
carbon, respectively. in the annulus region are calculated as a function of the axial
The above mass balance equations can be rearranged to height of the reactor with the assumed carbon conversion at
eliminate dt (dt ˆ dz=us or dt ˆ dz=Ua in solid or gas phase) the bottom of the annulus region …Xa1 †. Carbon conversion in
as follows. the draught tube region (Xd) is calculated from the boundary
For carbon condition at the top of the annulus region.
dX 1
ˆ {k pn 1 k2 pnH2 O }…1 2 X†2=3 : …26† 3.5. In the draught tube region (fluidized bed)
dz us 1 O2
For reactant and product gases The basic equations in the draught tube region are
summarized in Table 3 where 1 m, m , r s, g, d , Dt, Kbe and
2Ua dCi =dz ˆ Ri i ˆ O2 ; H2 O; H2 ; CO; CO2 ; N2 ; …27† db are void fraction in a fixed bed, gas viscosity, gas density,
where z is the distance from the bottom of the reaction zone gravitational constant, bubble-volume fraction, bed
and us is the solid falling velocity that is proportional to the diameter, gas interchange coefficient between bubble and
solid circulation rate (Ws) since particles are assumed to emulsion phase and bubble diameter, respectively. The
have same size. According to the cold model test [18], the subscripts b and e denote the bubble and the emulsion
solid circulation rate has been correlated by the following phase. From the calculated carbon conversion in the draught
equation: tube region (Xd), gas concentration profile along the height
is calculated from the hydrodynamic parameters, mass
Ws ˆ 2:63 × 1025 rs …1 2 1mf † balance and gas reactions.
 1:19 !1:29  0:873 From the carbon conversion profile in the annulus and the
Ua × Ud dor H draught tube regions, the average carbon conversion in the
 Umf ; …28†
Umf dp Hs bed (Xt) can be formulated as

where 1 mf, dor, H and Hs are void fraction at minimum Ad …1 2 d†…1 2 1mf †HXd 1 Aa …1 2 1m †Hs X a
Xt ˆ ; …30†
fluidizing condition, orifice diameter, bed height at the Ad …1 2 d†…1 2 1mf †H 1 Aa …1 2 1m †Hs
74 Y.J. Kim et al. / Fuel 79 (2000) 69–77
Fig. 2. Effect of reaction temperature on compositions of the product gas in
the annulus region.
where A and X a are cross-sectional area and the average
carbon conversion in the annulus region, respectively.
3.6. Calculation procedure of the model
The calculation procedure of the present model is as
follows: (1) Assume the solid conversion in the bottom of
the annulus region, Xa1 . (2) Carbon conversion and gas
concentration profiles along the bed height are calculated
from the mass balance equation in the annulus region. (3)
Carbon conversion in the draught tube region (Xd) is calcu-
lated from the boundary condition at the top of the annulus
region. (4) The bed hydrodynamic parameters are deter-
mined from the input conditions and the gas concentration
profile along the bed height in the draught tube region is
calculated from the hydrodynamic parameters, mass
balance and gas reaction at a given Xd. (5) Average carbon
Fig. 3. Comparison of gas compositions from pyrolysis and gasification
with variation of reaction temperature. The solid and dotted lines represent
the model prediction and pyrolysis, respectively.
conversion is the bed, Xt, is calculated from Eq. (30). (6)
From the gas concentration profile along the bed height, the
average carbon conversion, X 0t , is calculated. (7) An itera-
tion process is repeated until the average carbon conversion
…X 0t † converges to Xt. (8) With the calculated carbon conver-
sion …X 0t †, the product gas compositions, gas concentration
profile and the reactant gas conversion of each reaction
region can be predicted from the pyrolysis data. (9) Product
gas compositions, the reactant gas conversion and gas yields
from each region at the reactor exit can be obtained after
completion of homogeneous reaction in the freeboard
region in the bed.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Effect of reaction temperature
The reaction temperature is expected to be one of the
most important operating variables affecting the perfor-
mance of coal gasifier since the main gasification reactions
are endothermic. Hence the reaction temperature should be
at the highest tolerable level, the materials construction, ash
fusion and production of undesirable gases such as NOx will
limit the reaction temperature [12,13,45]. In the present
study, the construction material of the gasifier restricts the
maximum operable temperature to 9008C.
To determine the effect of reaction temperature on gasi-
fier performance, the other experimental variables such as
gas velocities to the draught tube …Ud ˆ 10Umf † and the
annulus …Ua ˆ 1:4Umf † were held at the constant values.
Thus, residence time of the reactant gases, solids circulation
rate and gas-bypassing properties are very similar in the
both regions. Though a detailed material balance could
not be established due to the difficulty of estimating the
tar yield accurately, the carbon balance can be determined
from a previous study [12].
The effect of reaction temperature on the product gas
composition in the annulus region is shown in Fig. 2
where solid lines represent the model prediction. The
compositions of the product gas in the annulus region are
H2 (44.9–49.7%), CO (23.6–28.1%), CO2 (14.8–18.9%),
CH4(7.3–12.6%). The concentrations of H2 and CO increase
with increasing reaction temperature [4,45,46] due to the
endothermic gasification reaction of steam-char and pyro-
lysis, whereas the concentrations of other gases decrease.
The gas compositions obtained in this study are comparable
to that of Judd [10] who used a gap height type draught tube
at higher reaction temperatures than that in the present
study. Therefore it can be claimed that the draught tube
with orifices is superior to the gap height type for producing
medium-CV gas in the annulus region. As can be seen in
Fig. 2, our model predicts the experimental data quite well.
The gas yields from coal pyrolysis and gasification at
different reaction temperature are shown in Fig. 3 where
the solid and the dotted lines represent the values from the
 Y.J. Kim et al. / Fuel 79 (2000) 69–77
Fig. 4. Comparison of calorific value of the product gas with reaction
temperature. The solid and dotted lines represent the model prediction
and linear regression, respectively.
model and the correlation for pyrolysis, respectively. The
slopes and yields of H2, CO and CO2 from gasification are
higher than those from pyrolysis due to steam-char and
oxygen-char reactions, whereas yields of CH4 agree well
between coal gasification and pyrolysis. Also, the slopes
of H2 and CO yields are steeper than that of CO2 in gasifica-
tion owing to the rapid increase of gasification reaction. As
can be seen in Table 2, the rates of combustion and gasifica-
tion, respectively, at 9008C are 1.1 and 7.0 times faster than
those at 7808C. Compositions of the product gas in the
combustion zone (draught tube) exhibit the same trend as
that in the gasification zone (annulus). The increase of H2
and CO yields may come from volatile mater release from
pyrolysis and high steam bypassing from the annulus to
the draught tube region [12]. The model predicts the
Fig. 5. Effect of reaction temperature on gas yield, carbon conversion and
cold gas efficiency of the product gas.
75
experimental data fairly well except the slight over-
prediction of H2 yield.
The effect of reaction temperature on the calorific values
of the product gas in the present and previous studies
[11,47,48] is shown in Fig. 4. Calorific value of the product
gas from the annulus region is 11–12 MJ m 23 that is much
higher than that in the annulus zone of the ICFB with a gap
height type draught tube [11]. In the annulus zone, the
calorific value decreases with increasing temperature due
to the reduction of hydrocarbons and CH4 yields [12].
Since hydrocarbon yields were not accounted for in the
model, the model under-predicts the calorific value of the
product gas and increases slightly due to an increase in
gasification reaction. In the draught tube region, calorific
value of the product gas is 3.3–4.7 MJ m 23, which is
comparable to the conventional fluidized bed [47] or the
spout bed gasifier [48]. Therefore, it can be claimed that
the reactor performance with the orifice type draught tube
is superior compared to the gap height type draught tube in
producing medium-calorific value gas in the annulus region
due to the reduction of gas bypassing from the draught tube
to annulus regions [12].
The effects of reaction temperature on gas yield, carbon
conversion and cold gas efficiency of the product gas are
shown in Fig. 5. Though carbon conversion caused by pyro-
lysis contributes large portion of the total carbon conver-
sion, the effect of pyrolysis on the total carbon conversion
decreases with increasing reaction temperature. Gas yield,
carbon conversion and cold gas efficiency increase in the
both regions due to the increase of reaction rates for steam-
char, oxygen-char and pyrolysis with increasing reaction
temperatures. The model predicts well the experimental
data in the both regions.
4.2. Effect of oxygen/coal ratio
To determine the effect of oxygen/coal mass ratio on the
gasifier performance, reaction temperature, gas velocities to
the draught tube …Ud ˆ 10Umf † and annulus …Ua ˆ 1:4Umf †
were held at constant values. Oxygen/coal mass ratio is
controlled by air and oxygen flow rates supplied into the
draught tube.
The effect of oxygen/coal mass ratio supplied to the
draught tube on the product gas composition in both regions
at a given steam/coal ratio, together with the predicted
values from the model, is shown in Fig. 6. In the annulus
region, the gas contents (vol.%) of H2, CO and CH4, and
calorific value of the product gas decrease, but CO2 content
increases due to the increase of oxygen content in the
bypassing gas from draught tube to annulus region with
increasing O2/coal ratio in the draught tube [12]. As in the
annulus region, compositions of the product gas in the
draught tube region exhibit the same trend. However, the effect
of O2/coal ratio in the draught tube region is more pronounced
compared to the annular region due to the higher oxygen
partial pressure.
76 Y.J. Kim et al. / Fuel 79 (2000) 69–77
Fig. 6. Effect of O2/coal (kg kg 21) ratio on the compositions of the product
gas in the annulus region.
The effect of oxygen/coal mass ratio on the calorific value
of the product gas in both regions at a given steam/coal
ratio, together with the predicted values from the model,
is shown in Fig. 7. Since combustion of CH4 is not consid-
ered in the present model, the model over-predicts composi-
tion of CH4 (Fig. 6) and the calorific value of the product gas
in the annulus region is 10.7 MJ m 23 despite the decrease in
H2 and CO concentrations with increasing O2/coal ratio.
Whereas, calorific value of the product gas in the draught
tube region decreases slightly due to the significant decrease
in H2 and CO concentration and low concentration of CH4
with increasing O2/coal ratio.
4.3. Effect of coal feed rate
The effect of coal feed rate on compositions of the
product gas in the annulus region at a constant steam/
Fig. 7. Comparison of calorific value of the product gas with O2/coal
(kg kg 21) ratio. The solid and dotted lines represent the model prediction
and linear regression, respectively.
Fig. 8. Effect of coal feed rate on compositions of the product gas in the
annulus region.
oxygen ratio, together with the model prediction, is shown
in Fig. 8. As can be seen, the model data agrees well with the
experimental one and the concentrations of H2, CO and CH4
increase with increasing coal feed rate due to an increase in
pyrolysis yields, whereas that of CO2 decreases
[1,2,12,45,46,48]. Thus, the calorific value of the product
gas in the annulus region increases from 8.56 to
13.22 MJ m 23 due to an increase in combustible gas
concentrations. Since the oxygen/coal ratio decreases with
increasing coal feed rate, product gas yield and carbon
conversion decrease [12,46]. Cold gas efficiency does not
exhibit any noticeable variation.
4.4. Effect of steam/coal ratio
The effect of steam/coal mass ratio supplied to the annu-
lus region on compositions of the product gas at a coal feed
rate of 7.56 kg h 21 and a O2/coal mass ratio of 0.30, together
Fig. 9. Effect of steam/coal (kg kg 21) ratio on the gas compositions of the
product gas in the annulus region.
 Y.J. Kim et al. / Fuel 79 (2000) 69–77
with model prediction, is shown in Fig. 9. The effect of
steam/coal ratio on the gasifier performance is insignificant
since the reaction rate of steam-char is not sensitive to the
steam/coal ratio [12,45,46]. The model prediction does not
show any variation in the product gas composition as found
in the experimental data. The calorific value, gas yield,
carbon conversion and cold gas efficiency of the product
gas remain nearly constant. Since the proposed model
predicts well the experimental data, it can be claimed that
the presented model can be utilized to predict the perfor-
mance of ICFBG.
5. Conclusions
Coal gasification was carried out in an ICFB with an
orifice type draught tube over a temperature range of
1053–1173 K at atmospheric pressure. In the ICFBG,
low-calorific value gas in the draught tube region and
medium-calorific value gas in the annulus region can be
obtained. To characterize the ICFBG, the steady state math-
ematical model is proposed based on the bed hydrody-
namics, the reaction kinetics and pyrolysis data of the
coal. The proposed model can predict the product gas
composition, carbon conversion, cold gas efficiency, gas
yield and calorific value with reasonable accuracy.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge a grant-in-aid for research from
the Ministry of Trade, Commerce and Energy, Korea.
References
[1] Gutierrez LA, Watkinson AP. Fuel 1982;61:133.
[2] Watkinson AP, Cheng G, Prakash CB. Can J Chem Engng
1983;61:468.
[3] Saffer M, Ocampo A, Laguerie C. Int Chem Engng 1988;28:46.
[4] Chatterjee PK, Datta AB, Kundu KM. Can J Chem Engng
1995;73:204.
[5] Lee JM, Kim YJ, Lee WJ, Kim SD. Energy—The Int J 1998;23:475.
[6] Neogi D, Chang CC, Walawender WP, Fan LT. AIChE J 1986;32:17.
[7] Lee WJ. PhD Dissertation, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and
Technology, Korea, 1995.
[8] Herguido J, Corella J, Gonzalez-Saiz J. Ind Engng Chem Res
1992;31:1274.
[9] Corella J, Anzar MP, Delgado J, Aldea E. Ind Engng Chem Res
1991;30:2252.
[10] Judd MR. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Coal and Gas
Conversion Conference, Pretoria, 1987:23.
[11] Jeon SK, Lee WJ, Kim SD. In: Large JF, Laguerie C, editors.
Proceedings of the 8th Engineering Foundation Conference on
Fluidization, Tours, France, 1995:445.
77
[12] Kim YJ, Lee JM, Kim SD. Fuel 1997;76:1067.
[13] Lee JM, Kim YJ, Kim SD. Appl Thermal Engng 1998;18:1013.
[14] Berggren JC, Bjerle I, Eklund H, Karlsson H, Svensson O. Chem
Engng Sci 1980;35:446.
[15] Riley RK, Judd MR. Chem Engng Commun 1987;62:151.
[16] Judd MR, Rudolph V. In: Ostergaard K, Sorensen A, editors. Proceed-
ings of the 5th International Conference on Fluidization, Elsinore,
Denmark, 1986:505.
[17] Kim YT, Song BH, Kim SD. Chem Engng J 1997;66:105.
[18] Ahn HS. MS Thesis, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Tech-
nology, Korea, 1995.
[19] Grace JR, Lim KS. In: Grace JR, Avidan AA, Knowlton TM, editors.
Circulating fluidized beds, London: Chapman and Hall, 1997. p. 504.
[20] Hastaoglu MA, Berruti F, Hassam MS. In: Basu P, Large JF, editors.
Circulating fluidized bed technology, Vol. II. Oxford: Pergamon
Press, 1988. p. 281.
[21] Marmo L, Manna L, Rovero G. In: Large JF, Laguerie C, editors.
Proceedings of the 8th Engineering Foundation Conference on
Fluidization, Tours, France, 1995:369.
[22] Arena U, Chirone R, D’Amore M, Miccio M, Salatino P. Powder
Technol 1995;82:301.
[23] Zhang L, Li TD, Zheng QY, Lu CD. In: Anthony EJ, editor. Proceed-
ings of the 11th International Fluidized Bed Combustion Conference,
Montreal, Canada, 1991:1289.
[24] Hyppanen T, Lee YY, Rainio A. In: Basu P, Horio M, Hasatani M,
editors. Circulating fluidized bed technology, Vol. III, Nagoya, Japan,
1990:563.
[25] Schoenfelder H, Kruse M, Werther J. AIChE J 1996;42:1875.
[26] Balzer G, Simonin O. In: Preto FDS, editor. Proceedings of the 14th
International Fluidized Bed Combustion Conference, Vancouver,
Canada, 1997:1017.
[27] Yoon H, Wei J, Denn MM. AIChE J 1978;24:885.
[28] Weimer AW, Clough DE. Chem Engng Sci 1981;36:549.
[29] Ma RP, Felder RM, Ferrell JK. Fuel Process Technol 1988;19:265.
[30] Gururajan VS, Agarwal PK, Agnew JB. Chem Engng Res Design
1992;70:211.
[31] Adanez J, Labiano FG. Ind Engng Chem Res 1990;29:2079.
[32] Matsui I, Kunii D, Furusawa T. J Chem Engng Japan 1985;18:105.
[33] Arthur JR. Trans Faraday Soc 1951;47:164.
[34] Bhagat PM. Combust Flame 1980;37:275.
[35] Haslam RT. Ind Engng Chem 1923;15:679.
[36] Tesner PA. In: Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on Combustion,
1960:807.
[37] Batchelder HR, Busche RM, Armstrong WP. Ind Engng Chem
1953;45:1856.
[38] Loison R, Chauvin R. Chemie et Industrie 1964;91:269.
[39] Caram HS, Fuentes C. Ind Engng Chem Fundam 1982;21:464.
[40] Chowdhury R, Chakravarty M, Bhattacharya P. Int J Energy Res
1991;15:593.
[41] Hobbs ML, Radulovic PT, Smoot LD. AIChE J 1992;38:681.
[42] Wen CY, Yu YH. AIChE J 1966;12:610.
[43] Hovmand S, Davidson JF. In: Davidson JF, Harrison D, editors.
Fluidization, New York: Academic Press, 1971. p. 193.
[44] Kobayashi H, Arai H. Kagaku Kogaku 1967;31:239.
[45] Foong SK, Lim CJ, Watkinson AP. Can J Chem Engng 1980;58:84.
[46] Kikuchi K, Suzuki A, Mochizuki T, Endo S, Imai E, Tanji Y. Fuel
1985;64:368.
[47] Lee JM, Kim YJ, Lee WJ, Kim SD. Hwahak Konghak 1997;35:121.
[48] Foong SK, Cheng G, Watkinson AP. Can J Chem Engng
1981;59:625.