i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 1 7 4 2 1 e1 7 4 3 4

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

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

Short Communication

CFD model for tubular SOFC directly fed by biomass

Valentina Somano a,b, Domenico Ferrero a,b, Massimo Santarelli a,b,

Davide Papurello a,b,*
a
Department of Energy (DENERG), Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca Degli Abruzzi, 24, 10129, Turin, Italy
b
Energy Center, Politecnico di Torino, Via Paolo Borsellino, 38/16, 10138, Turin, Italy

highlights graphical abstract

A direct biomass to SOFC system is

modelled.

25 single tubular cells are fed by
Olive kernel biomass producing
200 We.

12.3 W from single tubular cells are
produced with an integrated
biomass system.

article info abstract

Article history: The coupling between biomass gasification and Solid Oxide Fuel Cells can represent a
Received 1 January 2021 sustainable and efficient system for electricity production. This work aims to develop a
Received in revised form preliminary model for the operation of a tubular, electrolyte-supported fuel cell (SOFC) fed
17 February 2021 by a syngas mixture. The fuel required by the SOFC system is produced inside the energy
Accepted 18 February 2021 generator box from an integrated biomass gasification system. This study stems from the
Available online 15 March 2021 European DB-SOFC project, that proposed the exploitation of the abundant biomasses
deriving from agricultural residues for energetic purposes (as from olive oil and wine
Keywords: production). In this study, the main processes have been simulated to find a possible
SOFC configuration to obtain a power value of 200 W. 25 cells were used in the model to produce
Biomass gasification the required power. The results showed that at 0.7 V it is possible to achieve 12.3 W, when
Model the biomass gasification was integrated into the SOFC box, while it was possible to achieve
COMSOL Multiphysics ® 9.6 W when the system was fed by externally produced syngas.
Impurities © 2021 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author. Department of Energy (DENERG), Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24, 10129, Turin, Italy.
E-mail address: davide.papurello@polito.it (D. Papurello).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.02.147
0360-3199/© 2021 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
17422 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 1 7 4 2 1 e1 7 4 3 4

Nomenclature SMR Steam Methane Reforming

SOFC Solid Oxide Fuel Cell
AU Air Utilization
T Tars
B starting Biomass
TPB Three-Phase Boundary
C Char
WGS Water Gas Shift reaction
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamic
wt% weight percentage
CGE Cold Gasifier Efficiency
YSZ Yttria Stabilized Zirconia
DB-SOFC Direct Biomass to SOFC
Deff ;f Effective binary diffusion coefficient (m2/s) Greek symbols
D f
Binary diffusion coefficient (m2/s) a Charge transfer coefficient (  Þ
Dk Knudsen diffusion coefficient (m2/s) b Symmetry factor (  Þ
DMR Dry Methane Reforming ε Porosity (  Þ
dpore pore diameter (m) εij Lennard-Jones characteristic energy (JÞ
ECO Nernstian term from CO (V) g Sticking probability (  Þ
EH2 Nernstian term from H2 (V) G Surface site density (  Þ
FU Fuel Utilization (%) hact Activation overpotential (VÞ
G pyrolysis Gases hconc Concentration overpotential (VÞ
GHG Green House Gas hel Electrical efficiency (%)
HHV Higher Heating Value (MJ/kg) hel; whole syngas Global efficiency value (%)
i0 exchange current density (A/m2) hohm Ohmic overpotential (VÞ
CO
i0 exchange current density for CO (A/m2) hsyngas;st Reacting fraction of syngas (mol)
H2
i0 exchange current density for H2 (A/m2) hsyngas; real Total amount of syngas (mol)
LHV Lower Heating Value (MJ/kg) m Dynamic viscosity (Pa $sÞ
LSCM Lanthanum strontium cobalt manganite n
coefficient (  Þ
Stoichiometric
kg
LSM Strontium-doped Lanthanum Manganite r Density (m 3

Mi Molecular weight (g/mol) Sirr

Entropy due to irreversibilities (W=KÞ
MIEC Mixed Ionic Electronic Conductor s Conductivity (cm S

MSW Municipal Solid Waste ~ij

s Lennard-Jones diameter ( AÞ
OK Olive Kernel t Tortuosity (  Þ
OW Organic Waste F Heat flux (WÞ
PH2 hydrogen partial pressure (Pa) Uij Collision integral (  Þ
PO2 oxygen partial pressure (Pa)
R gas constant value (8.314 J/mol/K)

concentration of sulfur compounds and C/H ratio can

Introduction
Growing environmental issues related to fossil fuels along
with the challenges dealing with energy security call for the
development of sustainable energy conversion technologies.
The possible solution for the reduction of such global issues
could be the coupling between fuels obtained from organic
waste and highly efficient and distributed energy generators
[1,2]. Fuel cells represent plausible energy generators, since
low temperature cells [3e5] and biofuel cells have been stud-
ied in the literature with positive results [6e10]. Among the
energy generators fed by biogenous and renewable fuels
produced from waste, SOFCs are undoubtedly the most widely
used systems due to their higher fuel flexibility, high-
efficiency values, low noise, etc. [11,12]. The advantages of
this coupling are numerous: lower emissions and related im-
pacts from Organic Wastes (OW) [13,14], and high-efficiency
values and high exploitability of the starting biomass using
SOFC systems [14,15]. SOFC systems suffer degradation phe-
nomena mainly at the anode compartment due to the com-
bination of trace contaminants plus carbon-rich fuels [16e18]
as well as thermal cycles [19e21]. The impact of catalytic
degradation is crucial for such systems [22e24]. The
reversibly or irreversibly affect the SOFC cell. These contam-
inants will act mainly through chemisorption on the active
catalyst layer which decreases the available three-phase
boundary (TPB) [25e28]. The detrimental effects of siloxane
and chlorines on SOFCs have been studied, to a lesser degree,
due to their lower concentration in the gas mixture from
organic waste [25,29,30]. As reported in previous works, it is
mandatory to remove trace compounds contained in the fuel
mixture feeding the SOFC system [31e33]. In most studies two
filtering sections are installed: a first filter bed to remove the
bulk concentration of contaminants and a guard bed to ach-
ieve a concentration which is almost reversible to the neces-
sary working conditions for SOFCs [34]. Carbon-rich fuels,
derived mainly from biomasses, can be a less severe issue for
anode degradation but needs to be investigated, especially for
the long term operation [25,35]. Radenahmad et al. (2020)
highlighted how carbon deposition is more likely when an Ni-
based anode is used compared to other anode materials such
as Ru, Cu, and complex perovskites, LSCM etc [35]. In addition
to the material selection for the anode compartment, this
deposition can be mitigated by the generator design and the
fuel feeding treatment, as well as the fuel utilization [25] (see
Tables 5e7, Figs. 3e6).
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 1 7 4 2 1 e1 7 4 3 4
As reported by Sanz-Cobena et al. (2017) and Mukherjee
et al. (2020), organic waste emissions can have a significant
environmental impact. These emissions should be controlled
and exploited for energy production instead of being released
into the atmosphere [15,36]. Curbing food waste could support
the reduction of GHG emissions related to waste management.
This is relevant for Mediterranean countries, such as Spain
where emissions of CH4 were similar both from waste man-
agement and enteric fermentation by livestock into 2012 [37].
Mediterranean countries hold more than 85% of the world's
olive oil production, while they also cultivate large areas with
grapevines. Hence, there is a huge biomass potential regarding
olive kernels and pruning from olive oil trees and grapevine
cultures [38,39]. For example in Spain, all the waste biomass
produced has a market value and reused for energy purposes.
The other treatment options are related to activated carbon
production for gas cleaning, although they are still at the
project phase [39e42]. This virtuous behaviour is in stark
contrast with the other Mediterranean countries, where
biomass wastes are not recovered for energy purposes [43].
To combat these differences, a research project has been
developed by several European Universities to exploit organic
waste with a high-efficiency system. A direct biomass-to-
electricity technology of high efficiency and low environ-
mental footprint has been developed in a novel process called
“Direct Biomass Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (DB-SOFC)”. In this
biomass gasification process a CO/H2 rich gas mixture is ach-
ieved internally in the fuel cell anodic chamber. This mixture is
produced by adding CO2 and/or H2O as gasifying agents and
appropriate catalysts to the carbon-based feedstock to
enhance the gasification rates [44,45]. DB-SOFC benefits from
the high efficiency of SOFCs (>50%) and circumvents the kinetic
limitation of contact between the solid fuel and the charge
transfer reaction sites at the solid electrolyte/anode interface.
In this paper the initial results achieved by the Direct
Biomass Solid Oxide Fuel Cell are presented. The direct
coupling between organic refuse and an energy generator
system was accomplished by modelling an SOFC stack to
produce 200 W. These results will be further evaluated for the
experimental short stack prototype construction.
Material and methods
The DB-SOFC project has been developed to exploit the
biomass potential from agricultural residues to produce
electricity and thermal energy with high-efficiency systems.
Integrated into this system, a in situ biomass gasification
process is foreseen to avoid the kinetic restrictions at the
anode side, due to the limited contact between the electrolyte
and the anode electrode and the biomass solid particles.
The schematic of the reactor foreseen is shown in Fig. 1
The single tubular cells are immersed in the biomass mate-
rial, see Table 1. Olive kernel material is considered, and it is
introduced inside the reactor from a feeder system. This
feeder system is placed at the bottom part of the reactor, while
the gasifier agent (CO2) is injected (see Table 2) (see Fig. 2).
The project aims the construction of 25 cells stack for the
production of a total electric power of 0.2 kW. The geometric
parameters of the cells are listed in the following table.
17423
The work has been developed following three main steps:
1) The SOFC operation has been modelled, temporarily
neglecting the gasification process to analyse the behaviour
of the cell, and thus considering the syngas as already
available.
2) The second step is the modelling of the gasification
process.
3) Finally, the whole system has been studied.
A single tubular cell is considered to perform a first simu-
lation of the described system. In the software COMSOL Mul-
tiphysics ®, the tubular, electrolyte supported SOFC is
implemented as a 2D axisymmetric component.
To describe the system some assumptions are imposed:

Morphologic, electrical and thermochemical characteris-
tics of materials uniform and isotropic

Electrolyte layer completely dense.
In the first part of the analysis, it is assumed that the
syngas is already available and directly injected inside the
cell from the bottom part, to focus the model on the cell.
Some further hypotheses related to the cell operation are
assumed:

The fuel cell is working in steady-state, isothermal condi-
tions; operating temperature is T ¼ 800  C

Reactant gas mixtures inside the cell are approximated as
ideal gases

The laminar regime is assumed for the gas channels

Electrochemical reactions occur in the thin active layer
between the electrolyte and the porous electrode.
In the second part of the study, the gasification model
provides the syngas composition to the controlled volume of
the single cell.
The model
Electrochemical model e The electrochemical reactions involved
are the electrochemical oxidation of H2 and CO and the
electro-reduction of O2, following the reactions:
H2 þ O2 /H2 O þ 2e (1)
CO þ O2 /CO2 þ 2e (2)
1
O2 þ 2e /O2 (3)
2
The voltage level at the terminals is a function of the cur-
rent density:
Vcell ¼ ENernst  hact;an ðiÞ  hact;cath ðiÞ  hohm ðiÞ (4)
For the evaluation of those contributions, Nernstian terms
are taken from the description proposed by Ni [46], the cor-
relations useful for the exchange current density evaluation
with H2 and CO are taken from Zhu et al. [47] and A. Leonide
et al. [48], respectively.
17424 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 1 7 4 2 1 e1 7 4 3 4

Fig. 1 e Schematic representation of the reactor.

  0:5  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi !
RT PH2 PO2 Ades G2 2pRTMH2 EH2
EH2 ¼ 1:253  0:00024516$T þ $ln (5) P*H2 ¼ $exp  des (8)
2F PH2 O g0 RT

  0:5  

RT PCO PO2 * ECO
$P0:058
1=4
ECO ¼ 1:46713  0:0004527$T þ $ln (6) 0 ¼ iCO $ exp 
iCO act
CO PCO2 (9)
2F PCO2 RT

!1=4 !1=4
PH2  3=4 PO2
P*H
$ PH2 O P*O
2 2
iH0 2 ¼ i*H2 $ !1=2 (7) i0 ¼ i*O2 !1=2 (10)
PH2 PO2
1þ P*H
1þ P*O
2 2
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 1 7 4 2 1 e1 7 4 3 4 17425

Fig. 2 e Tubular SOFC cell described in Comsol.

The overall diffusion coefficient has been evaluated with the


following relation:
EO
P*O2 ¼ AO2 exp  2 (11)
RT 0 11
fK
Di ¼ @1 1A
þ K (13)
1 f
hohm ¼ iL (12) Dij Di
s
The first contribution of the binary diffusion coefficient is
Diffusion model e The diffusion process has been subdivided
evaluated according to the equation:
into two mechanisms: a molecular and a Knudsen diffusion.

f 0:00266 Patm T3=2

Dij ¼ (14)
~2ij M1=2
0:012 P UD;ij s ij

The second term of equation (13) represents the Knudsen

diffusion coefficient, whose value is calculated with:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffi
lpath 8RT dpore T
Fig. 3 e Scheme of gasification model implemented outside DKi ¼ y97:0 (15)
3 pMi 2 Mi
the tubular cell.
17426 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 1 7 4 2 1 e1 7 4 3 4

Fig. 4 e Gas velocity field.

Fig. 5 e Polarization curve of the fuel cell.

 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 1 7 4 2 1 e1 7 4 3 4 17427

Fig. 6 e Electric efficiencies of fuel cell fed with syngas and equivalent hydrogen.

When the diffusion inside the porous structure is consid-

ered, the molecular diffusion coefficient can be adjusted ac- Results
cording to the tortuosity model, and the term of diffusion
becomes: SOFC operation with syngas

0 11
The model was developed to reach the desired nominal point,
1 1
¼ @ eff ;f þ K A
fK
Di (16) where the output power was fixed to 8 W from each cell (see
Dij Di
Table 3).
with The operating conditions are summarized in Table 4.
The complex geometry and the absence of an anode
eff ;f εp f channel that could funnel the fuel inside the porous anode,
Di ¼ D (17)
tf i limiting the fuel dispersion, generates higher inlet velocities
Gasification model e The main starting assumption has been compared to the stoichiometric values.
derived from the work of Guizani [49]. The gasification process In the following figure, the velocities distribution is depic-
is studied as a sequence of reactions. The starting biomass (B) ted. The fuel losses at the anode side are easily detected. The
is the olive kernel (OK). The chemical analysis and heating large size of the anode compartment does not guarantee
values of raw OK was reported in a preliminary report of the uniformity of the velocity field, on the contrary, it causes non-
project [50]. In the following table are reported details of the
biomass sample selected. Following the reported scheme, the
biomass is processed through the formation of char (C), tars
(T) and pyrolysis gases (G). The production of the final prod- Table 2 e Chemical analysis and heating values of raw
ucts complete the gasification model: CO, CO2, H2, H2O and biomass samples.
CH4.
Elemental Analysis (wt%) OK
The scheme reported in the figure depicts the overall re-
C 50.2
action system, that is summarized in the following table.
H 5.9
N 0.7
O 40.2
S 0.02
Table 1 e Geometric parameters for a single tubular cell.
Molar ratios
TUBE Diameter 2 cm H/C 1.41
Length 10 cm O/C 0.60
Thickness ~1 mm Proximate analysis (wt%)
ANODE (Material: Ni-YSZ) Thickness 30 mm Moisture 7.4
Catalyst layer thickness 10 mm Ash content 2.9
CATHODE (Material: LSM) Thickness 30 mm Volatile Matter 75.8
Catalyst layer thickness 10 mm Fixed Carbon 13.9
ELECTROLYTE (Material: YSZ) Thickness 1 mm LHV (MJ/kg) 18.8
17428 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 1 7 4 2 1 e1 7 4 3 4

Table 3 e Reactions of the gasification model. Table 7 e Main parameters used for the gasification
model.
Index Reaction
Biomass feeding rate (total reactor) 15 kg/h
R1 B/G
R2 B/T Gasifying agent velocity 0.9 m/s
R3 B/C Biomass density 573 kg/m3
R4 T/G Biomass moisture content ~10% wt.
R5 C þ CO2 /2CO
R6 CH4 þ H2 O/CO þ 3 H2
R7 CH4 þ CO2 /2 CO þ 2 H2 The current density at the typical voltage of 0.7 V is 0.20 A/
R8 CO þ H2 O/CO2 þ H2
cm2: this value guarantees the achievement of the minimum
R9 C2 H4 þ 2 H2 O/2 CO þ 4 H2
operating power of 8 W. The model described was able to
R10 C6 H6 þ 12 H2 O/6 CO2 þ 15 H2
R11 C6 H6 þ 6 H2 O/6 CO2 þ 9 H2 reach a maximum power value around 8.8 W. However, this is
a conservative evaluation since the model does not consider
the effect of carbon deposition that could reduce the catalyst
activity for long term operation [52e54]. The evaluation of fuel
Table 4 e Operating conditions for the tubular cell. utilization and electrical efficiency is performed as follows:

Temperature 800  C n_syngas;st

FU ¼ (18)
Pressure 1 atm n_syngas;real
Anode inlet velocity 0.05 m/s
Cathode inlet velocity 0.4 m/s Wel
hel ¼ (19)
n_syngas;st $LHV

reactive zones where the fuel does not interact with the To have a more accurate evaluation of the fuel cell per-
tubular cell. formances only the syngas that reaches the porous electrode
The cathode channel shows greater uniformity of the ve- should be considered. The electrical efficiency therefore
locity field compared to the anodic side, with a velocity peak at becomes:
the lower air insertion part. Considering the syngas molar
hel ¼ 48:4% (20)
composition, the operating temperature, the geometry of the
tube channels and the gas velocity field is possible to calculate This value is comparable with similar SOFC systems [55].
the Reynolds number. The Reynolds number varies over a Air utilization evaluated from the model give a value
range of values from a minimum to a maximum between 1.8 comparable with other literature studies [56]:
and 18.4 for the anode channel, and 1.2 and 24.5 for the
AU ¼ 59:3% (21)
cathode channel. As reported in Colpan et al. (2011), lower
Reynolds numbers in cathode and anode channel, coupled to It is possible to compare the performances of the fuel cell
the excess of air (cathode side) show better uniformity values fed by syngas with the operation of the same cell, fed by an
of gas velocity with higher electrical efficiency [51]. A gas equivalent amount of hydrogen. To compare the two config-
distributor channel, for the anode compartment, must be urations, a molar flow of pure hydrogen able to deliver the
placed around each tubular cell to guide the fuel through the same number of electrons provided by the syngas has been
reactive zone and drastically reduce the non-reactive zone considered. The molar flow at the anode side reduces there-
with better gas velocity uniformity. fore from the previous 1:12$103 mol=s of syngas to
The polarization curve for the single cell is depicted below. 4.06$104 mol=s of hydrogen.
The hydrogen would have a higher efficiency of conversion
compared to the syngas feeding condition. This can be sup-
ported by several studies [55,57], where the hydrogen fuel is
Table 5 e Electric efficiencies of SOFC fed with syngas and well electrochemically converted compared to the same
equivalent hydrogen. equivalent amount given by hydrogen and carbon monoxide.
However, the working condition at 0.7 V imposes to work in
Fuel considered Efficiency Maximum
at 0.7 V efficiency the last region of the curve (red points), where the efficiency
curve has an abrupt decrease. It is clear therefore that the
Syngas 48:4% 53:7%
operation at this point is not a good choice from the perfor-
Equivalent hydrogen 55:9% 62:0%
mances. Especially for long term operation, working in a re-
gion where gas transport losses can speed up performance
degradation [58]. The efficiencies values from the tubular cell
Table 6 e Performance comparison between the two fed by syngas and hydrogen are reported below:
operating points.
To obtain more stable efficiency values, it could be useful to
Parameter Operation at 0.7 V Operation at 0.95 V operate on a different point of the i-V curve, where the con-
2
Current density 0.20 A cm 0.13 A cm2 centration overvoltages are lower. A trade-off must be found
Electrical efficiency 48.4% 42.6% to find the best operating condition. One possibility is to work
Output power 9.59 W 8.44 W at V ¼ 0.95 V, that would guarantee the operation in the linear
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 1 7 4 2 1 e1 7 4 3 4
region of the curve (i.e., reduced fuel starvation issues) and
with an efficiency value still higher than 40%.
The current density provided by the tubular cell will be
around 0.13 A/cm2 and the output power will be around 8.5 W.
The electrical efficiency will decrease, from 48.4% to 42.6%.
The performance comparison is shown in the table, see Table
5 and Table 6.
Even if the electrical efficiency is reduced, this could be a
good compromise for the long-term operation of the fuel cell
system with stable performances.
However, the criticalities related to the design that nega-
tively affect the performances cannot be ignored. The rela-
tively big dimensions of the anode channel and the fuel cell
hurt the dispersion of both air and fuel flows. Therefore, a
possible improvement can be represented by the choice of a
different geometry: in particular, the choice of a narrower
anode flow channel, which could better funnel the fuel inside
the porous structure of the electrode. In this manner, the
exploitation of the fuel flow would be more efficient, leading
to higher performances, both regarding fuel utilization and
electrical efficiency. This point was verified by modelling the
electrical efficiency using a gas distributor channel (see Fig. 7).
The operation of the fuel cell with a flow channel with
1.5 cm radius is analysed, see Fig. 8.
In this analysis, the same inlet velocities as the previous
configuration have been applied. Being the anode inlet section
smaller than the previous configuration, the anode molar flow
is reduced. This value passes from 1:12$103 mol=s to 4:02$
104 mol=s.
In this case, the output power obtained at 0.7 V (operating
point to work in the linear region of the curve) is slightly
higher than the original configuration (9.66 W), but now this
power has been obtained using a molar flow of fuel that is
about one-third of the initial molar flow. This represents an
important improvement from the exploitation of the total
fuel. The starting fuel utilization was equal to 17.5%, it has
grown to 48.9%.
Fig. 7 e Operating conditions at V ¼ 0.95 V.
17429
Therefore, the reduction of the anode channel represents
an important improvement in fuel utilization. The electric
efficiency referred to the total inlet fuel increases up to 49.7%.
Gasification model
For the gasification model, a further variation of the domain
has been made. To model the gasification process it is sup-
posed to have two different regions, one where it is dominant
in the gas phase and the other one where the mass conser-
vation of solid species can be applied. This condition can be
modelled with the Ordinary Differential Equations on Comsol.
The carbon dioxide is used as the gasifying agent and it is
injected through the lower side of the reactor. For the initial
conditions, in the region occupied by the biomass, it is
assumed a constant moisture concentration in the solid
matter.
A biomass feeding rate of 15 kg/h has been considered, that
corresponds roughly to 0.6 kg/h for each fuel cell control vol-
ume. The gasifying agent enters with a velocity of around
0.9 m/s. Some of the main parameters used are listed in the
following table.
The results of the gasification process are reported in Fig. 9.
Simulation data follow experimental data achieved from
the project partners and published elsewhere [50]. The main
components of the syngas, CO and CO2 have a similar order of
magnitude between simulation and experimental data,
respectively 74% and 77.7 %vol. Comparable results are ach-
ieved in similar case studies using carbon dioxide as a gasi-
fying agent [49,50]. Standard deviations are added to the
columns of figure considering the replicas of experimental
tests.
The relations proposed by Guizani et al. (2014) to simulate
the gasification started from the assumption that the char
was composed of carbon solely. This could lead to the dis-
crepancies shown in the graph reported above. The experi-
mental test bench is described deeply elsewhere [49]. A
17430 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 1 7 4 2 1 e1 7 4 3 4

Fig. 8 e New possible geometry for tubular SOFC cell.

Fig. 9 e Molar composition of syngas: Simulation and Experimental results.

 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 1 7 4 2 1 e1 7 4 3 4
Horizontal Tubular Reactor (HTR) was used to study the
biomass pyrolysis gas composition. It is a double-walled
quartz tube, with a length of 850 mm and internal diameter
of 55 mm. The gas flow, controlled by mass flow controllers, is
introduced on right hand-side of the reactor, and passes
through the annular space to be heated before reaching the
biomass samples.
In this work, the value of HHV for the biomass has been
evaluated considering the formula reported below [59]:
HHVðMJ=kgÞ ¼ 0:341$C þ 1:322$H  0:12$O  0:12$N þ 0:0686$S
 0:0153$ash
in which C, H, etc., are the mass fraction in wt% on a dry basis.
The HHV is possible to estimate the efficiency of the gasifier
(cold gas efficiency).
Gsyngas $Msyngas $HHVsyngas
CGE ¼ ¼ 66:0%
Gbiomass $HHVbiomass
The simulated gasification process, therefore, is quite
efficient and can be a good starting point for the operation of
the fuel cell.
Operating the gasifier model changing the temperature
(800  C and 750  C) and the pressure (1 and 2 atm) can affect
the syngas composition and the related efficiency value.
Fig. 10 shows the composition of the syngas with different
operating variables. The molar fraction of carbon monoxide
drops with a decrease of temperature and the increase of
pressure, with an increasing amount of carbon dioxide. The
syngas produced would be less rich in fuel (CO and H2), with
higher amount of oxidized compounds, such as CO2 and H2O,
with a consequent reduction of the chemical energy that
could be exploited. Therefore, the best operating condition is
represented by: T ¼ 800  C and p ¼ 1 atm (see Fig. 11).
Fig. 10 e Molar composition of syngas: operating variables T, p.
17431
Integration of gasification and SOFC operation
The integration between the gasification model and the
tubular SOFC model was settled considering the optimal
values found above. The syngas produced reaches the anode
electrode up to the catalyst layer and it undergoes through the
electrochemical oxidation.
More reactive fuel can reach the porous electrode than the
syngas supplied from outside. Fuel utilization is improved by
controlling the fuel mixing rate.
Results achieved are reported in the following figure,
where the polarization curves are reported.
(21) The polarization curves have similar activation polariza-
tion, while ohmic losses and gas transport losses for the in-
tegrated case study have a lower impact compared to the
SOFC fed by syngas produced externally. The coupled system
allows obtaining a production higher than the deigned power
value. Fixing the current density at 0.25 A/cm2 the electrical
(22) power produced is around 12.3 W. This power increasing is
due to a different molar flow able to reach the anode
electrode.
Concerning the electrical efficiency of the tubular SOFC
integrated with the gasifier can achieve values around 50%
(50.1%).
Considering the complete system, a preliminary estima-
tion of the overall efficiency can be evaluated as:
hBiomass/electricity ¼ hel;SOFC $CGE ¼ 0:501$0:660 ¼ 0:330 ¼ 33:0%
(23)
This value could be increased by introducing a fuel recycle
system. This aspect is under investigation.
Other critical issues should be studied and solved in the
next steps of the project. Carbon deposition, tar, ash forma-
tion and the presence of impurities inside the gasifier can
affect negatively the performances of the SOFC tubular cell.
17432 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 1 7 4 2 1 e1 7 4 3 4
Fig. 11 e Polarization curve comparison between single-cell fed by syngas and cell coupled to a gasifier.
references
Conclusions
In the present work, preliminary results of coupling between
tubular cells and a biomass-fueled gasification system are
shown. This study stems from the European DB-SOFC project,
that proposes the exploitation of the abundant biomass
deriving from agricultural residues for energetic purposes (as
from olive oil and wine production). In this work, a multi-
physical model was implemented to study the electro-
chemical performance of a tubular Ni-YSZ SOFC cell directly
fed by biomass. A single cell was described, and results used to
achieve 200 W with 25 cells. The results obtained provide an
interesting basis for the design of the required experimental
prototype. This prototype will be useful to highlight technical
issues for long term operation, especially considering main-
tenance aspects.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work has been partly funded by the European Union
under the DB-SOFC project (ERANETMED2-72-246).
[1] Allan G, Eromenko I, Gilmartin M, Kockar I, McGregor P. The
economics of distributed energy generation: a literature
review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev 2015;42:543e56. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.064.
[2] Tazvinga H, Thopil M, Numbi PB, Adefarati T. Distributed
renewable energy technologies.. In: Handb. Distrib. Gener.
Cham: Springer; 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
51343-0_1.
[3] Inamuddin TA, Cheema SMJ, Zaidi SU. Rahman, Three
dimensional numerical investigations for the effects of gas
diffusion layer on PEM fuel cell performance. Renew Energy
2011;36:529e35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2010.07.008.
[4] Fan MQ, Sun LX, Xu F. Hydrogen production for micro-fuel-
cell from activated AleSneZneX (X: hydride or halide)
mixture in water. Renew Energy 2011;36:519e24. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2010.07.006.
[5] Yuan X-ZR, Song C, Wang H, Zhang J. Electrochemical
Impedance Spectroscopy in PEM Fuel Cells. Fund Appl
2014:1e420.
[6] Inamuddin KA. Alamry, application of electrically
conducting nanocomposite material polythiophene@NiO/
Frt/GOx as anode for enzymatic biofuel cells. Materials
2020;13:1823. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13081823.
[7] Inamuddin N. Shakeel, Optimization of rGO-PEI/Naph-SH/
AgNWs/Frt/GOx nanocomposite anode for biofuel cell
applications. Sci Rep 2020;10:8919. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-020-65712-8.
[8] Inamuddin, Kashmery HA. Ternary graphene@polyaniline-
TiO2 composite for glucose biofuel cell anode application. Int
J Hydrogen Energy 2019;44:22173e80. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2019.06.153.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 1 7 4 2 1 e1 7 4 3 4
[9] Perveen R, Nasar A, Inamuddin, Asiri AM, Mishra AK.
Optimization of MnO2-Graphene/polythioaniline (MnO2-G/
PTA) hybrid nanocomposite for the application of biofuel cell
bioanode. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2018;43:15144e54. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.06.070.
[10] Perveen R, Nasar A, Inamuddin, Kanchi S, Kashmery HA.
Development of a ternerry condunting composite (PPy/Au/
CNT@Fe3O4) immobilized FRT/GOD bioanode for glucose/
oxygen biofuel cell applications. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2021;46:3259e69. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2020.02.175.
[11] Lo Faro M, Antonucci V, Antonucci PL, Arico  AS. Fuel
flexibility: a key challenge for SOFC technology,. Fuel
2012;102:554e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.07.031.
[12] Konar R, Mukhopadhyay J, Sharma AD, Basu RN. Synthesis of
Cu-YSZ and Ni-Cu-YSZ cermets by a novel electroless
technique for use as solid oxide fuel cell anode: application
potentiality towards fuel flexibility in biogas atmosphere. Int
J Hydrogen Energy 2016;41:1151e60. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2015.10.003.
[13] Rayner AJ, Briggs J, Tremback R, Clemmer RMC. Design of an
organic waste power plant coupling anaerobic digestion and
solid oxide fuel cell technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2017;71:563e71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.084.
[14] Evangelisti S, Clift R, Tagliaferri C, Lettieri P. A life cycle
assessment of distributed energy production from organic
waste: two case studies in Europe,. Waste Manag
2017;64:371e85. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.wasman.2017.03.028.
[15] Mukherjee C, Denney J, Mbonimpa EG, Slagley J, Bhowmik R.
A review on municipal solid waste-to-energy trends in the
USA, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev 2020;119:109512. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109512.
[16] Papurello D, Iafrate C, Lanzini A, Santarelli M. Trace
compounds impact on SOFC performance: experimental and
modelling approach. Appl Energy 2017;208:637e54. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.09.090.
[17] Lanzini A, Ferrero D, Papurello D, Santarelli M. Reporting
degradation from different fuel contaminants in Ni-anode
SOFCs. Fuel Cell 2017;17. https://doi.org/10.1002/
fuce.201600184.
[18] Guerra C, Lanzini A, Leone P, Santarelli M, Brandon NP.
Optimization of dry reforming of methane over Ni/YSZ
anodes for solid oxide fuel cells. J Power Sources
2014;245:154e63. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jpowsour.2013.06.088.
[19] Kim YJ, Hwang SC, Lee JG, Lim H-T. Thermal cycling of anode
supported solid oxide fuel cells under various conditions:
electrical anode protection. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2016;41:23173e82. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2016.09.076.
[20] Yang J, Yan D, Huang W, Li J, Pu J, Chi B, Jian L. Improvement
on durability and thermal cycle performance for solid oxide
fuel cell stack with external manifold structure. Energy
2018;149:903e13. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2018.02.072.
[21] Hagen A, Hendriksen PV, Frandsen HL, Thyde n K, Barfod R.
Durability study of SOFCs under cycling current load
conditions. 2009. p. 814e22. https://doi.org/10.1002/
fuce.200900013.
[22] Papurello D, Vitaliano C, Maisano S, Lanzini A, Santarelli M.
Catalytic stability of a Ni-Catalyst towards biogas reforming
in the presence of deactivating trace compounds. Renew
Energy 2018;127:481e94. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.renene.2018.05.006.
[23] Ding H, Zhou D, Liu S, Wu W, Yang Y, Yang Y, Tao Z.
Electricity generation in dry methane by a durable ceramic
fuel cell with high-performing and coking-resistant layered
17433
perovskite anode, Appl. Energy 2019;233e234:37e43. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.10.013.
[24] Yue W, Li Y, Zheng Y, Wu T, Zhao C, Zhao J, Geng G,
Zhang W, Chen J, Zhu J, Yu B. Enhancing coking resistance of
Ni/YSZ electrodes: in situ characterization, mechanism
research, and surface engineering. Nanomater Energy
2019;62:64e78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nanoen.2019.05.006.
[25] Abdelkareem MA, Tanveer WH, Sayed ET, Assad MEH,
Allagui A, Cha SW. On the technical challenges affecting the
performance of direct internal reforming biogas solid oxide
fuel cells. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;101:361e75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.10.025.
[26] Shiratori Y, Sakamoto M. Performance improvement of
direct internal reforming solid oxide fuel cell fuelled by H2S-
contaminated biogas with paper-structured catalyst
technology. J Power Sources 2016;332:170e9. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jpowsour.2016.09.095.
[27] Papurello D, Lanzini A, Fiorilli S, Smeacetto F, Singh R,
Santarelli M. Sulfur poisoning in Ni-anode solid oxide fuel
cells (SOFCs): deactivation in single cells and a stack. Chem
Eng J 2016;283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.08.091.
[28] Alstrup I, Rostrup-Nielsen JR, Røen S. High temperature
hydrogen sulfide chemisorption on nickel catalysts. Appl.
Catal 1981;1(1):303e14.
[29] Madi H, Diethelm S, Poitel S, Ludwig C, Van herle J. Damage
of Siloxanes on Ni-YSZ Anode Supported SOFC Operated on
Hydrogen and Bio-Syngas. Fuel Cells 2015;15:718e27. https://
doi.org/10.1002/fuce.201400185.
[30] de Arespacochaga N, Valderrama C, Peregrina C, Mesa C,
Bouchy L, Cortina JL. Evaluation of a pilot-scale sewage
biogas powered 2.8 kW e Solid Oxide Fuel Cell: assessment of
heat-to-power ratio and influence of oxygen content. J Power
Sources 2015;300:325e35. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jpowsour.2015.09.086.
[31] Papurello D, Tomasi L, Silvestri S, Santarelli M. Evaluation of
the Wheeler-Jonas parameters for biogas trace compounds
removal with activated carbons, Fuel Process. Technol
2016;152:93e101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2016.06.006.
[32] Papurello D, Boschetti A, Silvestri S, Khomenko I, Biasioli F.
Real-time monitoring of removal of trace compounds with
PTR-MS: biochar experimental investigation. Renew Energy
2018;125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.02.122.
[33] Papurello Gandiglio, Kafashan Lanzini. Biogas purification: a
comparison of adsorption performance in D4 siloxane
removal between commercial activated carbons and waste
wood-derived char using isotherm equations,. Processes
2019;7:774. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr7100774.
[34] Papadias DD, Ahmed S, Kumar R. Fuel quality issues with
biogas energy - an economic analysis for a stationary fuel
cell system. Energy 2012;44:257e77. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2012.06.031.
[35] Radenahmad N, Azad AT, Saghir M, Taweekun J, Bakar MSA,
Reza MS, Azad AK. A review on biomass derived syngas for
SOFC based combined heat and power application. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev 2020;119:109560. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2019.109560.
[36] Sanz-Cobena A, Lassaletta L, Aguilera E, del Prado A,
 nchez B, Guardia G, Abalos D,
Garnier J, Billen G, Iglesias A, Sa
Plaza-Bonilla D, Puigdueta-Bartolome  I, Moral R, Gala n E,
Arriaga H, Merino P, Infante-Amate J, Meijide A, Pardo G,

Alvaro-Fuentes J, Gilsanz C, Ba ez D, Doltra J, Gonza lez-
Ubierna S, Cayuela ML, Mene ndez S, Dı́az-Pine s E, Le-Noe € J,
Quemada M, Estelle s F, Calvet S, van Grinsven HJM,
Westhoek H, Sanz MJ, Gimeno BS, Vallejo A, Smith P.
Strategies for greenhouse gas emissions mitigation in
Mediterranean agriculture: a review, Agric. Ecosyst. Environ
Times 2017;238:5e24. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.agee.2016.09.038.
17434 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 1 7 4 2 1 e1 7 4 3 4
[37] Mun ~ oz Ana
 lisis de GEI en el sector del transporte en Espan
~a -
Vanesa Zorrilla, Cava Noelia Ferna  ndez, Petz Marc.
tecnicaindustrial.es. n.d. http://www.tecnicaindustrial.es/
TIFrontal/a-6156-analisis-gei-sector-transporte-espana.
aspx. [Accessed 21 April 2020].
[38] Vourdoubas J. Possibilities of energy generation from olive
tree residues, by-products and waste in crete, Greece. J Agric
Stud 2017;5:110. https://doi.org/10.5296/jas.v5i4.12114.
[39] Angel Mene ndez J, Ferna  ndez-Tresguerres LG, Villanueva SF,
Dura n M, Montes-Mora  n MA, Arenillas A. Report on the
availability of Biomass Sources in Spain: vineyards and olive
groves. Report of the ERANET Project 2018:1e9. https://
doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32722.66242.
[40] Papurello D, Santarelli M, Fiorilli S. Physical activation of
waste-derived materials for biogas cleaning. Energies
2018;11:2338. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11092338.
[41] Tinnirello M, Papurello D, Santarelli M, Fiorilli S. Thermal
activation of digested sewage sludges for carbon dioxide
removal from biogas. Fuel 2020;1:30e46. https://doi.org/
10.3390/fuels1010004.
[42] Papurello D, Lanzini A, Bressan M, Santarelli M. H2S removal
with sorbent obtained from sewage sludges. Processes
2020;8:130. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr8020130.
[43] Kirubakaran V, Sivaramakrishnan V, Nalini R, Sekar T,
Premalatha M, Subramanian P. A review on gasification of
biomass, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev 2009;13:179e86. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2007.07.001.
[44] Konsolakis M, Kaklidis N, Kyriakou V, Garagounis I, Kraia Tz,
Arenillas A, Mene ndez JA, Strandbakke R, Marnellos GE. The
combined impact of carbon type and catalyst-aided
gasification process on the performance of a Direct Carbon
Solid Oxide Fuel Cell,. Solid State Ionics 2018;317:268e75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssi.2018.01.026.
[45] Vakouftsi E, Marnellos GE, Athanasiou C, Coutelieris F. CFD
modeling of a biogas fuelled SOFC. Solid State Ionics
2011;192:458e63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssi.2010.05.051.
[46] Ni M. Modeling of SOFC running on partially pre-reformed
gas mixture. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2012;37:1731e45. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.10.042.
[47] Zhu H, Kee RJ, Janardhanan VM, Deutschmann O,
Goodwin DG. Modeling elementary heterogeneous chemistry
and electrochemistry in solid-oxide fuel cells. J Electrochem
Soc 2005;152:A2427. https://doi.org/10.1149/1.2116607.
[48] Leonide A, Hansmann S, Ivers-Tiffe e E. A 0-dimensional
stationary model for anode-supported solid oxide fuel cells,.
ECS Trans. 2010;28:341e6. https://doi.org/10.1149/1.3495858.
[49] Guizani C. Effects of CO2 on the biomass pyro-gasification in
high heating rate and low heating rate conditions. Doctorate
Thesis - Universite  de Toulouse 2014:1e277.
[50] Lampropoulos A, Kaklidis N, Athanasiou C, Montes-
Mora  n MA, Arenillas A, Mene ndez JA, Binas VD,
Konsolakis M, Marnellos GE. Effect of Olive Kernel thermal
treatment (torrefaction vs. slow pyrolysis) on the
physicochemical characteristics and the CO2 or H2O
gasification performance of as-prepared biochars. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2020.11.230. S0360319920344815. [in press].
[51] Colpan CO, Hamdullahpur F, Dincer I. Transient heat
transfer modeling of a solid oxide fuel cell operating with
humidified hydrogen. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2011;36:11488e99. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2010.11.127.
[52] Li W, Shi Y, Luo Y, Wang Y, Cai N. Carbon deposition on
patterned nickel/yttria stabilized zirconia electrodes for solid
oxide fuel cell/solid oxide electrolysis cell modes. J Power
Sources 2015;276:26e31. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jpowsour.2014.11.106.
[53] Subotic  V, Baldinelli A, Barelli L, Scharler R, Pongratz G,
Hochenauer C, Anca-Couce A. Applicability of the SOFC
technology for coupling with biomass-gasifier systems:
short- and long-term experimental study on SOFC
performance and degradation behaviour. Appl Energy
2019;256:113904. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2019.113904.
[54] Lee WY, Hanna J, Ghoniem AF. On the predictions of carbon
deposition on the nickel anode of a {SOFC} and its impact on
open-circuit conditions. J Electrochem Soc 2013;160. https://
doi.org/10.1149/2.051302jes. F94{$\$textendash}F105.
[55] Pieratti E, Baratieri M, Ceschini S, Tognana L, Baggio P.
Syngas suitability for solid oxide fuel cells applications
produced via biomass steam gasification process:
experimental and modeling analysis. J Power Sources
2011;196:10038e49. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jpowsour.2011.07.090.
[56] Chen D, Xu Y, Hu B, Yan C, Lu L. Investigation of proper
external air flow path for tubular fuel cell stacks with an
anode support feature, Energy Convers. OR Manag
2018;171:807e14. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2018.06.036.
[57] Aydın O, € Nakajima H, Kitahara T. Current and temperature
distributions in-situ acquired by electrode-segmentation
along a microtubular solid oxide fuel cell operating with
syngas. J Power Sources 2015;293:1053e61. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jpowsour.2015.06.024.
[58] Vielstich W, Lamm Arnold, Gasteiger HA. Handbook of fuel
cells;: fundamentals, technology, and applications. Wiley;
2003.
[59] Milne T, Brennan AH, Glenn BH. Sourcebook of methods of
analysis for biomass and biomass conversion processes.
Elsevier Applied Science, Elsevier; 1990.