Thesis for the Degree of Master

Performance evaluations of dual circulating

fluidized-beds for biomass gasification

by

Son Ich Ngo

Advisor: Prof. Young-il Lim

August, 2012

Major in Integrated Biotechnology

Graduate School of Biotechnology & Information Technology

Hankyong National University

 Performance evaluations of dual circulating
fluidized-beds for biomass gasification

by

Son Ich Ngo

Advisor: Prof. Young-il Lim

Submitted to the Graduate School

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Master

August, 2012

Approved by:

Chairman Hag-Young Lee (Signature)

Young-Il Lim (Signature)

Uen-Do Lee (Signature)

 ABSTRACT

Performance evaluations of dual circulating fluidized-beds for biomass

gasification

Son, Ich Ngo

U

Major in Integrated Biotechnology

U

The Graduate School of Biotechnology & Information Technology

Hankyong National University

This study presents several simulation approaches for biomass gasification in

dual-circulating fluidized-bed (DFB). An overview of biomass and various
gasification processes is introduced, focusing on modeling and simulation of
fluidized-beds. This simulation approaches include the process systems
modeling (PSM) and the computational fluid dynamics (CFD), to (1) predict the
producer gas composition, (2) evaluate the performance of gasifier, (3) optimize
the operating condition, and (4) improve the gasifier design. A qETG (quasi-
equilibrium three-stage gasification) model was developed in PSM and a CFD
simulation for cold-rig sDFB (semi-dual circulating fluidized-bed) was
performed.
For the pure steam gasification in DFB, a quasi-equilibrium three-stage
gasification (qETG) model was developed to investigate the effects of operating
conditions on the process performance criteria (carbon conversion, solid
circulation rate, heat recovery, H2/CO ratio etc.). The model incorporates the
thermodynamic equilibrium model with the empirical models of devolatilization,
steam participation, and the non-equilibrium factor in the three stages (pyrolysis,
char-gas reactions and gas phase reaction), respectively. Two parametric studies
targeting the producer gas for the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis and the
electric power generation (EPG), respectively, find the effective operating
conditions by process performance contours.
For the gasification in DFB with the mixture of air and steam, an air-steam
mixed biomass gasification (ASBG) model was developed to find the suitable
operating conditions such as gasification temperature (T), steam to biomass ratio
(SBR), and equivalence ratio (ER). The ASBG model is a thermodynamic
equilibrium model coupled with reaction kinetics for carbon conversion and
empirical steam participation factors. The parametric study on T, SBR, and ER
was carried out to evaluate process performance targeting EPG.
The CFD approach has been considered as a viable tool for equipment design.
In present study, Hydrodynamics in a cold-rig semi-dual circulating fluidized-
bed (sDFB) were investigated by the CFD simulation of gas and solids flows
using Eulerian-Eulerian two-fluid model incorporating with the kinetic theory of
granular flow (KTGF) and the dispersed 𝑘 − 𝜖 turbulence model. This sDFB
derives direct mixing of solid particles by introducing an internal hole between
the riser and gasifier zones into the conventional DFB. The CFD simulation
result demonstrated that the sDFB gasifier has advantages in heat and mass
transfer owing to direct mixing through the internal hole.
PSM and CFD focused on process performance evaluation and fluid
hydrodynamics, respectively, were carried out. However, the two results
obtained from PSM and CFD were not linked together, and were used for each
objectives. The connectivity between PSM and CFD will be therefore identified
and they have to be used for a common objective like process development in
the future work, for which robust and clear theoretical backgrounds on PSM and
CFD are a prerequisite.
 CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
List of tables ............................................................................................................................... i
List of figures ............................................................................................................................. ii
I. GENERAL INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
1. Biomass and its properties ..................................................................................................... 2
2. Gasification processes ............................................................................................................ 3
3. Modeling and simulation of fluidized-bed gasifier ................................................................ 7
3.1. Process systems modeling (PSM) .................................................................................. 9
3.2. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation .........................................................11
4. Scope of this study ................................................................................................................14
4.1. Process performance evaluations in DFB ......................................................................17
4.2. Hydrodynamics and internal mixing in cold-rig sDFB..................................................20
5. Originalities and limitations ..................................................................................................21
5.1. Originalities and achievements of this study .................................................................21
5.2. Limitations ....................................................................................................................22
6. Future works .........................................................................................................................23
Nomenclature ............................................................................................................................25
References.................................................................................................................................26
II. APPLICATIONS ......................................................................................................................29
1. Performance evaluation for dual circulation fluidized-bed steam gasifier of biomass using
quasi-equilibrium three-stage gasification model (Ngo et al., Applied Energy, 2011). ............29
2. Three-stage steady-stage model for biomass gasification in a dual circulating fluidized-bed
(Nguyen et al., Energy Conversion and Management, 2011)....................................................43
3. Thermodynamic equilibrium model for biomass gasification in dual circulating fluidized bed
(DFB) using air-steam mixed agent (to be submitted). .............................................................57
4. Hydrodynamics of a semi-dual fluidized-bed biomass gasifier by using gas-solid two-fluid
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model (Ngo et al., submitted to Powder Technology,
2012). ........................................................................................................................................86
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .........................................................................................................138
SUMMARY IN KOREAN (한국어 번역)..................................................................................139
APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................141
A1. Curriculum vitae and outcomes ........................................................................................141
A2. Presentation material of Master thesis ..............................................................................145
List of tables

Table I.2.1. Salient features and comparison of different designs of biomass

gasifiers (Beenackers, 1999; Bridgwater, 1995) ………………………………..6

Table I.4.1. Research subjects and their originalities …………………………16

i
List of figures

Fig. I.3.1. Concept of gasification process in DFB with sand heat carrier ……8

Fig. I.4.1. Stages of modeling approach to process development ……………15

Fig. I.4.2. Research methodology of performance evaluation contour……….18

Fig. I.4.3. Graphical absent of internal mixing in sDFB ……………………...21

Fig. I.5.1. Originalities and achievements in biomass gasification modeling and

simulation. …………………………………………………………………….22

ii
I. GENERAL INTRODUCTION
This study focuses the modeling and simulation on biomass gasification
processes in dual-circulating fluidized-bed (DFB), by using two scales: process
system modeling (PSM) and computational fluid dynamics (CFD). These two
majorities of approach are often used in modeling and simulation on the
gasification processes.

The PSM at the process-level owning to evaluate process performance and

optimize the performance operating conditions. The basic principle of PSM is
the thermodynamic equilibrium system, which is achieved when it was in
thermal equilibrium, mechanical equilibrium, radiative equilibrium, and
chemical equilibrium (Barbieri, 2007).

The CFD at the fluid-level analyzes the hydrodynamic behaviors, in terms of

flow regime characteristics and time-averaged of solid mass fluxes, to carry out
the equipment optimization and design improvements. Fundamental basis of
almost all CFD problems are the Navie-Stokes equations, describe the motion of
fluid substances. These equations arise from applying Newton's second law to
fluid motion ( 𝑣𝑣𝑗 𝜌 𝜕𝑣𝑣𝑗 ⁄𝜕𝑒𝑒𝑗 ), together with the assumption that fluid stress
(𝜕(𝜌𝜏𝑖𝑗,𝑡 )⁄𝜕𝑒𝑒𝑗 ) is the sum of a diffusing viscous term (𝜇 𝜕 2 𝑣𝑣𝑗 �𝜕𝑒𝑒𝑗 𝜕𝑒𝑒𝑗 ), plus a
pressure term (𝜕𝑃⁄𝜕𝑒𝑒𝑗 ) (details are presented in Eq. I.3.4).

This thesis aims to (1) the steady-state process simulation for the purpose of
process design and operating condition optimization, (2) the CFD modeling of
multiphase turbulent flows to examine the fluid hydrodynamics and solid mass
fluxes.

The thesis is divided into two main parts as follow. In Part I, the properties of
biomass (Chapter 1) and gasification processes (Chapter 2) are briefly
introduced. Simulation approaches applied to biomass gasification in DFB and

1
its design enhancement are then presented in Chapter 3. Part II presents
application studies including two publications and two manuscripts.

1. Biomass and its properties

Biomass is a term for all organic material that stems from plants (including
algae, trees and crops). Biomass is produced by green plants converting sunlight
into plant material through photosynthesis and includes all land- and water-
based vegetation, as well as all organic wastes. The biomass resource can be
considered as organic matter, in which the energy of sunlight is stored in
chemical bonds. When the bonds between adjacent carbon, hydrogen and
oxygen molecules are broken by digestion, combustion, or decomposition, these
substances release their stored chemical energy. Biomass has always been a
major source of energy for mankind and is presently estimated to contribute of
the order 10–14% of the world's energy supply (McKendry, 2002).

Biomass contains various amounts of cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin and a

small amount of other extractives. Woody plant species are typically
characterized by slow growth and are composed of tightly bound fibers, giving a
hard external surface, while herbaceous plants are usually perennial, with more
loosely bound fibers, indicating a lower proportion of lignin, which binds
together with the cellulosic fibers (McKendry, 2002). This naturedly complexity
makes the biomass conversion processes be a challenge.

Nowadays, the biomass has evolved as one of the most promising sources of
fuel for the future, since it is renewable, sustainable, abundantly available
everywhere in the world, and the increased use of biomass can reduce the
petroleum dependence (Asadullah et al., 2004; Moon et al., 2011). This spurred
the growth and development efforts in both federal and private sectors (Chum
and Overend, 2001). The conversion of biomass into energy can be achieved by

2
a number of ways (McKendry, 2002), one of them is thermochemical
conversion through the gasification processes.

2. Gasification processes

Gasification is partial thermal oxidation, which results in a high proportion of

gaseous products (CO2, H2O, CO, H2 and gaseous hydrocarbons), small
quantities of char (solid product), ash, and condensable compounds (tars and
oils). Steam, air or oxygen is supplied to reaction as an oxidizing agent. The gas
produced can be standardized in its quality and is easier and more versatile to
use than the original biomass, such as for the power generation, gas turbines or
the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. Gasification adds value from low- or negative-
value feedstock by converting it into marketable fuels and products (Puig-
Arnavat et al., 2010).

The mechanism of biomass gasification is complex due to its complexity in

natural composition and formation. The gasification process consists briefly of
the following stages (Li and X., 2004; Li and Suzuki, 2009; McKendry, 2002):

- Drying: in this stage, the moisture content of biomass is typically reduced

from range of 5–35% (initial) to <5%. Drying occurs at about 100–200oC.

- Pyrolysis: This is essentially the thermal decomposition of the biomass in the

absence of oxygen or air. In this stage, the volatile matter in biomass is
devolatilized. This results in the release of hydrocarbon gases from biomass and
the reduction of biomass to solid charcoal. The hydrocarbon gases can condense
at a sufficiently low temperature to generate liquid tars.

- Oxidation: This is a reaction between carbonized solid biomass (char) and

oxygen gas, resulting in formation of CO2. Hydrogen in biomass is also
oxidized to generate water. A large amount of heat is released with the
oxidation of carbon and hydrogen. If oxygen is present in substoichiometric

3
quantities, the partial oxidation of carbon may occur, resulting in the generation
of carbon monoxide.

- Reduction: In the absence of oxygen, several reduction reactions occur in the

temperature range of 800–1000oC. These reactions are mostly endothermic. The
main reactions in this category are as follows:

Water–gas reaction:
𝑘𝐽
𝐶 + 𝐻2 𝑂 → 𝐶𝑂 + 𝐻2 − 131.4 (I.2.1)
𝑔𝑚𝑜𝑙

Bounded reaction:
𝑘𝐽
𝐶 + 𝐶𝑂2 ↔ 2𝐶𝑂 − 172.6 (I.2.2)
𝑔𝑚𝑜𝑙

Shift reaction:
𝑘𝐽
𝐶𝑂2 + 𝐻2 ↔ 𝐶𝑂 + 𝐻2 𝑂 − 42 (I.2.3)
𝑔𝑚𝑜𝑙

Methanation reaction:
𝑘𝐽
𝐶 + 2𝐻2 ↔ 𝐶𝐻4 + 75 (I.2.4)
𝑔𝑚𝑜𝑙

Gasification reactor designs have been researched for more than a century,
which has resulted in the availability of several designs at the small and large
scales. They can be classified in several ways (Puig-Arnavat et al., 2010):

- By gasification agent: Air-blown gasifiers, oxygen gasifiers and steam

gasifiers.

- By heat source: Auto-thermal or direct gasifiers, and allothermal or indirect

gasifiers.

- By gasifier pressure: Atmospheric or pressurized

- By reactor design:

4
 o Fixed-bed (updraft, downdraft, cross-draft and open core): The fixed-
bed gasifier has a bed of solid fuel particles through which the gasifying
media and gas either move up (updraft), move down (downdraft) or are
introduced from one side of the reactor and are released from the other
side on the same horizontal level (cross-draft) (Thomas B. Reed and
Das, 1988).
o Fluidized-bed (bubbling, circulating and dual-fluidized bed): The
gasifying agent is blown through a bed of solid particles at a sufficient
velocity to keep the particles in a state of suspension. Fuel particles are
introduced at the bottom of the gasifier, are very quickly mixed with the
bed material and almost instantaneously are heated up to the bed
temperature. As a result of this treatment, the fuel is devolatilized to a
component mixture with a relatively large amount of gaseous materials.
Dual fluidized-bed gasification uses two fluidized-bed reactors. The
biomass enters the first reactor, where it is gasified with steam and the
remaining char is transported to the second reactor, where it is burnt
with air to produce heat. The heat is transported to the gasification
reactor by the bed material, normally sand (Ngo et al., 2011; Nguyen et
al., 2012a).
o Entrained-flow: These gasifiers are commonly used for coal because
they are slurry-fed in to the direct gasification mode, which makes solid
fuel feeding at high pressures inexpensive. These gasifiers are
characterized by short residence time, high temperatures, high pressures
and large capacities (Knoef, 2005).
o Stage gasification with physical separation of pyrolysis, oxidation
and/or reduction zones.

The comparative evaluation of different designs of biomass gasifiers are

summarized in Table I.2.1

5
Table I.2.1. Salient features and comparison of different designs of biomass
gasifiers (Beenackers, 1999; Bridgwater, 1995)
Downdraft
a) Simple and proven technology.
b) Fuel specificity in term of both size
and type.
c) Producer gas with moderate calorific
value and low tar and ash content.
d) High exit gas temperature
e) Suitable for capacity 20-200kW.
f) High residence time of solids.
g) High overall carbon conversion.
h) Limited scale-up potential with
maximum capacity of 250kW.
Bubbling fluidized bed (BFB)
a) High fuel flexibility in terms of both
size and type.
b) Flexibility of operation at loads
lower than design load.
c) Ease of operation.
d) Low feedstock inventory.
e) Good temperature control and high
reaction rates.
f) Good gas-solid contact and mixing.
g) In-bed catalytic processing possible.
h) Producer gas with moderate HHV
but low tar levels and high
particulates.
i) Carbon loss with ash.
j) High conversion efficiency.
k) Suitable for large-scale capacities (up
to 1MW or even higher).
l) Good scale-up potential.
Entrained-flow bed
a) Relatively complex construction and
operation.
b) Fuel specificity in terms of particle
size (costly feed preparation).
c) Low feedstock inventory.
d) High temperature gives good gas
quality.
e) Problems with construction materials
at high temperature.
f) Good gas-solid contact and mixing.
g) Producer gas with moderate HHV
and low tar content.
h) High conversion efficiency.
i) Suitable for high capacities (>1MW).
j) Very good scale-up potential.
6
Updraft
a) Simple and proven technology.
b) Low exit gas temperature.
c) High thermal efficiency.
d) Producer gas with moderate calorific
value but high tar and ash content.
e) High residence time of solids.
f) High overall carbon conversion.
g) Extensive gas cleanup required
before it can be used in engines.
h) Suitable for capacity up to 250kW.
i) Limited scale-up potential
Circulating fluidized-bed (CFB)
a) High fuel flexibility in terms of both
size and type.
b) Flexibility of operation at loads
lower than design load.
c) Ease of operation.
d) Low feedstock inventory.
e) Good temperature control and high
reaction rates.
f) In-bed catalytic processing possible.
g) Producer gas with moderate tar levels
but high particulates.
h) High carbon conversion.
i) Good gas-solid contact and mixing.
j) Suitable for large-scale capacities (up
to 1MW or even higher).
k) High conversion efficiency.
l) Very good scale-up potential.
Dual fluidized-bed (DFB)
a) Relatively complex construction and
operation.
b) Producer gas with moderate HHV
and moderate tar levels.
c) Cleaning of gas required before it can
be fired into engines.
d) In-bed catalytic conversion possible.
e) Good gas-solid contact and mixing.
f) Relative low efficiency.
g) Suitable for high specific capacities
(>1 MW).
h) Good scale-up potential but
relatively complex design.
Recently, the dual fluidized-bed gasifiers (DFBGs) have been a promising
biomass gasification technology due to following advantage in comparison with
the other types of gasifiers (Wennan, 2010):
(1) no oxygen demand to obtain nitrogen-free syngas;
(2) low investment cost;
(3) no or simple pre-treatment of biomass;
(4) easy feeding of biomass;
(5) suitable for biomass-based S&M (small or medium) scale bio-automotive
fuel plant;
(6) low temperature operation;
(7) technology has been developed and demonstrated for heat and electricity
production.

3. Modeling and simulation of fluidized-bed gasifier

Due to the inherent complexity of biomass gasification processes, modeling for

simulation and prediction of performance of the process is still an incipient
activity (Ahmed et al., 2012).

In order to optimize the design and operation of biomass gasifiers, an extensive

investigation of the plant behavior depending on various operating conditions is
required (Hamel and Krumm, 2001). Often conducting experiments at large
scales is problematic, undesirable in some cases for safety reasons and
expensive as well (Li and X., 2004). Instead, as mathematical modeling gives a
good representation of the chemical and physical phenomena occurring in the
gasifier the resulting models can be used to study the plant behavior for
optimization of the gasifier design and its operation with minimal temporal and
financial costs (Hamel and Krumm, 2001; Kaushal et al., 2011; Li and X., 2004)

The process of DFBGs is generally modeled in two zones: gasification and

combustion zones, as described in Fig. I.3.1 (Proll and Hofbauer, 2008). The

7
silica sand is a common heat carrier used in DFB due to their good physical,
mechanical, and handling properties (Ngo et al., 2011; Nguyen et al., 2012a;
Seo et al., 2011). The feedstock (biomass) and sand are stored at the gasification
zone, herein, the gasification reactions take place. The riser burns char residue
and additional fuel to heat up the sand particles. The heat required at the
endothermic gasification zone is provided by the hot sand particles which come
from the riser.

Modeling and simulation are performed in the two ways: the process system
modeling (PSM) or the computational fluid dynamics (CFD).

Heated silica sand

Provide heat for
Producer gasification zone
Flue gas: O2,
gas: CO, N2, CO2,
H2, CH4,
H2O(Ash)
CO2, H2O

Gasification Combustion
(~850oC) (~950oC)

Biomass Additional
fuel
(biomass)
Air
and/or Air
steam
Cooled silica sand,
Char residue and
Ash

Fig. 3.1. Concept of gasification process in DFB with sand heat carrier

8
3.1. Process systems modeling (PSM)
Process systems engineering (PSE) is an independent scientific discipline that
covers process design, process operations, process control, process
intensification, chemical product design, and supporting the modeling tools
(Charpentier and McKenna, 2004; Grossmann and Westerberg, 2000; Moulijn
et al., 2008).

The modeling process is interactive and can be divided into following steps
(Németh et al., 2005):

(1) Model goal-set definition (modeling problem specification)

(2) Model conceptualization (identifying controlling factors)

(3) Modeling data: needs and sources

(4) Model building and model analysis

(5) Model verification

(6) Model solution

(7) Model calibration and validation.

In biomass gasification modeling, studies generally covered by PSM were

reported in (1) first-principle models and (2) back-box models. The first-
principle models, classified by its general assumptions (Hangos and Cameron,
2001a) could be place into the (a) thermodynamic equilibrium models
(thermodynamic equilibrium) (Prasad and Kuester, 1988; Proll and Hofbauer,
2008; Schuster et al., 2001), and (b) the reaction kinetic rate models (Corella
and Sanz, 2005; Fiaschi and Michelini, 2001).

The thermodynamic equilibrium models give the final gas composition under
chemical equilibrium. At chemical equilibrium, a reacting system is at its most
stable composition, a condition achieved when the entropy of the system is
maximized while its Gibbs free energy is minimized. The mathematical model

9
of process unit is composed of a set of algebraic of equations (which is resulted
from transformation of the ordinary differential equations and elimination of all
derivative terms 𝑑𝑒𝑒𝑖 /𝑑𝑡 by setting them to zero) (Hangos and Cameron, 2001b):

𝑚𝑚(𝑒𝑒, 𝑣𝑣) = 0 (I.3.1)

where 𝑒𝑒 and 𝑣𝑣 are direction and velocity, respectively.

In DFBGs, numerous studies have been focused on thermodynamic equilibrium

models in order to predict the final gas compositions, and to investigate the
effects of operating conditions on process. Prasad and Kuester developed the
equilibrium model for DFB analysis with an additional linear empirical equation
for pyrolysis gas products (Prasad and Kuester, 1988). Schuster et al. reported a
parametric study on biomass composition, gasification temperature, and oxygen
and steam contents with the linear sensitivity analysis of chemical efficiency
(Schuster et al., 2001). Nevertheless, Shen et al. and Proll and Hofbauer
evaluated the effects of operating conditions on the solids circulation ratio(Proll
and Hofbauer, 2008; Shen et al., 2008), which is considered as one of the most
important criterion for DFBGs. Features of the thermodynamic equilibrium
models could be found in Part II, Chapter 1-3.

The reaction kinetic rate models provide essential information on kinetic

mechanisms to describe the conversion during biomass gasification, which is
crucial in designing, evaluating and improving gasifiers. The mathematical
model of the process unit is composed of the material and energy balances in
the form of differential equations with the association of boundary and initial
conditions, and constitutive equations in the algebraic form (Hangos and
Cameron, 2001b):

𝑚𝑚(𝑒𝑒, 𝑣𝑣, 𝑡) = 0 (I.3.2)

In order to understand the complex phenomena of reactions adjusted in biomass

gasifiers, various studies have been concentrated on the reaction kinetic rate
models. Fiaschi and Michelini established the two-phase one-dimensional

10
biomass gasification kinetics model to predict the final gas composition with the
considerations of transport phenomena between dense and bubble phases in
DFB (Fiaschi and Michelini, 2001). Correla and Sanz reported a pseudo-
rigorous kinetics model for CFB, which is an extension of one-dimensional plug
flow model with complex reaction kinetic network and 6-lump model for tar
formation in fast pyrolysis step (Corella and Sanz, 2005). However, those
studies had been limited by hydrodynamics assumptions.

In the black-box models, the artificial neural network models are commonly
used in biomass gasification (Brown et al., 2006; Guo et al., 2001). Those are
composed of interconnecting artificial neurons (programming constructs that
mimic the properties of biological system). Artificial neural networks may
either be used to gain understanding of biological neural network, or for solving
artificial intelligence problems without necessary creating a mechanism of a real
system.

Mathematically, the artificial neural network base on weight partitioning

method (Lim et al., 2007). The computational procedure follows those steps: (1)
changing the weight, (2) adjusting the network, (3) comparing the output with
the target until the network output matches the target. The artificial neural
network models have achieved high prediction accuracy, which depends on the
number of training neuron as well as the training set. However, it is hard to
obtain physical meaning from these models, and the scale-up and adaption
abilities of the artificial neural network models are restricted.

3.2. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation

CFD models focus on the gas and solid flow dynamics such as the pressure drop
distribution, volume fraction, solid mass flux, species transportation, etc., in
order to improve the gasifier design and investigate the suitable operating
conditions.

11
The analysis method of CFD makes it possible to find numeral solutions to a set
of partial differential equations for transport processes in fluids and solids,
which are appeared in DFBGs. In general, this computational method delivers a
numerical solution of the transport equations in selected points of space and
time instead of analytical solution.

Depending on the computed information details for turbulent flows, CFD can be
divided into Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS), Large Eddy Simulation (LES),
and the Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stocks equations with turbulence models
(RANS modeling) (Chen et al., 2007). Because DNS considers all the scales of
flow eddy its application is computationally prohibited. Only LES and RANS
modeling are appropriate with current computing capacity (Chen et al., 2007).
Among the three general simulation (DNS, LES and RANS modeling), RANS
could be considered as the simplest and most common approach in CFD
simulation.

RANS modeling separates all spatial parameters into their mean and fluctuating
components. The fluctuating components are approximated as time-averaged
root-mean-square (RSM) values. For time-averaged and incompressible buoyant
flow, the continuity equation is (Chen et al., 2007):

𝜕(𝜌𝜈𝑖 )
=0 (I.3.3)
𝜕𝑥𝑖

and the momentum equation is:

𝜕(𝜈𝑖 ) 𝜕(𝜌𝜈 𝜈 ) 𝜕𝑃 𝜕 2 𝜈𝑖 𝜕(𝜌𝜏𝑖𝑗,𝑡 )

+ 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝑖 =− + 𝜇 𝜕𝑥 + (I.3.4)
𝜕𝑡 𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑖 𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑖 𝜕𝑥𝑗

where 𝜏𝑖,𝑗,𝑡 are the eddy stresses that are modeled through a turbulent viscosity,
𝜇𝑡 :

𝜇 𝜕𝜈
𝜏𝑖𝑗,𝑡 = � 𝜌𝑡 � 𝜕𝑥𝑖 (3-5)
𝑗

The notations are explained in the nomenclature.

12
If the heat and mass transfer are considered, RANS equation for energy is

𝜕 𝜕 𝜇 𝜇 𝜕 𝜕𝑇
�𝜌𝐶𝑝 𝑇� + 𝜕𝑥 �𝜌𝑢𝑗 𝑇� =� +𝜎𝑡 � � � (I.3.6)
𝜕𝑡 𝑗 𝜎𝑇 𝑇,𝑡 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗

and for species concentration is

𝜕 𝜕 𝜇 𝜇𝑡 𝜕 𝜕𝐶
(𝜌𝐶) + �𝜌𝑢𝑗 𝐶� =� + � � � (I.3.7)
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜎𝐶 𝜎𝐶,𝑡 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗

In order to solve such differential equations in a computational domain with

given initial and boundary conditions, the discretization of time and space is
required. There are four general discretization methods – finite difference
method (FDM), finite element method (FEM), spectral method (SM), and finite
volume method (FVM). The most popular types are FVM and FEM, which are
used several popular CFD software such as, Fluent and COMSOL, respectively.

In recent years, rapid advances in CFD softwares (e.g. CFDLIB, Fluent,

PHONICS, FLOW 3D, FIDAP, FLOW MAP, etc.) are becoming important in
scaling up new equipment or multi-functional unit operations by simulation of
flow phenomena. CFD is a good link between laboratory experiments, operated
at small scale with common fluids (air, water, organic, solid particles, etc.), and
industrial operation (large scales, complex fluids, severe temperature and
pressure conditions) (Charpentier, 2002).

Other advantages of CFD simulation are: (1) significant shortening of time

required to research and development works on new technology, (2) higher
efficiency of financial investments on simulations than on experiments, (3)
availability of technical information both on the local and global scale of the
equipment, and (4) possibility of simulating conditions, which are difficult or
impossible to accomplish in real experiment or production plant (Hilgenstock
and Ernst, 1996). However, the efforts of the CFD simulation are (i) the model
validation of complex phenomena at which the theoretical knowledge is

13
incomplete, and (ii) the number of functional elements is proportional with the
requirement of calculation time (Steinhauser, 2008).

Focusing on the fluidized-bed modeling, two approaches have been considered

as the most common for simulate the gas and solids flows: (1) Eulerian-Eulerian
(E-E) and (2) Eulerian-Lagrangian (E-L) approaches. Depending on the
complexity of geometry or average solids volume fraction of solids, the E-E or
E-L is chosen for a specific case. Details on E-E and E-L can be found in Part II,
Chapter 4.

4. Scope of this study

This thesis involves two scales: (1) the process performance evaluations
achieved by thermodynamic equilibrium models with steam and air-steam agent
in DFBGs and (2) the CFD simulation of gas and solid flow in a cold-rig semi-
dual fluidized-bed (sDFB). The stages of modeling approach to process
development are illustrated in Fig. I.4.1. The research purposes are (i) better
understanding of complex phenomena inside a system, (ii) optimization of
operating conditions, and (iii) process design guidelines. The research topic of
each individual study is summarized in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 and represented in
detail at the Part II. The research subjects and their originalities are listed in
Table I.4.1.

14
 Modeling approach to process development
1. Better understanding of complex phenomena in a system
2. Optimization of operating conditions
3. Process /system design guidelines

Model solution
Graphical visualization 1. Parametric study
2. Process performance evaluations
3. Ratio of solid internal mixing

Model verification
Experiment data 1. Final gas composition
2. Pressure drop distribution
3. External circulation rate

Modeling data
1. Biomass properties
Model building
1. Thermodynamic equilibrium model
2. Thermodynamic data of
species 2. Constitutive equations
3. Empirical parameters 3. CFD model
4. Gasifier geometry
Model conceptualization
1. Process performance criteria
2. Internal circulation rate definition

Scale consideration Modeling problem specification

1. Steam gasification for Fischer-Tropsch synthesis in DFB
Process systems modeling 2. Steam gasification for electric power generation in DFB
(PSM) 3. Air-steam blowing gasification for electric power
generation in DFB
Computational fluid dynamics
4. Hydrodynamics and internal mixing in sDFB
(CFD)

Fig. I.4.1. Stages of modeling approach to process development

15
Table I.4.1. Research subjects and their originalities
Paper Subject and originality Note
1 Ngo, S.I., Nguyen, T.D.B., Lim, Y.-I., et al., Scale: PSM*
"Performance evaluation for dual circulating Objective:
fluidized-bed steam gasifier of biomass using Producing high H2
quasi-equilibrium three-stage gasification model". content for Fischer-
Appl. Energy, 88 (12), pp. 5208-5220, 2011. Tropsch (FT)
Originality: synthesis
1. New empirical parameters and empirical
equations.
2. Proposing the heat balance for DFB process.
3. Process performance criteria contour for FT
synthesis.
2 Nguyen, T.D.B., Ngo, S.I., Lim, Y.-I., et al., Scale: PSM
"Three-stage steady-state model for biomass Objective:
gasification in a dual circulating fluidized-bed". Producing high
Energy Convers. Manage., 54 (1), pp. 100-112, chemical heat for
2012. electric power
Originality: generation (EPG)
1. New empirical parameters.
2. Process performance criteria contour for EPG
3 Ngo, S.I., Lim, Y.-I., Song, B.-H., et al., "Air- Scale: PSM
steam biomass gasification (ASBG) model in Objective:
dual circulating fluidized-bed". (to be submited) Producing high
Originality: chemical heat for
1. New empirical equation on reaction kinetics of EPG
carbon conversion.
4 Ngo, S.I., Lim, Y.-I., Song, B.-H., et al., Scale: CFD*
"Hydrodynamics of cold-rig biomass gasifier Objective:
using semi-dual fluidized-bed". (submited to Improvement on
Powder Technol.) gasifier design,
Originality: Investigation on
1. New design of semi-dual fluidized bed gasifier. internal mixing of
2. New calculation approach for internal mixing solid particles
of solid particles.
*
PSM: Process System Modeling
*
CFD: Computational Fluid Dynamics

16
4.1. Process performance evaluations in DFB
In Table I.4.1, papers 1–3 focus on the PSM scale with the thermodynamic
equilibrium approach for different objectives and gasifying agents. The three
articles: (1) biomass steam gasification in a DFB targeting rich H2 for Fischer-
Tropsch synthesis, (2) biomass steam gasification in a DFB targeting high
chemical efficiency of producer gas for electric power generation, and (3)
biomass air-steam blowing gasification in a DFB targeting high chemical
efficiency of producer gas are summarized in this Section.

In Paper 1, the effects of gasification temperature (𝑇𝐺 ) and steam to fuel ratio (𝛾)
on product gas composition and yield were experimentally investigated and
mathematically simulated for steam gasification of pine woodchips in a bench-
scale circulating fluidized-bed (CFB) gasifier with external heat supplier. To
evaluate process performance in a dual circulating fluidized-bed (DFB) with
heat carrier (silica sand), quasi-equilibrium three-stage gasification (qETG)
model was developed and validated with experimental data of biomass steam
gasification.
The model is divided into three stages including biomass pyrolysis, char–gas
reactions, and gas–phase reactions. Carbonic and methane formation ratios were
considered at the pyrolysis stage under the assumption of spontaneous
decomposition. At the second and third stages, char–gas and gas–phase
equilibrium reactions were corrected by two empirical equations concerning the
steam participation ratio and the non-equilibrium factor, respectively.
The parametric study on 𝑇𝐺 and 𝛾 was performed to predict final gas
composition, carbon conversion, char residue, gas yield, lower heating value,
additional fuel ratio, solid circulation ratio, heat recovery and H2 to CO molar
ratio. By targeting on the solid circulation ratio and H2/CO molar ratio, several
effective operating conditions were suggested from the contour of performance
criteria. The research purpose of this article is depicted in Fig. I.4.2.

17
 Thermodynamic
Pyrolysis qETG model
Equilibrium reactions

Parametric study
Empirical equations Non-equilibrium factor

Performance evaluation contour

Five points are suggested as an effective

operating conditions
Fig. I.4.2. Research methodology of performance evaluation contour.

In Paper 2, a three-stage steady state model (TSM) was introduced for

biomass steam gasification in a dual circulating fluidized-bed (DFB) to
calculate the composition of producer gas, carbon conversion, heat recovery,
unit cost, and heat demand needed for endothermic gasification. The model

18
is divided into three stages including biomass pyrolysis, char-gas reactions,
and gas-phase reaction.

At each stage, an empirical equation was conducted from experimental data.

It was assumed that both unconverted char and additional fuel were
completely combusted at 950 oC in the combustor (riser) and the heat
required for gasification reactions was provided by the bed material (silica
sand). The model was first validated with experimental data taken from the
literature. Parametric study of the gasification temperature (T) and steam to
fuel ratio (γ) was then carried out to evaluate performance criteria in a 1.8
MW DFB gasifier of woodchips, targeting the electric power generation of
syngas.

Through the contour plot of the solid circulation ratio, the heat recovery, the
additional fuel ratio and the unit cost with respect to T and γ, effective
operating conditions of the DFB gasifier were proposed.

The governing equations and definitions of performance criteria in each case

study are clearly presented in Part II, Chapter 1 and 2.
Paper 3 introduces an air-steam biomass gasification (ASBG) equilibrium
model to understand the effect of various operating parameters on the syngas
composition in a dual circulating fluidized-bed (DFB). The two empirical
equations of steam participation (β) and kinetic carbon conversion function (fC)
are employed to compute the actual steam concentration and char reactivity in
fluidized-bed. The predicted final gas composition is compared to the
experiment data from a literature.
The parametric study with the variation of gasification temperature (T), steam to
biomass ratio (SBR), and equivalent ratio (ER) is investigated. Simulation
results suggest that the set of T= 800oC, ER = 0.5 and SBR = 0.5 is an effective
operating conditions for the present process.
The features of ASBG are presented in Part II, Chapter 3.

19
4.2. Hydrodynamics and internal mixing in cold-rig sDFB
In this Section, the CFD model for multiphase, granular, and turbulence flow is
summarized. The simulation results can assist the equipment designer to
improve the gasifier geometry and operating conditions.

Paper 4 proposes a semi-dual fluidized-bed (sDFB) biomass gasifier, which is a

novel design of dual fluidized-bed (DFB) with the internal mixing of solid
particles between riser and gasifier to enhance the heat and mass transfer. A
cold-rig experiment of sDFB (0.8m width × 0.2m depth × 3.85m height) was
conducted to investigate fluid hydrodynamics and solid circulations. Pressure
drops were sampled at 43 points along the sDFB gasifier. An external
circulation rate of sand was measured for 60s after two minutes of the operating
time. In order to estimate the amount of direct back-mixing particles through the
gasifier–riser interconnection area, an Eulerian-Eulerian two-dimensional
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model was developed for the cold-rig
sDFB. This CFD model included the kinetic theory of granular flow and the
𝑘 − 𝜖 dispersed turbulence model. The governing equations and constitutive
expressions can be found in Part II, Chapter 4.

The CFD simulation results were validated with the experiment data under the
assumption of quasi-polydispersed particles in term of packing limit factor of
0.74. About 17% back-mixing of particles through the gasifier–riser
interconnection area were obtained from the CFD simulation. This indicates that
the sDFB has a possibility of having higher heat and mass transfer than the
conventional DFB. The graphical absent of the research article is illustrated in
Fig. I.4.3.

20
 𝐴 Interconnection area Wall
Forward particles Riser Gasifier
Riser Gasifier Backward particles zone zone

𝐴𝑚𝑚
𝐴 External
circulation
𝐴b Semi–DFB
enhances about 𝐺𝐺𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
17% of heat and
mass transfer Internal
over DFB circulation

𝐺𝐺𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖

Particles velocity vectors

-Understanding complex phenomena inside a system

-Suggestion for equipment designer
- Optimization process by modifying the equipment geometry

Fig. I.4.3. Graphical absent of internal mixing in sDFB

5. Originalities and limitations

Through the PSM and CFD simulations for biomass gasification in DFB and
sDFB, originalities and achievements obtained from this work are summarized.
The limitations and efforts for the future directions are also addressed.

5.1. Originalities and achievements of this study

This study focuses on five terminologies: biomass feedstock, gasification
process, simulation approaches and scale consideration. Those are used to
support the applications for dual fluidized-bed gasifiers (DFBGs), covering the
studies on process systems modeling (PSM) and computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) (see Fig. I.5.1). Through the two approaches, those are concluded in
three main achievements:

(1) Better understanding of complex phenomena inside processes

21
(2) A new approach to evaluate and optimize the performance criteria by
contour plot

(3) CFD simulation results for the gasifier design guidelines

The originalities and achievements in biomass gasification modeling and

simulation are illustrated in Fig. I.5.1.

Gasifier design
guideline

Calculation for
internal mixing of
solid particles

Better understanding of
CFD simulation
complex phenomena
for Cold-rig sDFB
inside a system

PSM for biomass Scale

Process
Optimization gasification in consideration
evaluation
of process contours DFB

Biomass Gasification Simulation

feedstock processes approach

Fig. I.5.1. Originalities and achievements in biomass gasification modeling and

simulation.

5.2. Limitations
Since the complexity nature of biomass composition, empirical equations are
not fitted for all kinds of biomass. The pyrolysis model incorporated with
thermodynamic equilibrium model can solve the pyrolysis products to predict
the maximum yield of producer gas in a process without those empirical
equations.

22
The CFD is a powerful tool for modeling the hydrodynamics in a system.
However, it is limited by the computational resource and the size of system
geometry.

While CFD is considered as standard tool for the simulation of single-phase

flows, it is still at the verification and validation stage for modeling multiphase
flow such as fluidized-beds, because the interface between the two phases is not
clear and transient, and the interaction between the two phases is understood for
limited cases of operating conditions.

It is necessary to couple the results obtained from the two-scale approach into
multi-scale simulation. This makes the connectivity between scales to evaluate
the process performance (PSM) in correspondence with transports phenomena
(CFD).

6. Future works

As suggested, the future works for PSM are (1) the corporations between the
pyrolysis model and the thermodynamic equilibrium model, and (2) the
coupling between the two scales with the additional of hypothesis on the
adjusting scale information to other scales.

The CFD could further developed for the multiphase and multiphysics problems
with the introduction of reaction kinetics, phase interacting phenomena and
turbulence characteristics. Moreover, the gasifier design could be improved by
analyzing (1) the loop-seal characteristics and (2) the effect of interconnection
area to internal mixing.

For the multi-scale simulation, the calculated values of solid circulation rate,
residence time and heat losses from CFD could be coupled with PSM by using
sequence approach. From the CFD (lower level), the solids circulation rate,
residence time and heat losses are imported into the PSM (higher level) as initial

23
conditions or operating parameters. Finally, the process performance
evaluations with auto-estimation of process performance criteria boundaries can
be achieved.

24
Nomenclature

𝐶 Molar concentration (kmol/m3)

𝐶𝑝 Heat capacity (kJ/kg/K)

𝑚𝑚 Function

𝑡 Time (s)

𝑇 Temperature (K)

𝑒𝑒 Distance (m)

𝜇 Viscosity (kg/ms)

𝜌 Density (kg/m3)

𝜏 Turbulent stress tensor (Pa)

𝜈 Velocity (m/s)

25
References

Asadullah, M., Miyazawa, T., Ito, S.-I., et al., "Gasification of different

biomasses in a dual-bed gasifier system combined with novel catalysts with
high energy efficiency". Appl. Catal. A, 267 (1-2), pp. 95-102, 2004.
Barbieri, C., Fundamental of astronomy. CRC Press: 2007.
Beenackers, A.A.C.M., "Biomass gasification in moving beds, a review
of European technologies". Renewable Energy, 16 (1–4), pp. 1180-1186, 1999.
Bridgwater, A.V., "The technical and economic feasibility of biomass
gasification for power generation". Fuel, 74 (5), pp. 631-653, 1995.
Brown, D., Fuchino, T., and Maréchal, F., Solid fuel decomposition
modelling for the design of biomass gasification systems. In Computer Aided
Chemical Engineering, Marquardt, W., andPantelides, C., Eds. Elsevier: 2006;
Vol. Volume 21, pp 1661-1666.
Charpentier, J.-C., "The triplet "molecular processes-product-process"
engineering: the future of chemical engineering. ". Chem. Eng. Sci., 57 (22-23),
pp. 4667-4690, 2002.
Charpentier, J.C., and McKenna, T.F., "Managing complex systems:
some trends for the future of chemical and process engineering". Chem. Eng.
Sci., 59 (8–9), pp. 1617-1640, 2004.
Chen, Q., Zhai, Z., and Wang, L., "Computer modeling of multiscale
fluid flow and heat and mass transfer in engineered spaces". Chem. Eng. Sci.,
62 (13), pp. 3580-3588, 2007.
Chum, H.L., and Overend, R.P., "Biomass and renewable fuels". Fuel
Process. Technol., 71 (1–3), pp. 187-195, 2001.
Corella, J., and Sanz, A., "Modeling circulating fluidized bed biomass
gasifiers. A pseudo-rigorous model for stationary state". Fuel Process. Technol.,
86 (9), pp. 1021-1053, 2005.
Fiaschi, D., and Michelini, M., "A two-phase one-dimensional biomass
gasification kinetics model". Biomass Bioenergy, 21 (2), pp. 121-132, 2001.
Grossmann, I.E., and Westerberg, A.W., "Research challenges in
process systems engineering". AICHE J., 46 (9), pp. 1700-1703, 2000.
Guo, B., Li, D., Cheng, C., et al., "Simulation of biomass gasification
with a hybrid neural network model". Bioresour. Technol., 76 (2), pp. 77-83,
2001.
Hangos, K.M., and Cameron, I.T., Process modeling and model analysis
Springer: London, 2001.

26
 Knoef, H., Handbook biomass gasification. BTG Biomass Technology
Group: The Netherlands, 2005.
Li, and X., "Biomass gasification in a circulating fluidized bed".
Biomass Bioenergy, 26 (2), pp. 171-193, 2004.
Li, C., and Suzuki, K., "Tar property, analysis, reforming mechanism
and model for biomass gasification--An overview". Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev., 13 (3), pp. 594-604, 2009.
Lim, Y., Moon, Y.-S., and Kim, T.-W., "Artificial neural network
approach for prediction of ammonia emission from field-applied manure and
relative significance assessment of ammonia emission factors". European
Journal of Agronomy, 26 (4), pp. 425-434, 2007.
McKendry, P., "Energy production from biomass (part 1): overview of
biomass". Bioresour. Technol., 83 (1), pp. 37-46, 2002.
Moon, J.-H., Lee, J.-W., and Lee, U.-D., "Economic analysis of
biomass power generation schemes under renewable energy initiative with
Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) in Korea". Bioresour. Technol., 102 (20),
pp. 9550-9557, 2011.
Moulijn, J.A., Stankiewicz, A., Grievink, J., et al., "Process
intensification and process systems engineering: A friendly symbiosis".
Computers &amp; Chemical Engineering, 32 (1–2), pp. 3-11, 2008.
Németh, E., Cameron, I.T., and Hangos, K.M., "Diagnostic goal driven
modelling and simulation of multiscale process systems". Computers &amp;
Chemical Engineering, 29 (4), pp. 783-796, 2005.
Ngo, S.I., Nguyen, T.D.B., Lim, Y.-I., et al., "Performance evaluation
for dual circulating fluidized-bed steam gasifier of biomass using quasi-
equilibrium three-stage gasification model". Appl. Energy, 88 (12), pp. 5208-
5220, 2011.
Nguyen, T.D.B., Ngo, S.I., Lim, Y.-I., et al., "Three-stage steady-state
model for biomass gasification in a dual circulating fluidized-bed". Energy
Convers. Manage., 54 (1), pp. 100-112, 2012.
Prasad, B.V.R.K., and Kuester, J.L., "Process analysis of a dual
fluidized bed biomass gasification system". Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 27 (2), pp.
304-310, 1988.
Proll, T., and Hofbauer, H., "H2 rich syngas by selective CO2 removal
from biomass gasification in a dual fluidized bed system — Process modelling
approach". Fuel Process. Technol., 89 (11), pp. 1207-1217, 2008.

27
 Puig-Arnavat, M., Bruno, J.C., and Coronas, A., "Review and analysis
of biomass gasification models". Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 14 (9), pp.
2841-2851, 2010.
Schuster, G., Löffler, G., Weigl, K., et al., "Biomass steam gasification
- an extensive parametric modeling study". Bioresour. Technol., 77 (1), pp. 71-
79, 2001.
Seo, M.W., Nguyen, T.D.B., Lim, Y.I., et al., "Solid circulation and
loop-seal characteristics of a dual circulating fluidized bed: Experiments and
CFD simulation". Chem. Eng. J., 168 (2), pp. 803-811, 2011.
Steinhauser, M.O., Computational multiscale modeling of fluids and
solids. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 2008.
Thomas B. Reed, and Das, A., Handbook of biomass downdraft gasifier
engine systems. Solar Energy Research Institute: Colorado, 1988.
Wennan, Z., "Automotive fuels from biomass via gasification". Fuel
Process. Technol., 91 (8), pp. 866-876, 2010.

28
II. APPLICATIONS

1. Performance evaluation for dual circulation fluidized-

bed steam gasifier of biomass using quasi-equilibrium three-
stage gasification model (Ngo et al., Applied Energy, 2011).

29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
 2. Three-stage steady-stage model for biomass
gasification in a dual circulating fluidized-bed (Nguyen et al.,
Energy Conversion and Management, 2011).

43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
 3. Thermodynamic equilibrium model for biomass
gasification in dual circulating fluidized bed (DFB) using air-
steam mixed agent (to be submitted).

57
Air-steam biomass gasification (ASBG) model in dual circulating
fluidized-bed

Son Ich Ngoa, Young-Il Lima,*, Byung-Ho Songb, Uen-Do Leec,d, Chang-Won
Yangc,d, Young-Tai Choic, Jae-Hun Songe

a
Lab. FACS, RCCT, Department of Chemical Engineering, Hankyong National
University
Gyonggi-do, Anseong-si, Jungangno 167, 456-749 Korea
b
Department of Chemical Engineering, Kunsan National University, Gunsan,
Jeonbuk 573-701 Korea
c
Energy System R&D Group, Korea Institute of Industrial Technology
(KITECH), Cheonan, 331-825 Korea
d
Department of Green Process and System Engineering, University of Science
and Technology (UST), Cheonan, 331-825 Korea
e
1501 SeenTec Tower 74-6 Sangnam-dong, Seongsan-gu, Changwon City,
Gyeongnam, 642-831 Korea

*
Corresponding Author: Tel.: +82 31 670 5207, Fax: +82 31 670 5445
E-mail address: limyi@hknu.ac.kr
U U

58
Abstract

Present article introduces an air-steam biomass gasification (ASBG) equilibrium

model to understand the effect of various parameters on the syngas composition
in a dual circulating fluidized-bed (DFB). The steam participation (β) and
kinetic carbon conversion (fC) functions are employed to simulate the actual
steam concentration and char reactivity in fluidized-bed. The predicted final gas
composition is well compared with the experiment data from literature. The
parametric study with the variations of gasification temperature (T), biomass to
fuel ratio (SBR), and equivalent ratio (ER) is then investigated. Simulation result
concluded that the set of T= 800oC, ER = 0.5 and SBR = 0.5 is an asset effective
operating conditions for this process.

59
3.1. Introduction

Biomass has evolved as one of the most promising sources of fuel for the future.
This has spurred the growth of research and development efforts in both federal
and private sectors (Chum and Overend, 2001). This impetus is motivated by
several factors: (1) dwindling fossil fuels and thus (2) an increase of energy
security, (3) environmental concerns and (4) promotion of socioeconomic
benefits to rural areas. Another important fact is somewhat uniformly
distributed nature of biomass worldwide which means that it is available locally
and is helpful in reducing the dependence upon the fossil fuel.

Biomass products could be mainly end-used by any one of heat and power
applications, transportation fuels (biodiesel, bioethanol) and chemical for
subsequent processing (Cantrell et al., 2008; Demirbas, 2008). Among thermal
conversion processes, gasification has received the most attention. This is due to
the higher efficiency compared to processes such as direct combustion,
pyrolysis and liquefaction (Bridgwater, 2003; Demirbas, 2004; Stiegel and
Maxwell, 2001).

Different forms of thermal treatment of biomass are distinguished from each

other by the amount of air supplied, residence time, temperature, and
consequently the heat transfer rate in the process. Supplying excess air results in
combustion while treatment without air/oxygen results in pyrolysis products
(Ayhan, 2009). Gasification is the conversion of biomass into the mixture of
combustible and non-combustible gases by partial oxidation at high temperature
around 800-900oC in the presence of a gasifying medium such as air, oxygen or
steam. Syngas from biomass gasification is a mixture of carbon monoxide,
carbon dioxide, hydrogen, water and a small amount of methane. The use of
syngas for power generation is widely accepted and considered mature
technology (Demirbas, 2007).

60
In comparison with autothermal gasification processes, the allothermal
gasification in DFB produces a higher syngas heating value. The DFB gasifier
consists of two separate reactors: a gasifier that converts feedstock into syngas,
and a combustor with air that oxidizes the residual char and hence provides the
necessary heat to gasify the feedstock. The DFBG is a combination of two
fluidized beds, typically a BFB and a CFB.

In the view point of process simulation, there are several mathematical models
such as thermodynamic equilibrium, kinetics-free, steady-state, semi-transient
and transient that can be used to determine the syngas composition (Reed, 1985).
Among them, the thermodynamic equilibrium model could be considered as the
simplest and gives syngas composition for various biomass types at selected
gasification temperature with reasonable accuracy. Equilibrium conditions in
thermal, mechanical and chemical are difficult to achieve in practical operating
conditions and results obtained from thermodynamic equilibrium modeling can
serve as the maximum limit on syngas composition. Numerous studies have
been conducted to determine syngas composition and heating value of syngas
using thermodynamic equilibrium modeling (Buragohain et al., 2010;
Jarungthammachote and Dutta, 2007; Karmakar and Datta, 2011; Melgar et al.,
2007; Umeki et al.; Zainal et al., 2001), however, limited studies addressed the
equilibrium model for biomass gasification in DFB.

In downdraft gasifier, Jarungthammachote and Dutta (Jarungthammachote and

Dutta, 2007) and Melgar et al. (Melgar et al., 2007) have predicted syngas
composition from various biomass types using thermodynamic equilibrium
modeling at fixed equivalence ratio. Their studies predicted gasification
temperature through an interactive process and the syngas composition at given
equivalence ratio. Zainal et al. (Zainal et al., 2001) focused on the calorific
value of the producer gas with temperature and moisture content of three kinds
of biomass wood, paddy husk, paper and municipal waste in a downdraft

61
gasifier. Karmakar and Datta (Karmakar and Datta, 2011) developed a
thermodynamic equilibrium model for fluidized-bed gasification of biomass
with steam to produce hydrogen rich gas. In the study of Buragohain et al.
(Buragohain et al., 2010), the thermodynamic equilibrium analysis of biomass
gasification process was done for various cases of different parameter such as (1)
type of biomass, (2) temperature of gasification, (3) air or equivalence ratio, and
(4) gasification medium. The optimum sets of operating conditions for gasifier
for Fischer-Tropsch and power generation processes were found. Few
researchers have been addressed the optimization of gasification process in a
DFBGs with air-steam mixer.

This study presents the air-steam mixer biomass gasification (ASBG) for dual
circulating fluidized-bed using thermodynamic equilibrium model incorporated
with steam participation (β) and carbon kinetics (fC) functions. Three main
objectives are (1) good prediction accuracy of final gas composition; (2)
investigation of model parameters such as gasification temperature (T), steam to
biomass ratio (SBR), and equivalence ratio (ER) on the final gas composition; (3)
optimization process owning to maximize the lower heating value and gas yield,
minimize the additional fuel and circulation ratios for power generation plan.

3.2. Steady state process modeling

3.2.1. Air-steam biomass gasification (ASBG) model.

At chemical equilibrium, a reacting system achieves its most stable composition

when the entropy of the system is maximized and its Gibbs free energy is
minimized. Two approaches are described for equilibrium modeling:
stoichiometric and non-stoichiometric. The stoichiometric approach requires a
clearly defined reaction mechanism incorporating all chemical reactions and
species involved. In a non-stoichiometric formulation, on the other hand, no
particular reaction mechanism or species are involved in the numerical solution.

62
The only input required to specify is the feed elemental analysis, which can be
readily obtained from the ultimate analysis data. This method is suitable for
problems with unclear reaction mechanisms and feed stream like biomass.

The formulation of the thermodynamic model was based on the following

assumptions:

(1) All carbon content in biomass is converted into gaseous form and the
residence time is high enough to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium. The
products taken into account are CO, CO2, H2, CH4, N2 and water. Hydrocarbons
other than CH4 were assumed negligible in syngas and were not taken into
account.

(2) Ash in the feedstock was assumed inert in all gasification reactions although
it holds true typically only for reaction temperature less than 700oC.

(3) All gaseous products are assumed to have as ideal gases. This will lead to
insignificant errors beacause the gasification in downdraft gasifiers is conducted
at high temperature and low pressure. The pressure drop inside the gasifier was
also assumed to be negligible.

(4) The amount of recirculated sand was varied to achieve the desired reaction
temperature and oxygen consumption in the gasifier.

(5) The amount of tar in syngas was assumed to be negligible. This places the
restriction upon the use of this model for various configuration of gasifier
design. Sulfur and chlorine content in biomass were also neglected since they
are less than 0.6% in most of biomass feedstocks.

Starting from ultimate analysis of biomass and the mass fraction of the carbon,
hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, the substitution fuel formula CHxOyNz can be
calculated. The gasification reaction can be written in the following form:

𝐶𝐻𝑥 𝑂𝑦 𝑁𝑧 + 𝑤𝐻2 𝑂 + 𝑚𝑚(𝑂2 + 3.76𝑁2 ) → 𝑒𝑒1 𝐶𝑂 + 𝑒𝑒2 𝐻2 + 𝑒𝑒3 𝐶𝑂2 + 𝑒𝑒4 𝐻2 𝑂 +

𝑧
𝑒𝑒5 𝐶𝐻4 + � + 3.76𝑚𝑚� 𝑁2 (II.3.1)
2

63
where the molar quantity of water per mole of biomass (𝑤) in equation (1) can
be calculated using the following relation (Souza-Santos, 2004):

(𝑀
𝑏𝑚 ℎ)
𝑤 = 18(1−ℎ) (II.3.2)

with ℎ is the relative moisture of biomass.

The major reactions that occur inside the gasifier are as follows:

𝐶 + 𝐶𝑂2 → 2𝐶𝑂 (II.3.3)

𝐶 + 𝐻2 𝑂 → 𝐶𝑂 + 𝐻2 (II.3.4)

The two reactions that are shown above can be combined into one single
reaction, known as water-gas shift reaction (Melgar et al., 2007; Zainal et al.,
2001):

𝐶𝑂 + 𝐻2 𝑂 → 𝐶𝑂2 + 𝐻2 (II.3.5)

The other reaction that is prominent in the gasification process is formation of

methane as shown below:

𝐶 + 𝐻2 → 𝐶𝐻4 (II.3.6)

The equilibrium constant for these two reactions (II.3.5 and II.3.6) as the
function of their molar composition, and be written as follows:
𝑃𝐶𝑂2 𝑃𝐻2 𝑛𝐶𝑂2 𝑛𝐻2 𝑥 𝑥
𝐾1 = 𝑃 =𝑛 = 𝑥3 𝑥2 (II.3.7)
𝐶𝑂 𝑃𝐻2 𝑂 𝐶𝑂 𝑛𝐻2 𝑂 1 4

𝑃𝐶𝐻4 𝑛𝐶𝐻4 𝑛𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑥

𝐾2 = 2 = 2
𝑛𝐻
= 𝑥52 𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 (II.3.8)
�𝑃𝐻2 � 2 2

The Gibbs free energy is used in determining the value of 𝐾1 and 𝐾2 as

following equations:
−Δ𝐺𝑇
𝑙𝑖𝑖𝐾(𝑇) = 𝑅𝑇
(II.3.9)

𝑜
Δ𝐺𝐺𝑇 = ∑𝑖 𝑒𝑒𝑖 𝛥𝑔𝑓,𝑇,𝑖 (II.3.10)

64
The thermodynamic data was taken from literature (Probstein and Hicks, 1990;
Smith et al., 1996; Souza-Santos, 2004)

The elemental balance of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen moles, respectively are
presented as below:

𝑒𝑒1 + 𝑒𝑒3 + 𝑒𝑒5 = 1 (II.3.11)

𝑒𝑒 + 2𝑤 = 2𝑒𝑒2 + 2𝑒𝑒4 + 4𝑒𝑒5 (II.3.12)

𝑦 + 𝑤 + 𝑚𝑚 = 𝑒𝑒1 + 2𝑒𝑒3 + 𝑒𝑒4 (II.3.13)

There are five equations (II.3.7, II.3.8 and II.3.11-13) and five unknowns
(𝑒𝑒1 → 𝑒𝑒5 ). The moisture content (𝑤) and air blown rate (𝑚𝑚) are desired as
variables.

For the heat balance in gasifier, the heat production is calculated from enthalpy
balance and lower heating value of biomass. Total enthalpy content in any
chemical species is the sum of its chemical enthalpy and sensible enthalpy and
could be written as follows:

𝑇 𝑇
𝐻𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑 = 𝑒𝑒1 �𝐻𝑓0𝐶𝑂 + ∫298
𝐺 𝐺
𝐶𝑝𝐶𝑂 𝑑𝑇� + 𝑒𝑒2 �∫298 𝐶𝑝𝐻2 𝑑𝑇� + 𝑒𝑒3 �𝐻𝑓0𝐶𝑂2 +
𝑇 𝑇 𝑇
𝐺
∫298 𝐶𝑝𝐶𝑂2 𝑑𝑇� + 𝑒𝑒4 �𝐻𝑓0𝐻2𝑂 + ∫298
𝐺
𝐶𝑝𝐻2𝑂 𝑑𝑇� + 𝑒𝑒5 �𝐻𝑓0𝐶𝐻4 + ∫298
𝐺
𝐶𝑝𝐶𝐻4 𝑑𝑇� +
𝑔
𝐻𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 + 𝐻𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟 − 𝐻𝑏𝑚 − 𝑤 �𝐻𝑓0𝐻 + 𝐻𝑣𝑎𝑝 � (2.3.14)
2 𝑂(1)

𝑔
where 𝐻𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 (kJ) is the heat loss in gasifier (about 5% of biomass chemical heat)

𝐻𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟 is the heat combustion of char residue (kJ)

𝐻𝑏𝑚 is the chemical heat of biomass inlet (kJ), calculated by (Souza-Santos,

2004)

𝐿𝐻𝑉𝑏𝑚 = 4.187�81𝐶 + 300𝐻 − 26(𝑂 − 𝑆) − 6(9𝐻 + 𝑤)�

𝐻𝑣𝑎𝑝 is the evaporation heat of water (kJ)

𝑒𝑒𝑖 are mole fractions of 𝑖𝑖; (𝑖𝑖 = 𝐶𝑂, 𝐻2 , 𝐶𝑂2 , 𝐻2 𝑂, 𝑎𝑖𝑖𝑑 𝐶𝐻4 )

65
𝐶𝑝𝑖 are molar heat capacity of 𝑖𝑖

0
𝐻𝑓𝑖 are standard heat of species 𝑖𝑖.

To balance the heat production in equation (II.3.14), the DFB system needs to
be supplied the energy by solids circulating. The solids circulating to biomass
ratio (𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑟 ) is calculated by:

𝐻𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑 ×(1+𝐻𝑟 )
𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑟 = (𝑇 (II.3.15)
𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏 −𝑇𝐺 )×𝐶𝑝𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑑

where 𝐻𝑟 is the heat loss of particles due transportation from riser to gasifier
(about 10% ). 𝑇𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏 is the heat combustion temperature (assumed 𝑇𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏 =
1000𝑜 𝐶), 𝐶𝑝𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑑 (kJ/kg K) is the heat capacity of sand (this value is 0.64).

The heat from gasifier is supplied by combustor by transportation of sand

particles, thus, there is an additional fuel (if needed) that feed to combustor, in
order to balance the energy between combustor and gasifier. The amount of
additional fuel to feedstock ratio (𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑑 ) is calculated from global heat balance
equation (Eq. II.3.14):

�𝐻𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑 −𝐻𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟 �
𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑑 = 𝐿𝐻𝑉𝑏𝑚 ×𝑀𝑓𝑠
(2.3.16)

where 𝑀𝑓𝑠 is amount of feeding biomass (kg)

3.2.2. Empirical equations

In present study, two empirical equations were employed for steam participation
(β) and kinetics carbon conversion descriptions. The rest of β is cited from study
of Nguyen et al. (Nguyen et al., 2010) and Yoshida et al. (Yoshida et al., 2008)
with following definition:
7542.8
𝑛𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑚
𝛽𝑁𝑔𝑢𝑦𝑒𝑛 = 𝑛𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑚
= 51.4 × 𝑒𝑒 − 𝑇 (II.3.17)

66
However, since β is an empirical equation, it should be adopted for a specific
system. Thus, the value of β is slightly modified in this case (Fig. II.3.1):
7542.8
𝛽 = 4 × 𝛽𝑁𝑔𝑢𝑦𝑒𝑛 = 4 × 51.4 × 𝑒𝑒 − 𝑇 (2.3.18)

0.7
Nguyen et al., 2010
This study
0.6
Yoshida et al., 2008

0.5

0.4
β (-)

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
700 750 800 850 900 950 1000
o
T ( C)

Fig. II.3.1. Present steam participation (β) as a function of gasification

temperature (T) in comparison with literature (Nguyen et al., 2010; Yoshida et
al., 2008) values.

Another empirical that applied to this model is the kinetics carbon or char de-
activity (fC). The fC is defined as deactivation level of char in the dynamic fluid,
which is calculated by (100% – actual carbon conversion = 100% – fC1). The fC
could be measured in the experiment from the carbon conversion data with the
relationship to gasification temperature (T) and air molar ratio (m), as shown in
Fig. II.3.2.

67
 100

90

80

70
Carbon conversion (%)

Exp. Li et al. 2001

60
Exp. Azuhata et al. 1986
50 fC1=26.518ln(m+0.00015T)+92.072
fC = 1-fC1
40

30

20

10

0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Air ratio (-)

Fig. II.3.2. Carbon kinetics as a function of temperature (T) and air ratio (m)
regressed from sources (Azuhata et al., 1986; Li et al., 2001)

The pure thermodynamic equilibrium model has to be applied to fluidized-bed

under several assumptions; thereby the steady-state was achieved and expressed
by thermodynamic equilibrium laws. However, this seems unreal approach
𝑒𝑥𝑝.
since the measured equilibrium factor (𝐾1 = [𝐶𝑂2 ][𝐻2 ]⁄[𝐶𝑂][𝐻2 𝑂] ) has
been known as far from the theoretical one (Herguido et al., 1992; Wei et al.,
2007). The steam participation function simulates the actual steam
concentration involved the char particles, thus it could be employed in the shift
reaction (Reaction II.3.5) as the sub-model that modify the thermodynamic
equilibrium factor in this state. The carbon kinetics factor is used to correct the
dynamic carbon that could react in a real system; hence, it could be applied to
the char-gas reaction (Reaction II.3.6). The equilibrium factor might be
corrected to follows value:

68
 𝐾1 𝑥 𝑥 𝑥3 𝑥2
𝐾1∗ = 𝛽
= 𝛽𝑥3 𝑥2 = 7542.8 (II.3.19)
1 4 −
(4×51.4×𝑒 𝑇 )𝑥1 𝑥4

𝑥5
𝐾2∗ = 𝑚𝑚𝐶 𝐾2 = 𝑚𝑚𝐶 𝑖𝑖 =
𝑥22 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
𝑥5
[1 − (26.518 𝑙𝑖𝑖(𝑚𝑚 + 0.00015𝑇) + 92.072)] 𝑖𝑖 (II.3.20)
𝑥22 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙

3.3. Results and discussions

3.3.1. Model verification

The model is verify with experiment data from Meng et al. (Meng et al., 2011)
for 100kWth CFB gasifier, with biomass properties shown in Table 1. The
proximate analysis shows that biomass has high fixed carbon and ash contents
but low volatile content (Franco et al., 2003; Herguido et al., 1992; Meng et al.,
2011; Rapagnà et al., 2000; Umeki et al.; Wei et al., 2007; Xu et al., 2006).

69
Table II.3.1

Biomass properties (Meng et al., 2011) obtained at 550oC

Type of biomass Willow

Moisture (wt.% a.r.) 8
Proximate analysis (wt.%, dry)
Volatile matters 69.8
Fixed carbon 20.1
Ash content (%) 2.52
Ultimate analysis (wt.%, dry)
C 50.3
H 6.17
O 37.4
N 0.69
S 0.002
Cl 0.01

As observed in Fig. II.3.3, the maximum error of prediction about 8%, the
model shows the reasonable accuracy with various operating conditions. This
proves that the ASBG model could predict well the final gas composition at
various set of operating conditions (T, ER and SBR).

70
 0.45 0.45
calculation calculation
0.4 experiment 0.4 experiment
(a) (b)
0.35 0.35

0.3 0.3
Dry free gas fractions

Dry free gas fractions

0.25 0.25

0.2 0.2

0.15 0.15

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05

0 0
H_2 CO CO_2 CH_4 H_2 CO CO_2 CH_4
SBR = 0.93, ER = 0.38, TG = 780 SBR = 0.9, ER = 0.39, TG = 820

0.45 0.45
calculation calculation
0.4 experiment 0.4 experiment
(c) (d)
0.35 0.35

0.3 0.3
Dry free gas fractions

Dry free gas fractions

0.25 0.25

0.2 0.2

0.15 0.15

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05

0 0
H_2 CO CO_2 CH_4 H_2 CO CO_2 CH_4
SBR = 1.22, ER = 0.38, TG = 780 SBR = 1.04, ER = 0.39, TG = 820

Fig. II.3.3. Comparison between predicted final gas composition and

experiment data from Meng et al.(Meng et al., 2011).

3.3.2. Parametric study

The effects of T, SBR and ER on dry gas composition, syngas lower heating
value (𝐿𝐻𝑉𝑠𝑦𝑛 ), additional fuel ratio (𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑑 ) and solids circulation ratio (𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑟 ) are
investigated in this part. The 𝐿𝐻𝑉𝑠𝑦𝑛 (kJ/N m3) is calculated by following
equation(Lv et al., 2004):

𝐿𝐻𝑉𝑠𝑦𝑛 = (30.0[𝐶𝑂] + 23.79[𝐻2 ] + 85.4[𝐶𝐻4 ]) × 4.2 (II.3.21)

where the [𝐶𝑂], [𝐻2 ], and [𝐶𝐻4 ] are mole fractions of CO, H2 and CH4,
respectively.

71
The range of operating conditions that used to predict the parametric study is
shown in Table II.3.2.

Table II.3.2

Operating conditions of three cases of parametric study

T (oC) ER (-) SBR (-)
Case 1: Effect of T 780 – 850 0.38 1.0
Case 2: Effect of ER 800 0 – 0.56 1.0
Case 3: Effect of SBR 800 0.38 0 – 2.1

As presented in Fig. II.3.4, T, SBR and ER show different effects on the final
syngas composition. An increase of T leads to increase CO and H2
concentrations, while decrease the CO2 and CH4 concentrations (Fig. II.3.4 (a)).
The raise of ER leads to decrease H2 and CH4 concentrations, while increase CO
and CO2 concentrations (Fig. II.3.4 (b)). The increasing in SBR leads to a raising
of H2 and CO2 concentrations, however, it leads to inhibit the CO and keep
stable the CH4 concentrations (Fig. II.3.4 (c)).

According to Le Chatelier's principle, higher T favors reactants in exothermic

reactions and the products in endothermic reactions. Therefore, the results are
an increase of H2 and CO2 concentrations (reaction II.3.5) and a decrease of
CH4 and CO concentrations (reactions II.3.5 and II.3.6). The higher O2 reactant
could lead to higher oxide–products such as CO and CO2, thus the
concentrations of H2 and CH4 are reduced by dilution. Nevertheless, the ER
could control the 𝑚𝑚𝐶 (Fig. II.3.2) thus higher ER leads to lower kinetics carbon
in reaction (II.3.6). With the raise of steam concentration by increasing SBR,
steam being the major source of hydrogen during the gasification process, an
increase in SBR resulted in higher production of H2, also higher CO2. Due to
higher production of H2, the product gas volume was also increase. Thus the
proportion of CO in product gas became low by dilution since higher H2 leads
to higher CH4 (reaction II.3.6). However the raise of production rate overlaps

72
the increase of CH4, this results in the stable concentration of CH4 in Fig. II.3.4
(c).

Fig. II.3.5 shows the relationship between 𝐿𝐻𝑉𝑠𝑦𝑛 and other operating
conditions. It is observed that the raises in those conditions lead the degradation
of syngas lower heating value. This is result from the decreasing of CH4
concentration (the highest factor in equation (II.3.21)) and increasing of H2 and
CO (Fig. II.3.4 (a)) or increasing of CO2 (uncounted gas in equation (II.3.21),
Fig. II.3.4 (b)) or stable of CH4 concentration but increase in H2 and decrease in
CO (the CO has higher factor than H2 in equation (II.3.21), Fig. II.3.4 (c)). The
average value of 𝐿𝐻𝑉𝑠𝑦𝑛 about 100 kJ/N m3, this is quite high value in
comparison with literature in air-steam blown gasification (Lv et al., 2004).

In order to evaluate the economic beneficial, in term of energy efficiency of the

gasification process, the circulation ratio and the additional fuel ratio were
analyzed with varying in operating conditions. The predicted values of 𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑟 and
𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑑 show common behaviors, such as the increase of T extends linearly 𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑟
and 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑑 (Fig. II.3.6 (a)), the raise of ER makes curves of 𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑟 and 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑑 , that
have maximum points at ER = 0.1 (Fig. II.3.6 (b)), higher SBR leads
proportional higher 𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑟 and 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑑 , the values of 𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑟 and 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑑 are zero at SBR =
0.3 (Fig. II.3.6 (c)).

As shown in equations (II.3.15) and (II.3.16) that, the 𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑟 and 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑑 are related
proportionally to heat production of the system. The higher T needs to be
supported by the higher energy demand. Because of the combustor temperature
(𝑇𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏 ) was kept as constant (1000oC), therefore the 𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑟 and 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑑 are raised
commonly with T. With low oxygen concentration (low ER), the system need to
be supplied high energy demand to guarantee the gasification temperature, thus,
high circulation ratio and additional fuel ratio. However, since low
concentration of oxygen, the char residue is suppose to be high value, therefore
the unreacted char could be transported to combustor to provide apart of energy

73
demand. The total of that two effects makes the maximum value of 𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑟 and
𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑑 at ER = 0.1 (Fig. II.3.6 (b)). The lower steam amounts make the system to
be exothermic, and the energy demand for gasifier could be self–supplied (with
SBR lower than 0.3). For the higher steam, system need to be provide higher
energy for steam sensible heat, the evaporation heat (equation (II.3.14)) and the
endothermic reactions, hence, higher 𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑟 and 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑑 . At SBR = 0, the system can
be considered as an air gasification, the performance of system is listed in Table
II.3.3.

Table II.3.3

System evaluation at SBR = 0 (air gasification with self–supplied energy

demand)
Dry gas molar fraction
H2 0.2932
CO 0.2762
CO2 0.3234
CH4 0.1073
Gasifier performance
𝐿𝐻𝑉𝑠𝑦𝑛 (MJ/N m3) 10.49144
𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑑 (kg/kg) 0
𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑟 (kg/kg) 0
Gas yield (N m3/kg) 2.8236

3.3.3. Effective operating condition

As noted earlier, the objective of present study is to optimize the energy demand
that used for power generation plan. However, the optimization of energy for
the system relies on several factors such as lower heating value of syngas,
additional fuel ratio and solids circulation ratio. As discussed in our previous
study (Ngo et al., 2011; Nguyen et al., 2012a) that, the solids circulation ratio
should be limited around a central value, additional fuel ration should be
minimized, and lower heating value of syngas needs to be as high as possible.

74
To the our knowledge, the operating conditions for present DFB system could
be in mild-low temperature, rare high ER, and quite low SBR. The effective
operating conditions are at T = 800oC, ER = 0.5 and SBR = 0.5. The
performance of system at this set of operating condition is shown in Table II.3.4.

Table II.3.4

Effective operating conditions, predicted by ASBG model

Dry gas molar fraction
H2 0.2773
CO 0.2701
CO2 0.3776
CH4 0.0750
Gasifier performance
𝐿𝐻𝑉𝑠𝑦𝑛 (MJ/N m3) 9.08600
𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑑 (kg/kg) 0.0747
𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑟 (kg/kg) 12.4060
Gas yield (N m3/kg) 3.2407

75
 SBR = 1.0; ER = 0.38

CO
0.5
(a) CO2
CH4

0.4 H2
Dry gas mole fraction (-)

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
780 790 800 810 820 830 840 850
T (oC)
SBR = 1.0; T = 800 oC

CO
0.5
(b) CO2
CH4

0.4 H2
Dry gas mole fraction (-)

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
ER (-)
ER = 0.38; T = 800 oC

CO
0.5
(c) CO2
CH4

0.4 H2
Dry gas mole fraction (-)

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
SBR (-)

Fig. II.3.4. Final gas composition as functions of (a) gasification temperature

(T), (b) equivalence ratio (ER), and (c) steam to biomass ratio (SBR).

76
 SBR = 1.0; ER = 0.38
10.15

10.1

10.05 (a)
10
(MJ/N m3)

9.95

9.9
syn
LHV

9.85

9.8

9.75

9.7

9.65
780 790 800 810 820 830 840 850
T (oC)
o
SBR = 1.0; T = 800 C
14

13
(b)
12
(MJ/N m3)

11
syn
LHV

10

8
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
ER (-)
ER = 0.38; T = 800 oC
10.5

10.4

10.3
(c)
10.2
(MJ/N m3)

10.1

10
syn
LHV

9.9

9.8

9.7

9.6

9.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
SBR (-)

Fig. II.3.5. Syngas lower heating value as functions of (a) gasification

temperature (T), (b) equivalence ratio (ER), and (c) steam to biomass ratio
(SBR).

77
 SBR = 1.0; ER = 0.38
120 0.6

(a)
100 0.55

(kg/kg)
r (kg/kg)

80 0.5

add
cir

r
60 0.45

40 0.4
780 790 800 810 820 830 840 850
T (oC)

SBR = 1.0; T = 800 oC

82 0.5

(b)

80 0.48

(kg/kg)
r (kg/kg)

add
cir

r
78 0.46

76 0.44
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
ER (-)

ER = 0.38; T = 800 oC
200 2

(c)
(kg/kg)
r (kg/kg)

100 1
add
cir

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
SBR (-)

Fig. II.3.6. Solids circulation ratio (𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑟 ) and additional fuel ratio (𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑑 ) as
functions of (a) gasification temperature (T), (b) equivalence ratio (ER), and (c)
steam to biomass ratio (SBR).

78
3.4. Conclusions

Air-steam biomass gasification (ASBG) model in dual-circulating fluidized-bed

(DFB) is used to predict the final gas composition and effective operating
conditions for power generation plan. The two empirical models were employed
to adopt the deviation from real system to thermodynamic equilibrium state.
The model can predict the final gas compositions with various set of operating
conditions, compared with literature. Through parametric study on the
performance criteria such as lower heating value of syngas, additional fuel ratio,
and solids circulation ratio, the effective operation at T= 800oC, ER = 0.5 and
SBR = 0.5 for the good DFB performance is found.

79
Nomenclatures

𝐶𝑝 Molar specific heat capacity (kJ/mol)

𝐸𝑅 Equivalence ratio (-)

𝑚𝑚 Factor

𝑀 Mass (kg)

𝐺𝐺 Gibbs free energy (kJ/mol)

ℎ Relative moisture of biomass (from 0 to 1)

𝐻 Heat (kJ)

𝐾 Phase equilibrium constant (-)

𝐿𝐻𝑉 Lower heating value (kJ/m3 for gases, kJ/kg for solids)

𝑖𝑖 Molar number (mol)

𝑃 Pressure (Pa)

𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑑 Additional fuel ratio (kg/kg)

𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑟 Circulation rate of sand (kg/kg)

𝑆𝐵𝑅 Steam to biomass ratio (kg/kg)

𝑇 Temperature (K, oC)

𝑤 Molar quantity of water per mole of biomass (mol)

𝑒𝑒 Species molar quantity (mol)

Greek letters

𝛽 Steam participation function

Superscripts

0 Initial condition

80
𝑔 Gasifier

𝑖𝑖 Species index

𝑟 Riser

Subscripts

𝑏𝑚𝑚 Biomass

𝐶 Carbon

𝐶𝐻4 Methane

𝑠𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑟 Char

𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑏 Combustion

𝐶𝑂 Carbon oxide

𝐶𝑂2 Carbon dioxide

𝑚𝑚𝑠𝑠 Feedstock

𝐻2 Hydrogen

𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 Loss

𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑 Product

𝑠𝑠𝑎𝑖𝑖𝑑 Sand

𝑠𝑠𝑦𝑖𝑖 Syngas

𝑣𝑣𝑎𝑝 Vaporization

81
Reference

Ayhan, D., "Biofuels securing the planet’s future energy needs". Energy
Convers. Manage., 50 (9), pp. 2239-2249, 2009.

Azuhata, S., Hedman, P.O., and Smoot, L.D., "Carbon conversion in an

atmospheric-pressure entrained coal gasifier". Fuel, 65 (2), pp. 212-217, 1986.

Bridgwater, A.V., "Renewable fuels and chemicals by thermal

processing of biomass". Chem. Eng. J., 91 (2–3), pp. 87-102, 2003.

Buragohain, B., Mahanta, P., and Moholkar, V.S., "Thermodynamic

optimization of biomass gasification for decentralized power generation and
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis". Energy, 35 (6), pp. 2557-2579, 2010.

Cantrell, K.B., Ducey, T., Ro, K.S., et al., "Livestock waste-to-

bioenergy generation opportunities". Bioresour. Technol., 99 (17), pp. 7941-
7953, 2008.

Chum, H.L., and Overend, R.P., "Biomass and renewable fuels". Fuel
Process. Technol., 71 (1–3), pp. 187-195, 2001.

Demirbas, A., "Combustion characteristics of different biomass fuels".

Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 30 (2), pp. 219-230, 2004.

Demirbas, A., "Progress and recent trends in biofuels". Prog. Energy

Combust. Sci., 33 (1), pp. 1-18, 2007.

Demirbas, A., "Biofuels sources, biofuel policy, biofuel economy and

global biofuel projections". Energy Convers. Manage., 49 (8), pp. 2106-2116,
2008.

Franco, C., Pinto, F., Gulyurtlu, I., et al., "The study of reactions
influencing the biomass steam gasification process". Fuel, 82 (7), pp. 835-842,
2003.

82
 Herguido, J., Corella, J., and Gonzalez-Saiz, J., "Steam gasification of
lignocellulosic residues in a fluidized bed at a small pilot scale. Effect of the
type of feedstock". Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 31 (5), pp. 1274-1282, 1992.

Jarungthammachote, S., and Dutta, A., "Thermodynamic equilibrium

model and second law analysis of a downdraft waste gasifier". Energy, 32 (9),
pp. 1660-1669, 2007.

Karmakar, M.K., and Datta, A.B., "Generation of hydrogen rich gas

through fluidized bed gasification of biomass". Bioresour. Technol., 102 (2), pp.
1907-1913, 2011.

Li, X., Grace, J.R., Watkinson, A.P., et al., "Equilibrium modeling of

gasification: a free energy minimization approach and its application to a
circulating fluidized bed coal gasifier". Fuel, 80 (2), pp. 195-207, 2001.

Lv, P., Xiong, Z., Chang, J., et al., "An experimental study on biomass
air–steam gasification in a fluidized bed". Bioresour. Technol., 95 (1), pp. 95-
101, 2004.

Melgar, A., Perez, J., Laget, H., et al., "Thermochemical equilibrium

modelling of a gasifying process". Energy Convers. Manage., 48 (1), pp. 59-67,
2007.

Meng, X., de Jong, W., Fu, N., et al., "Biomass gasification in a

100 kWth steam-oxygen blown circulating fluidized bed gasifier: Effects of
operational conditions on product gas distribution and tar formation". Biomass
Bioenergy, 35 (7), pp. 2910-2924, 2011.

Ngo, S.I., Nguyen, T.D.B., Lim, Y.-I., et al., "Performance evaluation

for dual circulating fluidized-bed steam gasifier of biomass using quasi-
equilibrium three-stage gasification model". Appl. Energy, 88 (12), pp. 5208-
5220, 2011.

83
 Nguyen, T.D.B., Lim, Y.-I., Song, B.-H., et al., "Two-stage equilibrium
model applicable to the wide range of operating conditions in entrained-flow
coal gasifiers". Fuel, 89 (12), pp. 3901-3910, 2010.

Nguyen, T.D.B., Ngo, S.I., Lim, Y.-I., et al., "Three-stage steady-state

model for biomass gasification in a dual circulating fluidized-bed". Energy
Convers. Manage., 54 (1), pp. 100-112, 2012.

Probstein, R.F., and Hicks, R.E., Synthetic fuels. 1990; p Medium: X;

Size: Pages: (504 p).

Rapagnà, S., Jand, N., Kiennemann, A., et al., "Steam-gasification of

biomass in a fluidised-bed of olivine particles". Biomass Bioenergy, 19 (3), pp.
187-197, 2000.

Reed, T.B., Principles and technology of biomass gasification. Plenum

press: New York, 1985.

Smith, J.M., Ness, H.C.V., and Abbott, M.M., Introduction to chemical

engineering thermodynamics. 5th ed.; McGraw-Hill: 1996.

Souza-Santos, M.L.d., Solid fuels combustion and gasification

modeling, simulation and equipment operatin. Marcel Dekker., Inc: New York,
2004.

Stiegel, G.J., and Maxwell, R.C., "Gasification technologies: the path to

clean, affordable energy in the 21st century". Fuel Process. Technol., 71 (1–3),
pp. 79-97, 2001.

Umeki, K., Namioka, T., and Yoshikawa, K., "Analysis of an updraft

biomass gasifier with high temperature steam using a numerical model". Appl.
Energy, In Press, Corrected Proof, pp.,

Wei, L., Xu, S., Zhang, L., et al., "Steam gasification of biomass for
hydrogen-rich gas in a free-fall reactor". Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 32 (1), pp.
24-31, 2007.

84
 Xu, G., Murakami, T., Suda, T., et al., "The Superior Technical Choice
for Dual Fluidized Bed Gasification". Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 45 (7), pp. 2281-
2286, 2006.

Yoshida, H., Kiyono, F., Tajima, H., et al., "Two-stage equilibrium

model for a coal gasifier to predict the accurate carbon conversion in hydrogen
production". Fuel, 87 (10-11), pp. 2186-2193, 2008.

Zainal, Z.A., Ali, R., Lean, C.H., et al., "Prediction of performance of a

downdraft gasifier using equilibrium modeling for different biomass materials".
Energy Convers. Manage., 42 (12), pp. 1499-1515, 2001.

85
 4. Hydrodynamics of a semi-dual fluidized-bed biomass
gasifier by using gas-solid two-fluid computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) model (Ngo et al., submitted to Powder
Technology, 2012).

86
Hydrodynamics of cold-rig biomass gasifier using semi-dual fluidized-bed

Son Ich Ngoa, Young-Il Lima,*, Byung-Ho Songb, Uen-Do Leec,d, Chang-Won

Yangc,d, Young-Tai Choic, Jae-Hun Songe

a
Lab. FACS, RCCT, Department of Chemical Engineering, Hankyong National

University

Gyonggi-do, Anseong-si, Jungangno 167, 456-749 Korea

b
Department of Chemical Engineering, Kunsan National University, Gunsan,

Jeonbuk 573-701 Korea

c
Energy System R&D Group, Korea Institute of Industrial Technology

(KITECH), Cheonan, 331-825 Korea

d
Department of Green Process and System Engineering, University of Science

and Technology (UST), Cheonan, 331-825 Korea

e
1501 SeenTec Tower 74-6 Sangnam-dong, Seongsan-gu, Changwon City,

Gyeongnam, 642-831 Korea

*
Corresponding Author: Tel.: +82 31 670 5207, Fax: +82 31 670 5445

E-mail address: limyi@hknu.ac.kr

U U

87
Research highlights

- A novel semi-dual fluidized-bed (sDFB) is proposed for biomass gasification

- Cold-rig experiments were performed to measure external solid circulation

rates

- A CFD model was developed to estimate internal solid circulation rates

- The sDFB can improve heat and mass transfer by 17% due to internal solid

circulation

88
Graphical Abstract

𝐴 Interconnection area
Forward particles
Riser Gasifier Backward particles

𝐴𝑚𝑚
𝐴
𝐴b

Semi–DFB
enhances about
17% of heat and
mass transfer over
DFB

89
Abstract

This study reports a semi-dual fluidized-bed (sDFB) biomass gasifier, which is

a novel design of dual fluidized-bed (DFB) with the internal mixing of solid

particles between riser and gasifier to enhance the heat and mass transfer. A

cold-rig experiment of sDFB (0.8m width × 0.2m depth × 3.85m height) was

performed to investigate fluid hydrodynamics and solid circulations. Pressure

drops were sampled at 43 points along the sDFB gasifier. An external

circulation rate of sand was measured for 60s after two minutes of the operating

time. In order to estimate the amount of direct back-mixing particles through the

gasifier–riser interconnection area, an Eulerian-Eulerian two-dimensional

computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model was developed for the cold-rig

sDFB. This CFD model included the kinetic theory of granular flow and the

𝑘 − 𝜖 dispersed turbulence model. The CFD simulation results were validated

with the experiment data. About 17% back-mixing of particles through the

gasifier–riser interconnection area were obtained from the CFD simulation. This

indicates that the sDFB has a possibility of having higher heat and mass transfer

than the conventional DFB.

Keywords: Gasification; Semi-dual fluidized-bed (sDFB); Solid circulation rate;

Internal mixing; Computational fluid dynamics (CFD); Eulerian-Eulerian model.

90
1. Introduction

Nowadays, interest in biomass gasification has an accelerative development,

since it is renewable, sustainable, abundantly available everywhere in the world,

and the increased use of biomass can reduce the petroleum dependence

(Asadullah et al., 2004; Moon et al., 2011). Biomass gasification is the process

by which organic matter is thermally devolatilized, followed by secondary

reactions of the resulting products (Walawender et al., 1985). The chemical

energy of the solid fuel is converted into both the thermal and chemical energy

of the gas. Chemical energy contained within the gas is a function of chemical

composition. Thus the chemical composition of the producer gas determines its

quality as a fuel (Giltrap et al., 2003). Furthermore, the producer gas of biomass

gasification is used as feedstock in some upgrading systems for generating

energy and fuels in a much cleaner manner. This is suitable for energy demand

in the future, owning to reduce the net of carbon dioxide emission while

increasing environmental safety (Asadullah et al., 2004). However, biomass

gasification has been known as a complex process due to the complicating

nature of biomass composition.

Fluidization has been widely used industrially because of its continuous

handling ability of solid particles and its good heat and mass transfer

characteristics (Gidaspow et al., 2004). In the conventional dual fluidized-bed

(DFB) system, the heat required for endothermic reactions in the gasifier is

provided with solid particles (sand) transported from the combustion zone (riser)

91
to the gasification zone (gasifier). Thus, the amount of circulating solids

indicates the energy demand for the gasification process (Ngo et al., 2011).

Recently, researchers have addressed the relationships between the solid

circulation rate and other factors in DFB gasifiers such as the heat efficiency

(Ngo et al., 2011; Nguyen et al., 2012a), breakage and attrition effects (Shen et

al., 2008), and the stability of the loop-seal (Seo et al., 2011). Using a gasifier

with a higher capacity requires more energy and a higher solid circulation rate.

However, Shen et al. suggested that more solid circulation rate could lead to

more breakage and attrition by the hot circulating particles (Shen et al., 2008).

Seo et al. reported that the solid circulation rate has to be maintained above a

certain amount for the loop-seal to be stable (Seo et al., 2011). From our

experience (Ngo et al., 2011; Nguyen et al., 2012a), the solid circulation rate

should be carefully selected by considering many performance criteria such as

heat efficiency, lower heating value, and additional fuel ratio.

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling has become a viable tool for

investigation on hydrodynamics of various processes with the aid of increasing

computational capacity. However, CFD is still at the verification and validation

stage for modeling multiphase flow systems such as fluidized-beds. More

improvements regarding the flow dynamics and computational models are

required to make CFD suitable for fluidized-beds modeling and scale-up

(Taghipour et al., 2005; Vejahati et al., 2009).

92
In CFD, the modeling of gas-solid hydrodynamics is generally divided into two

main approaches. The Eulerian–Lagrangian approach is also called discrete

particle modeling. The gas phase is calculated using an Eulerian framework and

the trajectories of particles are treated in a Lagrangian framework. The interface

between the gas and solid phases is computed by an average value of the area

bounded by a number of particle trajectories. Hence, a large number of particle

trajectories should be simulated to obtain a meaningful average of all quantities

(Vejahati et al., 2009). The Lagrangian model is normally limited to a relatively

small number of particles because of computational expense (Taghipour et al.,

2005). Taking into account the available computational capacity, this approach

is suitable for modeling dispersed multiphase flows containing a low volume

fraction of solid particles (Vejahati et al., 2009).

The second approach, Eulerian–Eulerian model, also called the granular flow

model, is considered to be the most common approach for fluidized-bed

simulation (Pain et al., 2001). Both phases are treated as an Eulerian framework

based on the interpenetrating continuum assumption. The equations employed

are a generalization of the Navier-Stokes equations for interacting continua

(Huilin and Gidaspow, 2003). Owning to the continuum presentation of

particulate phases, the Eulerian models require additional closure laws in terms

of constitutive equations to describe the rheology of particles. In this approach,

the trajectories of particles are obtained at a hypothetical level rather than at a

physical level in comparison with the Lagrangian model. The Eulerian model

93
makes it possible to be applied to multiphase flow processes containing a large

volume fraction of solid particles (Behjat et al., 2008; Huilin and Gidaspow,

2003; Mathiesen et al., 2000), such as fluidized-bed gasifier.

Among the various attempts to formulate the particulate flow in the Eulerian

framework, the kinetic theory of granular flow (KTGF) is commonly used in

fluidization (Gidaspow D, 1994). This theory is basically developed from an

extension of the classical kinetic theory of gases (Chapman S and Cowling T,

1970) to be applied in dense particulate flows. The turbulent kinetic theory of

particles is introduced to the granular temperature concept, which is like a

thermal temperature in the kinetic theory of gases (Gidaspow et al., 2004).

However, it measures the random oscillations of particles in the solid phase.

The granular temperature can be expressed mathematically in terms of

generation of fluctuations by shear, dissipation by kinetic and collisional heat

flow, dissipation due to inelastic collisions, generation due to fluid turbulence,

and dissipation due to interaction with the fluid (Huilin and Gidaspow, 2003).

By introducing the KTGF, the models predicted the bubble formation, the

distribution of time-averaged solids concentration in bubbling fluidized-beds

(Boemer et al., 1997; Ding and Gidaspow, 1990; Kuipers et al., 1993;

Lyczkowski et al., 1993), cluster formation, the time-averaged solid

concentration, and mass flux distributions in circulating fluidized-beds

(Benyahia et al., 2000; Dasgupta et al., 1998; Nieuwland et al., 1996; Pita and

Sundaresan, 1991; Sinclair and Jackson, 1989).

94
The CFD methods solve the Navier-Stokes equations of gas and solid flows.

Fluidization is a kind of turbulent flow rather than a laminar flow. Among

several turbulence models which can be applied to the Eulerian-Eulerian

approach, the dispersed turbulence model based on the Wilcox 𝑘 − 𝜖 model

(Wilcox, 1994) was used in a fluidized-bed (Ayed et al., 2007). This multiphase

dispersed turbulence model consists of the productions of the turbulence kinetic

energy (𝑘) and the specific dissipation rate (𝜖) for the continuous phase (gas)

(Wilcox, 1994), the predictions of turbulence quantities for the dispersed phase

(solid) (Hinze, 1975; Simonin and Viollet, 1990), and the correlation between

the instantaneous distribution of the dispersed phase and the turbulent fluid

motion (turbulent drag force).

The purpose of this paper is to propose a novel semi-dual fluidized-bed (sDFB)

gasifier. Since this sDFB gasifier has both an external solid circulation from the

loop-seal to the gasifier and an internal solid circulation between the riser and

the gasifier, the heat and mass reciprocations between riser and gasifier increase.

It is therefore expected to reduce the external solid circulation rate and the

breakage and attrition of particles, keeping the same system energy demand. A

cold-rig experimental apparatus was designed and constructed to investigate the

hydrodynamics of the sDFB gasifier. A two-dimensional CFD simulation with

an Eulerian–Eulerian two-fluid model using a commercial code was developed

to evaluate the internal solid circulation rate. This rate is expressed by direct

back-mixing particles through the gasifier–riser interconnection area. After the

95
verification of the CFD model with experiment data of pressure drop

distribution and external solid circulation rate, the internal solid circulation rate

was estimated. This study shows that the sDFB has a potential for further

development with its advantages of heat and mass transfer over the conventional

DFB.

2. Semi-dual fluidized-bed gasifier

A cold-rig sDFB gasifier (0.8m width × 0.2m depth × 3.85m height) was built

with a rectangular internal hole between the gasifier and riser (0.18m width and

0.05 m height) which was located at 0.345m from the gas distributor of the riser.

The basic concept of the sDFB gasifier is illustrated in Fig. II.4.1. Like the

conventional DFB, the sDFB gasifier is divided into 5 zones: riser, gasifier,

loop-seal, stand pipe and cyclone, in which the aerations are introduced to the

riser, gasifier and loop-seal to make fluidizations (Göransson et al., 2011;

Murakami et al., 2007; Seo et al., 2010).

The sand particles are used as the heat carrier in circulating fluidization systems

(Ngo et al., 2011; Nguyen et al., 2012a; Seo et al., 2011) due to their good

physical, mechanical, and handling properties. The feedstock (biomass) and

sand particles are stored at the gasifier zone, herein, the gasification reactions

take place. The riser burns char residue and additional fuel to heat up the sand

particles. Flue gas and sand particles are then separated by the cyclone. Sand

particles follow the stand pipe and come back to the gasification zone via the

loop-seal.

96
The heat required at the endothermic gasification zone is provided by the hot

sand particles which indirectly come from the loop-seal and directly come from

the riser. The circulation rate of particles indirectly transported via the loop-seal

is defined as the external circulation rate of solid particles. The rate of particles

directly reciprocated between the riser and the gasifier through the internal hole

is termed by the internal circulation rate of solid particles.

The cold-rig sDFB experiment was carried out to evaluate pressure drops and

external solid circulation rate of the system. A plexiglass material which can

endure about 5 atm of pressure was chosen. 43 points along the riser, gasifier,

cyclone, stand pipe and loop-seal were used to measure the pressure drops: 18

points in the riser and cyclone (P1–18), 16 points in the stand pipe and loop-seal

(P19–34), and 9 points in the gasifier (P35–43), as illustrated in Fig. 1(a). The

pressure at the exit of the cyclone (P18) was used as the base pressure.

The inlet velocities of the riser, gasifier, and loop-seal were set to 0.85, 0.08 and

0.07 m/s, respectively. The size distribution of sand classified by the Geldart

group B is shown in Fig. 2 (a). The mean particle size was 376µm. In Fig. 2 (b),

the minimum fluidization velocity (𝑣𝑣𝑚𝑓 ) was determined as 0.067 m/s. The

initial silica sand heights of the gasifier, combustor, and loop-seal were 0.36,

0.36 and 0.40 m, respectively. The sand properties and operating conditions for

the experiment are summarized in Table II.4.1.

97
After about 2-3 minutes of the operating time, the gas–solid flows inside sDFB

reached a stable state. The external solid circulation rate was measured without

the inlet aeration of the loop-seal. The sand height of the loop-seal accumulated

for 60 seconds was then used to obtain the average external solid circulation rate.

It is not trivial to measure the internal solid circulation rate by experiment

because of the chaotic behaviors of sand particles at the interconnected hole

between the gasifier and the riser. A CFD study was needed to estimate this

value which plays a key role in the heat and mass transfer enhancement of

sDFB.

3. Eulerian–Eulerian two-fluid CFD model

The Eulerisn-Eulerian approach with the multiphase 𝑘 − 𝜖 dispersed turbulence

model consists of a set of continuity and momentum equations for the gas and

solid phases (see Appendix). Only one link between the two phases is drag

coefficient. There are several drag models (Gidaspow D, 1994; Sylamlal et al.,

1994; Wen et al., 1966) of which the Gidaspow drag model (Gidaspow D, 1994)

was used in this study due to its suitability for the present particles and flow

regime, as shown in Appendix II.4.A.2. The kinetic theory of granular flow

(KTGF) was introduced to formulate the particulate flow of the solid phase in

terms of granular temperature (Gidaspow et al., 2004; Lun et al., 1984), where

the solid pressure (ps) is expressed with respect to granular temperature (Θs) and

98
radial distribution function (g0,ss). Appendix II.4.A.3 describes the main

concepts of KTGF. The 𝑘 − 𝜖 dispersed turbulence model used to modify the

turbulent viscosity and the drag force term of the momentum equation is

presented in Appendix II.4.A.4. Various constitutive equations necessary to

complete the Eulerian-Eulerian two-fluid model are found in the Appendix.

The CFD model was solved using ANSYS Fluent (ANSYS Inc., USA). The 2D

computational domain depicted in Fig. II.4.1(b) was discretized into

approximately 75,000 cells. A time stepsize of 0.001s and 200 iterations per

step were chosen. This iteration was adequate to achieve convergence for the

majority of time steps. A first–order discretization scheme was used for the

convection terms. The absolute error between two successive iterations was

specified to 1×10-3 as a convergence criterion. The phase-coupled SIMPLE

(semi-implicit method for pressure-linked equations) algorithm (Patankar and

Spalding, 1972) was applied to solve pressure-velocity coupling equations for

multiphase flows.

The hydrodynamic behaviors of sDFB were analyzed for 140 to 230 seconds of

the operating time, when the system was considered as a stable state. The total

simulation time was 60 days for 230 seconds with a workstation (Intel Xeon

X5570 with 8 CPUs at 2.93GHz).

The simulation parameters are summarized in Table II.4.2. The maximum

packing limit factor (𝛼𝑠,𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) means the maximum volume fraction of granular

phase. For monodispersed spheres, it is about 0.63. However, in the case of

99
polydispersed systems, smaller particles can fill the interstitials between the

larger ones, thus a lager value of 𝛼𝑠,𝑚𝑎𝑥 is possible (Du et al., 2006). In this

study, the quasi-polydispersed particles with a maximum packing limit factor of

0.74 were used for one solid phase.

4. Results and discussions

The pressure drops distribution and the external solid circulation rate are

verified with experiment data. The internal solid circulation rate will then be

obtained from the CFD model.

4.1. Hydrodynamics of sDFB

Fig. II.4.3 shows pictures of solid volume fractions at several moments from 52s

to 60s of the operating time. Due to the high air velocity from the riser (see

Table II.4.1), the solids rise up to the cyclone, the separated solid particles fall

down, and then undergo the loop-seal aeration to transport to the gasifier. A

small amount of solids flows out of the cyclone at the first moment. Solid

particles of the gasifier overflow to the riser, and one external circulation cycle

of solids is completed. It is observed that the transportation of solid particles

from the loop-seal to the gasifier zone is unstable because of bubbles in the

loop-seal. As seen in Fig. II.4.3, the loop-seal pulse occurs frequently at about

every 3-10 seconds. To our knowledge, those behaviors of gas and solid flows

100
are similar to conventional DFBs in the literature (Göransson et al., 2011;

Kaiser et al., 2003; Nguyen et al., 2012b; Seo et al., 2011; Song et al., 2012).

As mentioned earlier, the sDFB gasifier has an advantage in mass and heat

transfer over the conventional DFB by introducing internal solid circulation. Fig.

II.4.4 shows the solids internally circulating from the riser through the internal

hole to the gasifier zone. The internal circulating particles are mixed up in the

gasification zone, and then turn back to the riser. It is expected that this internal

partial mixing leads to enhancing the heat and mass transfer ability between the

gasifier and riser.

Fig. II.4.5 shows the pressure distribution at the 43 sampling points (from P1 to

P43 in Fig. II.4.1(a)). The simulation results and experimental data have the

same tendency in the riser and stand pipe. It was predicted to have a maximum

pressure drop value of about 2200Pa in the riser, while about 2700Pa in the

experiment. For the loop-seal, the calculated values of pressure distribution are

quite higher than experimental ones. These results might be attributed to the

solid pressure (𝑝𝑠 ) (Lun et al., 1984; Syamlal et al., 1993) applied to the quasi-

polydispersed system which could not well represent the dense solid phase at

the bottom of the loop-seal.

4.2. Internal and external solid circulation rates

The solid circulation rate has been considered as one of the most important

criteria in DFB operation (Göransson et al., 2011; Murakami et al., 2007;

101
Pfeifer et al., 2009; Seo et al., 2010; Shen et al., 2008), because it is closely

related to the estimation of energy demand for the gasification zone. The solid

circulation rate is divided into the internal and external ones in this sDFB.

Let 𝐺𝐺𝑠𝑒𝑥 (kg/m2/s) the external solid circulation rate which is the amount of solid

circulating from the loop-seal to the gasifier per unit of area:

𝑒𝑥
𝑀𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑑
𝐺𝐺𝑠𝑒𝑥 = 𝐴𝑙𝑠
(II.4.1)

where 𝐴𝑙𝑠 (m2) is the cross sectional area interconnected between the loop-seal
𝑒𝑥
and the gasifier, and 𝑀𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑑 (kg/s) is the sand mass flow rate through the cross

sectional area. The internal solid circulation rate (𝐺𝐺𝑠𝑖𝑛 , kg/m2/s) sums up the

𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑛
back-(𝐺𝐺𝑠,𝑏 , kg/m2/s) and forward (𝐺𝐺𝑠,𝑓 , kg/m2/s) mass fluxes through the riser–

gasifier interconnection hole (see Fig. II.4.4):

𝑖𝑛 𝑀̇ 𝑖𝑛
⎧ 𝐺𝐺𝑠,𝑏 = 𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑑,𝑏
𝐴𝑏
⎪ 𝑖𝑛
𝑀̇ 𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑑,𝑓
𝐺𝐺 𝑖𝑛 = 𝐴 (II.4.2)
⎨ 𝑠,𝑓 𝑓
⎪ 𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑛
⎩ 𝐺𝐺𝑠 = ∑ 𝐺𝐺𝑠,𝑓 − ∑ 𝐺𝐺𝑠,𝑏

where 𝑀̇𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑑,𝑓
𝑖𝑛
and 𝑀̇𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑑,𝑏
𝑖𝑛
(kg/s) are the forward and backward mass flow

rates through 𝐴𝑓 and 𝐴𝑏 (𝐴𝑓 + 𝐴𝑏 = 𝐴, where A is the area of internal hole, see

Fig. II.4.4 (b)), respectively. The forward and backward areas are clearly

identified by the solid velocity vectors. Both the cross sectional area (𝐴𝑓 and 𝐴𝑏 )

and the solid mass flow rate (𝑀̇𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑑,𝑓

𝑖𝑛
and 𝑀̇𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑑,𝑏
𝑖𝑛
) vary every moment and at

102
 𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑛
every mesh point. The mean values of 𝐺𝐺𝑠,𝑓 and 𝐺𝐺𝑠,𝑏 are evaluated for a given

time at the all mesh points.

The external solid mass balance is expressed as:

𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑛
𝐺𝐺𝑠𝑒𝑥 = ∑ 𝐺𝐺𝑠,𝑓 − ∑ 𝐺𝐺𝑠,𝑏 − 𝐺𝐺𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑡 ≈ ∑ 𝐺𝐺𝑠,𝑓 − ∑ 𝐺𝐺𝑠,𝑏 (II.4.3)

where 𝐺𝐺𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑡 (kg/m2/s) is the mass flux of sand flowing out at the top of the

cyclone. 𝐺𝐺𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑡 was negligible owing to high cyclone performance.

It was observed from both the experimental data and the CFD simulation that

the gas and solids flows reached a stable state showing a cyclic flow dynamics

after about two minutes. The external solid circulation rate (𝐺𝐺𝑠𝑒𝑥 ) was calculated

as the time-average from 140 to 225 seconds of the operating time. The CFD

simulation result has a higher value by 16% than experimental data, as indicated

in Table II.4.3.

The percentages of forward (𝛾𝑓 ) and backward (𝛾𝑏 ) mass fluxes of particles

through the interconnection area are given as follows:

𝑖𝑛
�𝐺𝑠,𝑓 �
𝛾𝑓 = 𝑖𝑛 +�𝐺 𝑖𝑛 �
× 100% (II.4.4)
�𝐺𝑠,𝑏 � 𝑠,𝑓

𝑖𝑛
�𝐺𝑠,𝑏 �
𝛾𝑏 = 𝑖𝑛 +�𝐺 𝑖𝑛 �
× 100% (II.4.5)
�𝐺𝑠,𝑏 � 𝑠,𝑓

Fig. II.4.6 shows the percentages of backward and forward particles from 140 to

225 seconds. It is observed that the number of forward particles is much higher

than the backward one. 17.1% of solid particles time-averaged for 85 seconds

103
were back-mixed between the riser and gasifier through the interconnection area.

It may be interpreted that the heat and mass transfer of the sDFB gasifier can be

improved by about 17% over conventional DFB gasifiers.

5. Conclusions

A new design of the DFB gasifier called the semi-dual fluidized-bed (sDFB)

was presented for the enhancement of heat and mass transfers by the back

mixing of sand particles through the interconnection hole between the riser and

gasifier. The cold-rig sDFB experiment was performed using sand particles

having the mean diameter of about 376 µm. The pressure drops were sampled at

43 points along the apparatus. The external circulation rate of sand particles was

measured in the loop-seal.

The Eulerian-Eulerian two-fluid CFD model incorporated with the kinetic

theory of granular flow and the 𝑘 − 𝜖 dispersed turbulence model was

developed for the cold-rig sDFB. The simulation results of the pressure

distribution and the external solid circulation rate were validated with

experiment data. The internal solid circulation rate representing the back-mixing

of particles through the interconnection hole was estimated from the CFD

simulation. It was calculated that about 17% of the total mass flux was directly

back-mixed from the riser to the gasifier via the interconnecting hole. This

indicates that the sDFB gasifier can improve heat and mass transfer.

104
Further work is necessary to identify the performance of sDFB in the wide

range of the internal hole sizes and positions. Moreover, since only one particle

size was used in this CFD simulation at a specific packing limit factor, a CFD

model for poly-dispersed particles should be developed to consider realistic

solid distribution.

Appendix

The governing equations for the Eulerian-Eulerian two-fluid model include

generally the conservation of mass, momentum, and energy. The energy

conservation equation is removed for this cold-rig model. The kinetic theory of

granular flow (KTGF) and the multiphase 𝑘 − 𝜖 dispersed turbulence model are

integrated into the Eulerian-Eulerian model.

A.1. Continuity equations

Total mass conservation equations of the gas (g) and solid (s) phases without

mass transfer between the two phases may be expressed as:

𝜕�𝛼𝑔 𝜌𝑔 �
𝜕𝑡
𝑣𝑣𝑔 = 0
+ 𝛻 ∙ �𝛼𝑔 𝜌𝑔 ����⃗� (II.4.A.1)

𝜕(𝛼𝑠 𝜌𝑠 )
𝜕𝑡
+ 𝛻 ∙ (𝛼𝑠 𝜌𝑠 ���⃗)
𝑣𝑣𝑠 = 0 (II.4.A.2)

105
where ����⃗
𝑣𝑣𝑔 and ���⃗
𝑣𝑣𝑠 are the velocities of gas and solid phases, respectively. The 𝜌𝑔

and 𝜌𝑠 are the physical densities of gas and solid, respectively. 𝛼𝑔 and 𝛼𝑠 are

the volume fractions of the gas and solid phases, respectively (𝛼𝑔 + 𝛼𝑠 = 1 for

the two-phase system).

A.2. Navier-Stokes equations

Momentum conservation equations of the gas and solid phases are given by:

𝜕�𝛼𝑔 𝜌𝑔 ����⃗�
𝑣𝑔 2
𝜕𝑡
+ 𝛻 ∙ �𝛼𝑔 𝜌𝑔 ����⃗
𝑣𝑣𝑔 � = −𝛼𝑔 𝛻𝑝 + 𝛻 ∙ 𝜏���
𝑔 + 𝛼𝑔 𝜌𝑔 𝑔
⃗ + 𝐾𝑠𝑔 �𝑣𝑣
���⃗𝑠 − 𝑣𝑣
����⃗�
𝑔

(II.4.A.3)

𝜕(𝛼𝑠 𝜌𝑠 ����⃗)
𝑣𝑠 2
𝜕𝑡
+ 𝛻 ∙ �𝛼𝑠 𝜌𝑠 ���⃗
𝑣𝑣𝑠 � = −𝛼𝑠 𝛻𝑝 − ∇𝑝𝑠 + 𝛻 ∙ 𝜏�𝑠 + 𝛼𝑠 𝜌𝑠 𝑔⃗ + 𝐾𝑠𝑔 �𝑣𝑣
����⃗
𝑔 − 𝑣𝑣
���⃗�
𝑠

(II.4.A.4)

where 𝑔⃗ is the gravity, ���

𝜏𝑔 and 𝜏�𝑠 are the viscous stress tensors of gas and solid,

respectively. 𝑝 is the pressure shared by all phases. 𝑝𝑠 is the granular pressure of

the solid phase. For granular flows in the compressible regime, the solid

pressure is calculated independently and used for the pressure gradient term,

∇𝑝𝑠 .

In Eq. (II.4.A.3) and (II.4.A.4), the momentum exchange between the gas and

solid phase is determined by the drag force with an interphase exchange

coefficient (𝐾𝑠𝑔 ). Several models for the gas–solid interphase drag coefficients

were reported in the Gidaspow, Syamlal-O'Brien, and Wen-Yu drag models

(Gidaspow D, 1994; Taghipour et al., 2005). The Gidaspow momentum

106
exchange coefficient used in this study is a combination of the Ergun equation

and the Wen and Yu model (Gidaspow D, 1994; Huilin et al., 2003; Taghipour

et al., 2005):

𝐸𝑟𝑔𝑢𝑛 𝛼2𝜇 ����⃗−𝑣

𝛼𝑠 𝜌𝑔 �𝑣 𝑠 ����⃗�
𝐾𝑠𝑔 = 150 𝛼𝑠 𝑑𝑔2 + 1.75 𝑑𝑠
𝑔
for 𝛼𝑔 ≤ 0.8 (II.4.A.5)
𝑔 𝑠

𝑊𝑒𝑛−𝑌𝑢 3 ����⃗−𝑣
𝛼𝑠 𝛼𝑔 𝜌𝑔 �𝑣 𝑠 ����⃗�
𝐾𝑠𝑔 = 𝐶𝐷 𝑔
𝛼𝑔−2.65 for 𝛼𝑔 > 0.8 (II.4.A.6)
4 𝑑𝑠

where the drag coefficient (CD) is given by:

24 0.687
𝐶𝐷 = �1 + 0.15�𝛼𝑔 𝑅𝑒𝑒𝑠 � � (II.4.A.7)
𝛼𝑠 𝑅𝑒𝑠

and

����⃗−𝑣
𝜌𝑔 𝑑𝑠 �𝑣 𝑠 ����⃗�
𝑔
𝑅𝑒𝑒𝑠 = 𝜇𝑔
(II.4.A.8)

Since there is a step change in 𝐾𝑠𝑔 at 𝛼𝑔 = 0.8, the following smoothing

function is applied (Huilin et al., 2003):

𝐸𝑟𝑔𝑢𝑛 𝑊𝑒𝑛−𝑌𝑢
𝐾𝑔𝑠 = 𝜑𝐾𝑠𝑔 + �(1 − 𝜑)𝐾𝑠𝑔 � (II.4.A.9)

in which 𝜑 is the weighting function:

150×1.75(0.2−𝛼𝑠 )
𝜑 = arctan � 𝜋
�+ 0.5 (II.4.A.10)

A.3. Kinetic theory of granular flow (KTGF)

107
The Eulerian-Eulerian two-fluid model requires constitutive equations to

describe the rheology of the particulate solid phase. The constitutive relations

for the solid phase stress have been derived for the inelastic nature of particle

collisions by Lun et al. (Lun et al., 1984). Since the solid phase stress depends

on the magnitude of these particle velocity fluctuations, a balance of the

granular energy associated with these fluctuations is required to support the

continuity and momentum equations for the gas and solid phases. The transport

equation of granular temperature (Θs) derived from the kinetic theory (Ding and

Gidaspow, 1990) is given as:

3 𝜕(𝜌𝑠 𝛼𝑠 Θ𝑠 )
� 𝜕𝑡 + 𝑣𝑣𝑠 𝑠 )� = �−𝜌𝑠 𝐼 ̿ + 𝜏�𝑠 �: ∇𝑣𝑣
∇⋅(𝜌𝑠 𝛼𝑠 ���⃗Θ ���⃗𝑠 + ∇⋅�𝑘Θ𝑠 ∇Θ𝑠 � − 𝛾Θ𝑠 + 𝜙𝑠𝑔
2

(II.4.A.11)

where �−𝜌𝑠 𝐼 ̿ + 𝜏�𝑠 �: ∇𝑣𝑣

���⃗𝑠 is the generation of energy by the solid stress tensor,

𝑘Θ𝑠 ∇Θ𝑠 is the diffusion of energy (𝑘Θ𝑠 is the diffusion coefficient), 𝛾Θ𝑠 is the

collisional dissipation of energy (Lun et al., 1984), and 𝜙𝑠𝑔 is the energy

exchange between the fluid and the solid phase (Ding and Gidaspow, 1990).

Several researchers (Boemer et al., 1997; Syamlal et al., 1993; van Wachem et

al., 1998) assumed that the granular energy in a steady state and is dissipated

locally. The convection and diffusion terms were neglected because the result

was almost the same without those terms. In the present study, Eq. (II.4.A.11) is

simplified into an algebraic expression for the granular temperature:

0 = �−𝜌𝑠 𝐼 ̿ + 𝜏�𝑠 �: ∇𝑣𝑣

���⃗𝑠 − 𝛾Θ𝑠 (II.4.A.12)

108
The solid pressure (ps) in Eq. (II.4.A.4) presents the normal solid phase forces

due to particle–particle interactions. The solid pressure given by Lun et al. (Lun

et al., 1984) is:

𝑝𝑠 = 𝛼𝑠 𝜌𝑠 Θ𝑠 + 2𝜌𝑠 (1 + 𝑒𝑒𝑠𝑠 )𝛼𝑠2 𝑔0,𝑠𝑠 Θ𝑠 (II.4.A.13)

where the restitution coefficient of particles (ess) is chosen as 0.9 (see Table

II.4.2). The radial distribution function (𝑔0,𝑠𝑠 ) for the solid phase with a mean

diameter (𝑑𝑠 ) is given by Lun and Savage (Lun and Savage, 1986):

−2.5𝛼𝑠,𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝛼𝑠
𝑔0,𝑠𝑠 = �1 − �𝛼 � � (II.4.A.14)
𝑠,𝑚𝑎𝑥

where 𝛼𝑠,𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the packing limit of solid particles which is set to 0.74 in this

study.

The first part of the solid pressure equation represents the kinetic contribution

for the momentum transfer by particles moving across the shear layer. The

second part means the collisional contribution for the momentum which is

transferred by direct collisions.

The solid–phase stress tensor (𝜏�𝑠 ) in Eq. (II.4.A.4) is given by:

𝑇 2
𝜏�𝑠 = 𝛼𝑠 𝜇𝑠 �∇𝑣𝑣
���⃗𝑠 + ∇𝑣𝑣
���⃗𝑠 � + 𝛼𝑠 �𝜆𝑠 − 𝜇𝑠 � ∇𝑣𝑣
���⃗𝐼
𝑠
̿ (II.4.A.15)
3

where 𝜇𝑠 and 𝜆𝑠 are the shear and bulk viscosity of the solid phase. The bulk

viscosity (𝜆𝑠 ) is a measure of the resistance of fluid to compression which is

described with the help of the kinetic theory of granular flows (Lun et al., 1984):

109
 1
4 Θ 2
𝜆𝑠 = 𝛼𝑠 𝜌𝑠 𝑑𝑠 𝑔0,𝑠𝑠 (1 + 𝑒𝑒𝑠𝑠 ) � 𝜋𝑠 � (II.4.A.16)
3

where ds is the solid diameter. The solid shear viscosity (𝜇𝑠 ) representing the

tangential force due to particle interactions is given as:

𝜇𝑠 = 𝜇𝑠,𝑐𝑜𝑙 + 𝜇𝑠,𝑘𝑖𝑛 + 𝜇𝑠,𝑓𝑟 (II.4.A.17)

where the collision viscosity of the solid (𝜇𝑠,𝑐𝑜𝑙 ) is:

1
4 Θ 2
𝜇𝑠,𝑐𝑜𝑙 = 𝛼𝑠 𝜌𝑠 𝑑𝑠 𝑔0,𝑠𝑠 (1 + 𝑒𝑒𝑠𝑠 ) � 𝜋𝑠 � (II.4.A.18)
5

The frictional viscosity (𝜇𝑠,𝑓𝑟 ) is:

𝑝𝑠 sin 𝜙
𝜇𝑠,𝑓𝑟 = (II.4.A.19)
2�𝐼2𝐷

where 𝜙 is the angle of internal friction, and 𝐼2𝐷 is the second invariant of the

deviatory stress tensor.

The Syamlal-O'brien kinetic viscosity (Sylamlal et al., 1994) is calculated as:

𝛼𝑠 𝑑𝑠 𝜌𝑠 �Θ𝑠 𝜋 2
𝜇𝑠,𝑘𝑖𝑛 = 6(3−𝑒𝑠𝑠 )
× �1 + (1 + 𝑒𝑒𝑠𝑠 )(3𝑒𝑒𝑠𝑠 − 1)𝛼𝑠 𝑔0,𝑠𝑠 � (II.4.A.20)
5

A.4. Multiphase 𝑘 − 𝜖 dispersed turbulence model

The multiphase 𝑘 − 𝜖 dispersed turbulence model used to describe the effects of

turbulent fluctuations of velocities is applicable for the gas-solid two-fluid
model. The transport equation for 𝑘 was derived theoretically, while the

110
transport equation for 𝜖 was obtained using physical reasoning (Launder and
Spalding, 1972).

A.4.1. Turbulence in the gas phase

For the gas phase (g), the turbulent predictions are obtained from the modified
Reynolds stress tensor equation (Wilcox, 1994):

𝜕 𝜇𝑡,𝑔
�𝛼𝑔 𝜌𝑔 𝑘𝑔 � + ∇ ∙ �𝛼𝑔 𝜌𝑔 ����⃗
𝑈𝑔 𝑘𝑔 � = ∇ ∙ �𝛼𝑔 ∇𝑘𝑔 � + 𝛼𝑔 𝐺𝐺𝑘,𝑔 − 𝛼𝑔 𝜌𝑔 𝜖𝑔 +
𝜕𝑡 𝜎𝑘

𝛼𝑔 𝜌𝑔 Π𝑘𝑔 (II.4.A.21)

𝜕 𝜇𝑡,𝑔 𝜖
�𝛼𝑔 𝜌𝑔 𝜖𝑔 � + ∇ ∙ �𝛼𝑔 𝜌𝑔 ����⃗
𝑈𝑔 𝜖𝑔 � = ∇ ∙ �𝛼𝑔 ∇𝜖𝑔 � + 𝛼𝑔 𝑘𝑔 �𝐶1𝜖 𝐺𝐺𝑘,𝑔 −
𝜕𝑡 𝜎𝜖 𝑔

𝐶2𝜖 𝜌𝑔 𝜖𝑔 ) + 𝛼𝑔 𝜌𝑔 Π𝜖𝑔 (II.4.A.22)

where 𝜎𝑘 = 1 and 𝜎𝜖 = 1.3 are the turbulent Prandtl numbers for 𝑘 and 𝜖 ,
����⃗
respectively. 𝑈 𝑔 is the phase-weighted velocity of gas, 𝑘𝑔 is the turbulent

kinetic energy of gas, 𝜇𝑡,𝑔 is the turbulent viscosity that is written in terms of
the turbulent kinetic energy of the gas phase:

𝑘2
𝜇𝑡,𝑔 = 𝜌𝑔 𝐶𝜇 𝜖 𝑔 (II.4.A.23)
𝑔

where 𝐶𝜇 , 𝐶1𝜖 and 𝐶2𝜖 are the constants which are set to 0.09, 1.42 and 1.68,
respectively (Reynolds, 1987). 𝜖𝑔 is the dissipation rate. Π𝑘𝑔 and Π𝜖𝑔 present

the influence of the dispersed phase (s) on the continuous phase (g), and 𝐺𝐺𝑘,𝑔 is
the generation of turbulent kinetic energy due to the mean velocity gradients.

A.4.2. Turbulence in the solid phase

For the dispersed phase (solid), the turbulence quantities of dispersed phase (s)

in terms of the turbulent kinetic energy (𝑘𝑠 ), covariance of the velocities of the

111
solid and gas phases (𝑘𝑠𝑔 ), and the dispersion diffusivity (𝐷𝑠 ) are evaluated in

time and length scales as follows (Simonin and Viollet, 1990):

𝑏2 +𝜂
𝑘𝑠 = 𝑘𝑔 � 1+𝜂 𝑠𝑔� (II.4.A.24)
𝑠𝑔

𝑏+𝜂𝑠𝑔
𝑘𝑠𝑔 = 2𝑘𝑔 �1+𝜂 � (II.4.A.25)
𝑠𝑔

2 1
𝐷𝑠 = 𝐷𝑡,𝑠𝑔 + � 𝑘𝑠 − 𝑏 𝑘𝑠𝑔 � 𝜏𝐹,𝑠𝑔 (II.4.A.26)
3 3

−1
1 𝜌𝑠
where 𝐷𝑡,𝑠𝑔 = 𝑘𝑠𝑔 𝜏𝑡,𝑠𝑔 and 𝑏 = (1 + 𝐶𝑉 ) � + 𝐶𝑉 � . The added-mass
3 𝜌𝑔

coefficient is given to 𝐶𝑉 = 0.5 . The characteristic particle relaxation time

connected with inertial effects acting on dispersed phase (s) (𝜏𝐹,𝑠𝑔 ) is expressed

as:

−1 𝜌
𝜏𝐹,𝑠𝑔 = 𝛼𝑠 𝜌𝑠 𝐾𝑠𝑔 �𝜌 𝑠 + 𝐶𝑉 � (II.4.A.27)
𝑔

The Lagrangian integral time scale (𝜏𝑡,𝑠𝑔 ) calculated along particle trajectories

(Csanady, 1963) is defined as:

𝜏𝑡,𝑔
𝜏𝑡,𝑠𝑔 = (II.4.A.28)
�1+𝐶𝛽 𝜉 2

������⃗�𝜏
�𝑣
where 𝜉 = 𝑠𝑔 𝑡,𝑔
, 𝐶𝛽 = 1.8 − 1.35 cos2 𝜃, the 𝑣𝑣
������⃗
𝑠𝑔 is the relative velocity of
𝐿𝑡,𝑔

solid (s) and gas (g) phases, and 𝜃 is the angle between the mean particle

velocity and the mean relative velocity. The length scale ( 𝐿𝑡,𝑔 ) and the

characteristic time (𝜏𝑡,𝑔 ) of energetic turbulent eddies are given as:

112
 3
𝑘 2
3
𝐿𝑡,𝑔 = � 𝐶𝜇 𝑔 (II.4.A.29)
2 𝜖𝑔

3 𝑘𝑔
𝜏𝑡,𝑔 = 𝐶𝜇 (II.4.A.30)
2 𝜖𝑔

The ratio between two characteristic times (𝜂𝑠𝑔 in Eq. II.4.A.24 and II.4.A.25)

is written as:

𝜏𝑡,𝑠𝑔
𝜂𝑠𝑔 = 𝜏 (II.4.A.31)
𝐹,𝑠𝑔

A.4.3. Interphase turbulent momentum transfer

The momentum exchange drag force in Eq. (II.4.A.3) and (II.4.A.4) is replaced

by the turbulent drag force, using the multiphase 𝑘 − 𝜖 dispersed turbulence

model:

𝐾𝑠𝑔 �𝑣𝑣
���⃗𝑠 − 𝑣𝑣 ����⃗ ����⃗
𝑔 = 𝐾𝑠𝑔 �𝑈𝑠 − 𝑈𝑔 � − 𝐾𝑠𝑔 ������⃗
����⃗� 𝑣𝑣𝑑𝑟 (II.4.A.32)

The ������⃗
𝑣𝑣𝑑𝑟 is the drift velocity which results from turbulent fluctuations in the

volume fraction, as defined as follows:

𝐷𝑠 𝐷𝑔
𝑣𝑣𝑑𝑟 = − �𝜎
������⃗ ∇𝛼𝑠 −𝜎 ∇𝛼𝑔 � (II.4.A.33)
𝑠𝑔 𝛼𝑠 𝑠𝑔 𝛼𝑔

where 𝜎𝑠𝑔 (=0.75) is the dispersion Prandtl number. For the present study, we

assume 𝐷𝑠 = 𝐷𝑔 = 𝐷𝑡,𝑠𝑔 .

113
Nomenclature

𝐴 Cross section area (m2)

𝐶𝐷 Drag coefficient, dimensionless

𝐶𝑉 Added-mass coefficient, dimensionless

𝑑 Diameter (m)

𝐷 Mass diffusion coefficient (m2/s) (e.g., 𝐷𝑠 , 𝐷𝑔 , 𝐷𝑠𝑔 )

𝑒𝑒𝑠𝑠 Restitution coefficient, dimensionless

𝑔⃗ Gravity (m/s2, = 9.80665 (m/s2)

𝑔0,𝑠𝑠 Radial distribution coefficient, dimensionless

𝐺𝐺𝑘,𝑔 Generation of turbulent kinetic energy (kg2/m2/s3)

𝐺𝐺𝑠 Mass flux (kg/m2/s)

𝐼 Stress tensor, dimensionless

𝑘 Kinetic energy per unit mass (J/kg)

𝑘Θ𝑠 Diffusion coefficient for granular energy, (kg/s/m)

𝐾𝑠𝑔 Solid–gas momentum exchange coefficient, dimensionless

𝐾𝑠𝑔 Turbulence drag function for dispersed phase (s) and continuous phase

(g)

114
𝐿 Length scale (m) (e.g. L(t,g) is length scale of the energetic turbulent

eddies)

𝑀 Mass flow rate (kg/s)

𝑝 Pressure (Pa)

𝑟 Radial coordinate (m)

𝑅𝑒𝑒 Reynolds number, dimensionless

𝑡 Time (s)

𝑈 Phase-weighted velocity (m/s)

𝑣𝑣𝑖 Velocity magnitude (m/s)

Greek letters

𝛼𝑖 Volume fraction, dimensionless

𝛾Θ𝑚 Collision dissipation of energy (kg/s3/m)

𝛾 Percentage number of particles, %

Δ Change in variable, final – initial (e.g. Δ𝑃, Δ𝑡)

𝜀𝑖 Voidage, dimensionless

𝜖 Turbulent dissipation rate (m2/s3)

𝜂 Effectiveness factor, dimensionless (e.g. time characteristic ratio 𝜂𝑠𝑔 )

115
𝜂𝑖 Dynamic viscosity, (kg/s/m)

Θ𝑖 Granular temperature, (m2/s2)

𝜆𝑖 Bulk viscosity, (kg/s/m)

𝜇𝑖 Shear viscosity, (kg/s/m)

𝜈𝑖 Kinematic viscosity, (m2/s)

Δ𝜌 Density difference between gas and solid phase, (kg/m3)

𝜌𝑖 Density, (kg/m3)

𝜎 Surface tension (kg/m)

𝜎𝑘 , 𝜎𝜖 Turbulent Prandtl numbers for 𝑘 and 𝜖 (𝜎𝑘 = 1 and 𝜎𝜖 = 1.3)

𝜎𝑠𝑔 Dispersion Prandtl number, dimensionless

𝜏̿ Stress tensor (Pa)

𝜏𝑡,𝑠𝑔 Lagrangian integral time scale calculated along particle trajectories (s)

𝜏𝐹,𝑠𝑔 Characteristic particle relaxation time (s)

𝜑 Weighting function, dimensionless

𝜙𝑔𝑠 Transfer rate of kinetic energy (kg/s3/m)

Π Influence of the dispersed phase (s) on the continuous phase (g) (m2/s4)

Subscripts

116
𝑏 Backward

𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑙 Collision

𝑑𝑟 Drift

𝑚𝑚 Forward

𝑚𝑚𝑟 Friction

𝑔 Gas

𝑖𝑖 General index

𝑘𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 Kinetic

𝑙𝑠𝑠 Loop-seal

𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Minimum fluidization

𝑠𝑠 Solid

𝑠𝑠𝑔 Solid–gas

𝑡 Terminal or turbulent

Superscripts

𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 Internal

𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 External

𝑜𝑢𝑡 Out flow

117
Acknowledgements

This work is supported by Bilateral International Collaborative R&D program

under the Ministry of Knowledge Economy, Korea. The authors also appreciate

the editing contribution of Patrick Bresnahan.

118
References

Ahmed, T.Y., Ahmad, M.M., Yusup, S., et al., "Mathematical and

computational approaches for design of biomass gasification for hydrogen
production: A review". Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 16 (4), pp. 2304-2315,
2012.
Asadullah, M., Miyazawa, T., Ito, S.-I., et al., "Gasification of different
biomasses in a dual-bed gasifier system combined with novel catalysts with
high energy efficiency". Appl. Catal. A, 267 (1-2), pp. 95-102, 2004.
Ayed, H., Chahed, J., and Roig, V., "Hydrodynamics and mass transfer
in a turbulent buoyant bubbly shear layer". AICHE J., 53 (11), pp. 2742-2753,
2007.
Ayhan, D., "Biofuels securing the planet’s future energy needs". Energy
Convers. Manage., 50 (9), pp. 2239-2249, 2009.
Azuhata, S., Hedman, P.O., and Smoot, L.D., "Carbon conversion in an
atmospheric-pressure entrained coal gasifier". Fuel, 65 (2), pp. 212-217, 1986.
Barbieri, C., FUndamental of astronomy. CRC Press: 2007.
Beenackers, A.A.C.M., "Biomass gasification in moving beds, a review
of European technologies". Renewable Energy, 16 (1–4), pp. 1180-1186, 1999.
Behjat, Y., Shahhosseini, S., and Hashemabadi, S.H., "CFD modeling
of hydrodynamic and heat transfer in fluidized bed reactors". Int. Commun.
Heat Mass Transfer, 35 (3), pp. 357-368, 2008.
Benyahia, S., Arastoopour, H., Knowlton, T.M., et al., "Simulation of
particles and gas flow behavior in the riser section of a circulating fluidized bed
using the kinetic theory approach for the particulate phase". Powder Technol.,
112 (1-2), pp. 24-33, 2000.
Boemer, A., Qi, H., and Renz, U., "Eulerian simulation of bubble
formation at a jet in a two-dimensional fluidized bed". Int. J. Multiphase Flow,
23 (5), pp. 927-944, 1997.
Bridgwater, A.V., "The technical and economic feasibility of biomass
gasification for power generation". Fuel, 74 (5), pp. 631-653, 1995.
Bridgwater, A.V., "Renewable fuels and chemicals by thermal
processing of biomass". Chem. Eng. J., 91 (2–3), pp. 87-102, 2003.
Brown, D., Fuchino, T., and Maréchal, F., Solid fuel decomposition
modelling for the design of biomass gasification systems. In Computer Aided
Chemical Engineering, Marquardt, W., andPantelides, C., Eds. Elsevier: 2006;
Vol. Volume 21, pp 1661-1666.

119
 Buragohain, B., Mahanta, P., and Moholkar, V.S., "Thermodynamic
optimization of biomass gasification for decentralized power generation and
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis". Energy, 35 (6), pp. 2557-2579, 2010.
Cantrell, K.B., Ducey, T., Ro, K.S., et al., "Livestock waste-to-
bioenergy generation opportunities". Bioresour. Technol., 99 (17), pp. 7941-
7953, 2008.
Chapman S, and Cowling T, The mathematical theory of non-uniform
gases. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1970.
Charpentier, J.-C., "The triplet "molecular processes-product-process"
engineering: the future of chemical engineering. ". Chem. Eng. Sci., 57 (22-23),
pp. 4667-4690, 2002.
Charpentier, J.C., and McKenna, T.F., "Managing complex systems:
some trends for the future of chemical and process engineering". Chem. Eng.
Sci., 59 (8–9), pp. 1617-1640, 2004.
Chen, Q., Zhai, Z., and Wang, L., "Computer modeling of multiscale
fluid flow and heat and mass transfer in engineered spaces". Chem. Eng. Sci.,
62 (13), pp. 3580-3588, 2007.
Chum, H.L., and Overend, R.P., "Biomass and renewable fuels". Fuel
Process. Technol., 71 (1–3), pp. 187-195, 2001.
Corella, J., and Sanz, A., "Modeling circulating fluidized bed biomass
gasifiers. A pseudo-rigorous model for stationary state". Fuel Process. Technol.,
86 (9), pp. 1021-1053, 2005.
Csanady, G.T., "Turbulent Diffusion of Heavy Particles in the
Atmosphere". J. Atmospheric Sci., 20 (3), pp. 201-208, 1963.
Dasgupta, S., Jackson, R., and Sundaresan, S., "Gas-particle flow in
vertical pipes with high mass loading of particles". Powder Technol., 96 (1), pp.
6-23, 1998.
Demirbas, A., "Combustion characteristics of different biomass fuels".
Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 30 (2), pp. 219-230, 2004.
Demirbas, A., "Progress and recent trends in biofuels". Prog. Energy
Combust. Sci., 33 (1), pp. 1-18, 2007.
Demirbas, A., "Biofuels sources, biofuel policy, biofuel economy and
global biofuel projections". Energy Convers. Manage., 49 (8), pp. 2106-2116,
2008.
Ding, J., and Gidaspow, D., "A bubbling fluidization model using
kinetic theory of granular flow". AICHE J., 36 (4), pp. 523-538, 1990.

120
 Du, W., Bao, X., Xu, J., et al., "Computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
modeling of spouted bed: Influence of frictional stress, maximum packing limit
and coefficient of restitution of particles". Chem. Eng. Sci., 61 (14), pp. 4558-
4570, 2006.
Fiaschi, D., and Michelini, M., "A two-phase one-dimensional biomass
gasification kinetics model". Biomass Bioenergy, 21 (2), pp. 121-132, 2001.
Franco, C., Pinto, F., Gulyurtlu, I., et al., "The study of reactions
influencing the biomass steam gasification process". Fuel, 82 (7), pp. 835-842,
2003.
Gidaspow D, Multiphase flow and fluidization: Continuum and kinetic
theory description. Academic Press: 1994.
Gidaspow, D., Jung, J., and Singh, R.K., "Hydrodynamics of
fluidization using kinetic theory: an emerging paradigm 2002 Flour-Daniel
lecture". Powder Technol., 148 (2-3), pp. 123-141, 2004.
Giltrap, D.L., McKibbin, R., and Barnes, G.R.G., "A steady state model
of gas-char reactions in a downdraft biomass gasifier". Solar Energy, 74 (1), pp.
85-91, 2003.
Göransson, K., Söderlind, U., He, J., et al., "Review of syngas
production via biomass DFBGs". Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 15 (1), pp. 482-
492, 2011.
Grossmann, I.E., and Westerberg, A.W., "Research challenges in
process systems engineering". AICHE J., 46 (9), pp. 1700-1703, 2000.
Guo, B., Li, D., Cheng, C., et al., "Simulation of biomass gasification
with a hybrid neural network model". Bioresour. Technol., 76 (2), pp. 77-83,
2001.
Hamel, S., and Krumm, W., "Mathematical modelling and simulation of
bubbling fluidised bed gasifiers". Powder Technol., 120 (1–2), pp. 105-112,
2001.
Hangos, K.M., and Cameron, I.T., "A formal representation of
assumptions in process modelling". Computers &amp; Chemical Engineering,
25 (2–3), pp. 237-255, 2001a.
Hangos, K.M., and Cameron, I.T., Process modeling and model analysis
Springer: London, 2001b.
Herguido, J., Corella, J., and Gonzalez-Saiz, J., "Steam gasification of
lignocellulosic residues in a fluidized bed at a small pilot scale. Effect of the
type of feedstock". Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 31 (5), pp. 1274-1282, 1992.

121
 Hilgenstock, A., and Ernst, R., "Analysis of installation effects by
means of computational fluid dynamics—CFD vs experiments?". Flow
Measurement and Instrumentation, 7 (3–4), pp. 161-171, 1996.
Hinze, J.O., Turbulence. McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.: New York, 1975.
Huilin, L., and Gidaspow, D., "Hydrodynamics of binary fluidization in
a riser: CFD simulation using two granular temperatures". Chem. Eng. Sci., 58
(16), pp. 3777-3792, 2003.
Huilin, L., Yurong, H., Gidaspow, D., et al., "Size segregation of binary
mixture of solids in bubbling fluidized beds". Powder Technol., 134 (1-2), pp.
86-97, 2003.
Jarungthammachote, S., and Dutta, A., "Thermodynamic equilibrium
model and second law analysis of a downdraft waste gasifier". Energy, 32 (9),
pp. 1660-1669, 2007.
Kaiser, S., Löffler, G., and Bosch, K., "Hydrodynamics of a dual
fluidized bed gasifier. Part II: simulation of solid circulation rate, pressure loop
and stability". Chem. Eng. Sci., 58 (18), pp. 4215-4223, 2003.
Karmakar, M.K., and Datta, A.B., "Generation of hydrogen rich gas
through fluidized bed gasification of biomass". Bioresour. Technol., 102 (2), pp.
1907-1913, 2011.
Kaushal, P., Proell, T., and Hofbauer, H., "Application of a detailed
mathematical model to the gasifier unit of the dual fluidized bed gasification
plant". Biomass Bioenergy, 35 (7), pp. 2491-2498, 2011.
Knoef, H., Handbook biomass gasification. BTG Biomass Technology
Group: The Netherlands, 2005.
Kuipers, J.A.M., van Duin, K.J., van Beckum, F.P.H., et al., "Computer
simulation of the hydrodynamics of a two-dimensional gas-fluidized bed".
Comput. Chem. Eng., 17 (8), pp. 839-858, 1993.
Launder, B.E., and Spalding, D.B., Lectures in mathematical models of
turbulence. Academic Press: London, 1972.
Li, and X., "Biomass gasification in a circulating fluidized bed".
Biomass Bioenergy, 26 (2), pp. 171-193, 2004.
Li, C., and Suzuki, K., "Tar property, analysis, reforming mechanism
and model for biomass gasification--An overview". Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev., 13 (3), pp. 594-604, 2009.
Li, X., Grace, J.R., Watkinson, A.P., et al., "Equilibrium modeling of
gasification: a free energy minimization approach and its application to a
circulating fluidized bed coal gasifier". Fuel, 80 (2), pp. 195-207, 2001.

122
 Lim, Y., Moon, Y.-S., and Kim, T.-W., "Artificial neural network
approach for prediction of ammonia emission from field-applied manure and
relative significance assessment of ammonia emission factors". European
Journal of Agronomy, 26 (4), pp. 425-434, 2007.
Lun, C.K.K., and Savage, S.B., "The effects of an impact velocity
dependent coefficient of restitution on stresses developed by sheared granular
materials". Acta Mechanica, 63 (1), pp. 15-44, 1986.
Lun, C.K.K., Savage, S.B., Jeffrey, D.J., et al., "Kinetic theories for
granular flow: inelastic particles in Couette flow and slightly inelastic particles
in a general flowfield". J. Fluid Mech., 140, pp. 223-256, 1984.
Lv, P., Xiong, Z., Chang, J., et al., "An experimental study on biomass
air–steam gasification in a fluidized bed". Bioresour. Technol., 95 (1), pp. 95-
101, 2004.
Lyczkowski, R.W., Gamwo, I.K., Dobran, F., et al., "Validation of
computed solids hydrodynamics and pressure oscillations in a bubbling
atmospheric fluidized bed". Powder Technol., 76 (1), pp. 65-77, 1993.
Mathiesen, V., Solberg, T., and Hjertager, B.H., "An experimental and
computational study of multiphase flow behavior in a circulating fluidized bed".
Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 26 (3), pp. 387-419, 2000.
McKendry, P., "Energy production from biomass (part 1): overview of
biomass". Bioresour. Technol., 83 (1), pp. 37-46, 2002.
Melgar, A., Perez, J., Laget, H., et al., "Thermochemical equilibrium
modelling of a gasifying process". Energy Convers. Manage., 48 (1), pp. 59-67,
2007.
Meng, X., de Jong, W., Fu, N., et al., "Biomass gasification in a
100 kWth steam-oxygen blown circulating fluidized bed gasifier: Effects of
operational conditions on product gas distribution and tar formation". Biomass
Bioenergy, 35 (7), pp. 2910-2924, 2011.
Moon, J.-H., Lee, J.-W., and Lee, U.-D., "Economic analysis of
biomass power generation schemes under renewable energy initiative with
Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) in Korea". Bioresour. Technol., 102 (20),
pp. 9550-9557, 2011.
Moulijn, J.A., Stankiewicz, A., Grievink, J., et al., "Process
intensification and process systems engineering: A friendly symbiosis".
Computers &amp; Chemical Engineering, 32 (1–2), pp. 3-11, 2008.
Murakami, T., Xu, G., Suda, T., et al., "Some process fundamentals of
biomass gasification in dual fluidized bed". Fuel, 86 (1-2), pp. 244-255, 2007.

123
 Németh, E., Cameron, I.T., and Hangos, K.M., "Diagnostic goal driven
modelling and simulation of multiscale process systems". Computers &amp;
Chemical Engineering, 29 (4), pp. 783-796, 2005.
Ngo, S.I., Nguyen, T.D.B., Lim, Y.-I., et al., "Performance evaluation
for dual circulating fluidized-bed steam gasifier of biomass using quasi-
equilibrium three-stage gasification model". Appl. Energy, 88 (12), pp. 5208-
5220, 2011.
Nguyen, T.D.B., Lim, Y.-I., Song, B.-H., et al., "Two-stage equilibrium
model applicable to the wide range of operating conditions in entrained-flow
coal gasifiers". Fuel, 89 (12), pp. 3901-3910, 2010.
Nguyen, T.D.B., Ngo, S.I., Lim, Y.-I., et al., "Three-stage steady-state
model for biomass gasification in a dual circulating fluidized-bed". Energy
Convers. Manage., 54 (1), pp. 100-112, 2012a.
Nguyen, T.D.B., Seo, M.W., Lim, Y.-I., et al., "CFD simulation with
experiments in a dual circulating fluidized bed gasifier". Comput. Chem. Eng.,
36 (0), pp. 48-56, 2012b.
Nieuwland, J.J., van Sint Annaland, M., Kuipers, J.A.M., et al.,
"Hydrodynamic modeling of gas/particle flows in riser reactors". AICHE J., 42
(6), pp. 1569-1582, 1996.
Pain, C.C., Mansoorzadeh, S., and de Oliveira, C.R.E., "A study of
bubbling and slugging fluidised beds using the two-fluid granular temperature
model". Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 27 (3), pp. 527-551, 2001.
Patankar, S.V., and Spalding, D.B., "A Calculation Procedure for Heat,
Mass and Momentum Transfer in Three-Dimensional Parabolic Flows". Int. J.
Heat Mass Transfer, 15, pp. 1787-1972, 1972.
Pfeifer, C., Puchner, B., and Hofbauer, H., "Comparison of dual
fluidized bed steam gasification of biomass with and without selective transport
of CO2". Chem. Eng. Sci., 64 (23), pp. 5073-5083, 2009.
Pita, J.A., and Sundaresan, S., "Gas-solid flow in vertical tubes".
AICHE J., 37 (7), pp. 1009-1018, 1991.
Prasad, B.V.R.K., and Kuester, J.L., "Process analysis of a dual
fluidized bed biomass gasification system". Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 27 (2), pp.
304-310, 1988.
Probstein, R.F., and Hicks, R.E., Synthetic fuels. 1990; p Medium: X;
Size: Pages: (504 p).
Proll, T., and Hofbauer, H., "H2 rich syngas by selective CO2 removal
from biomass gasification in a dual fluidized bed system — Process modelling
approach". Fuel Process. Technol., 89 (11), pp. 1207-1217, 2008.

124
 Puig-Arnavat, M., Bruno, J.C., and Coronas, A., "Review and analysis
of biomass gasification models". Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 14 (9), pp.
2841-2851, 2010.
Rapagnà, S., Jand, N., Kiennemann, A., et al., "Steam-gasification of
biomass in a fluidised-bed of olivine particles". Biomass Bioenergy, 19 (3), pp.
187-197, 2000.
Reed, T.B., Principles and technology of biomass gasification. Plenum
press: New York, 1985.
Reynolds, W.C. "Fundamentals of Turbulence for Turbulence Modeling and
Simulation", 755; Lecture Notes for Von Karman Institute Agard Report, 1987.
Schuster, G., Löffler, G., Weigl, K., et al., "Biomass steam gasification
- an extensive parametric modeling study". Bioresour. Technol., 77 (1), pp. 71-
79, 2001.
Seo, M.W., Goo, J.H., Kim, S.D., et al., "Gasification Characteristics of
Coal/Biomass Blend in a Dual Circulating Fluidized Bed Reactor". Energy
Fuels, 24 (5), pp. 3108-3118, 2010.
Seo, M.W., Nguyen, T.D.B., Lim, Y.I., et al., "Solid circulation and
loop-seal characteristics of a dual circulating fluidized bed: Experiments and
CFD simulation". Chem. Eng. J., 168 (2), pp. 803-811, 2011.
Shen, L., Gao, Y., and Xiao, J., "Simulation of hydrogen production
from biomass gasification in interconnected fluidized beds". Biomass Bioenergy,
32 (2), pp. 120-127, 2008.
Simonin, C., and Viollet, P.L., "Predictions of an Oxygen Droplet
Pulverization in a Compressible Subsonic Coflowing Hydrogen Flow". Num.
Method Multiphase Flow, FED91, pp. 65-82, 1990.
Sinclair, J.L., and Jackson, R., "Gas-particle flow in a vertical pipe with
particle-particle interactions". AICHE J., 35 (9), pp. 1473-1486, 1989.
Smith, J.M., Ness, H.C.V., and Abbott, M.M., Introduction to chemical
engineering thermodynamics. 5th ed.; McGraw-Hill: 1996.
Song, T., Wu, J., Shen, L., et al., "Experimental investigation on
hydrogen production from biomass gasification in interconnected fluidized
beds". Biomass Bioenergy, 36 (0), pp. 258-267, 2012.
Souza-Santos, M.L.d., Solid fuels combustion and gasification
modeling, simulation and equipment operatin. Marcel Dekker., Inc: New York,
2004.
Steinhauser, M.O., Computational multiscale modeling of fluids and
solids. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 2008.

125
 Stiegel, G.J., and Maxwell, R.C., "Gasification technologies: the path to
clean, affordable energy in the 21st century". Fuel Process. Technol., 71 (1–3),
pp. 79-97, 2001.
Syamlal, M., Rogers, W., and O'Brien, T.J. "MFIX documentation: Theory
guide", Department of Energy: 1993.
Sylamlal, M., O'Brien, T., and T, J. "The derivation of a drag coefficient
formula from velocity-voidage correlations", U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Fossil Energy: 1994.
Taghipour, F., Ellis, N., and Wong, C., "Experimental and
computational study of gas-solid fluidized bed hydrodynamics". Chem. Eng.
Sci., 60 (24), pp. 6857-6867, 2005.
Thomas B. Reed, and Das, A., Handbook of biomass downdraft gasifier
engine systems. Solar Energy Research Institute: Colorado, 1988.
Umeki, K., Namioka, T., and Yoshikawa, K., "Analysis of an updraft
biomass gasifier with high temperature steam using a numerical model". Appl.
Energy, In Press, Corrected Proof, pp.,
van Wachem, B.G.M., Schouten, J.C., Krishna, R., et al., "Eulerian
simulations of bubbling behaviour in gas-solid fluidised beds". Comput. Chem.
Eng., 22, Supplement 1 (0), pp. S299-S306, 1998.
Vejahati, F., Mahinpey, N., Ellis, N., et al., "CFD simulation of gas–
solid bubbling fluidized bed: A new method for adjusting drag law". Can. J.
Chem. Eng., 87 (1), pp. 19-30, 2009.
Walawender, W.P., Hoveland, D.A., and Fan, L.T., "Steam gasification
of pure cellulose. 1. Uniform temperature profile". Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des.
Dev., 24 (3), pp. 813-817, 1985.
Wei, L., Xu, S., Zhang, L., et al., "Steam gasification of biomass for
hydrogen-rich gas in a free-fall reactor". Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 32 (1), pp.
24-31, 2007.
Wen, C., Yu, Y., and Y, H. In "Mechanics of fluidization", Engineering
Symposium Series, pp. 100-111 1966.
Wennan, Z., "Automotive fuels from biomass via gasification". Fuel
Process. Technol., 91 (8), pp. 866-876, 2010.
Wilcox, D.C., Turbulence modeling for CFD. 2nd ed.; DCW Industries:
California, 1994; p 456.
Xu, G., Murakami, T., Suda, T., et al., "The Superior Technical Choice
for Dual Fluidized Bed Gasification". Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 45 (7), pp. 2281-
2286, 2006.

126
 Yoshida, H., Kiyono, F., Tajima, H., et al., "Two-stage equilibrium
model for a coal gasifier to predict the accurate carbon conversion in hydrogen
production". Fuel, 87 (10-11), pp. 2186-2193, 2008.
Zainal, Z.A., Ali, R., Lean, C.H., et al., "Prediction of performance of a
downdraft gasifier using equilibrium modeling for different biomass materials".
Energy Convers. Manage., 42 (12), pp. 1499-1515, 2001.

127
List of Tables
Table II.4.1
Sand properties and experiment operating conditions
Table II.4.2
CFD simulation parameters of sDFB.
Table II.4.3
Comparison of internal and external circulation rates for experimental data and
simulation results.

List of Figures
Fig. II.4.1. Conceptual diagram of semi-dual fluidized-bed (sDFB) gasifier: (a)
Experiment apparatus; (b) two-dimensional (2D) computational domain.
Fig. II.4.2. Experimental sand property and minimum fluidization velocity
(𝑣𝑣𝑚𝑓 ): (a) Particle size distribution; (b) pressure drop (𝛥𝑝) versus gas inlet
velocity (𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑛 ).
Fig. II.4.3. Solid volume fractions of 2D sDFB gasifier at various times.
Fig. II.4.4. Internal mixing through the interconnecting hole between riser and
𝑖𝑛
gasifier: (a) riser flow stream lines and (b) solid velocity vectors (𝐺𝐺𝑠,𝑓 : forward
𝑖𝑛
internal solid flux, 𝐺𝐺𝑠,𝑏 : backward internal solid flux).
Fig. II.4.5. Pressure distributions experimentally measured and numerically
calculated at 43 sampling points.
Fig. II.4.6. Percentage of forward (𝛾𝑓 ) and backward (𝛾𝑏 ) mass flow rates
obtained from CFD simulation with respect to operating time.

128
Table II.4.1

Sand properties and experiment operating conditions

Sand properties

Mean diameter, 𝑑𝑠 (μm) 376.1

Apparent density (kg/m3) 1390

Minimum fluidization velocity, 𝑣𝑣𝑚𝑓 0.067

(m/s)

Operating conditions

Riser Gasifier Loop-seal

Inlet velocity (m/s) 0.85 0.08 0.07

Initial sand bed 0.36 0.36 0.40

height (m)

Pressure sampling P1–18 P35–43 P19–34

points

129
Table II.4.2

CFD simulation parameters of sDFB.

Particle density (𝜌𝑠 ) 2500 kg/m3

Gas density (𝜌𝑔 ) 1.225 kg/m3

Particle diameter (𝑑𝑠 ) 0.000376 m

Packing limit (𝛼𝑠,𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) 0.74

Restitution coefficient of particles (𝑒𝑒𝑠𝑠 ) 0.9

Drag coefficient (𝐶𝐷 ) Gidaspow (Gidaspow D, 1994)

Granular viscosity (𝜇𝑠 ) Gidaspow (Gidaspow D, 1994)

Granular bulk viscosity (𝜆𝑠 ) Lun et al. (Lun et al., 1984)

Solid pressure (𝑝𝑠 ) Lun et al. (Lun et al., 1984)

Radial distribution (𝑔0,𝑠𝑠 ) Lun et al. (Lun et al., 1984)

Air inlet velocity in riser 0.85 m/s

Air inlet velocity in gasifier 0.08 m/s

Air inlet velocity in loop-seal 0.07 m/s, left side

Time step size 0.001 second

Maximum number of iterations 200

Convergence criteria 1×10-3

130
Table II.4.3

Comparison of internal and external circulation rates for experimental data and

simulation results.

Experiment Simulation Mean percentage of solid

Parameter Error*
al data result flux**
𝐺𝐺𝑠𝑒𝑥 (kg/m2 s) 6.60 7.66 16 % -
𝑖𝑛
𝐺𝐺𝑠,𝑏 2
(kg/m s) – 2.0 - 17.1%
𝑖𝑛
𝐺𝐺𝑠,𝑓 (kg/m2 s) – 9.7 - 82.9%

Sim.Res – Exp.Data
*
Error = 100 ×
Exp.Data

**
Mean percentage of solid flux is calculated by time-average value of 𝛾𝑏 and

𝛾𝑓 in Fig. II.4.6.

131
 (a) (b)

Fig. II.4.1. Conceptual diagram of semi-dual fluidized-bed (sDFB) gasifier: (a)

Experiment apparatus; (b) two-dimensional (2D) computational domain.

132
 (a)
Volume (%)

Particle size (µm)

(b)
4
∆ p (kPa)

𝑣𝑣 mf: 0.067[m/sec]
U
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 0.067 (𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠)
0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22

𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 (𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠)
UO[m/sec]

Fig. II.4.2. Experimental sand property and minimum fluidization velocity

(𝑣𝑣𝑚𝑓 ): (a) Particle size distribution; (b) pressure drop (Δp) versus gas inlet

velocity (𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑛 ).

133
 52 s 54 s 56 s 58 s 60 s

Fig. II.4.3. Solid volume fractions of 2D sDFB gasifier at various times.

134
 (a) (b)

Wall
Riser Gasifier Riser Gasifier
zone zone

𝐴𝑚𝑚 Forward flux

𝐴 ∑G in
s, f

𝐴b Backward flux

∑G in
s ,b

Fig. II.4.4. Internal mixing through the interconnecting hole between riser and

𝑖𝑛
gasifier: (a) riser flow stream lines and (b) solid velocity vectors (𝐺𝐺𝑠,𝑓 : forward

𝑖𝑛
internal solid flux, 𝐺𝐺𝑠,𝑏 : backward internal solid flux).

135
 4
Sim. riser P1-18
Sim. stand pipe P18-29
3.5
Sim. loop-seal P30-34
Sim. gasifier P35-43
3 Exp. riser P1-18
Exp. stand pipe P18-29
Exp. loop-seal P30-34
2.5 Exp. gasifier P35-43
Height (m)

1.5

0.5

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
∆P (Pa)

Fig. II.4.5. Pressure distributions experimentally measured and numerically

calculated at 43 sampling points.

136
 120
Forward particles
Backward particles
100
Percentage of mass flow (%)

80

60

40

20

0
140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
Operating time (s)

Fig. II.4.6. Percentage of forward (𝛾𝑓 ) and backward (𝛾𝑏 ) mass flow rates
obtained from CFD simulation with respect to operating time.

137
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express my appreciation to the following peoples and organizations to
their contributions in this work.
Firstly, I would like to thank my family: my mother and my elder brother, who
gave me the motivations to continue studying in Korea; my grandfather and my
father, who sacrificed all life for our family.
I would like to express my most sincere gratitude to my advisor, Professor
Young-Il Lim for his skillful guidance during my Master course and other
research works in Korea. With the deep experience in the Chemical Engineering
major especially in the Modeling and Simulation research area, he provided me
clear outlines and contributed great helps in this thesis as well as in our
publications. I also numerously earned experience and advices to improve my
scientific writing ability.
I would like to express my grateful thanks to my teacher, also my senior, Dr.
Thanh D.B. Nguyen, for his advices in my research works as well as personality
helps.
I would like to give expression to thank my collaborators in Seentec project and
Korea Institute of Industrial Technology (KITECH), especially Professor
Byung-Ho Song from Kunsan University and Professor Uen-Do Lee from
KITECH and University of Science and Technology (UST). They contributed
the important part in my research work. Their advices revealed my confusing in
biomass gasification process.
Financial support from Bilateral International Collaborative R&D program
under the Korea Ministry of Knowledge Economy is acknowledged.
I would like to thank all friends in Hankyong National University and my
Korean friends. They gave much of attentions and helps in sharing life as well
as studying the Master course. My thanks to my senior, my elder sister Hanpul
Won for her great helps to all Vietnamese students in Hankyong National
University.
I appreciated my friends in Vietnam, who helped me and my family when I was
studying at Korea.
But not least, my special thanks come to my girl friend Dung T. Nguyen for her
love, patience, helps and giving me motivations during 5 years.

138
SUMMARY IN KOREAN (한국어 번역)
본 연구는 이중순환유동층 (DFB) 에서의 바이오매스 가스화를 위한
몇 가지 모사방법을 설명한다. 또한, 유동층 반응기의 모델링과
모사에 중점을 두면서 바이오매스 및 가스화 공정에 대한 전반적인
연구 현황을 소개한다. 본 연구에서의 모사 방법은 (1) 가스화
생성물 조성을 예측하고, (2) 가스화기의 성능을 산출하며, (3)
운전조건을 최적화하고, (4) 가스화기 설계를 향상시키기 위한 공정
시스템 모델링 (PSM) 과 전산유체역학 (CFD) 를 포함한다. PSM
에서는 준평형 가스화 모델 (qETG) 을 개발하였고, CFD 에서는
sDFB (semi-dual circulating fluidized-bed) 냉간 장치에 대한 모사를
수행하였다.
이중 순환 유동층 (DFB) 에서의 스팀 가스화에 대하여, 준평형
3 단계 가스화 모델 (qETG) 은 공정성능지표 (탄소 전환율,
고체순환량, 열회수율, 수소/일산화탄수 비율 등) 에 따른
운전조건들의 영향을 조사하기 위하여 개발되었다. qETG 모델은
탈휘발, 수증기 반응 참여율, 그리고 비평형인자에 대한 경험식을
각각 열분해, 촤-기체 반응, 그리고 기상 반응의 3 단계 모델에
적용한 열역학적 평형 모델이다. FT (Fischer-Tropsch) 합성과
전력생산 (EPG) 을 위한 합성가스 생산을 목적으로 하는 각각 2 개의
인자연구 (parametric study) 에서는 공정 성능 지도를 통하여
효과적인 운전조건을 찾았다.
공기-스팀 혼합 기체를 이용한 DFB 에서의 가스화에 대하여, ASBG
(air-steam mixed biomass gasification) 모델은 온도, SBR (steam to
biomass ratio), 그리고 ER (equivalence model) 에 대하여 적합한 운전

139
조건을 찾기 위하여 개발되었다. 이 모델은 탄소 전환에 대한 반응
속도식 및 스팀 반응 참여율에 대한 경험식과 결합된 열역학적 평형
모델이다. 가스화 온도, SBR, 그리고 ER 에 대한 인자연구는
전력생산에 목적을 둔 공정 성능을 산출하기 위하여 수행된다.
전산유체역학 (CFD) 은 장치 설계를 위한 가능성 있는 기법으로
여겨져 왔다. 본 연구에서, KTGF (kinetic theory of granular flow)
와 𝑘 − 𝜖 turbulence model 이 결합된 Eulerian-Eulerian two-fluid model
을 사용하는 기체-고체 흐름의 CFD 모사를 통하여 반이중 순환
유동층 (sDFB) 냉간 장치의 수력학적 특성을 조사하였다. sDFB 는
기존의 DFB 연소 구역 (riser) 과 가스화 구역 (gasifier) 사이에 내부
통로를 만들어 줌으로서 고체 입자의 직접적인 혼합을 유도한다.
CFD 모사결과는 sDFB 가스화기가 이 내부 통로를 통한 직접적인
혼합으로 인하여 물질 및 열전달에서 장점이 있음을 보여주었다.
본 연구에서 공정 수준의 모사에 중점을 둔 PSM 과 유체역학에
중점을 둔 CFD 모사를 수행하였지만, 두 모사 결과는 서로 연동되지
못했으며, 각각의 목표에 활용되었다. 따라서, 두 모사 사이의 상호
연관성을 찾고, 공정개발이라는 같은 목표에서 활용할 수 있는
방안을 찾아야 할 것이다. 이를 위하여 각 단계 (PSM 과 CFD)
에서의 견고하고 명확한 이론 확립이 선결되어야 한다.

140
APPENDIX

A1. Curriculum vitae and outcomes

Personal data
Full name Son Ich Ngo
Date of birth October 24th, 1986
Sex Male
Marital Status Single
Contact address Present address:
Department of Chemical Engineering, Hankyong National
University
Anseong-si, Gyeonggy-do, Jungangno 167, 456-749 Korea.
Mobile: +82 10 2842 6886
Email: ngoichson@gmail.com
U U

Personal webpage: http://www.sonichngo.co.cc

U U

Network: http://vn.linkedin.com/pub/son-ich-ngo/18/393/23a
U U

Home address:
No. 38, group 20, Donganh town, Hanoi city, Vietnam
Tel.: +84 43 8822 835

Education and training

Before 2001 Nguyen Khe Elementary School, Donganh, Hanoi, Vietnam
2001-2004 Lien Ha High School, talented class pupils, Donganh, Hanoi
Vietnam
2004-2009 Hanoi University of Technology, Department of Chemical
Engineering, Hanoi, Vietnam
2009-2010 Assistant lecturer at Department of Chemical Engineering,
Faculty of Process and Equipment for Chemical and
Petroleum Industries, Hung Yen, Vietnam.
2010-present Master student at Hankyong National University, Anseong-
si, Gyeonggi-do, Korea

141
Outcomes
Publications
U

2011

1. Son Ich Ngo, Thanh D. B. Nguyen, Young-Il Lim, Byung-Ho Song, Won
Yang, Uen-Do Lee, A study of steam gasification of woody biomass in a
dual circulating fluidized bed experiment and quasi-equilibrium three-stage
gasification model, Published on APPLIED ENERGY, 2011,
88(12):5208-20, supported by SeenTec Co., Ltd.

2. Thanh D. B. Nguyen, Son Ich Ngo, Young-Il Lim, Won Yang, Uen-Do
Lee, and Byung-Ho Song, Three-stage steady-stage model (TSM) for
biomass gasification in dual circulating fluidized bed, Published on
ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT, 2012, 54(1): 100-12,
support by SeenTec Co., Ltd.

2012

1. Son Ich Ngo, Thanh D. B. Nguyen, Young-Il Lim, Uen-Do Lee, Byung-Ho
Song, Hydrodynamic behaviors in a semi-dual fluidization-bed (sDFB)
biomass gasifier using a gas-solid two-fluid CFD model, Submitted to
POWDER TECHNOLOGY, supported by SeenTec Co., Ltd.

2. Son Ich Ngo, Young-Il Lim, Uen-Do Lee, Byung-Ho Song, Performance
evaluation of an air-steam mixed biomass gasification (ASBG) model in
dual fluidized-bed, in preparation, supported by Seentec Co., Ltd.

Proceedings
U

National (in Korean)

2010
1. Son Ich Ngo, Thanh D. B. Nguyen, Young-Il Lim, Uen-Do Lee and
Byung-Ho Song (2010), A Three stage Steady state model of Air-
steam-mix gasification for woody biomass in a dual Circulating
Fluidized Bed gasifier (DFB), KIChE Fall meeting, October 21-23,
2010, supported by SeenTec Co., Ltd.

2011
2. Son Ich Ngo, Thanh D. B. Nguyen, Young-Il Lim, Uen-Do Lee and
Byung-Ho Song (2011), Semi-dual fluidized bed (semi-DFB) approach:
Experiment and model. KIChE Spring meeting, April 27-29, 2011,
supported by Seentec Co., Ltd. Speaker: Son Ich Ngo.

142
 3. Son Ich Ngo, Young-Il Lim, Won Yang, Uen-Do Lee, Byung-Ho Song,
Jae-Hun Song, Internal circulation exchange rate of sand particles in a
semi-dual fluidized-bed biomass gasifier using gas-solid two-fluid CFD
model. KIChE fall meeting, October 27-29, 2011, supported by Seentec
Co., Ltd. Speaker: Son Ich Ngo
2012

1. Son Ich Ngo, Young-Il Lim, Won Yang, Uen-Do Lee, Byung-Ho Song,
Jae-Hun Song, Internal mixing of sand particles in semi-dual fluidized-
bed biomass gasifier. KIChE spring meeting, 2011.

International (in English)

U

2010
1. Son Ich Ngo, Thanh D. B. Nguyen, Young-Il Lim, Three-stage steady-
state model (TSM) for biomass gasification in dual fluidized bed (DFB)
and its Matlab code instruction, Korean-Sweden meeting (in Workshop,
May 24th, 2010, Seoul. Speaker: Son Ich Ngo)

2. Son Ich Ngo, Thanh D. B. Nguyen, Young-Il Lim, Won Yang, Uen-Do
Lee and Byuong-Ho Song, Modeling of steam-air-blown gasification
for biomass in a dual Circulating Fluidized Bed gasifier (CFB), AIChE
annual meeting, November 7-12, 2010, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA,
supported by SeenTec Co., Ltd. (November 10th, 2010. Salt Lake city,
Utah, USA. Speaker: Thanh D. B. Nguyen)

2011

1. Son Ich Ngo, Young-Il Lim, Won Yang, Uen-Do Lee, Byung-Ho Song,
Jae-Hun Song, Hydrodynamics in a semi-dual fluidized-bed biomass
gasifier, AIChE annual meeting, October 16-21, 2011, Minneapolis
City, Minnesota, USA, supported by Seentec Co., Ltd. (October 20th,
2011. Minneapolis City, Minnesota, USA. Speaker: Son Ich Ngo).
2012

1. Son Ich Ngo, Young-Il Lim, Won Yang, Uen-Do Lee, Byung-Ho Song,
Jae-Hun Song, Theoretical analyses on carbon kinetics factor for
thermodynamic equilibrium gasification models, in plant.

143
Projects
2010
1. Young-Il Lim , Son Ich Ngo, Model development for biomass CFB
gasifier, SeenTec, 40,000 kWon, 2009. 05 01 - 2012. 04 30 (3 years).

144
A2. Presentation material of Master thesis

145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165