Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001) 121–132

A two-phase one-dimensional biomass gasication

kinetics model
Daniele Fiaschi ∗ , Marco Michelini
Dipartimento di Energetica “Sergio Stecco”, University of Florence, Via Santa Marta, 3, 50139 Firenze, Italy

Received 29 May 2000; received in revised form 4 January 2001; accepted 6 April 2001

Abstract
A mathematical model of biomass gasication kinetics in bubbling ,uidized beds has been developed. It is one-dimensional,
as it is capable of predicting temperature and concentration gradients along the reactor axis, and considers two phases, a
bubble and a dense phase. In addition to the reaction kinetics in the dense phase, mass transfer between the two phases
and a quantitative estimation of local bubble and particle properties are included in the model. A theoretical optimization
with respect to ER, pressure, bed height and gas velocity has also been performed. Finally, a comparison with experimental
data from the literature was done, which showed a largely satisfactory agreement, though further validation is still required.

c 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Biomass; Gasication; Kinetics; Fluidized bed

1. Introduction as instantaneous because they are much faster than the

A correct design of the reactor, accounting also for
the reaction kinetics, is fundamental to achieve an op-
timal conversion of the chemical energy present into
the biomass feedstock. Several mathematical models
have been proposed for biomass gasication kinetics
[1– 6], with di9erent degrees of compliance, accuracy
and adaptability to the di9erent reactor types. Gener-
ally, almost the whole of computational models con-
sider the pyrolysis and sub-stoichiometric combustion
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39-055-4796-436; fax: +39-055-
4796-342.
E-mail address: danif@as.de.uni.it (D. Fiaschi).
gasication process [1,2]. Then, the related starting
products are set on an experimental basis. The major
problem that arises is to correctly tune the kinetic pa-
rameters on experimental–theoretical basis, which are
able to depict a wide range of operating cases. Un-
fortunately, very poor detailed experimental data are
available on this argument, and then it is diCcult to
verify the general validity of the proposed mathemat-
ical models.
The primary goal of this study has been to improve
previous biomass gasication kinetics models [1,7],
introducing the one-dimensionality and other di9usion
phenomena, which are typical of bubbling ,uidized
beds.
The present kinetic model considers a one-
dimensional (axial) cylindrical ,uidized bed, divided

0961-9534/01/$ - see front matter  c 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 6 1 - 9 5 3 4 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 1 8 - 6
122 D. Fiaschi, M. Michelini / Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001) 121–132

Nomenclature
T local gasier temperature (K)
A reactor cross sectional area (m2 )
tdis time bound between dominating mass trans-
Ab bubble surface area (m2 )
fer and kinetics e9ects (s)
Cb reactant species molar concentration into the
vb bubble phase velocity (m=s)
bubble phase
Vb bubble volume (m3 )
Cd reactant species molar concentration into the
vikin reaction kinetics speed (mol=s)
dense phase
vit mass transfer speed (mol=s)
D di9usion coeCcient
vmf minimum ,uidization velocity (m=s)
Db bubbles diameter (m)
v0 inlet oxidizer velocity (m=s)
Dg gasier diameter (m)
vg ,uidizing gas velocity (m=s)
dp char particle diameter (mm)
vt solid particles entrainment velocity (m=s)
dp0 initial char particle diameter (mm)
w total moles of H2 O added (biomass wetness
dp0
average particle size after the primary frag-
+ eventual steam=water additions)
mentation (mm)
xdi fraction of solid particles of di size at the
h specic enthalpy of the chemical species
generic time t
(kJ=kg)
xib ith species molar fraction in the bubble phase
H overall reactor height (not including free-
xid ith species molar fraction in the dense phase
board)
y moles of oxidizing O2 per mole of biomass
hf enthalpy of devaluation of the chemical
ztot total moles of N2 added with the oxidizer (air
species (kJ=kg)
+ other)
j particle shrinking rate exponent
kbd bubble—dense phase mass transfer coeC-
Greek letters
cient
 moles of H2 per mole of C in the biomass
kc mass transfer coeCcient
∗ formula
Ki∞ elutriation rate (kg=m2 s)
 moles of O2 per mole of C in the biomass
Mb mass of solid particles in the ,uidized bed
formula
(kg)
 coeCcient accounting the in,uence of Dg on
n1 coeCcient accounting the primary fragmen-
vb
tation at the reactor inlet
b bubble phase fraction
n2 number of char particles coming through the
 initial molar ratio H2 Ovapour =CO2 produced
burn-o9
in the pyrolysis=combustion process
ns number of species involved in reactions
 local char particle density (kg=m3 )
P gasier pressure (bars)
ql local external heat transfer (kJ=kg)
Subscript
r dense phase overall reaction velocity (mol=s)
tot total amount from bubbles and dense phases
t generic instant of the gasication process (s)

into vertical elemental cylinders (with dense and bub-
ble phases) up to the freeboard zone: the reactions
occurring in this volume have been neglected (the frac-
tion of char particles where the surface reactions take
place and the residence time of these particles in this
reactor’s zone are very low).
The main steps of the calculation procedures are
summarized as follows:
(1) input of the biomass composition and the oxidizer
type, ER, moisture;
(2) input of the general reactor design parameters:
length, diameter, thickness and wall materials;
(3) calculation of the bottom temperature;
(4) iterative process for each cylindrical element
into which the ,uidized bed has been divided,
involving bed hydrodynamics, heat and mass
 D. Fiaschi, M. Michelini / Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001) 121–132 123

transfer and gasication kinetics, up to the bed The gas ,ow entering the reactor at v0 speed
top; (Fig. 1), is split into two phases: the dense phase,
(5) comparison of the results with experimental data. (characterized by the minimum ,uidization velocity
vmf ), and the bubble phase (the velocity is v0 − vmf ).
The solid particles were supposed to be present only
2. Mathematical one-dimensional model for the in the dense phase; both phases follow a piston mo-
uidized bed reactor tion (compact ,ow without any mass transfer along
the z direction). No heat exchange occurs along the
The mathematical models for ,uidized bed reactors axial direction.
can be divided into three main groups, characterized The mass balance in the starting bubble phase has
by the number of phases accounted in the reactor: the following expression:
single-, double- and three-phase model [8]. dCb
The double-phase model has been the basis for the (v0 − vmf ) = kbd b (Cb − Cd ):
dz
present study, with a dense phase (gas plus solid par-
ticles) and a bubble phase (mainly gaseous with much Similarly, the overall mass balance for bubble and
lower solid matter) [8]. dense phases is
The two-phase reactor (Fig. 1) is modeled as the dCb dCd
sum of several elemental reactors of d z thickness. The (v0 − vmf ) + vmf + r(1 − b ) = 0:
dz dz
related di9erential equations are solved versus the tem-
perature and the syngas composition, along the gasi- The molar concentration of the ith component in the
er axis, for both dense and bubble phases. The model two phases has been expressed in terms of molar
is one-dimensional, and then it is particularly suitable fraction:
for bubble and circulating beds, where a high mixing xid nb xib nb
degree is present. The reactor is supposed to be down- Cid = ; Cib = ;
(1 − b )Vtot b Vtot
draft, both for the oxidant and biomass feeding. At a
model level, the freeboard area has been considered then, the mass balance in the bubble phase referred to
to be chemically inert. one mole of biomass is as follows:


vb1 d xib xid xib
= kbd − :
b2 d z (1 − b ) b

The dense phase mass balance, referred to one mole of

biomass, results from the algebraic sum of the chem-
ical kinetic rate and the bubble-dense phase transfer
rate:
d xid bxib
vmf = − vb1 − ri :
dz dz
The boundary conditions at z = 0 assume the same
concentration of each i species for both phases, then,
adding this statement to the mass balance condition:
xid xib
xitot = xib + xid = ;
(1 − b ) b

the only solid species C (carbon) has been set to zero

in the bubble phase (xCtot = xCd ).
The bubble-dense phase mass transfer coeCcient
Fig. 1. Two-phase model reactor. kbd has been estimated by the two-phase theory [8]
124 D. Fiaschi, M. Michelini / Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001) 121–132
as the sum of two terms (convective and di9usive)
through the bubble surface Ab :
0:5 0:25
(N + Ab kc ) vmf D g
kbd = = 4:5 + 5:85 : exp[ − 0:00014P 2 − 0:25(v0 − vmf )2
Vb Db Db1:25
The bubble volume fraction b is expressed as
b (h) = v0v−v mf
b (h)
[5], where vb (h) is the local rising
particle speed, depending both on bubble and √ bed
diameters. In this study, the expression vb = $ gDb
has been adopted [5], where  is a coeCcient re-
lated to the gasier diameter Dg . The bed sand and
the ,uidization mean in,uence these parameters (i.e.
density and viscosity of the produced syngas).
The evaluation of bubbles diameter is one of
the topics for the proposed kinetic model. Several
theoretical–experimental investigations [9] lead to
many kinds of equations: however, they do not com-
pletely agree with each other, due to the in,uence of
the specic operating conditions on the several kinetic
parameters. However, some general behaviors can
be considered to relate the bubbles size, the reactor
pressure and the gas velocity:
• at a constant pressure, increasing the gas speed leads
to an increase in the bubbles size for boiling bed
regime and a decrease at turbulent regime;
• at xed v0 (or v0 − vmf ), the bubble size decreases
with increasing pressure for both turbulent and
boiling regimes (except for extremely low speed
values).
Being the main goal of this work, the evaluation of
syngas composition versus residence time (i.e. along
gasier height), an expression of the bubble size
as a function of the above parameters and the bed
level is required. Starting from the time averaged
bubble diameter at a xed bed height, it is often
convenient to evaluate the equivalent diameter De
(mean bubble diameter along the whole ,uidized bed,
H
De = H1f 0 f Dbh dH ). The Rowe equation [10] and
some coeCcients tuned on experimental data, have
been adopted to have an expression Dbh used in the
model [11]:
Dbh = 0:38 × H 0:8 P 0:06 (vo − vmf )0:42
exp[ − 0:00014P 2 − 0:25(vo − vmf )2
− 0:1P(vo − vmf )]
while the equivalent diameter
De = 0:2Hf0:8 P 0:06 (v0 − vmf )0:42
− 0:1P(v0 − vmf )]:
3. Abrasion and elutriation phenomena
The abrasion has been modeled considering both
primary and secondary fragmentations [12]: a multi-
plying constant n accounts for the particle diameter re-
duction in the bed. The bed is supposed to be perfectly
mixed with uniform particle size, which reduction is
attributed to the following contributions (fragmenta-
tion and spread of solids outside the reactor have been
neglected):
1. chemical reaction kinetics, accounted by the j fac-
tor (j is the exponent of the particle shrinking rate
expression −d(dp )=dt = kdjp ) is related to the lim-
iting reactions mechanisms (for example, j = 0 if
the reactions are kinetically limited);
2. abrasion, accounted by two multiplying constants
n1 (primary fragmentation e9ect at the reactor inlet)
and n2 (number of char fragments generated by the
burn-o9 of one char particle). The real number of
char fragments is assumed to be the mean between
n2 and 1).
Then, the following expression of mean Sauter particle
diameter comes out:
 −1=3
3−j n1 (n2 + 1)
dp = dp0 :
4−j 2
For circulating beds, the particles rising from the bot-
tom to the top of the reactor vary their size, with re-
spect to the initial value; the average particle size after
the primary fragmentation is related to its initial value
by the following expression:
(dp0
)3 = (dp0 )3 =n1 :
The elutriation has been modeled following two dif-
ferent approaches [12,13]:
• the rst one has been introduced into the existing
model by calculating the instantaneous diameter and
 D. Fiaschi, M. Michelini / Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001) 121–132
porosity of the particles and then the correspond-
ing entrainment velocity: if this is lower than the
operating reactor speed, the corresponding elutri-
ated mass at a xed height is subtracted from the
total mass of C. The elutriation rate is evaluated as
in [13], for reactor levels higher than the Transport
Disengaging Height (TDH):
∗ With respect to the merely chemical models, the
Ri = d=dt(xbi Mb ) = Ki∞ Axdi ;
∗
Ki∞ = 33(1 − vt =vg )2
evaluated with the Colakyan correlation [13].
The main inaccuracy of this procedure is due to the
supposed particle’s uniform diameter: this implies
that, at a certain height, the elutriation phenomena
starts suddenly, which is quite diCcult to observe
in real cases.
• The second one considers abrasion and burn as in-
dependent phenomena, then the elutriation is mainly
due to the rst one and the elutriated ,ow rate de-
pends on the instantaneous particle diameter (v0 −
vmf ), by the amount of C present in the bed and,
nally, by the friction coeCcient [12]. Following
the elemental reactor approach, the mass of char at
a given height is obtained by subtracting from the
initial mass of C the amount consummated by the
chemical reactions and the elutriation. This second
calculation scheme leads to a more gradual depic-
tion of the elutriation phenomena.
4. Evaluation of the overall reaction kinetics
The general biomass gasication reaction can be
written as follows, starting from one mole of a generic
biomass CH O :
CH O + yO2 + ztot N2 + wH2 O = x1tot C + x2tot H2 +
x3tot CO + x4tot H2 O + x5tot CO2 + x6tot CH4 +
ztot N2 = (x1d )C + (x2d + x2b ) H2 + (x3d + x3b )CO +
(x4d + x4b ) H2 O + (x5d + x5b ) CO2 + (x6d + x6b )
CH4 + (zd + zb )N2 .
The chemical gasication reactions considered in the
present mathematical model are [1,7]:
C + CO2 = 2CO; C + H2 O = H2 + CO;
C + 2H2 = CH4 ; H2 O + CH4 = CO + 3H2 :
The pyrolysis and partial combustion are supposed
to be much faster than the gasication, then the re-
125
lated solid (carbon) and volatile products (CO2 , CH4 ,
H2 O) are xed as the initial gasication species.
Their amount depends on the composition and type of
biomass considered. The only hydrocarbon accounted
in the syngas has been CH4 , while the other minor
species Cn Hm have been neglected and eventually
included in the CH4 .
mass transfer contribution to the overall reaction speed
has been added:
6
vit = kc xid :
dp
Two serial e9ects then limit the gasication speed:
chemical kinetics and mass transfer. Then, the rate
of the ith chemical species follows (electrical model
analogy):
vit vikin
vi = :
vit + vikin
The char particle diameter at the ith time, is given by
the sum of the chemical reaction and abrasion e9ects
dp (ti−1 )(xi (ti )=xi (ti−1 ))1=3
dp (ti ) = :
1 + (nf − 1)p(1 − xi (ti )=xi (ti−1 ))
If the chemical reaction kinetic is the slowest process,
the char particle reduces its density by increasing its
porosity and leaving its external diameter dp almost
unchanged. If at tdis time the chemical kinetic becomes
the limiting e9ect, the expression of the density (ac-
counting for the char consumption) when t ¿ tdis is
 
xi (tdis ) − xi (t)
(t) = (tdis ) 1 − :
xi (tdis )
The mass transfer e9ects are predominant in the lowest
part of the reactor, where high temperature levels are
present: then, tdis ¿ 0; obviously, tdis is a function of
the temperature along the bed height.
The temperature has been evaluated by a ther-
mal balance along each of the elemental reactors
into which the ,uidized bed has been divided (time
interval tj+1 − tj ):
ns
 ns

xitot (tj )hitot + xitot (tj )hfitot
itot =1 itot =1
ns
 ns

= xitot (tj+1 )hitot + xitot (tj+1 )hfitot + ql (tj ):
itot =1 itot =1
126 D. Fiaschi, M. Michelini / Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001) 121–132
The heat exchange between the gas and the inert lling
material (sand) has been neglected, considering the
elemental virtual reactor as a homogeneous ,uid with
uniform temperature [14].
However, the model also has the possibility of
working at a xed value of temperature, constant
along the whole bed height, like the previous basic
models [1,7].
5. Basic model results
The composition of the product gas versus the bed
height in both dense and bubble phases is shown in
Figs. 2(a) and (b); the related basic data are reported
in Table 1. Fig. 3 shows the resulting overall gas com-
position: the equilibrium composition is practically
reached after half of the reactor height.
It is interesting to remark the correlation between
the bubble phase composition and the void fraction
Fig. 2. (a) Gas composition versus bed height in dense and bubble
phases (dense phase); (b) Gas composition versus bed height in
dense and bubble phases (bubble phase).
b (Fig. 4): at high values, (b ¿ 0:3) the inter-phase
mass transfer is high, since a great amount of mass is
present in the bubble phase. Successively, the gasi-
cation products such as H2 and CO are rapidly trans-
ferred from the dense phase (where they originate) to
the bubble phase. Moreover, the mass transfer coeC-
cient is high enough to allow a fast stabilization of the
concentration gradients and the related mass transfer
between the two phases. When both the bubble phase
fraction and the chemical reactions speed are consis-
tently lowered (approach to the equilibrium), a par-
tial bubble-dense phase transfer can be observed for
the gasication products. Also, the pyrolysis products,
such as CH4 , CO2 and H2 O, decay in the bubble phase;
the dense phase, after the starting, increased due to
the increase in its volume, moves toward the stabiliza-
tion while approaching the equilibrium. Finally, Fig. 4
shows the non-linear trend of the minimum ,uidiza-
tion velocity versus the reactor height: this is due to
vmf , which depends on the di9erence between the ll-
ing sand and gas densities as well as on the inverse
of gas viscosity, the latter decreasing with lowering
temperature.
The temperature behavior along the reactor axis is
shown in Fig. 5: a rapid decay can be observed just
after the Flame Pyrolysis (FP) zone, where the en-
dothermic gasication reactions start and a large and
rapid consumption of the combustion heat takes place.
Along the remaining 85% of the reactor height, the
temperature gradient is much lower, with values rang-
◦ ◦
ing between 900 C and 750 C, which are on line
with those from commercial ,uidized bed gasiers.
The above thermal balance can be regarded also as a
rst principle verication of the model along the bed
height.
The temperature at the transition time tdis has been
◦
evaluated to be about 1610 C. Two di9erent char con-
sumption mechanisms can be drawn at model level:
char particle diameter reduction at the starting process,
due to the surface reaction and the abrasion mech-
anisms; subsequently, after tdis , the reaction kinetic
becomes dominant and the reacting char particles in-
crease their porosity, with low reduction of the exter-
nal diameter. It implies high values of dp at the reactor
exit, but the related particles density is strongly re-
duced, so they are characterized by a great amount of
voids, accounting for the e9ective char consumption
(see Figs. 4 and 5). This mechanism is rather di9erent
 D. Fiaschi, M. Michelini / Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001) 121–132 127

Table 1
Basic data for the gasication model run

Biomass composition (sawdust) CH1:41 O0:59  3

Humidity (dry basis) 10% Primary fragmentation factor n1 1.1

ER 0.33 Secondary fragmentation factor n2 1.8
Oxidizer Air Oxidizer inlet speed vo 1 m=s
Bed height 2:1 m Reactor wall thickness 0:25 m
Bed diameter, dg 1:30 m External convection 10 W=m2 K
Initial char particles diameter 5 mm Wall conductivity 0:1 W=m K
◦
Char density 1500 kg=m3 External temperature 30 C
Inert particles diameter 800
m kat (elutriation coeCcient) 5 × 10−6
Inert particles density 2600 kg=m3 Gasier pressure 1:013 bar

Fig. 3. Overall gas composition versus bed height. Fig. 5. Gasication temperature, char particle density and bubble-
dense mass transfer coeCcient versus bed height.

mentation” mechanism; however, this aspect has not

Fig. 4. Bubble phase fraction, particle diameter, bubbles diameter
and minimum ,uidization velocity versus bed height.
from those reported in [1,7], where the char density is
considered to be constant and the char consumption
is accounted by the reduction of the particle diameter
dp . Obviously, particles with such high voids fraction
tend to desegregate, following the “percolation frag-
been accounted in the present model.
Finally, Figs. 4 and 5 show also the behavior of the
bubbles diameter Db and the inter-phase mass transfer
coeCcient kbd along the reactor axis: the initial low
values of Db promote the mass transfer between the
two phases, due to the high bubble external specic
surface, then the high kbd values can be observed. This
parameter, however, remains high enough to allow a
fast inter-phase mass transfer along the whole reactor,
regardless of its initial rapid decay.
6. Sensitivity analysis: e'ects of the main
operating variables
The in,uence of the main parameters (Equivalence
Ratio ER, pressure and surface gas velocity) on the
gasication process has been investigated.
128 D. Fiaschi, M. Michelini / Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001) 121–132

Fig. 7. A 70% char conversion ratio z(tC0:3 ) and syngas caloric

Fig. 6. Molar fractions of the di9erent species versus ER value at t = tC0:3 versus ER.
(bed height = 0:25 m).

The in,uence of ER is due to two important factors:

1. bottom reactor temperature increases with ER;

2. at xed values of temperature, the gasication re-
actions are predominant with respect to the com-
bustion reactions, up to ER = 0:4.

In this way, the gasication yield initially increases

with ER, and then it starts decreasing when the com-
bustion reactions become predominant. If the bed
height is limited (and the residence time is therefore
low, Fig. 6), relatively high ER values (¿0:4) are
required to have a good syngas yield. For ER ¡ 0:2,
the initial temperature is not suCcient to reach the
90% conversion of the char (C0:1 ). Accounting only
the 70% degree of the char conversion (C0:3 ), the cor-
responding bed height decreases with increasing ER,
but the gasication yield shows an opposite behavior
(see Fig. 7).
Then, the ER values giving a suCcient initial tem-
perature to make the gasication process eCcient for
limited bed heights (approximately 1:5 m) are be-
tween 0.3 and 0.4. This result is well evidenced by a
two-phase model, because it emphasizes the impor-
tance of the mass-transfer e9ects for limited reactor
heights, where the temperature is relatively high.
The surface gas velocity does not have a direct in-
,uence on the chemical reaction rates, but only on the
residence time, on the bubble phase reactor volume
(b ) and on the inter-phase mass transfer coeCcient
kbd (by b and Db ). For surface velocity close to the
Fig. 8. The tC0:1 bed height versus surface gas velocity with local
and mean overall Db evaluation.
minimum bubbling value (about 0:5 m=s in this case)
the bubble phase fraction is minimum and only the
dense phase can be accounted for in the reactor. In-
creasing the surface gas velocity b increases: at v0 val-
ues close to 1:1 m=s, almost 100% of the lower reactor
part is on a bubble phase, that undergoes a rapid de-
cay along the bed height. However, it remains higher
than in the cases with lower v0 . In this way, the reac-
tor volume available for the gasication reactions de-
creases in the rst part of the gasier and the related
gasication yield is lowered. Fig. 8 shows this e9ect
in terms of char conversion level: the increase in the
bubble phase fraction with v0 leads to an increase in
the reactants molar fractions for this phase, so they
cannot directly take part in the gasication until the
dense phase transfer has been completed.
 D. Fiaschi, M. Michelini / Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001) 121–132
Fig. 9. Inter-phase mass transfer coeCcient versus v0 at di9erent
bed heights.
The inter-phase transfer coeCcient kbd decreases
with increasing v0 , leading to a slower transfer of the
reactants to the dense phase and, nally, of the prod-
ucts to the bubble phase (Fig. 9).
Adopting the previously reported integral expres-
sion of bubble diameter De [11], an optimizing value
of v0 in terms of char conversion z(C0:1 ) has been iden-
tied close to 1:1 m=s due to the optimal inter-phase
mass transfer conditions (part of the reactants and
products are in both phases). In this way, the reactants
of the dense phase allow a high degree of solid–gas
reactivity and, simultaneously, a consistent part of the
products is transferred to the bubble phase, allowing
the gasication reactions to be shifted toward the syn-
gas products (Fig. 8).
The gasication pressure in,uences the reaction
kinetics and equilibrium, the bubbles diameter and
the bed voids fraction b . Generally, an increase in
pressure leads to a reduction of the bubble diameters
and to an initial reduction of residence time: this,
however, starts increasing at relatively high pressures
(over 20 bar for the inquired biomass composition).
The bed temperature increases with pressure:
this is substantially due to the Buduard’s re-
action (C + CO2 = 2CO), that is shifted to the
left-hand side and leads to an overall reduction
of the gasication process. Also the limiting mass
transfer=chemical kinetics temperature increases with
the gasication pressure (Fig. 10), showing that
a more restricted part of the reactor is kinetically
mass-transfer limited. Since the maximum temper-
129
Fig. 10. Char conversion ratio and temperature discriminating the
dominant mechanism in the gasication process versus gasication
pressure (bed height = 2 m).
ature at the beginning of the gasication process
(with reference to the selected biomass, see Table 1)
◦
is 1648 C, for pressure values over 20 bar, the reac-
tions are completely limited by the chemical-kinetics.
The char conversion ratio versus the gasier pres-
sure shows (for a 2 m height bed) an optimizing value
of 5 bar (Fig. 10): this is still mainly due to the opti-
mization of the Buduard’s reaction, together with the
consistent inversion of the methanation reaction. At
this pressure level, the maximum CO and H2 and the
minimum CO2 and CH4 molar fractions are found (this
result substantially agrees with those reported in [1]).
7. Comparison between single phase and double
phase models
The two phase and the single-phase (b = 0) ap-
proaches have been tested and compared. The same
basic data have been assumed for both cases; the
surface gas velocity v0 = vmin has been set for the
single-phase runs.
The presence of two phases generally lowers the
overall reaction kinetics, especially during the rst few
steps (Fig. 11), while the compositions tend to over-
lap moving toward the equilibrium conditions at the
bed top. This behavior is due to the presence of all the
reactants only in the dense phase, for the single-phase
model. For the two-phase model, when the bubble
fraction is suCciently reduced, the kinetic becomes
similar to that of single-phase cases. The methana-
tion reaction is mostly in,uenced by the presence of
130 D. Fiaschi, M. Michelini / Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001) 121–132
Fig. 11. Comparison between the e9ects of Chemical Kinetics +
Mass Transfer (CK + MT) and Chemical Kinetics only (CK).
the bubble phase: in the reference single-phase mod-
els, hydrogen is not initially present, which leads to
a fast inversion of this reaction with an immediate
production of H2 and the subsequent rapid methane
consumption.
Given the relatively high starting temperature, the
mass transfer e9ects have been found to be important
up to tdis ; after this time, the results of the two ap-
proaches tend to resemble each other, since the chemi-
cal kinetic becomes the slowest process. On the whole,
it can be concluded that only the initial gasication re-
actions steps are substantially in,uenced by the mass
transfer e9ects, while at the top of the reactor only the
chemical kinetic plays a dominant role on the overall
reaction mechanisms (Fig. 11).
8. Model veri-cation
A preliminary test validity of the developed kinetic
model has been carried out using some experimental
data from the literature. These data often missed some
of the needed topic parameters for the simulation: in
these cases, they have been reasonably assumed. The
comparison of the numerical results with the experi-
mental data, also allowed an improvement in the set-
tings of some reactions’ chemical kinetic parameters,
such as the activation energy and the frequency fac-
tor. Three of these test runs have been chosen to be
reported in the present work.
Keeping the same data entry of [5] (Table 2), the
rst test was performed with two runs of wood chips
gasication (RUN 1, Table 2, Figs. 12 and 13). The
temperature value at the bed top is always underes-
timated: this is due to the overestimation of the ax-
ial energy transfer between the elements into which
the ,uidized bed has been divided at a model level.
As a consequence of these low nal temperatures, the
gasication process stops earlier, leading to an over-
all underestimation of the outlet char conversion ratio.
Accuracy within 12% for the caloric value and the
volumetric fractions of the di9erent gas species were
registered; H2 is highly overestimated.
The second test run was performed using the data
collection from an agricultural wastes gasication pro-
cess [15] (RUN 2, Table 2, Fig. 14). The parameter
accounting the volatile matter at the gasication pro-
cess start up has been reset superimposing the CH4
relative errors to zero. The only experimental avail-
able data were the caloric value and H2 ; CO and
CH4 + Cn Hm volumetric fractions: the agreement of
the calculations with the available experimental data
is quite satisfactory, showing an overestimation of H2 ,
while the other volumetric fractions have been well
predicted.
Finally, a test run was performed with RDF (RUN 3,
Table 2): the basic available data are shown in
Table 2 [16]. Fig. 15 summarizes the related results,
for both air and oxygen as oxidizers. In the rst case,
the agreement between theoretical and experimental
data is quite satisfactory, while it is poor in the second
case. It is mainly due to the initial higher temperature,
which leads to an over estimation of the Buduard
reaction speed (and the related CO production) for
oxygen gasication. A test with constant xed bed
temperature has been performed for the oxygen gasi-
cation, which brought a consistent improvement to
the predicted data.
9. Conclusions
The present gasication kinetics model has been de-
veloped starting from previous zero-dimensional mod-
els. It is one-dimensional and biphasic, which allows
the mass transfer e9ects to be accounted on the re-
action kinetics mechanisms. The gasier freeboard is
considered to be inert.
The introduction of the two phases allowed to point
out that the mass transfer activity is an increasing
 D. Fiaschi, M. Michelini / Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001) 121–132 131

Table 2
Basic experimental test data conditions

RUN 1 RUN 2 RUN 3

Wood chips Wood chips Almond Grass straw Corn stalk Pelletized
1.1 3.1 shell RDF

ER 0.298 0.273 0.132 0.157 0.162 0.27– 0.41

Moisture (%) 16.2 17.4 33.0 42.5 43.5 5.8
Biomass composition CH1:41 O0:59 CH1:59 O0:70 CH1:38 O0:65 CH1:53 O0:74 CH1:6 O0:56
Bed height (m) 1 0.75 0.5
Bed diameter (m) 0.3 0.66 0.15
Wall thickness (m) 0.1 0.25 —
◦
Wall conductivity (W=m C) 0.03 0.03 0.03
Ext. ,uid convection 6 6 6
coe9. (W=m2◦ C)
◦
Ext. Temp. ( C) 25 25 25
Sand diameter (mm) 0.5 0.58 7
Sand density (kg=m3 ) 2670 2670 2600
Char initial diameter (mm) 12 7 6 6 9
Char initial apparent density (kg=m3 ) 1500 1500 1500

Fig. 12. Model verication for RUN 1.1. Fig. 14. Model verication for RUN 2.

Fig. 13. Model verication for RUN 3.1. Fig. 15. Model verication for RUN 3.
132 D. Fiaschi, M. Michelini / Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001) 121–132
function of void fraction b and it is lowered approach-
ing the equilibrium.
One of the main model’s features is the possibil-
ity to evaluate the temperature behavior along the bed
height, that is also a good design tool when the pa-
rameters are well set with detailed experimental data.
The surface gas velocity generally leads to an in-
crease in the bubble diameter and to a decrease in the
inter-phase mass transfer.
For small height beds, increasing ER brings an in-
crease in the gasication products due to the higher
temperature and the subsequent reactions speed.
Increasing the reactor pressure (up to a certain level
depending on the biomass composition) implies a re-
duction of the bubble diameter, as well as the residence
time of the reactants in the gasier. The temperature
initially increases with pressure; then, a stabilization
occurs, which brings the reactions to be only kineti-
cally limited.
The comparison between mass transfer and sur-
face reactions kinetics e9ects on the whole gasica-
tion mechanisms has shown that the rst prevails at
the starting process, due to the high temperature level;
successively, when the temperature is stabilized, the
latter one plays a dominant role.
The model has shown a substantial agreement with
other available gasication kinetic models. A prelimi-
nary validation with some experimental data from the
literature has been carried out, showing, on the whole,
quite encouraging results. A substantial improvement
of the model e9ectiveness could be reached if more
detailed (ad hoc) experimental data were available to
allow a better setup of the main parameters. In this
way, the whole model could be regarded as a start to
be supported and improved by specially dedicated test
campaigns.
References
[1] Wang Y, Kinoshita CM. Kinetic model of biomass
gasication. Solar Energy 1993;51(1):19–25.
[2] Reed TB. Biomass gasication—principles and technology.
Park Ridge, New Jersey, USA: Noyes Data Corporation,
1981.
[3] Gaur S, Rao TR, Reed TB, Grover PD. Kinetics of corn
cob char gasication in carbon dioxide. Fuel Science and
Technology International 1992;10(9):1461–99.
[4] Shi Chen J, Gunkel WW. Modeling and simulation of
co-current moving bed gasication reactors—Part II. A
detailed gasier model. Biomass 1987;14:75–98.
[5] Bilodeau JF, Therien N, Proulx P, Czernik S, Chornet E. A
mathematical model of ,uidized bed biomass gasication. The
Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 1993;71(4):549–
57.
[6] Ergudenler A, Ghaly AE, Hamdullahpur F, Al Taweel AM.
Mathematical modeling of a ,uidized bed straw gasier. Part
III, model verication. Energy Sources 1997;19(10):1099–
121.
[7] Fiaschi D, Bettagli N, Desideri U. A Biomass Combustion—
Gasication model: validation and sensitivity analysis. Journal
of Energy Resources Technology, A.S.M.E. Transaction
1995;117:329.
[8] Deemter V. Mixing. In: Davidson JF, Clift R, Harrison D,
editors. Fluidization. 2nd ed. London: Academic Press, 1985,
p. 331–55.
[9] Darton RC. The physical behaviour of three-phase ,uidized
beds. In: Davidson JF, Clift R, Harrison D, editors.
Fluidization. 2nd ed. London: Academic Press, 1985,
p. 495 –528.
[10] Clift R, Grace JR. Continuous bubbling and slugging. In:
Davidson JF, Clift R, Harrison D, editors. Fluidization. 2nd
ed. London: Academic Press, 1985, p. 73–132.
[11] Cai P, Schiavetti M, De Michele G, Grazzini GC, Miccio
M. Quantitative estimation of bubble size in PFBC. Powder
Technology 1994;80:99–109.
[12] Arena U, Chirone R, D’Amore M, Miccio M, Salatino P.
Some issues in modelling bubbling and circulating ,uidized
bed in coal combustor. Powder Technology 1995;82:301–16.
[13] Geldart D. Elutriation. In: Davidson JF, Clift R, Harrison D,
editors. Fluidization. 2nd ed. London: Academic Press, 1985.
[14] Xavier AM, Davidson JF. Heat transfer in ,uidized beds:
convective heat transfer in ,uidized beds. In: Davidson JF,
Clift R, Harrison D, editors. Fluidization. 2nd ed. London:
Academic Press, 1985.
[15] Shoeters J, Maniatis K, Buekens A. The ,uidized bed
gasication of biomass: experimental studies on a bench scale
reactor. Biomass 1989;19:129–43.
[16] Lamorey GW, Jenkins BM, Gross JR. LP engine and ,uidized
bed gas producer performance—ASAE. Paper No. 86-3072,
1986.