Ke Sun Thesis
Ke Sun Thesis
Ke Sun Thesis
Candidate: Ke Sun
Faculty of Technology
Kjlnes
3914 Porsgrunn
Norway
Lower Degree Programmes M.Sc. Programmes Ph.D. Programmes TFver. 0.9
Telemark University College
Faculty of Technology
M.Sc. Programme
MASTERS THESIS, COURSE CODE FMH606
Student: Ke Sun
Signature: .................................
Number of pages: 76
. . Aspen Plus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . Gasification efficiency. . . . . . . . . . . .
Availability: Open
Abstract:
Biomass is an ideal renewable and clean energy resource. Counties all over the world are paying more and more
attention to biomass because it can effectively reduce greenhouse effect due to its zero carbon dioxide emission.
Among the biomass utilization technologies, biomass gasification for combined heat and power is an attractive
solution for utilizing biomass effectively.
The biomass gasification was studied based on the dual fluidized-bed gasifier developed by the Vienna University
of Technology, which has been successfully demonstrated in Gssing, Austria. Aspen Plus V8 was used for the
modelling and simulation of the biomass gasification process. The gasifier was modeled using minimum Gibbs
free energy method. The key operating parameters including the feed steam temperature, feed air temperature,
steam to biomass ratio, and the gasification temperature were varied using the sensitivity analysis block of Aspen
Plus. The effects of changing the parameters on the output syngas composition, LHV of the syngas, char split
fraction and the gasification efficiency were studied.
The sensitivity analysis results indicated that both preheating the feed steam and air have positive effect on
increasing the LHV of the syngas and the gasification efficiency. Preheating air is more effectively than preheating
the steam. Increasing the steam to biomass ratio results in the increase of the hydrogen yield and the proportion of
hydrogen content in the syngas, while the increase of the S/B had negative effects on increasing the LHV of the
syngas and the gasification efficiency. Increasing the gasification temperature resulted in the decrease of the
gasification efficiency and the hydrogen yield, while it had positive effect on the increase of the LHV of the syngas.
The gasification results behaved a little different when the steam to biomass ratio and the gasification temperature
are low.
Base on the results, it was found that the optimum gasification temperature should be kept around 750-850 , the
steam to biomass ratio should be kept around 0.4-0.6. If excess heat is available it should be used to preheat the
feed air.
Telemark University College accepts no responsibility for results and conclusions presented in this report.
2
Table of contents
PREFACE .............................................................................................................................................................. 5
NOMENCLATURE .............................................................................................................................................. 6
1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 10
3 THEORY .................................................................................................................................................... 13
5 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................... 43
6 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................. 55
3
6.3 EFFECT OF STEAM TO BIOMASS RATIO AND GASIFICATION TEMPERATURE ON THE GASIFICATION RESULTS ................. 55
6.3.1 Effect of steam to biomass ratio on the syngas composition ......................................................... 56
6.3.2 Effect of gasification temperature on the syngas composition ...................................................... 56
6.3.3 Effects on the char split fraction ................................................................................................... 57
6.3.4 Effects on the LHV of the syngas ................................................................................................... 57
6.3.5 Effects on the gasification efficiency ............................................................................................. 59
6.3.6 Effects on the hydrogen yield ........................................................................................................ 61
6.4 HEAT REQUIREMENT FOR THE BIOMASS DECOMPOSITION ........................................................................ 62
6.5 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................... 63
7 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................................... 64
APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................................................... 68
4
Preface
Biomass is believed to be a promising energy source that can relive the energy crisis and reduce
the damage to the environment in the near future. The current direction of researches is how to
utilize the biomass efficiently. One of the option is gasification of biomass for combined heat
and power. The aim of this project is to optimize the gasification reactions in order to increase
its efficiency using Aspen Plus.
This project requires a solid knowledge of Aspen Plus. In addition the knowledge of biomass
properties as well as the understanding of steam gasification process is also required.
I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Prof. Britt Halvorsen for her kind support
from the beginning of the thesis until now. She has been always giving me instructive advices
and useful suggestions on my work. I am honored to have such a friendly supervisor like her.
I am also indebted to my co-supervisor, Mr. Rajan. K. Thapa, for his professional opinions and
suggestions on my thesis.
Special thanks should go to the teachers at the Telmark University College who has helped me
and taught me useful knowledge for the last two years.
Last but not least, my gratitude also extends to my families who have been supporting and
caring for me all of my life.
I hope this thesis will at least have some contribution to the study for making a better
environment.
5
Nomenclature
Abbreviations
BFB Bubbling Fluidized-bed
CFB Circulating Fluidized-bed
CHP Combined Heat and Power
DFB Dual Fluidized-bed
FICFB Fast internally circulating fluidized-bed
HHV Higher Heating Value
LHV Lower Heating Value
S/B Steam to Biomass Ratio
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
RDF Refuse Derived Fuel
Units
atm Atmosphere
kg/h Kilogram per hour
MJ Mega joule
MJ/kg Mega joule per kilogram
MJ/Nm3 Mega joule per normal cubic meter
Nm3 Normal cubic meter
Scmh Standard cubic meter per hour
6
List of tables
Table 3-1: Types of biomass ............................................................................................ 13
Table 3-2: Ultimate analysis of some biomass and fossil fuels (dry basis, wt. %) .......... 15
Table 3-3: Proximate analysis of corncobs and rice husk (dry basis, wt. %) ................... 15
Table 3-4: Specific heat of wood and wood char ............................................................. 16
Table 3-5: Higher heating values of some biomass and fossil fuels (kJ/kg) .................... 17
Table 3-6: Ignition temperatures of some biomass and fossil fuels ................................. 17
Table 3-7: Main reactions taken place in the gasifier [1, 22, 23]. .................................... 19
Table 3-8: Characteristic data of the CHP plant in Gssing [25, 26]............................... 25
Table 3-9: Detailed of the Dual fluidized-bed gasifier in Gssing [25, 28]..................... 27
Table 4-1: Detailed data of the components modeled in the simulation. ......................... 34
Table 4-2: Specifications for the nonconventional components enthalpy model ............ 35
Table 4-3: Compositions of Biomass and ash (wt. %) [34]. ............................................ 36
Table 4-4: Specifications for the inlet streams ................................................................. 37
Table 4-5: Description of the blocks used in the modeling.............................................. 38
Table 4-6: Operating parameters for the blocks ............................................................... 39
Table 4-7: Definition of the import variables for the Calculator 1 .................................. 40
Table 4-8: Definition of the export variables for the Calculator 1 ................................... 40
Table 4-9: Definition of the variables for the Calculator 2 .............................................. 41
Table 4-10: Definition of the variables for the Calculator 3 ............................................ 42
7
List of figures
Figure 2-1: Sketch of a dual fluidized-bed gasifier .......................................................... 11
Figure 2-2: Simplified flowsheet of the dual fluidized-bed gasification process ............ 12
Figure 3-1: Reaction sequence of the gasification process .............................................. 18
Figure 3-2: Detailed classification of gasifiers based on the gas-solid contacting mode 20
Figure 3-3: Schematic of an updraft gasifier. ................................................................... 21
Figure 3-4: Schematic of a downdraft gasifier. ................................................................ 21
Figure 3-5: Schematic of a crossdraft gasifier. ................................................................ 22
Figure 3-6: Schematic of a bubbling fluidized-bed gasifier. ............................................ 23
Figure 3-7: Schematic of a circulating fluidized-bed gasifier. ......................................... 24
Figure 3-8: Schematic of a circulating fluidized-bed gasifier [27]. ................................. 26
Figure 3-9: Principal of dual fluidized-bed gasifier [27]. ................................................ 26
Figure 4-1: Flowsheet of biomass gasification process in a dual fluidized-bed gasifier . 33
Figure 5-1: Effect of the steam temperature on the syngas composition. ........................ 43
Figure 5-2: Effect of the steam temperature on the char split fraction. ........................... 44
Figure 5-3: Effect of the steam temperature on the LHV of the syngas. ......................... 44
Figure 5-4: Effect of the steam temperature on the gasification efficiency. .................... 45
Figure 5-5: Effect of the air temperature on the syngas composition. ............................. 46
Figure 5-6: Effect of the air temperature on the char split fraction. ................................. 47
Figure 5-7: Effect of the air temperature on the LHV of the syngas. .............................. 47
Figure 5-8: Effect of the air temperature on the gasification efficiency. ......................... 48
Figure 5-9: Effect of the steam to biomass ratio on the syngas composition................... 49
Figure 5-10: Effect of the steam to biomass ratio on the char split fraction. ................... 50
Figure 5-11: Effect of the steam to biomass ratio on the LHV of the syngas. ................. 50
Figure 5-12: Effect of the steam to biomass ratio on the gasification efficiency. ............ 51
Figure 5-13: Effect of the gasification temperature on the syngas composition. ............. 52
Figure 5-14: Effect of the gasification temperature on the char split fraction. ................ 53
Figure 5-15: Effect of the gasification temperature on the LHV of the syngas. .............. 53
Figure 5-16: Effect of the gasification temperature on the gasification efficiency. ......... 54
Figure 6-1: Effects of the S/B and gasification temperature on the char split fraction. ... 57
Figure 6-2: Effects of the S/B and gasification temperature on the LHV of the syngas. . 58
Figure 6-3: Effects of the S/B and gasification temperature on the 4 content. ......... 59
Figure 6-4: Effects of the S/B and gasification temperature on the gasification efficiency. ...... 60
8
Figure 6-5: Effects of the S/B and gasification temperature on the cold gas volume flow rate. 61
Figure 6-6: Effects of the S/B and gasification temperature on the hydrogen yield. ....... 62
9
1 Introduction
As the price of oil and gas as well as the energy crisis are continuously increasing, there is a
growing demand for the energy which is environmental friendly and less expensive. Biomass
is one of the choices among these kinds of energy resources. This oldest source of energy known
to the mankind does not make any addition to the earths carbon dioxide levels. Because most
of the biomass grow through photosynthesis by absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
When it converts to energy, only recently absorbed carbon dioxide will release [1]. Biomass
can be reproduced and does not take millions of years to develop, which is considered as a
renewable energy. Besides, a wide variety of biomass can be used as raw material for the
production of energy such as waste wood chips, agricultural crops and animal waste etc. In this
respect, biomass is one of the most promising energy sources in the immediate future.
Biomass can be converted via biochemical route and thermochemical route. For
thermochemical conversion, production of thermal energy is the main driver for this
conversion. Biomass is converted into gases and then synthesized into the desired chemicals or
used directly. Direct combustion, pyrolysis and gasification can be included as thermochemical
process [1]. Traditional combustion of biomass shows low efficiency in utilizing energy and
therefore cannot compete with fossil fuels. Biomass gasification for combined heat and power
(CHP) production offers much higher energy efficiency. This technology has been
commercialized successfully in some countries [2].
Gasification is the process which converts the carbonaceous solids into synthesis gas under
certain range of temperatures and oxygen-starved conditions [3]. A typical gasification process
includes drying, thermal decomposition or pyrolysis, combustion and char gasification. Current
Gasifiers can be classified into two types: fixed-bed gasifiers and fluidized-bed gasifiers.
During the process, a gasifying agent is needed. It can be oxygen, steam or air [4]. Application
of the particular gasifier and the gasifying agent depends on the design capacity of the
gasification plant and the desire properties of the product gas respectively.
A successful design and efficient operation of a biomass gasifier is important, and therefore a
thorough understanding of the gasification process is required. Since gasification process
involves a series of complex reactions, manipulating operation parameters will lead to various
results [5]. Despite implementing experiments can be a choice to obtain these parameters, it
requires lots of time, energy and resources. Using a mathematic model to simulate and optimize
the gasification process is relatively economical and efficient. The aim of this study is to
simulate and optimize the gasification process using simulation software Aspen Plus.
10
2 Problem description
Optimization of biomass gasification reactor using Aspen Plus is the aim of this project. There
are some successful stories using biomass gasification technology for the combined heat and
power, one is the dual fluidized-bed gasification technology developed by the Vienna
University of Technology, which is used in a biomass CHP plant in Gssing, Austria. This
study is based on the concept of this reactor.
The dual fluidized-bed gasifier combines a combustion reactor and a gasification reactor. The
gasification of biomass takes place in the gasification reactor and non-react char and bed
material flow into the combustion reactor where the char is combusted with excess air and heat
up the bed material. The hot bed material is then separated by a cyclone and flows back into the
gasifier to supply heat for the gasification reaction. Figure 2-1shows a sketch of a dual fluidized-
bed gasifier [6].
11
Biomass Char-Gas Product gas
Gasification
Heat
Char Char Char
Decomposition
Seperator Combustion
Flue gas
Cyclone
Solid
Heat
12
3 Theory
This chapter contains the fundamental knowledge of the biomass, gasification process as well
as the introduction of the simulation software Aspen Plus.
3.1 Biomass
Biomass refers to any organic materials which come from plants or animals that is alive or
recently dead [7]. As a sustainable energy resource, botanical biomass grow through
photosynthesis by absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in the presence of water and
sunlight. Biological species consume botanical or other biological species to support their lives.
Microorganisms break down the dead organisms into constituent parts and potential energy.
The amount of carbon dioxide which releases through the combustion or the microbial
decomposition of the biomass was absorbed by the biomass in the recent past. As a result,
utilizing biomass as an energy resources does not increase the global CO2 emission level.
Thus, biomass is considered as green-house gas neutral.
Woody biomass
Energy crops
Agricultural waste
Municipal waste
Waste Biomass
Industrial waste
Forestry waste
Virgin biomass or primary biomass comes from plants directly. Woody biomass includes trees,
vines, shrubs and bushes. Herbaceous biomasses are the plants that die annually at the end of
the growing season. Energy crops are those plants exclusively for producing energy. These
corps have high energy density and short growth period. The cost for cultivation is relatively
low since those energy crops require little fertilizer or water. Energy crops like willow, poplar,
and switch grass are widely used for energy production [1].
13
Waste biomass or secondary biomass is the biomass derived from virgin biomass during the
different stages of its production or come from the industrial and municipal wastes. Agricultural
wastes mainly include straw, sugar beet leaves and animal manure. Forestry wastes contain
bark, wood blocks and leaves etc. Industrial wastes come from the sawdust during the
production of lumber and demolition of wood products. Waste oil and fat are also included in
the industrial waste. Municipal wastes comprise municipal solid waste (MSW), sewage and
landfill gas. MSW is an important source as the combustible part can be used for the production
of refuse derived fuel (RDF).
The composition of biomass is one of the necessary information which needs to know for
designing a biomass gasifier or a combustor. Ultimate analysis and proximate analysis are two
types of composition analysis method which are mostly used.
For ultimate analysis, the basic elements of the hydrocarbon fuel are analyzed. Together with
the moisture (M) and ash (ASH) of the fuel, a typical ultimate analysis can be expressed as:
C + H + O + N + S + Cl + + ASH = 100% (3.1)
Elements in the equation (3.1) represent the mass percentage of the corresponding elements in
the fuel. Table 3-2 shows the ultimate analysis of different biomass compared with other fuels.
For proximate analysis, the composition of hydrocarbon fuel is given as volatile matter (VM),
fixed carbon (FC), moisture (M), and ash (ASH). Volatile matter is the vapor released when
heating the fuel. Fixed carbon is the solid carbon which remains after devolatilization of the
pyrolysis process. Proximate analysis can be expressed as:
FC + VM + + ASH = 100% (3.2)
Table 3-3 shows the proximate analysis of corncobs and rice husk [9].
14
Table 3-2: Ultimate analysis of some biomass and fossil fuels (dry basis, wt. %)
Table 3-3: Proximate analysis of corncobs and rice husk (dry basis, wt. %)
Fuel FC VM ASH
15
Specific heat capacity or specific heat in short indicates the heat capacity of a substance. It is
heavily influenced by the temperature. The moisture and the type of biomass also affect the
specific heat. Table 3-4 lists the specific heat correlation equation of different types of wood
and wood char [1].
Table 3-4: Specific heat of wood and wood char
Heating value is the maximum heat released when certain amount of a fuel has completely
combusted in the presence of air at standard conditions (25 , 1 atm). Heating value depends
on the phase of water produced after the combustion of the fuel. If the water is in gas phase, the
value of heat release is called the lower heating value (LHV). When the water vapor condenses
into liquid, the value of the total heat release is called the higher heating value (HHV).The
difference between the lower heating value and the higher heating value is the latter includes
the latent heat of vaporization [19]. Table 3-5 lists the higher heating values of different biomass
compared with other fuels [1].
16
energy for the drying and pyrolysis process. Reactions occur in the gasification part are mainly
endothermic, therefore the combustion can also provide energy for the endothermic reactions.
Table 3-6 lists the ignition temperatures of some biomass compared with other fuels [1].
Table 3-5: Higher heating values of some biomass and fossil fuels (kJ/kg)
17
3.2 Gasification
Gases
(CO, CH4
H2 , H2 O) CO, H2 , CH4 ,
Gas phase
H2 O, CO2 ,
reactions
Cracking products
Drying & Liquids
Biomass
Pyrolysis (tar, naptha)
CO, H2 , CH4 ,
Solids Char-Gas
H2 O, CO2 ,
(char) reactions
Uncoverted carbon
18
Table 3-7: Main reactions taken place in the gasifier [1, 22, 23].
19
3.2.2 Type of gasifiers
Based on the gas-solid contacting mode, gasifiers can be classified as (i) fixed or moving bed
gasifiers, (ii) fluidized bed gasifiers and (iii) entrained-flow bed gasifiers [1]. Entrained-flow
bed gasifiers is not suitable for biomass, therefore it will not be discussed in this section. Figure
3-2 shows a detailed classification of gasifiers.
Dry-Ash gasifier
Updraft gasifiers
Slagging gasifier
Bubbling fluidized-
Transport gasifier
bed gasifier
Gasification
Fluidized bed
technologies
Circulating fluidized- Dual fluidized-bed
bed gasifier gasifier
Chemical looping
gasifier
Top-fed gasifier
Entrained-flow
Side-fed gasifier
Figure 3-2: Detailed classification of gasifiers based on the gas-solid contacting mode
A typical fixed-bed gasifier is the updraft gasifier. In this reactor, fuel is fed from the top and
moves downward through the drying, pyrolysis, reduction and the combustion zone. While the
20
gasifying agent is fed from the bottom and moves upward. Figure 3-3 shows a schematic of an
updraft gasifier. High cold-gas efficiency is an advantage of the updraft gasifier [1].
In a downdraft gasifier, gasifying agent is fed at a certain height below the top as it is shown in
the Figure 3-4. The fuel is fed at the top through the drying, pyrolysis, combustion and reduction
zones. The product gas then flows out from the lower zone. Compared with the updraft gasifier,
it has lower tar production rate [1].
21
In a crossdraft gasifier, the air flows in from the side of the gasifier while the fuel is fed from
the top as it is shown in the Figure 3-5. A combustion zone and a gasification zone are formed
around the entrance of the air. The heat released by the combustion zone is conducted radially
to support the pyrolysis of the fuel. The product gas flows out from the sidewall opposite to the
entrance of air. The crossdraft gasifier has a quick response time and can be implemented for
small-scale biomass units [1].
In a bubbling fluidized-bed gasifier, air is fed at the bottom through the grid. Above the grid,
the fuel is introduced into the vessel while the bed material is fed at the opposite side of the
wall. The product gas goes into a cyclone where the solid particle is separated. Figure 3-6 shows
a schematic of a Mitsubishi bubbling fluidized-bed gasifier.
22
Figure 3-6: Schematic of a bubbling fluidized-bed gasifier.
A circulating fluidized-bed (CFB) gasifier is composed by a vessel called riser, a cyclone and
a solid recycle device. Figure 3-7 shows a schematic of a Mitsubishi circulating fluidized-bed
gasifier. Unlike the bubbling fluidized-bed gasifier, the separated bed material is recycled into
the riser, thus a circulation of the bed material between the riser and the cyclone. In a circulating
fluidized-bed gasifier, the fluidization velocity is higher than the velocity in the bubbling
fluidized-bed gasifier. There are many commercial applications based on the circulating
fluidized-bed technology.
23
Figure 3-7: Schematic of a circulating fluidized-bed gasifier.
24
material is separated and flows back to the gasifier. The heat carried by the bed material
supports the reactions in the gasifier. Figure 3-8 shows a schematic of dual fluidized-bed
gasifier. This system is easy to achieve auto stabilization because if the gasification temperature
changes, the amount of the residual char will change and thereby changing the energy support
for the gasification and stabilizes the temperature. Figure 3-9 shows the principal of a dual
fluidized-bed gasifier clearly. The high quality product syngas has high H2 content and high
heating value. Table 3-9 lists the detailed data of the Dual fluidized-bed gasifier in Gssing.
Table 3-8: Characteristic data of the CHP plant in Gssing [25, 26].
Fuel power 8 MW
Electrical output 2 MW
25
Figure 3-8: Schematic of a circulating fluidized-bed gasifier [27].
26
Table 3-9: Detailed of the Dual fluidized-bed gasifier in Gssing [25, 28].
Gasifier
Parameter Value
Type BFB
Temperature () 850
Pressure Atmospheric
Combustor
Parameter Value
Type CFB
Temperature 930
Pressure Atmospheric
Hydrogen 35-45
Methane 8-12
Nitrogen 3-5
27
3.3 Aspen Plus introduction
Aspen Plus is a market-leading comprehensive chemical process modeling tool, used by the
worlds leading chemistry organizations and related industries. It originated from a joint project
called Advanced System for Process Engineering (ASPEN) which is started by the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the US Department of Energy in the 1970s
and finished in 1981. AspenTech was founded in the same year and the ASPEN project was
commercialized by AspenTech called Aspen Plus [29].
Aspen Plus is used in the industrial chemical process modeling, simulation, optimization,
sensitivity analysis and economic evaluation. It provides the comprehensive physical property
models and the library of unit operation models, fast and reliable process simulation functions,
and advanced calculation method. With the physical property database and the operation
models provided by Aspen Plus, engineers are able to simulate actual plant behavior effectively
and accurately thereby improve the productivity and reduce the costs [30].
Aspen Plus has been widely used for simulating coal conversion. Literatures like coal
gasification simulation, coal hydrogasification processes and integrated coal gasification
combined cycle (IGCC) power plants have been already published [31]. There are also detailed
guides about modeling and simulation coal conversion published by AspenTech [32, 33].
However, there are not many researches related to the modeling and simulation of biomass
gasification process in a dual fluidized-bed gasifier [34].
28
In Aspen Plus, thermodynamic equilibrium and kinetic models are often used to simulate the
gasification process.
For nonstoichiometric method, the reacting system has minimum Gibbs free energy when the
equilibrium is reached. This method is also called Minimization of the Gibbs free energy
method. The advantage of minimization of the Gibbs free energy method is no specific reaction
mechanism is needed to solve the problem, only the elemental composition of the feed is needed
for the input, which can be obtained from its ultimate analysis [1]. Therefore the
nonstoichiometric method is particular suitable for biomass gasification simulation as the exact
chemical formula of biomass is unknown and the gasification reaction mechanisms are very
complicated. Ramzan et al. simulated a fixed-bed gasifier using the minimization of Gibbs free
energy method for the modeling [36]. Doherty et al. developed a simulation of biomass
gasification in a dual-fluidized bed gasifier (called the FICFB gasifier by the authors) [34].
Gibbs free energy minimization with temperature approach method was applied in this
simulation. He et al. simulated the biomass gasification process in a DFB gasifier developed by
Mid Sweden University using Aspen Plus [37]. The minimization of Gibbs free energy method
is also used for modeling the gasifier in this simulation.
29
be studied. In Aspen Plus, the external Fortran subroutines for hydrodynamics and kinetics are
needed for simulating biomass gasification process [5]. Therefore the solid knowledge of
Fortran programming is required. Besides, the kinetic models has more accuracy at relatively
low operating temperatures (< 800 ), because the reaction rate is slow and the time for the
conversion is long under lower temperatures. At higher temperature the equilibrium models
may be more suitable than the kinetic models [1]. Abdelouahed et al. simulated a Dual
fluidized-bed gasification process using Aspen Plus based on the Tunzini Nessi Equipment
Companies (TNEE) technology [2]. The kinetic model was used and bed hydrodynamics were
neglected. Nikoo and Mahinpey simulated an atmospheric fluidized-bed gasifier using kinetic
model [31]. Both hydrodynamics and reaction kinetics were considered simultaneously.
30
4 Simulation of biomass gasification in a dual
fluidized-bed gasifier using Aspen Plus
This chapter describes the simulation of biomass gasification in a dual fluidized-bed gasifier
using Aspen Plus V8 in detail. Process description, components, physical properties, block
specification and sensitivity analyses are introduced in this chapter.
According to the features of Aspen Plus and the thermodynamic equilibrium model used for
this simulation, the following assumptions were made in this simulation of biomass gasification
process:
Steady state operation
Zero-dimensional
Particle size is not considered
Uniform temperature distribution for the biomass particle
Pressure drops are neglected
31
Heat loss for the reactors are neglected
Tar formation is not considered
Char is 100% carbon
Equilibriums for all the reactions is reached in the gasifier
90% of char is burned in the combustor
Cyclone efficiency is 85%
Ash comes from the biomass is considered as inert, it does not react with other components.
All elements that compose the biomass yield into char, H2 , O2 , N2 Cl2 , S.
32
33
Figure 4-1: Flowsheet of biomass gasification process in a dual fluidized-bed gasifier
4.2 Components
At the beginning of simulation, all the components were specified properly. Table 4-1 lists the
components modeled in the simulation. Because the uncertainty of exact formulas of biomass
and ash, they were defined as nonconventional solid components. For these components, only
enthalpy and density were calculated during the simulation. Aspen Plus includes special models
for estimating both enthalpy and density for coal-derived materials. These models can be used
to estimate biomass properties as well since biomass can be considered as coal-derived material.
More details will be discussed in the next section.
Table 4-1: Detailed data of the components modeled in the simulation.
BIOMASS Nonconventional - -
C Solid CARBON-GARAPHITE C
CO Conventional CARBON-MONOXIDE CO
H2 Conventional HYDROGEN H2
N2 Conventional NITROGEN N2
O2 Conventional OXYGEN O2
S Conventional SULFUR S
ASH Nonconventional - -
34
4.3 Physical properties
The PK-BM property method was selected as the global property method for this model. This
method uses the Peng Robinson cubic equation of state with the Boston-Mathias alpha function
for all the thermodynamic properties, which is suitable for the nonpolar or mildly polar mixtures
such as hydrocarbons and light gases. The PK-BM property method is recommended for the
gas processing, refinery, and petrochemical applications [38].
Since biomass and ash were defined as nonconventional components, only the density and
enthalpy were calculated during the simulation. HCOALGEN was selected as the enthalpy
model for both biomass and ash, the density model was DCOALIGT. Different empirical
correlations for heat of combustion, heat of formation and heat capacity are included in the
HCOALGEN model. Table 4-2 lists the correlations and the corresponding code value for the
enthalpy properties used in this model. The density method DCOALIGT is based on equations
from IGT (Institute of Gas Technology) [32].
Table 4-2: Specifications for the nonconventional components enthalpy model
Heat-of-combustion-based
Standard Heat of Formation 1
correlation
Enthalpy
Heat Capacity 1 Kirov correlation
Components attributes comprises the ultimate analysis, proximate analysis, and sulfur analysis
for the biomass and ash, which were required once the enthalpy model and density model were
specified. Table 4-3 lists the compositions of the biomass and ash based on their ultimate,
proximate and sulfur analysis. Usually the data of sulfur analysis is not given in most of the
references. In this model, all the sulfur was specified as organic. Because wood chips was
used as the feedstock in this simulation which has very low contents of sulfur. Therefore, there
is no effluence to the simulation results.
35
The stream class for global was specified as MIXCINC. This option was for the situation
when both conventional and nonconventional solids are present, but there is no particle size
distribution. Here, MIX stands for MIXED substream, CI represents for CISOLID
substream, NC stands for Nonconventional substream.
Table 4-3: Compositions of Biomass and ash (wt. %) [34].
Carbon 51.19 0
Hydrogen 6.08 0
Oxygen 41.3 0
Nitrogen 0.2 0
Sulfur 0.02 0
Chlorine 0.05 0
Pyritic 0 0
Sulfate 0 0
Organic 0.02 0
36
4.4 Stream specification
The detailed specifications for biomass, air, steam, and Q1 as feed streams are listed in Table
4-4.
Table 4-4: Specifications for the inlet streams
Mass flow
Stream Component Temperature Pressure Source
rate
Specified as its
ultimate,
BIOMASS 25 1 atm 2000 kg/h
proximate and
sulfur analysis
Air to
21% O2
biomass
AIR 79% N2 450 1 atm [34]
ratio is
(Volume fraction) 1.12
Steam to
biomass
STEAM H2 O 450 1 atm [34]
ratio (S/B)
is 0.6
25 for both
Q1 - begin and end - -
temperature
The mass flow rate of air and steam was calculated by setting calculator blocks. The air to
biomass ratio is defined as:
Air to Biomass ratio = air biomass (4.1)
The steam to biomass ratio (S/B) is defined as:
SB = (moisture content in biomass + steam )dry biomass (4.2)
The heat required for the decomposition process was calculate by setting a calculator block.
37
4.5 Blocks specification
After specifying the inlet streams, all the blocks were specified according to the design
operating condition. Table 4-5 gives a brief description of the unit operation blocks presented
in the flowsheet. Table 4-6 gives the detailed operating parameters for the blocks.
Table 4-5: Description of the blocks used in the modeling
Module
Scheme Block ID Description
name
38
Table 4-6: Operating parameters for the blocks
4.6.1 Calculator 1
Calculator 1 was used to determine the product composition after the decomposition reactor.
Table 4-7 shows the definition of the import variables using category Streams created in the
Calculator 1.
39
Table 4-7: Definition of the import variables for the Calculator 1
Variable
Type Stream Substream Component Attribute Elements
Name
Compattr-
ULT BIOMASS NC BIOMASS ULTANAL
Vec
Compattr-
WATER BIOMASS NC BIOMASS PROXANL 1
Var
ULT is the vector defined for accessing the values in the ultimate analysis of the biomass.
WATER is the variable corresponding to the first element in the proximate analysis of the
biomass, which is the value of the moisture. Here, ULTANAL and PROXANL stand for
ultimate analysis and proximate analysis respectively.
The definition of the export variables using category Blocks is listed in Table 4-8.
Table 4-8: Definition of the export variables for the Calculator 1
Here ID1 stands for the corresponding components. ID2 stands for the classification of the
component.
40
The Fortran statements was entered as below:
FACT = (100 - WATER) / 100
H2O = WATER / 100
ASH = ULT(1) / 100 * FACT
C = ULT(2) / 100 * FACT
H2 = ULT(3) / 100 * FACT
N2 = ULT(4) / 100 * FACT
CL2 = ULT(5) / 100 * FACT
S = ULT(6) / 100 * FACT
O2 = ULT(7) / 100 * FACT
Here FACT is the factor to convert the ultimate analysis to a wet basis.
This calculator block was executed before the PYR block operation.
4.6.2 Calculator 2
Calculator 2 was used to determine the air mass flow rate. Table 4-9 shows the definition of
the variables using category Streams created in the Calculator 2.
Table 4-9: Definition of the variables for the Calculator 2
Variable Variable
Type Stream Substream Variable
Name Classification
41
4.6.3 Calculator 3
Calculator 3 was used to determine the steam mass flow rate. Table 4-10 shows the definition
of the variables using category Streams created in the Calculator 3.
Table 4-10: Definition of the variables for the Calculator 3
Variable Variable
Type Stream Substream Variable Component
Name Classification
Stream- MASS-
BIOMASS Import BIOMASS NC -
Var FLOW
Mass-
MOISTURE Import AFT-PYR MIXED - H2O
Flow
Stream- MASS-
STEAM Export STEAM MIXED -
Var FLOW
In this simulation, gasification temperature was varied from 650 to 1100 . Steam to biomass
ratio was varied from 0.3-1.0. Steam temperature was varied from 150-1000 . Excess air
temperature was varied from 25-1025 . LHV and composition of the product gas, char split
fraction, and gasification efficiency were analyzed. Gasification efficiency or cold gas
efficiency is defined as:
LHVgas (MJNm3 )Vgas (Nm3 /h)
Gasification efficiency = LHV (4.3)
biomass (MJ/kg)biomass (kg/h)
42
5 Results
As the steam temperature increases from 150-1000 , CO rises from 33.69% to 34.56%. Both
H2 and CO2 decrease. H2 drops from 57.00% to 56.66% and CO2 from 9.18% to 8.64%. Both
CH4 and N2 contents are very low. (0.05% and 0.08%).
The effect of the steam temperature on the char split fraction is illustrated on Figure 5-2. When
the steam temperature increases from 150 to 1000 , the char split fraction decreases from
0.137 to 0.108.
The effect of the steam temperature on the LHV of the syngas is illustrated on Figure 5-3.
43
Figure 5-2: Effect of the steam temperature on the char split fraction.
Figure 5-3: Effect of the steam temperature on the LHV of the syngas.
44
When the steam temperature increases from 150-1000 , the LHV of the syngas increases from
10.42 to 10.50 MJ/Nm3 .
The effect of the steam temperature on the gasification efficiency is illustrated on Figure 5-4.
When the steam temperature increases from 150-1000 , the gasification efficiency increases
from 76.16% to 79.11%.
As the air temperature increases from 25-1025 , CO rises from 33.13% to 35.20%. Both
H2 and CO2 decrease. H2 drops from 57.21% to 56.41% and CO2 from 9.52% to 8.25%. Both
CH4 and N2 contents are very low. (0.05% and 0.08%).
45
Figure 5-5: Effect of the air temperature on the syngas composition.
The effect of the air temperature on the char split fraction is illustrated on Figure 5-6. When the
air temperature increases from 25-1025 , the char split fraction decreases from 0.155 to 0.087.
The effect of the air temperature on the LHV of the syngas is illustrated on Figure 5-7. When
the air temperature increases from 25-1025 , the LHV of the syngas increases from 10.38 to
10.56 MJ/Nm3 .
The effect of the steam temperature on the gasification efficiency is illustrated on Figure 5-8.
When the air temperature increases from 25-1025 , the gasification efficiency increases from
74.32% to 81.31%.
46
Figure 5-6: Effect of the air temperature on the char split fraction.
Figure 5-7: Effect of the air temperature on the LHV of the syngas.
47
Figure 5-8: Effect of the air temperature on the gasification efficiency.
48
Figure 5-9: Effect of the steam to biomass ratio on the syngas composition.
As the steam to biomass ratio increases from 0.3-1.0, CO drops from 43.25% to 26.33%. Both
H2 and CO2 increase. H2 increases from 53.55% to 59.40% and CO2 from 2.79% to 14.17%.
Both CH4 and N2 contents are very low. (0.32%-0.02% and 0.08%).
The effect of the steam to biomass ratio on the char split fraction is illustrated in Figure 5-10.
With the steam to biomass ratio increases from 0.3-1.0, the char split fraction decreases from
0.122 to 0.136.
The effect of the steam to biomass ratio on the LHV of the syngas is illustrated in Figure 5-11.
With the steam to biomass ratio increases from 0.3-1.0, the LHV of the syngas decreases from
11.36 to 9.74 MJ/Nm3 .
The effect of the steam to biomass ratio on the gasification efficiency is illustrated on Figure
5-12. When the steam to biomass ratio increases from 0.3-1.0, the gasification efficiency
decreases from 83.65% to 71.31%.
49
Figure 5-10: Effect of the steam to biomass ratio on the char split fraction.
Figure 5-11: Effect of the steam to biomass ratio on the LHV of the syngas.
50
Figure 5-12: Effect of the steam to biomass ratio on the gasification efficiency.
51
Figure 5-13: Effect of the gasification temperature on the syngas composition.
As the gasification temperature increases from 650-1100 , both CH4 and CO2 decrease.
CO2 drops from 16.18% to 7.40% and CH4 from 5.04%-0%. H2 increases from 53.22% to
54.90% then decreases to 56.39%. CO increases from 25.47% to 36.12%. N2 content is very
low (0.09%).
The effect of the gasification temperature on the char split fraction is illustrated on Figure 5-14.
When the gasification temperature increases from 650-1100 , the char split fraction increases
from 0 to 0.191.
The effect of the gasification temperature on the LHV of the syngas is illustrated on Figure
5-15. When the gasification temperature increases from 650-1100 , the LHV of the syngas
decreases from 10.77 to 10.41 MJ/Nm3 at 800 then increases to 10.65 MJ/Nm3 .
The effect of the gasification temperature on the gasification efficiency is illustrated on Figure
5-16. When the gasification temperature increases from 650-1100 , the gasification efficiency
increases from 66.97% to 78.03% at 700 then decreases to 73.29%.
52
Figure 5-14: Effect of the gasification temperature on the char split fraction.
Figure 5-15: Effect of the gasification temperature on the LHV of the syngas.
53
Figure 5-16: Effect of the gasification temperature on the gasification efficiency.
54
6 Discussion
The results obtained from the four sensitivity analyses are discussed in this chapter. The effects
of different operating variables on the gasification results are analyzed in order to derive the
optimized gasification condition.
55
6.3.1 Effect of steam to biomass ratio on the syngas
composition
Figure 5-7 shows that the steam to biomass ratio (S/B) has great impact on the syngas
composition. Over the S/B range from 0.3 to 1.0, both CO and CO2 increase while CO decrease
significantly. H2 increases by 5.85% and CO2 increases by 11.38%. CO decreases by 16.92%.
Both CH4 and N2 contents are very low (0.32%-0.02% and 0.08%). From a thermodynamic
point of view, if other reactants are constant, increasing the steam mass flow rate means
increasing the concentration of the reactants. This results in the equilibrium point moves
forward and more products are generated. In char gasification reaction, steam reforming
reaction, and water-gas shift reaction, char, CO and CH4 are consumed to generate more H2
and CO2 . From this result, increasing the S/B has a positive effect on obtaining high H2
syngas. But the heat consumption for the generation of steam should also be considered.
56
6.3.3 Effects on the char split fraction
The effect of steam to biomass ration and gasification temperature on the char split fraction is
shown in Figure 6-1. The char split fraction varies between 0 and 0.2132.
Figure 6-1: Effects of the S/B and gasification temperature on the char split fraction.
From the figure, it is obvious that char split fraction increases with the increase of steam to
biomass ratio and the gasification temperature. Because higher gasification temperature
requires more heat, the amount of char that goes into the combustor has to increase to provide
more heat for the gasifier. Increasing steam to biomass ratio means more steam is fed into the
gasifier. To heat up the increased steam to the gasification temperature needs to burn more char
to supply enough heat. Therefore the char split fraction increases when the steam to biomass
ratio rises up.
57
of H2 (10.788 MJ/Nm3, NREL data), the reduction of CO results in reducing the LHV of the
syngas. Therefore the LHV of the syngas decreases with the increase of steam to biomass ratio.
Figure 6-2: Effects of the S/B and gasification temperature on the LHV of the syngas.
Figure 6-2 also shows a general trend of the LHV increases with the increase of the gasification
temperature. This is because when the gasification temperature increases, the content of CO
increases while there is little change in other combustible gas content, which results in the
increase of LHV.
However, under lower temperature (<800 ) and low steam to biomass ratio (<0.5), the trend
of the LHV changes with the S/B and gasification temperature is different comparing with the
overall trend. This may be because at lower temperature and low steam to biomass ratio
conditions, the content of CH4 is relatively high as it is shown in Figure 6-3. According to the
NREL data, the LHV of CH4 is 35.814 MJNm3 , which is more than three times as the LHV
of H2 (10.788 MJNm3 ). Therefore even a small change of the CH4 content will have a
greater impact on the LHV of the syngas.
58
Figure 6-3: Effects of the S/B and gasification temperature on the 4 content.
59
At lower temperature (750 ) and lower S/B (< 0.6), the gasification efficiency increases
with the increase of the steam to biomass ratio and the gasification temperature. This may be
because at lower temperature and lower S/B, there is not enough steam and heat to support the
endothermic reactions, which results in the low yield of CO and H2 . Again, the gasification
efficiency is determined by the LHV of the syngas and the volume flow rate of the cold gas. As
it has been discussed in 6.3.4, at lower temperature and S/B, the changes in CH4 has a great
impact on the LHV. Therefore the gasification efficiency does not follow the overall pattern
under these conditions.
Figure 6-4: Effects of the S/B and gasification temperature on the gasification efficiency.
It is clear that the gasification efficiency can be maximized at the gasification temperature
between 750-800 and S/B as low as possible.
60
Figure 6-5: Effects of the S/B and gasification temperature on the cold gas volume flow rate.
61
decomposes completely and the condition is suitable for the gasification reaction, therefore the
H2 yield grows faster.
Figure 6-6: Effects of the S/B and gasification temperature on the hydrogen yield.
It is clear that in order to maximize the H2 production, the steam to biomass ratio should be
high and the gasification temperature should be kept low. The heat consumption for the steam
generation should also be considered
62
6.5 Summary
The optimum operating parameters can be concluded though the above analyses. The
gasification condition changes according to the different requirement. For general purpose, the
gasification temperature should be kept around 800 , the steam to biomass ratio should be
kept around 0.5. Considering the complex situation as the plant is in larger scale when
commercialized and the equilibrium may not achieved in a real plant due to the reaction time
and reaction kinetics as they were not considered in this simulation. The optimum gasification
temperature can be controlled between 800 and 850 and the steam to biomass ratio can be
controlled between 0.4 and 0.6. If the excess heat is possible, it can be used to heat up the fed
air for the maximization of the gasification efficiency.
63
7 Conclusion
Biomass is a promising energy which is environmental friendly and carbon neutral. Fluidized-
bed gasification technology for combined heat and power is particularly suitable for biomass
utilization. Among the different types of fluidized bed gasification technologies, the dual
fluidized-bed gasification technology developed by the Technology University of Vienna has
been commercialized successfully in Gssing, Austria.
The biomass gasification in a dual fluidized-bed gasifier was simulated using Aspen Plus V8.
The gasifier is a minimization of Gibbs free energy model. Key operation parameters which are
feed steam temperature, feed air temperature, steam to biomass ratio and gasification
temperature were varied by implementing sensitivity analysis blocks. The effects of these
parameters on the syngas composition, char split fraction, LHV of the syngas and the
gasification efficiency were studied.
The simulation result shows that the modeling is successful and qualified for analyzing the
effects of the key operation parameters on the gasification results. The sensitivity analyses
indicates that preheating the feed air is more effective than preheating the feed steam. Increasing
the steam to biomass ratio has positive effect on increasing the hydrogen yield and the
proportion of hydrogen content in the syngas. The increase of S/B has negative effects on
increasing the LHV of the syngas and the gasification efficiency. Increasing the gasification
temperature will result in the decrease of the gasification efficiency and the hydrogen yield
while it has positive effects on increasing the LHV of the syngas. The gasification results
behave a little different when the steam to biomass ratio and the gasification temperature are
low.
In summary, the optimum gasification temperature should be kept around 750-850 , the steam
to biomass ratio should be kept around 0.4-0.6. If excess heat from the flue gas is available, it
should be used to preheat the feed air. Due to the different demand for the product gas, the
optimum operation parameters may vary.
64
good research direction. The CHP plant can be modeled and simulated using Aspen Plus and
the behavior of the CHP plant can be studied under different operating parameters.
65
References
[1] Basu P. Biomass gasification, pyrolysis and torrefaction : practical design and theory.
2nd edition. ed. Amsterdam: Academic Press; 2013. 1 volume.
[2] Abdelouahed L, Authier O, Mauviel G, Corriou J-P, Verdier G, Dufour A. Detailed
modeling of biomass gasification in dual fluidized bed reactors under Aspen Plus.
Energy & Fuels. 2012;26(6):3840-55.
[3] Brown RC. Thermochemical processing of biomass : conversion into fuels, chemicals
and power. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2011. xiv, 330 p.
[4] de Lasa H, Salaices E, Mazumder J, Lucky R. Catalytic steam gasification of biomass:
catalysts, thermodynamics and kinetics. Chemical reviews. 2011;111(9):5404-33.
[5] Puig-Arnavat M, Bruno JC, Coronas A. Review and analysis of biomass gasification
models. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2010;14(9):2841-51.
[6] Pfeifer C, Rauch R, Hofbauer H, Swierczynski D, Courson C, Kiennemann A.
Hydrogen-rich gas production with a Ni-catalyst in a dual fluidized bed biomass
gasifier. Science in Thermal and Chemical Biomass Conversion, Victoria, Canada.
2004;30:677-90.
[7] LoppinetSerani A, Aymonier C, Cansell F. Current and foreseeable applications of
supercritical water for energy and the environment. ChemSusChem. 2008;1(6):486-
503.
[8] Tumuluru JS, Sokhansanj S, Wright CT, Boardman RD, Yancey NA, editors. A
review on biomass classification and composition, co-firing issues and pretreatment
methods. Proceedings of the 2011 ASABE annual international meeting Louisville,
Kentucky, USA; 2011.
[9] Klass DL. Biomass for renewable energy, fuels, and chemicals: Academic press; 1998.
[10] Tillman DA. Wood as an energy resource: Elsevier; 2012.
[11] Corey RC. Principles and practices of incineration: Wiley-Interscience; 1969.
[12] Sanner WS, Ortuglio C, Walters J, Wolfson D. Conversion of municipal and industrial
refuse into useful materials by pyrolysis.[Production of fuel oils, fuel gases, tar,
ammonium sulfate]. Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC (USA), 1970.
[13] Probstein RF, Hicks RE. Synthetic fuels: Courier Dover Publications; 2006.
[14] Basu P, Kefa C, Jestin L. Boilers and burners: design and theory: Springer; 1999.
[15] Ragland K, Aerts D, Baker A. Properties of wood for combustion analysis.
Bioresource technology. 1991;37(2):161-8.
[16] Gupta M, Yang J, Roy C. Specific heat and thermal conductivity of softwood bark and
softwood char particles< sup></sup>. Fuel. 2003;82(8):919-27.
[17] Simpson W, TenWolde A. Physical properties and moisture relations of wood. 1999.
[18] Jenkins B. Physical properties of biomass. Biomass handbook. 1989:860-91.
[19] McAllister S, Chen J-Y, Fernandez-Pello AC. Fundamentals of Combustion
Processes. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC; 2011.
[20] Grotkjr T, Dam-Johansen K, Jensen AD, Glarborg P. An experimental study of
biomass ignition< sup></sup>. Fuel. 2003;82(7):825-33.
[21] Mhlen H-J, Sowa F. Factors influencing the ignition of coal particles studies with a
pressurized heated-grid apparatus. Fuel. 1995;74(11):1551-4.
66
[22] Thapa R, Pfeifer C, Halvorsen B. Modeling of reaction kinetics in bubbling fluidized
bed biomass gasification reactor. Journal homepage: www IJEE IEEFoundation org.
2014;5(1):35-44.
[23] Snider DM, Clark SM, O'Rourke PJ. EulerianLagrangian method for three-
dimensional thermal reacting flow with application to coal gasifiers. Chemical
Engineering Science. 2011;66(6):1285-95.
[24] Kern S, Pfeifer C, Hofbauer H. Dual fluidized-bed steam gasification of solid
feedstock: Matching syngas requirements with fuel mixtures. South African Journal of
Chemical Engineering. 2012;17(1):13-24.
[25] Rauch R, Hofbauer H, Bosch K, Siefert I, Aichernig C, Tremmel H, et al., editors.
Steam gasification of biomass at CHP plant Guessing-Status of the demonstration
plant. 2nd world conference and technology exhibition on biomass for energy,
industry and climate protection, Rome, Italy; 2004.
[26] Bolhr-Nordenkampf M, Rauch R, Bosch K, Aichernig C, Hofbauer H. Biomass CHP
plant Gssing-Using gasification for power generation. K Kirtikara: 2nd RCETCE,
Phuket, Thailand. 2003:567-72.
[27] Pfeifer C, Schmid JC, Prll T, Hofbauer H, editors. Next generation biomass gasifier.
Proc 19th European Biomass Conference, Berlin, Germany; 2011.
[28] Corella J, Toledo JM, Molina G. A review on dual fluidized-bed biomass gasifiers.
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research. 2007;46(21):6831-9.
[29] Sun L. Chemical Engineering Process Simulation using Aspen Plus. Chemical
Industry Press 2012. 326 p.
[30] Process modeling tool for conceptual design, optimization, and performance
monitoring of chemical processes [Internet]. Aspen Technology, Inc.
[31] Nikoo MB, Mahinpey N. Simulation of biomass gasification in fluidized bed reactor
using ASPEN PLUS. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2008;32(12):1245-54.
[32] Aspen Plus IGCC Model [Internet]. Aspen Technology, Inc. 2008.
[33] Getting Started Modeling Processes with Solids [Internet]. Aspen Technology, Inc.
2010.
[34] W. Doherty AR, D. Kennedy. Aspen Plus Simulation of Biomass Gasification in a
Steam Blown dual Fluidised Bed. In: Mendez-Vilas A, editor. Materials and processes
for energy: communicating current research and technological developments:
Formatex Research Center; 2013. p. 966.
[35] Ahmed TY, Ahmad MM, Yusup S, Inayat A, Khan Z. Mathematical and
computational approaches for design of biomass gasification for hydrogen production:
A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2012;16(4):2304-15.
[36] Ramzan N, Ashraf A, Naveed S, Malik A. Simulation of hybrid biomass gasification
using Aspen plus: A comparative performance analysis for food, municipal solid and
poultry waste. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2011;35(9):3962-9.
[37] He J, Gransson K, Sderlind U, Zhang W. Simulation of biomass gasification in a
dual fluidized bed gasifier. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery. 2012;2(1):1-10.
[38] Aspentech. Aspen Physical Property System.
67
Appendices
Appendix 1: Project description
Appendix 2: Sensitivity analysis data for changing steam temperature
Appendix 3: Sensitivity analysis data for changing air temperature
Appendix 4: Sensitivity analysis data for changing steam to biomass ratio and gasification
temperature
68
Appendix 1: Project description
69
70
Appendix 2: Sensitivity analysis data for changing
steam temperature
Volume flow of syngas components and syngas composition at different steam temperature
Volume flow (Nm3 /h) Volume fraction
Steam
Temperature H2 CO CO2 CH4 N2 H2 CO CO2 CH4 N2
()
150 1751.991 1035.524 282.164 1.6330 2.5557 57.00% 33.69% 9.18% 0.05% 0.08%
200 1753.744 1038.291 281.670 1.6459 2.5557 56.98% 33.73% 9.15% 0.05% 0.08%
250 1755.515 1041.098 281.165 1.6589 2.5557 56.96% 33.78% 9.12% 0.05% 0.08%
300 1757.313 1043.947 280.653 1.6724 2.5557 56.94% 33.83% 9.09% 0.05% 0.08%
350 1759.133 1046.841 280.129 1.6859 2.5557 56.92% 33.87% 9.06% 0.05% 0.08%
400 1760.981 1049.781 279.598 1.7001 2.5557 56.90% 33.92% 9.03% 0.05% 0.08%
450 1762.851 1052.770 279.052 1.7143 2.5557 56.89% 33.97% 9.00% 0.06% 0.08%
500 1764.753 1055.807 278.499 1.7292 2.5557 56.87% 34.02% 8.97% 0.06% 0.08%
550 1766.677 1058.896 277.932 1.7440 2.5557 56.85% 34.07% 8.94% 0.06% 0.08%
600 1768.633 1062.036 277.356 1.7596 2.5557 56.83% 34.12% 8.91% 0.06% 0.08%
650 1770.613 1065.229 276.765 1.7753 2.5557 56.81% 34.18% 8.88% 0.06% 0.08%
700 1772.626 1068.474 276.165 1.7916 2.5557 56.79% 34.23% 8.85% 0.06% 0.08%
750 1774.662 1071.774 275.549 1.8080 2.5556 56.76% 34.28% 8.81% 0.06% 0.08%
800 1776.731 1075.125 274.926 1.8252 2.5556 56.74% 34.34% 8.78% 0.06% 0.08%
850 1778.822 1078.531 274.286 1.8424 2.5556 56.72% 34.39% 8.75% 0.06% 0.08%
900 1780.946 1081.988 273.637 1.8604 2.5556 56.70% 34.45% 8.71% 0.06% 0.08%
950 1783.09 1085.499 272.972 1.8784 2.5556 56.68% 34.50% 8.68% 0.06% 0.08%
1000 1785.267 1089.058 272.299 1.8973 2.5556 56.66% 34.56% 8.64% 0.06% 0.08%
Char split fraction, LHV, and gasification efficiency at different steam temperature
Char split
Steam Temperature () LHV(MJ/Nm3 ) Gasification Efficiency
fraction
150 0.137 10.42 76.16%
200 0.135 10.43 76.31%
250 0.134 10.43 76.47%
300 0.132 10.44 76.62%
350 0.131 10.44 76.78%
400 0.129 10.44 76.95%
450 0.128 10.45 77.11%
500 0.126 10.45 77.28%
550 0.124 10.46 77.45%
600 0.123 10.46 77.62%
650 0.121 10.47 77.80%
700 0.119 10.47 77.98%
750 0.117 10.48 78.16%
800 0.116 10.48 78.34%
850 0.114 10.49 78.53%
900 0.112 10.49 78.72%
950 0.110 10.50 78.91%
1000 0.108 10.50 79.11%
71
Appendix 3: Sensitivity analysis data for changing
air temperature
Volume flow of syngas components and syngas composition at different air temperature
75 1734.349 1007.970 286.997 1.5100 2.5557 57.18% 33.23% 9.46% 0.05% 0.08%
125 1738.073 1013.755 285.991 1.5346 2.5557 57.14% 33.33% 9.40% 0.05% 0.08%
175 1741.822 1019.578 284.980 1.5606 2.5557 57.10% 33.42% 9.34% 0.05% 0.08%
225 1745.579 1025.458 283.945 1.5866 2.5557 57.06% 33.52% 9.28% 0.05% 0.08%
275 1749.371 1031.397 282.898 1.6140 2.5557 57.02% 33.62% 9.22% 0.05% 0.08%
325 1753.185 1037.408 281.827 1.6418 2.5557 56.98% 33.72% 9.16% 0.05% 0.08%
375 1757.029 1043.494 280.735 1.6702 2.5557 56.94% 33.82% 9.10% 0.05% 0.08%
425 1760.904 1049.658 279.620 1.6995 2.5557 56.91% 33.92% 9.04% 0.05% 0.08%
450 1762.853 1052.770 279.053 1.7144 2.5557 56.89% 33.97% 9.00% 0.06% 0.08%
475 1764.811 1055.900 278.482 1.7296 2.5557 56.87% 34.02% 8.97% 0.06% 0.08%
525 1768.748 1062.221 277.322 1.7606 2.5557 56.83% 34.13% 8.91% 0.06% 0.08%
575 1772.716 1068.619 276.138 1.7924 2.5557 56.78% 34.23% 8.85% 0.06% 0.08%
625 1776.710 1075.091 274.932 1.8250 2.5556 56.74% 34.34% 8.78% 0.06% 0.08%
675 1780.730 1081.635 273.704 1.8586 2.5556 56.70% 34.44% 8.72% 0.06% 0.08%
725 1784.772 1088.247 272.453 1.8931 2.5556 56.66% 34.55% 8.65% 0.06% 0.08%
775 1788.836 1094.926 271.181 1.9284 2.5556 56.62% 34.66% 8.58% 0.06% 0.08%
825 1792.917 1101.667 269.887 1.9647 2.5556 56.58% 34.76% 8.52% 0.06% 0.08%
875 1797.015 1108.469 268.573 2.0020 2.5556 56.53% 34.87% 8.45% 0.06% 0.08%
925 1801.127 1115.326 267.238 2.0401 2.5556 56.49% 34.98% 8.38% 0.06% 0.08%
975 1805.250 1122.237 265.883 2.0793 2.5556 56.45% 35.09% 8.31% 0.07% 0.08%
1025 1809.384 1129.200 264.509 2.1194 2.5556 56.41% 35.20% 8.25% 0.07% 0.08%
72
Char split fraction, LHV, and gasification efficiency at different air temperature
73
Appendix 4: Sensitivity analysis data for changing
steam to biomass ratio and gasification temperature
Volume flow of syngas components and syngas composition at different S/B (Gasification
temperature is at 850 )
0.3 1550.622 1252.331 80.791 9.3486 2.5557 53.55% 43.25% 2.79% 0.32% 0.09%
0.4 1635.859 1180.321 154.306 4.2391 2.5557 54.94% 39.64% 5.18% 0.14% 0.09%
0.5 1704.173 1113.533 220.161 2.5432 2.5556 56.00% 36.59% 7.24% 0.08% 0.08%
0.6 1762.851 1052.770 279.052 1.7143 2.5557 56.89% 33.97% 9.00% 0.06% 0.08%
0.7 1814.213 997.463 331.904 1.2321 2.5557 57.64% 31.69% 10.55% 0.04% 0.08%
0.8 1859.563 946.957 379.523 0.9226 2.5558 58.30% 29.69% 11.90% 0.03% 0.08%
0.9 1899.813 900.661 422.585 0.7111 2.5559 58.88% 27.92% 13.10% 0.02% 0.08%
1 1935.659 858.069 461.652 0.5599 2.5559 59.40% 26.33% 14.17% 0.02% 0.08%
Gasification
temperature H2 CO CO2 CH4 N2 H2 CO CO2 CH4 N2
()
650 1508.587 721.990 458.583 142.973 2.5465 53.22% 25.47% 16.18% 5.04% 0.09%
700 1714.853 976.744 370.659 79.297 2.5490 54.54% 31.07% 11.79% 2.52% 0.08%
750 1797.412 1032.515 326.857 22.105 2.5518 56.50% 32.45% 10.27% 0.69% 0.08%
800 1792.192 1049.043 299.814 5.940 2.5540 56.90% 33.31% 9.52% 0.19% 0.08%
850 1762.853 1052.770 279.053 1.714 2.5557 56.89% 33.97% 9.00% 0.06% 0.08%
900 1728.923 1051.677 261.462 0.543 2.5568 56.78% 34.54% 8.59% 0.02% 0.08%
950 1695.172 1047.902 246.118 0.188 2.5576 56.66% 35.02% 8.23% 0.01% 0.09%
1000 1662.652 1042.151 232.615 0.070 2.5582 56.55% 35.45% 7.91% 0.00% 0.09%
1050 1631.508 1034.759 220.696 0.028 2.5586 56.46% 35.81% 7.64% 0.00% 0.09%
1100 1601.641 1025.952 210.149 0.012 2.5590 56.39% 36.12% 7.40% 0.00% 0.09%
74
Char split fraction, LHV, 2 flow rate, cold gas flow rate, 4 volume fraction, and
gasification efficiency at different S/B and gasification temperature
Gasification H2
Gasification LHV Char Split Cold gas flow rate CH4 volume
Temperature S/B
Efficiency (MJ/Nm3 ) fraction (Nm3 /h) (Nm3 /h) fraction
()
0.3 64.47% 11.12 0.0000 1307.814 2213.456 3.16%
0.4 65.20% 10.97 0.0000 1380.330 2269.732 4.08%
0.5 66.03% 10.85 0.0000 1447.095 2322.737 5.04%
0.6 66.97% 10.77 0.0000 1508.587 2373.774 6.02%
650
0.7 70.59% 10.74 0.0126 1606.287 2510.542 6.44%
0.8 73.34% 10.55 0.0286 1733.683 2653.944 5.91%
0.9 72.28% 10.19 0.0352 1847.504 2707.905 4.88%
1 71.32% 9.89 0.0409 1946.622 2752.788 4.05%
0.3 63.39% 11.10 0.0000 1295.667 2181.022 3.30%
0.4 69.10% 11.04 0.0224 1426.743 2389.199 3.52%
0.5 76.53% 11.03 0.0524 1577.536 2649.264 3.50%
0.6 77.77% 10.71 0.0666 1714.852 2771.116 2.86%
700
0.7 76.13% 10.34 0.0714 1825.039 2811.456 2.16%
0.8 74.68% 10.04 0.0751 1916.439 2840.298 1.67%
0.9 73.38% 9.79 0.0781 1993.479 2861.063 1.31%
1 72.21% 9.59 0.0806 2059.217 2875.974 1.04%
0.3 75.26% 11.36 0.0573 1421.151 2530.231 1.98%
0.4 82.24% 11.24 0.0887 1585.040 2792.941 1.77%
0.5 79.99% 10.79 0.0934 1704.853 2831.526 1.12%
0.6 78.03% 10.44 0.0961 1797.412 2852.257 0.77%
750
0.7 76.30% 10.17 0.0981 1873.465 2864.125 0.56%
0.8 74.77% 9.94 0.0998 1937.951 2870.868 0.42%
0.9 73.40% 9.75 0.1014 1993.623 2874.320 0.33%
1 72.17% 9.58 0.1030 2042.234 2875.496 0.26%
0.3 84.41% 11.51 0.1053 1519.355 2799.327 1.09%
0.4 81.85% 11.03 0.1100 1637.495 2832.845 0.51%
0.5 79.62% 10.69 0.1120 1722.356 2843.652 0.31%
0.6 77.67% 10.41 0.1136 1792.195 2847.401 0.21%
800
0.7 75.96% 10.18 0.1151 1852.072 2847.783 0.15%
0.8 74.43% 9.98 0.1167 1904.321 2846.151 0.11%
0.9 73.06% 9.81 0.1184 1950.354 2843.143 0.09%
1 71.82% 9.66 0.1202 1991.150 2839.113 0.07%
0.3 83.65% 11.36 0.1217 1550.622 2812.525 0.33%
0.4 81.17% 10.99 0.1240 1635.859 2820.642 0.15%
0.5 79.01% 10.69 0.1257 1704.173 2820.473 0.09%
0.6 77.11% 10.45 0.1275 1762.851 2817.559 0.06%
850
0.7 75.43% 10.24 0.1294 1814.213 2813.132 0.04%
0.8 73.92% 10.05 0.1315 1859.563 2807.666 0.03%
0.9 72.56% 9.89 0.1338 1899.813 2801.409 0.03%
1 71.31% 9.74 0.1362 1935.659 2794.511 0.02%
75
Continued
Gasification H2
Gasification LHV Char Split Cold gas flow rate CH4 volume
Temperature S/B
Efficiency (MJ/Nm3 ) fraction (Nm3 /h) (Nm3 /h) fraction
()
0.3 82.77% 11.31 0.1338 1548.809 2794.750 0.10%
0.4 80.38% 10.99 0.1360 1618.409 2792.875 0.05%
0.5 78.30% 10.72 0.1381 1677.408 2787.808 0.03%
0.6 76.46% 10.50 0.1405 1728.921 2781.364 0.02%
900
0.7 74.81% 10.30 0.1431 1774.328 2773.998 0.01%
0.8 73.32% 10.12 0.1458 1814.564 2765.919 0.01%
0.9 71.96% 9.96 0.1487 1850.337 2757.255 0.01%
1 70.71% 9.82 0.1517 1882.214 2748.094 0.01%
0.3 81.85% 11.29 0.1447 1536.577 2767.288 0.04%
0.4 79.56% 11.00 0.1473 1596.992 2760.704 0.02%
0.5 77.54% 10.76 0.1502 1649.277 2752.549 0.01%
0.6 75.74% 10.54 0.1532 1695.167 2743.481 0.01%
950
0.7 74.11% 10.35 0.1565 1735.690 2733.718 0.00%
0.8 72.63% 10.18 0.1599 1771.606 2723.382 0.00%
0.9 71.27% 10.03 0.1635 1803.515 2712.558 0.00%
1 70.02% 9.90 0.1672 1831.905 2701.311 0.00%
0.3 80.91% 11.29 0.1553 1521.179 2736.836 0.01%
0.4 78.70% 11.02 0.1586 1574.827 2727.168 0.01%
0.5 76.73% 10.78 0.1622 1621.574 2716.488 0.00%
0.6 74.97% 10.58 0.1659 1662.650 2705.095 0.00%
1000
0.7 73.36% 10.40 0.1699 1698.901 2693.120 0.00%
0.8 71.88% 10.24 0.1739 1730.983 2680.651 0.00%
0.9 70.52% 10.09 0.1782 1759.419 2667.756 0.00%
1 69.25% 9.96 0.1825 1784.640 2654.484 0.00%
0.3 79.97% 11.29 0.1658 1504.753 2705.327 0.01%
0.4 77.82% 11.03 0.1698 1552.782 2693.109 0.00%
0.5 75.89% 10.81 0.1741 1594.703 2680.116 0.00%
0.6 74.15% 10.62 0.1786 1631.506 2666.517 0.00%
1050
0.7 72.55% 10.44 0.1832 1663.922 2652.409 0.00%
0.8 71.07% 10.29 0.1880 1692.527 2637.863 0.00%
0.9 69.70% 10.15 0.1929 1717.786 2622.933 0.00%
1 68.41% 10.02 0.1979 1740.082 2607.664 0.00%
0.3 79.01% 11.28 0.1763 1487.960 2673.343 0.00%
0.4 76.91% 11.04 0.1811 1531.081 2658.781 0.00%
0.5 75.02% 10.83 0.1861 1568.693 2643.571 0.00%
0.6 73.29% 10.65 0.1913 1601.639 2627.827 0.00%
1100
0.7 71.69% 10.48 0.1966 1630.564 2611.627 0.00%
0.8 70.21% 10.33 0.2020 1655.979 2595.032 0.00%
0.9 68.82% 10.19 0.2075 1678.301 2578.088 0.00%
1 67.52% 10.07 0.2132 1697.873 2560.834 0.00%
76