Biomass and Bioenergy 95 (2016) 157e166

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Biomass and Bioenergy

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/biombioe

Research paper

Simulation of air-steam gasication of woody biomass in a bubbling

uidized bed using Aspen Plus: A comprehensive model including
pyrolysis, hydrodynamics and tar production
Jennifer H. Pauls, Nader Mahinpey*, Ehsan Mostafavi
Energy and the Environment, Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 1 November 2015
Received in revised form
26 September 2016
Accepted 7 October 2016
Available online 21 October 2016

A comprehensive model was developed to simulate gasication of pine sawdust in the presence of both
air and steam. The proposed model improved upon the premise of an existing ASPEN PLUS-based
biomass gasication model. These enhancements include the addition of a temperature-dependent
pyrolysis model, an updated hydrodynamic model, more extensive gasication kinetics and the inclusion of tar formation and reaction kinetics. ASPEN PLUS was similarly used to simulate this process;
however, a more extensive FORTRAN subroutine was applied to appropriately model the complexities of
a Bubbling Fluidized Bed (BFB) gasier. To conrm validity, the accuracy of the model's predictions was
compared with actual experimental results. In addition, the relative accuracy of the comprehensive
model was compared to the original base-model to see if any improvement had been made.
Results show that the model predicts H2, CO, CO2, and CH4 composition with reasonable accuracy in
varying temperature, steam-to-biomass, and equivalence ratio conditions. Mean error between predicted
and experimental results is calculated to range from 6.1% to 37.6%. Highest relative accuracy was obtained
in CO composition prediction while the results with the least accuracy were for CH4 and CO2 estimation
at changing steam-to-biomass ratios and equivalence ratios. When compared to the original model, the
comprehensive model predictions of H2 and CO molar fractions are more accurate than those of CO2 and
CH4. For CO2 and CH4, the original model predicted with comparable or better accuracy when varying
steam-to-biomass ratio and equivalence ratios but the comprehensive model performed better at varying
temperatures.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Biomass gasication
Fluidized bed
Gasication kinetics
Simulation
FORTRAN
ASPEN PLUS

1. Introduction
Biomass or bioenergy has been identied as an important way of
reducing annual anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions,
contributing to over 12% of the world's fuel consumption in 2012
[1]. Although it is consumable, biomass can re-grow over a relatively short period of time and when harvested sustainably,
biomass can be a renewable source of energy. Through photosynthesis, the sun's energy is captured, converting carbon dioxide from
the air into complex organic compounds. In addition to these carbohydrates, biomass also contains a non-negligible amount of
moisture, and a small amount of inorganic residue known collectively as ash. Due to the low bulk density, long-distance

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: nader.mahinpey@ucalgary.ca (N. Mahinpey).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.10.002
0961-9534/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

transportation of raw biomass is not economical [2]; this ensures

that it is sourced locally. Waste biomass also has the added benet
of reducing refuse sent to landlls, as it consumes what would
normally be considered garbage and converts it into usable energy.
Gasication is the thermochemical conversion of carbonaceous
feedstock into a synthetic gas. This is achieved by reacting the
material at high temperature in an environment with oxygen and/
or steam. Due to the low-oxidation conditions, gasication can be
seen as a more environmentally friendly way of using biomass, as
the pollutant emissions are lower. In gasication, NOx and SOx
emissions are lower due to lower temperature and oxygendecient environment [3]. Tar, volatiles and particulate can be
converted to hydrogen and light hydrocarbons or removed before
combusting the syngas. Syngas with a considerable heating value is
usually produced during gasication of biomass by reducing
oxygenated compounds and the removal of non-combustible
components such as water. Dehydration and decarboxylation

158

J.H. Pauls et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 95 (2016) 157e166

which occurs during gasication of biomass increases the energy

density [3]. The input feed variability of uidized bed gasiers is an
attractive consideration for biomass, as certain biofuels are seasonal and their relative abundance or accessibility may differ
depending on the time of year. Currently, many large-scale development technologies for biomass gasication are focused on uidized bed gasiers [1] such as Vaskiluodon Voima and MILENA
Gasication.
At present, there exist a variety of models proposed to simulate
ll et al. experimented
the biomass gasication process [4e15]. Pro
biomass steam gasication in an 8MWth uidized bed system [16].
Subsequently, they developed a model for combustion of biomass
in uidized bed gasiers [17,18]. IPSEpro software was used to
perform the simulation in an equating-oriented steady state software. They considered char composition as well as hydrodynamics.
In another study they modeled H2 rich gas production from steam
gasication of biomass with CaO using a thermodynamic approach.
They estimated the thermodynamic limitation of this process [19].
Sadaka et al. proposed a two-phase model based on the twophase uidization theory [20]. They divided the uidized bed into
three zones of jetting, bubbling, and slugging and material and
energy balances were solved with free energy minimization by
nite element method. Their model was in good agreement with
experimental data. Mirmoshtaghi et al. [21] assessed different
biomass gasication modeling approaches such as restricted
equilibrium model, carbon empirical correlations model, and kinetics and hydrodynamic model. It was concluded that combining
restricted equilibrium with kinetics and hydrodynamic had led to
lower overall errors (particularly for CO and CO2 molar fractions) as
compared to the original kinetics and hydrodynamic approach.
In a review study, thermodynamic modeling were presented to
predict the reaction equilibrium limits [22]. Although these models
have the benet of being independent of gasier geometry, they
could not produce highly accurate results for all cases. On the other
hand, the kinetic-based models are computationally intensive, but
provide accurate results. However, they require many design parameters that restricts their applicability to different plants. Aspen
Plus model are quite simple but promising models by incorporating
the main gasication reactions and characterizations of biomass.
Each researcher applies differing approaches to modeling
biomass devolatilization, gasication and tar production, but not
many so far have attempted to build upon the methodology put
forth by Nikoo and Mahinpey [5] in its entirety for a BFB gasier.
This work outlines a number of renements to the original Nikoo
and Mahinpey model allowing for improved predictive-output
including: more comprehensive hydrodynamics, empirical
models for biomass devolatilization, tar formation and reactions,
and heterogeneous gasication reaction kinetics. The process
modeling analysis appears to be valuable to determine the operability, nd optimal process conditions, perform scale-up, and to
assess the economic viability of biomass gasication systems.
2. Model description
2.1. Overview of original model
This section contains an overview of original model, assumptions, pyrolysis, gasication reactions and a description of the
model in Aspen Plus. Nikoo and Mahinpey [5] originally presented
a model that was developed for biomass gasication in an atmospheric BFB gasier using the ASPEN PLUS process simulator. The
authors identied a number of areas for improvement, which were
reviewed when determining the parameters and limitations of this
model. Table 1 shows a comparison between the original model
and the comprehensive one identied in this paper.

2.2. Assumptions
The original model used the following assumptions:
- Process is isothermal and steady state.
- Biomass devolatilization occurs instantaneously and volatile
products mainly consist of H2, CO, CO2, CH4, and H2O.
- All the gases are uniformly distributed within the emulsion
phase.
- Particles are spherical and uniform in size and the average
diameter remains constant during the gasication according to
the shrinking core model.
- Char was only comprised of carbon and ash.
- Char gasication starts in the bed and continues in the
freeboard.
The following assumptions were introduced within the
comprehensive model:
- The products of biomass decomposition fall under one of ve
main product streams: char, tars, ash, volatiles, and water.
- Pyrolysis product composition is entirely temperature
dependent.
- Char consists of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
- Tar reactions are based on representative hydrocarbon species.
- Gas-solid reactions occur exclusively in the emulsion phase
within the bed.
All other assumptions (i.e. for hydrodynamics) identied by
Nikoo and Mahinpey were applied in this work.
2.3. Pyrolysis
This section explains the volatile stream composition as well as
the product stream yields. The pyrolysis compositions were estimated based on empirical equations.
2.3.1. Volatile stream composition
The nal volatile composition was based on a series of
temperature-dependent empirical equations developed by Neves
et al. [23]. These empirical relationships (Table 2) were derived
from analysis of collected data for conversion behaviour of a
biomass fuel particle, within a wide temperature range, and
considering a large variety of biomass fuels.
2.3.2. Product stream yields
The empirical equations derived by Neves et al. to predict carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen in produced char and tar from pyrolysis,
can be found in Table 3. These can be used to derive the mass
fractions of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen for the char and tar
product streams. The yields of each of the char, tar, gas, and water
streams can be determined using atomic balance, in conjunction
with known compositions of water and gas streams. The products
of pyrolysis then become the feedstock for the gasication process.
2.4. Hydrodynamics
2.4.1. Fluidized bed
Basic hydrodynamics for the bed and freeboard were based on
Nikoo and Mahinpey [5] and that paper can be referred to for
further details. To calculate the height of the bed at minimum
uidization conditions, a modied equation for pressure drop per
unit length of the reactor was applied. The following equation has
been adapted from Kunii and Levenspiel [24].

J.H. Pauls et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 95 (2016) 157e166

159

Table 1
Detailed comparison between the original Nikoo & Mahinpey model and the comprehensive model identied in this paper.
Original Model (Nikoo & Mahinpey [5])

Comprehensive Model

Feedstock
Gasifying Agent(s)
Simulator
Gasier Type
Pyrolysis Modeled?

Biomass
Air Steam
ASPEN PLUS, FORTRAN subroutine
BFB
No - Fixed component yields

Hydrodynamics Considered?

Yes - bed (void space)/freeboard (particle

entrainment)
C aO2 /21  aCO 2a  1CO2
C bH2 O/b  1CO2 2  bCO bH2

Biomass
Air Steam
ASPEN PLUS, FORTRAN subroutine
BFB
Yes - component yield modeled based on temperature dependent empirical
eq'n
Yes - bed (two phase theory, calculated height of the bed)/freeboard (particle
entrainment).
C l 2=2l 1O2 /l=l 1
CO 1=l 1CO2
C H2 O/CO H2
C CO2 /2CO
CO H2 O4CO2 H2
CH4 H2 O/CO 3H2
CO 1=2O2 /CO2
Yes - assumed tar composition and kinetic model

Gasication Heterogeneous Reactions

Considered

Gasication Homogeneous Reactions

Considered

No

Tar Modeled?

No

Table 2
Empirical relationships for determining volatile post-pyrolysis composition in gas phase.
Stream

Variable

Equation

Reference

Gas

yCO2 ;gas

1:84*106 *q 0:0013*q 0:5284

Adapted from Ref. [23]

Gas

yCO;gas

2:55*106 *q2  0:0025*q 0:8247

Adapted from Ref. [23]

Gas

yCH4 ;gas

3:75*107 *q2  0:0004*q 0:1414

Adapted from Ref. [23]

Gas

yH2 ;gas

8:72*108 *q2  0:00007*q 0:0135

Adapted from Ref. [23]

Gas

yC2 H4 ;gas

1:17*106 *q2 0:0016*q  0:4512

Adapted from Ref. [23]

Table 3
Empirical relationships for determining carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen in produced char and tar from pyrolysis.
Stream

Variable

Equation

Char

yc;char

0:93  0:92*e0:42*10

2

*q

Char

yo;char

0:07 0:85*e0:48*10

2

*q

Char

yh;char

0:41*102 0:1*e0:24*10

Tar

yc;tar

1:05 1:9*104 *q*yc;feed

[23]

Tar

yo;tar

0:92  2:2*104 *q*yo;feed

[23]

Tar

yh;tar

0:93 3:8*104 *q*yh;feed

[23]

hmf

mbed particles



At 1  mf rs  rg

hf hmf 1

u0:937
r0:126
g
mf

(1)

[23]

(2)

*q

[23]

0:3h=
dbm  db
dt
e
dbm  db0

dbm 0:652

(4)

i0:4
hp

d2t u0  umf
4


db0 0:347

p
4

d2t

u0  umf
Nd

(5)

0:4
(6)

These equations are valid within the following range of

conditions:

2.4.2. Two phase theory

The void space within the bed can be further characterized as
having two distinct phases: the bubble and the emulsion. Applying
the basis of simple two-phase theory, the following equation was
applied to determine bubble rise velocity in BFBs [26,27]:







ub ubr u0  umf 0:71gdb 1=2 u0  umf

[23]
2

The expanded bed height at uidization conditions above

minimum uidization is predicted by the following correlation
[25]:

0:738


10:978 u0  umf
d1:006
r0:376
p
s

Reference

(3)

Mori and Wen [28] identied the following equations to determine bubble size db as a function of height within the bed. For
perforated plates, this is given as:

dt  1:3m

0:5  Umf  20cm=s

60  dp  450mm

u0  umf

 48cm=s
Kunii and Levenspiel [24] postulated that the total void fraction,
consisting of the fractions occupied by both the bubbles and the
emulsion, could be estimated using the following equations:

f d 1  de

(7)

Where the void fractions for the bubbles and the emulsion
respectively are given by:

160

J.H. Pauls et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 95 (2016) 157e166

u0  umf
ub  umf

mixer (B2). The sudden increase in temperature that occurs as the

biomass, air and steam enter the reactor is represented by a heater
block (B3). Lastly, the uidized bed reactor was modeled using a
user-dened block (B1). This is different from the approach that
Nikoo and Mahinpey [5] applied, which was to use two RCSTR
blocks to model the bed and freeboard respectively. FORTRAN code
nested within the ASPEN simulator was applied in both cases;
however, Nikoo and Mahinpey applied the subroutine to compensate for the deciencies in the pre-dened RCSTR blocks, while this
model relied entirely on the external FORTRAN subroutine to
simulate the uidized bed.
In order to validate the results from the simulation, and compare
the performance of the comprehensive model to the original,
experimental data from a published biomass gasication study was
used. Lv et al. [34] used a lab-scale reactor to gasify pine sawdust
and examined the effects of process conditions such as temperature, equivalence ratio, and steam-to-biomass ratio on product gas
composition. The details of the experiment can be found in Tables 6
and 7.
For simplicity, only four major product gases were considered
(H2, CO, CO2, and CH4).
The biomass was not dried before gasication in the experimental work performed by Lv et al. [34]. For that reason, the
moisture in biomass was also considered in the pyrolysis gases and
gasication reactions.

(8)

e ymf

(9)

These equations are valid for fast bubbles, where ub > 5umf/mf.
2.5. Gasication/tar reactions
This part describes the main reactions used in the model.
2.5.1. Gasication reactions
All kinetic parameters were applied from the literature and can
be found in Table 4. For each reaction, multiplication by the void
volume is required to characterize the gas space within the bulk. As
shown in Table 4, the water-gas shift reaction is only assumed to be
reversible.
2.5.2. Tar reactions
As there are a multitude of actual tar compounds formed
following biomass decomposition, it was assumed that a tar compound of composition CaHbOc was formed post-pyrolysis. This is
then converted into a representative group of common tar compounds as identied in the unbalanced Equation (10) below.

C a H b Oc

Pyrolysis

C3 H6 O2 C7 H8 H2

Equivalence Ratio ER

(10)

Calculations were built into the model to balance the equation

dependent on the values of a, b, and c. Reactions 6e9 from Table 4
were then applied to react the representative tar compounds with
the surrounding gaseous components in the reactor.

Mass Oxygen fed to gasifier

TheoreticalMassOxygenrequiredforcompletecombustion
(11)

Steamtobiomassratio

Massofsteamfedtogasifier
Massofbiomassfedtogasifier

(12)

2.6. Aspen Plus

The model was built within the chemical process simulator
ASPEN PLUS as seen in Fig. 1.
Three pre-dened ASPEN blocks represent the gasier as
described in Table 5. The inlet, where the solid biomass and the two
gasifying streams (steam, air) enter the gasier, is modeled as a

3. Results and discussion

The results of the simulation were validated against each set of
experimental data from the literature [34]. To quantify the accuracy

Table 4
Gasication kinetic parameters.
#

Chemical Reaction

Reaction Rate


l2
l
1
C 2
l1O2 /l1 CO l1 CO2 l 70*e

2
3
4

3;070=
T

r * 1:48*10*e

C H2 O/CO H2
C CO2 /2CO
CO H2 O4CO2 H2

13;078=
T


26;460=
T


29;470=
T

r 1:12*108 *e


1;500=
T

CH4 H2 O/CO 3H2

r 3:1005*e
6

r 2:07*107 *e


r 2:7*e
5

Reference


C3 H6 O2 /0:5C6 H6 O 1:5H2 O

r
r

1:0*107 *e

7:0*1014 *e

3:3*1010 *e

C6 H6 O/0:5C10 H8 CO H2

[32,33]

[4]

*CCH4 CH2 O

100;000= 
RT

C7 H8 H2 /C6 H6 CH4

[4,31]
0:31
*PCO
2

136;000= 
RT

C10 H8 /10C 4H2

[6]
0:73
*PH
2O




.
3968
=T
* CCO CH2 O  CCO2 CH2
0:0265e


15;000=
T

1:0*104 *e

Adopted from Refs. [4,29,30]

*PO2 1  X1:2 Cc

[6]
*CC3 H6 O2
[6]
*CC6 H6 O

360;000= 
RT

[6]

247;000= 
RT

[6]

*CC210 H8
*CH0:7
2
*CC7 H8
*CH0:5
2

J.H. Pauls et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 95 (2016) 157e166

161

Fig. 1. Flow diagram of simulated gasication process from ASPEN PLUS.

Table 5
Description of blocks used in ASPEN PLUS simulation.
Block

Block
Type

Description

B1

User Dened
Block
Mixer
Heater

Fluidized Bed Reactor

B2
B3

Inlet of gasier for steam, air, and biomass

Increase temperature from inlet to gasier conditions

of the model, the sum squared deviation method was used.

RSS


N 
X
yie  yip 2
i1

MRSS

yie

RSS
N

MeanError

(13)

(14)
p
MRSS

(15)

Similar to the work by Nikoo and Mahinpey [5], relative errors

were taken as comparing measures in validation. The validity of the
model was compared on two fronts: the accuracy of the improved
model as a stand-alone in comparison to the experimental data,
and the relative accuracy of the model prediction in comparison to
the original model developed by Nikoo and Mahinpey [5].
3.1. Validation with experimental data
The capabilities of the model were validated against experimental data reported by Lv et al. [34] for each of the following
major gas species: H2, CO, CO2, and CH4. There was no reported
measurements of char and tar values in the experimental paper by
Lv et al. [34]. As observed in Table 8, the model predicts

Table 6
Characteristics of gasier inlet streams (biomass, air, steam) [34].
Pine Sawdust
Moisture Content (%)
8
Proximate Analysis (mass fraction %; dry basis)
Fixed Carbon
82.29
Volatile Matter
17.16
Ash
0.55
Ultimate Analysis (mass fraction %; dry ash free basis; daf)
C
50.54
H
7.08
O
41.11
N
0.15
S
0.57
Feed Rate (kg.h1)
0.445e0.512
3
Char Density (kg.m )
1300
Particle Size (mm)
0.3e0.45
Air
Temperature ( C)
65
Flow Rate (m3.h1) STP
0.5e0.7
Steam
Temperature ( C)
154
Flow Rate (kg.h1)
0e1.8

compositions that are reasonably close to what is seen experimentally. Predicted behavioural trends for each component were
also compared to those observed experimentally with good
agreement in the parameter ranges reviewed (temperature of
700e900  C, SBR of 0e3 and ER of 0.19e0.27). It should be noted
that all composition terms used in the tables and gures refer to the
molar fraction of the syngas produced from the gasication of
biomass. Also, all molar fractions are on a nitrogen-free dry basis.
3.1.1. Carbon monoxide/carbon dioxide in product gas
Comparing the output of the model with results obtained
experimentally (Fig. 2), it can be seen that the molar fraction of CO
is decreasing with temperature in both cases; although the model
shows slower decrease until 850  C. At higher temperatures, there
is a higher tendency toward oxidation of CO to CO2, which makes
the combustion reaction more dominant. Relatively speaking, the
increase in CO molar rate, from the increased reaction rate of the
combustion reaction with temperature, is not as large as other
product gases (i.e. H2). For CO2, the model shows a minimum at
800  C, corresponding with experimental data (Fig. 3).
At temperatures greater than 800  C, the oxidation of CO to CO2
becomes more prevalent and the molar percentage of CO2 in the
product gas begins to increase. Due to the complex mass transfer
limitations of the heterogeneous oxidation of CO to CO2 [30], this
equation was omitted from the model; however, varying the O2
coefcient in the combustion reaction with temperature provided a
reasonable approximation of its impact on the product gas
composition and the results correlated well with experimental
data. This may be due to the fact that the ratio of equilibrium
concentrations of CO2 and CO is a function of temperature [35].
In Figs. 4 and 5, change in CO molar percentage is examined with

Table 7
Reactor characteristics [34].
Bed Material
Mass of Silica Sand (g)
Particle Size Range (mm)
Average Particle Size (mm)
Reactor Conditions
Temperature ( C)
Pressure (Pa)
Reactor Size
Bed Diameter (mm)
Freeboard Diameter (mm)
Total Height (mm)
Perforated Plate
No. Perforations

30
0.2e0.3
0.275
700e900
1.05 * 105
40
60
1400
25

Table 8
Mean Error calculation between comprehensive model and experimental results.
Mean Error

Composition vs. Temperature ( C)

Composition vs. Steam-to-biomass ratio
Composition vs. Equivalence ratio (ER)

H2

CO

CO2

CH4

11.4%
17.1%
12.9%

8.6%
6.1%
6.3%

9.6%
37.6%
27.1%

17.9%
29.4%
22.8%

162

J.H. Pauls et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 95 (2016) 157e166

Fig. 2. Effect of temperature on CO composition. Biomass feed rate: 0.445 kg/h; Air:
0.5 m3/h; Steam: 1.2 kg/h.

Fig. 4. Effect of steam-to-biomass ratio on CO composition. Biomass feed rate:

0.445 kg/h; Air: 0.5 m3/h; Temperature: 800  C.

changing steam-to-biomass ratio and Equivalence Ratio (ER),

respectively. In both cases, model predictions matched well with
experimental values. CO behaviour shows a minimum at a steamto-biomass ratio of 0.61. This is a result of relatively high amounts
of CO2 present in the product gas as seen in Fig. 6. With increasing
the steam ow rate, the WGS reaction becomes more prevailing;
however, after a certain SBR the residence time becomes a prevailing factor. This caused a maximum value in CO2 and a minimum
value in CO molar fractions with respect to SBR. Although the
predictions at varying steam-to-biomass ratios and equivalence
ratios over-predict CO2, as outlined in Figs. 6 and 7 respectively, the
prole does follow closely to what is seen experimentally.
The discrepancy is attributed to the lack of other non-carbon
combustion reactions. These reactions were not taken into account due to complexity of tar oxidation. Removing available O2
through reactions with CH4 and tars would result in a lower CO2
rate, since it follows that CO2 produced from other reactions would
not be as high as that produced from the carbon combustion reaction. The steam gasication reaction rate would also improve, as
there is more available unreacted carbon.

throughout the temperature range tested. This is seen as a result

of the slight over-prediction of CO and CO2 observed in Figs. 2 and 3,
respectively.
Equivalence ratio and steam-to-biomass ratio did not have a
large impact on the percentage of H2 in the product gas. This is
apparent when looking at the H2 compositional trends in both
Figs. 9 and 10, for any steam-to biomass or equivalence ratio tested.
All model results generally fall within a narrow 26e30% range H2
(30e34% seen experimentally) regardless of the changing volumetric ow rates (i.e. residence times) of the gasifying mediums
(air, steam). The only exception is the H2 prediction data point at
zero steam-to-biomass ratio. This deviation is largely due to low H2
production rates at zero steam condition.
The steam source in the system is mainly evaporated water from
biomass decomposition. As the main source of H2 production, there
is little room to improve the rate through the steam gasication
reaction with so little H2O present (from the moisture in biomass);
therefore, the cause of the under-prediction is more likely a result
of an overabundance of CO2 and CO at low steam conditions
skewing the H2 percentage lower, rather than an under abundance
of H2 production.
The over-prediction of CO2 (Fig. 6) and by extension CO (as any
decrease in CO2 production would increase CO percentages relative
to the other components) indicates that the combustion reaction is
too strong in low steam conditions. The lower steam gasication
reaction allows for more carbon to be available for combustion; to
moderate this effect, another source of O2 consumption (such as tar
combustion) would have to be present in the model.

3.1.2. Hydrogen in product gas

The prediction of H2 in the product gas as a function of temperature (Fig. 8), steam-to-biomass ratio (Fig. 9), and equivalence
ratio (Fig. 10) were on par with experimental data. As expected, of
the three parameters studied, temperature has the greatest overall
inuence on hydrogen production (increasing from approximately
24% at 700  C to 35% at 900  C). Elevated temperature provides the
necessary energy for the endothermic heterogeneous Reaction 2,
which is the largest contributor to H2 yield. H2 as a function of
temperature is almost always marginally under-predicted

Fig. 3. Effect of temperature on CO2 composition. Biomass feed rate: 0.445 kg/h; Air:
0.5 m3/h; Steam: 1.2 kg/h.

3.1.3. Methane in product gas

Due to its low concentrations relative to the other product gas

Fig. 5. Effect of equivalence ratio on CO composition. Biomass feed rate: 0.512 kg/h;
Steam: 0.8 m3/h; Temperature: 800  C.

J.H. Pauls et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 95 (2016) 157e166

163

Fig. 6. Effect of steam-to-biomass ratio on CO2 composition. Biomass feed rate:

0.445 kg/h; Air: 0.5 m3/h; Temperature: 800  C.

Fig. 9. Effect of steam-to-biomass ratio on H2 composition. Biomass feed rate:

0.445 kg/h; Air: 0.5 m3/h; Temperature: 800  C.

Fig. 7. Effect of equivalence ratio on CO2 composition. Biomass feed rate: 0.512 kg/h;
Steam: 0.8 m3/h; Temperature: 800  C.

Fig. 10. Effect of equivalence ratio on H2 composition. Biomass feed rate: 0.512 kg/h;
Steam: 0.8 m3/h; Temperature: 800  C.

components, errors in CH4 prediction can be difcult to pinpoint

and any deviation can result in seemingly high error. Biomass
composition is known to be inuential on the ratios of char/tar/
water/volatiles as well as in volatile composition. Based on the
results from the model, pyrolysis is the determining factor for CH4
yield. Any differences between the predicted and experimental
values (Fig. 11, Fig. 12, and Fig. 13) can be attributed to the generic
nature of the relationships applied to characterize biomass pyrolysis in this model. As identied earlier in this paper, the empirical
pyrolysis relationships are based on collected data over a wide
range of pyrolysis conditions and consider a large variety of fuels.
While this approach is reasonable to determine general trends and
behaviours, it lacks the capability to precisely predict the composition for specic biomass fuel types. When testing their model

with experimental pyrolysis of woody biomass, Neves et al. [23]

identied that their empirical pyrolysis model predicts yields
with a general accuracy of 25%. Therefore, increased predictive
accuracy can only be found by devoting further research to the
study and enhancement of pyrolysis characterization based on
specic fuel types.
Applying more robust pyrolysis equations within this simulation, especially those that were based on the same type of biomass
used to validate the model, is anticipated to provide better results.
In addition, the fact that the experimental CH4 prole as seen in
Fig. 13 is decreasing slightly with increasing equivalence ratio,
contrary to model predictions, implies that there is a reaction
missing for combustion of CH4 in our model, which only becomes
inuential at high O2 concentrations. Furthermore, the inclusion of

Fig. 8. Effect of temperature on H2 composition. Biomass feed rate: 0.445 kg/h; Air:
0.5 m3/h; Steam: 1.2 kg/h.

Fig. 11. Effect of temperature on CH4 composition. Biomass feed rate: 0.445 kg/h; Air:
0.5 m3/h; Steam: 1.2 kg/h.

164

J.H. Pauls et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 95 (2016) 157e166

applicability of that approach hinders its overall usefulness. An

effort was made to present a more accurate process model, which
benets future studies in order to perform detailed analysis, economic evaluation, and practical improvements in small scale setups and large scale plants.
3.3. Recommendations for future work

Fig. 12. Effect of steam-to-biomass ratio on CH4 composition. Biomass feed rate:
0.445 kg/h; Air: 0.5 m3/h; Temperature: 800  C.

As alluded to in section 3.1 and 3.2, there are many opportunities to improve and build upon the model presented here.
Namely: the inclusion of other hydrocarbon combustion reactions
(tar, CH4, etc.), further research and incorporation of the COoxidation reaction, and comprehensive modeling of mass and
heat transfer within the reactor. As mentioned earlier, there is some
uncertainty associated with empirical equations used for the estimation of the pyrolysis gas composition. Another source of error in
model prediction is that the char combustion reaction was not
considered as it is a mass transfer limited reaction. In addition, this
model should be tested against multiple experimental data sets to
truly understand the adaptively and robustness of this work.
4. Conclusion

Fig. 13. Effect of equivalence ratio on CH4 composition. Biomass feed rate: 0.512 kg/h;
Steam: 0.8 m3/h; Temperature: 800  C.

additional gasication reactions that inuence methane concentration (such as the char hydrogasication reaction) is also expected to improve results.
3.2. Comparison of comprehensive to original model
Comparing Tables 8 and 9 , it can be observed that for H2 and CO
compositions, the comprehensive model provides a more precise
prediction of actual results. For CO2 and CH4 composition, the
comprehensive model predicts with comparable or better accuracy
than the original in most conditions.
From the results, the implication that can be drawn is that inclusive and robust models are necessary to properly explain gasication, and to ensure high accuracy of prediction. It is also evident
that an improved understanding of each portion of the gasication
process is critical to modeling it correctly. For example, while the
introduction of empirical pyrolysis equations provided model
adaptively for variations in feedstock, it did not improve the predictive output of the model for CH4 yields in certain operating
conditions. Using a xed composition post-pyrolysis, the original
model showed better results than did the empirical temperaturedependent comprehensive model in predicting methane composition at various steam ow rates; although, the limited
Table 9
Mean Error calculation between original model [5] and experimental results.
Mean Error

Composition vs. Temperature ( C)

Composition vs. Steam-to-biomass ratio
Composition vs. Equivalence ratio (ER)

H2

CO

CO2

CH4

36.1%
20.5%
19.8%

10.4%
11.4%
9.4%

30.1%
23.8%
23.1%

21.5%
27.1%
20.0%

In conclusion, a model improvement for air/steam gasication of

biomass was achieved by accounting for biomass pyrolysis, tar
formation and reaction, gasication kinetics, and uidized-bed
mechanisms within one user-dened block inside the ASPEN
PLUS process simulator. Furthermore, more realistic assumptions
were made about the empirical correlations used for biomass pyrolysis and the atom balances incorporated in char composition. As
a result, these additions improved accuracy when compared to the
original model for predicting H2 and CO composition in the product
gas. CO2 and CH4 prediction was less effective but still within an
acceptable range of accuracy. The model was also directly
compared with experimental data to study the effects of varying
operating conditions  reactor temperature, ER, and SBR on the
predicted product gas composition. It was concluded that the
model can be depended on to produce results that were reasonably
close to those seen experimentally within the 700e900  C temperature range.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the nancial support
through the Strategic Partnership Grant (project number: SPG
246281) awarded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada (NSERC).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.10.002.
Nomenclature

SymbolDescription
a
Stoichiometric coefcient of char combustion reaction
b
Stoichiometric coefcient of char gasication reaction
l
Stoichiometric coefcient of char combustion reaction
q
Pyrolysis temperature (oC)
At
Area of reactor (m2)
Ci
Concentration of component i (mol.m3) [or kmol.m3 for
r* ]
db
Bubble diameter (cm)

J.H. Pauls et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 95 (2016) 157e166

db0
dbm
dp
dt
g
h
hf
hmf
m
N
Nd
Pi
r
r*
R
T
temp
u0
ub
ubr
umf
yip
yie

d
e
f
mf

rg
rs

Initial bubble diameter (cm)

Maximum bubble diameter (cm)
Particle diameter (m)
Reactor diameter (m)
Gravitational acceleration (m.s2)
Height of the bed (m)
Height of the bed at uidization conditions (m)
Height of the bed at minimum uidization (m)
Mass (kg)
Number of data points
Number of perforations on distributer plate
Partial Pressure of component i (Pa)
Reaction Rate (mol.m3.s1)
Reaction Rate (kmol.m3.s1)
Ideal gas constant (J.mol1.K1)
Temperature (K)
Temperature ( C)
Supercial velocity (m.s1)
Bubble rise velocity (m.s1)
Relative bubble velocity (m.s1)
Velocity at minimum uidization (m.s1)
Predicted mass fraction of ith component
Experimental mass fraction of ith component
Volume fraction of the bed consisting of bubbles (m3
bubbles per m3 in bed)
Voidage of emulsion
Voidage at uidization conditions
Voidage at minimum uidization
Density of gas/uid (kg.m3)
Density of solid (kg.m3)

Subscripts
C
Atomic Carbon
H
Atomic Hydrogen
i
Component
O
Atomic Oxygen
Abbreviation and acronyms

AbbreviationDescription
BFB
Bubbling Fluidized Bed
ER
Equivalence Ratio
SBR
Steam to Biomass ratio
RSS
Residual Sum of Squares
MRSS
Mean Residual Sum of Squares
References
[1] Key World Energy Statistics, International Energy Agency, 2015 n.d, http://
www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld_Statistics_
2015.pdf (accessed 01.08.16).
[2] NPCS Board of Consultants & Engineers, Biomass Based Products (Biochemicals,
Biofuels, Activated Carbon), Asia Pacic Business Press Inc., Delhi, 2015. https://
books.google.ca/books?idgR22BgAAQBAJ&pgPA19&lpgPA19&dqtransport
ingrawbiomassoveralongdistanceisnoteconomical&sourcebl&o
tsNxnAwbejV-&sig9aDrzSujcSSdi5VAx0HdH0xADcM&hlen&saX&ved0
ahUKEwi1u8CuqKvOAhVi44MKHQ4eD7UQ6AEIJjAC#vonepage&q.
[3] P. Basu, Biomass Gasication and Pyrolysis Handbook, Academic Press, Burlington, MA, 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374988-8.00001-5.
[4] Q. Miao, J. Zhu, S. Barghi, C. Wu, X. Yin, Z. Zhou, Modeling biomass gasication
in circulating uidized beds, Renew. Energy 50 (2013) 655e661, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2012.08.020.
[5] M.B. Nikoo, N. Mahinpey, Simulation of biomass gasication in uidized bed
reactor using ASPEN PLUS, Biomass Bioenergy 32 (12) (2008) 1245e1254,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.02.020.
[6] K. Umeki, K. Yamamoto, T. Namioka, K. Yoshikawa, High temperature steamonly gasication of woody biomass, Appl. Energy 87 (3) (2010) 791e798,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.09.035.
ransson, U. So
derlind, W. Zhang, K. Go
ransson, W. Zhang,
[7] J. He, K. Go

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]
[28]
[29]

[30]

[31]

165

Simulation of biomass gasication in a dual uidized bed gasier, Biomass

Conv. Bioref 2 (2012) 1e10, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13399-011-0030-2.
X. Ku, T. Li, T. Lvs, CFDeDEM simulation of biomass gasication with steam
in a uidized bed reactor, Chem. Eng. Sci. 122 (2015) 270e283, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2014.08.045.
C.C. Sreejith, C. Muraleedharan, P. Arun, Performance prediction of uidised
bed gasication of biomass using experimental data-based simulation models,
Biomass Conv. Bioref 3 (2013) 283e304, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13399013-0083-5.
L. Shen, Y. Gao, J. Xiao, Simulation of hydrogen production from biomass
gasication in interconnected uidized beds, Biomass Bioenergy 32 (2) (2008)
120e127, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.08.002.
S. Cheng, Q. Wang, H. Ji, Simulation of hydrogen production from biomass
catalytic gasication, in: 2010 Int. Conf. Digit. Manuf. Autom., IEEE, 2010, pp.
370e374, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICDMA.2010.335.
M. Ahmad, C. Chiew, A. Inayat, Simulation of integrated pressurized steam
gasication of biomass for hydrogen production using Icon, J. Appl. Sci. 11 (21)
(2011) 3593e3599. http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/
22054450/3593-3599.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId
AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires1470101947&SignatureDzq1DT/
QIhGzZtj5wKkNvrlpzf4&response-content-dispositioninline.
lenameHydrogen_Production_using_iCON.pdf (accessed 01.08.16).
R. Radmanesh, J. Chaouki, C. Guy, Biomass gasication in a bubbling uidized
bed reactor: experiments and modeling, AIChE J. 52 (12) (2006) 4258e4272,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aic.11020.
X. Kong, Z. Yuan, J. Chang, Modeling and simulation of biomass air-steam
gasication in a uidized bed, Front. Chem. Eng. China 2 (2) (2008)
209e213, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11705-008-0039-7.
C. Loha, H. Chattopadhyay, P.K. Chatterjee, Three dimensional kinetic
modeling of uidized bed biomass gasication, Chem. Eng. Sci. 109 (2014)
53e64, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2014.01.017.
ll, R. Rauch, C. Aichernig, H. Hofbauer, Fluidized bed steam gasication of
T. Pro
solid biomass -performance characteristics of an 8 MWth combined heat and
power plan uidized bed steam gasication of solid biomass - performance
characteristics of an 8 MWth combined heat and power plant *, Int. J. Chem.
React. Eng. 5 (2007), http://dx.doi.org/10.2202/1542-6580.1398. Article A54.
ll, H. Hofbauer, Development and application of a simulation tool for
T. Pro
biomass gasication based processe development and application of a simulation tool for biomass gasication based processes *, Int. J. Chem. React. Eng.
6 (2008), http://dx.doi.org/10.2202/1542-6580.1769. Article A89.
ll, H. Hofbauer, Model for biomass char combustion in the
P. Kaushal, T. Pro
riser of a dual uidized bed gasication unit: Part 1 d Model development
and sensitivity analysis, Fuel Process, Technol 89 (7) (2008) 651e659, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2007.12.010.
ll, H. Hofbauer, H2 rich syngas by selective CO2 removal from biomass
T. Pro
gasication in a dual uidized bed system d Process modelling approach,
Fuel Process, Technol 89 (11) (2008) 1207e1217, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.fuproc.2008.05.020.
S.S. Sadaka, A.E. Ghaly, M.A. Sabbah, Two phase biomass air-steam gasication
model for uidized bed reactors: Part Idmodel development, Biomass Bioenergy 22 (6) (2002) 439e462, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(02)
00023-5.
G. Mirmoshtaghi, H. Li, E. Thorin, E. Dahlquist, Evaluation of different biomass
gasication modeling approaches for uidized bed gasiers, Biomass Bioenergy 91 (2016) 69e82, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.05.002.
M. Puig-Arnavat, J.C. Bruno, A. Coronas, Review and analysis of biomass
gasication models, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (9) (2010) 2841e2851,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.07.030.
mez-Barea, Characterization
D. Neves, H. Thunman, A. Matos, L. Tarelho, A. Go
and prediction of biomass pyrolysis products, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 37
(5) (2011) 611e630, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2011.01.001.
D. Kunii, O. Levenspiel, Fluidization Engineering, Second, Butterworth-Heinemann, Stoneham, 2013, https://books.google.ca/books?hlen&lr&idsGkvB
QAAQBAJ&oifnd&pgPP1&dqFluidizationEngineering.2nded.&otsjNP
9OowBhD&sigvUwmvYt2wSrzgRa-eDXyyFVqlsw#vonepage&qFluidization
Engineering.2nd ed.&ffalse.
A.S. Fung, F. Hamdullahpur, A gas and particle ow model in the freeboard of a
uidized bed based on bubble coalescence, Powder Technol. 74 (2) (1993)
121e133, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0032-5910(93)87004-8.
H. Yan, C. Heidenreich, D. Zhang, Math. Model. a bubbling uidised-bed coal
gasier signicance net ow, Fuel 77 (9e10) (1998) 1067e1079, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0016-2361(98)00003-9.
J.F. Davidson, D. Harrison, Fluidised Particles, Cambridge University Press,
New York, 1964, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aic.690100503.
S. Mori, C.Y. Wen, Estimation of bubble diameter in gaseous uidized beds,
AIChE J. 21 (1) (1975) 109e115, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aic.690210114.
C. Di Blasi, F. Buonanno, C. Branca, Reactivities of some biomass chars in air,
Carbon N. Y. 37 (8) (1999) 1227e1238, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S00086223(98)00319-4.
M.J. Biggs, P.K. Agarwal, The CO/CO2 product ratio for a porous char particle
within an incipiently uidized bed: a numerical study, Chem. Eng. Sci. 52 (6)
(1997) 941e952, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2509(96)00489-7.
S. Dutta, C.Y. Wen, R.J. Belt, Reactivity of coal and char. 1. In carbon dioxide
atmosphere, Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 16 (1) (1977) 20e30, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1021/i260061a004.

166

J.H. Pauls et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 95 (2016) 157e166

[32] J.C. Wurzenberger, S. Wallner, H. Raupenstrauch, J.G. Khinast, Thermal conversion of biomass: comprehensive reactor and particle modeling, AIChE J. 48
(10) (2002) 2398e2411, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aic.690481029.
 mez-Barea, B. Leckner, Modeling of biomass gasication in uidized bed,
[33] A. Go
Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 36 (4) (2010) 444e509, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.pecs.2009.12.002.

[34] P. Lv, J. Chang, Z. Xiong, H. Huang, C. Wu, Y. Chen, J. Zhu, Biomass AirSteam
gasication in a uidized bed to produce hydrogen-rich gas, Energy & Fuels
17 (3) (2003) 677e682, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef020181l.
[35] R.R. Rajan, C.Y. Wen, A comprehensive model for uidized bed coal combustors, AIChE J. 26 (4) (1980) 642e655, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
aic.690260416.