Article

pubs.acs.org/IECR

Mathematical Modeling of a Single-Stage, Downward-Firing,

Entrained-Flow Gasier
Job S. Kasule,, Richard Turton,*,, Debangsu Bhattacharyya,, and Stephen E. Zitney

National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Morgantown, West Virginia 26507, United States
Department of Chemical Engineering, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia 26506, United States

ABSTRACT: Gasiers are the centerpieces of coal-red integrated gasication combined cycle (IGCC) plants. Mathematical
models of gasiers have been developed in recent literature to describe the physical and chemical processes taking place inside
the reactor vessels. These models range from simple one-dimensional (1D) steady-state equilibrium models to higher-order,
sophisticated, dynamic 2D and 3D computational uid dynamics (CFD) models that describe coupled gassolid hydrodynamics,
heat and mass transfer, and reaction kinetics over the complex gasier geometry. In the current work, a 1D steady-state model of
a single-stage, downward-ring, oxygen-blown, slurry-fed, entrained-ow gasier has been developed for use in the context of
IGCC process simulation. In this mathematical model, mass, momentum, and energy balance equations for solid and gas phases
are considered. The model includes a number of heterogeneous and homogeneous chemical reactions along with devolatilization
and drying of the slurry feed. The solidgas heterogeneous reaction rates are calculated using the unreacted shrinking-core
model. A detailed model of the radiative heat transfer has been developed considering interactions between the solids and all
internal gasier surfaces (side wall, top, and bottom surfaces), as well as interactions between the surfaces themselves. No a priori
wall temperature prole is assumed in this model. The heat loss from the gasier wall to the environment is also considered in
the energy balance equations. In slurry-fed gasiers, recirculation near the inlet of the gasier is promoted by rapid mixing of the
slurry feed with a portion of the hot reaction products. This violent mixing results in a signicant rise in temperature that helps in
evaporating the water and devolatilizing the coal. The recirculation is achieved by appropriately designing the feed burner and
feeding the oxygen through a swirling annular injector. In the current gasier model, a heuristic recirculation model has been
developed and the conservation equations have been appropriately modied. The equations describing the gasier are formulated
as a set of ordinary dierential equations (ODEs) in Aspen Custom Modeler (ACM). The ODEs are discretized using nite
dierences, and the resulting highly nonlinear system of algebraic equations is solved using a Newton-type method. The gasier
model is then validated using pilot plant and industrial data. This paper presents a number of parametric studies that have been
performed using the 1D steady-state gasier model to provide insight into the gasier performance as the inlet and operating
conditions change. Results are presented as proles for species concentration and gas, solid, and wall temperatures. The eect of
coal feed types on composition are also presented. In addition, a radiant syngas cooler (RSC) model has been developed in
Aspen Plus and coupled with the gasier model, thereby enabling the RSC exit stream composition to be compared to available
industrial data.

1. INTRODUCTION
The integrated gasication combined cycle (IGCC) process is a
promising option for power generation because of its higher
eciency and environmental advantages over conventional coal
utilization technologies.14 The gasier plays a key role in the
IGCC process by converting solid carbonaceous fuels, such as
coal, petcoke, or biomass, into synthesis gas or syngas (a
mixture of mainly CO and H2). The hot raw syngas is cooled in
a water quench or radiant syngas cooler (RSC) to recover heat
for producing steam in a steam turbine. The synthesis gas is
then cleaned and subsequently combusted in a gas turbine
(GT) to generate electricity. It is critical that optimal operation
of the gasier is understood for ecient operation of the IGCC
plant. The extremely intense conditions and low residence time
inside the gasier cause rapid heating and reaction rates, giving
rise to multiple time scales for the physical and chemical
processes. Numerical simulations can help in gaining insight
and developing a deeper understanding of the optimal
operation of the gasiers.
2012 American Chemical Society

Several mathematical models of entrained-ow gasiers have

been developed, ranging from simple one-dimensional
(1D)510 and equilibrium11 models to sophisticated dynamic
3D computational uid dynamics (CFD) models1216 that
describe coupled gassolid hydrodynamics, heat and mass
transfer, and reaction kinetics over the gasier geometry. The
higher-order models generally include additional details such as
turbulence but are too computationally expensive to be used
directly in operability and controllability studies. Thus lowerdimensional models are required for these applications.
Varying degrees of simplications have been made while
developing steady-state 1D gasier models. Some have
considered only mass and energy balances while neglecting
momentum balances.510,17 Most of these models have also
assumed an arbitrary wall temperature prole. 6,7 The
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
6429

September 16, 2011

April 2, 2012
April 11, 2012
April 11, 2012
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie202121h | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2012, 51, 64296440

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Article

Figure 1. Schematic of a control volume (CV) in the gasier.

assumption of plug ow within the gasier with no mixing and

recirculation has been made in almost all the models except
those by Ubhayakar et al.5 and Monaghan et al.18 Most of these
studies assume that the feed enters the gasier at temperatures
greater than 550 K so that all the slurry makeup water has
already evaporated and enters the gasier as steam. Therefore,
the devolatilization is assumed to be instantaneous. However, in
reality, the slurry feed has to travel a nite length inside the
gasier before attaining the high temperature needed to initiate
the volatilization. In this length, mixing and recirculation play a
key role. This length depends upon the feed inlet conditions
and can aect the overall residence time of the reactants inside
the gasier. Therefore, neglecting this phenomenon is not
appropriate in models intended for studying the eect of
disturbances in feed inlet conditions and for analyzing dynamics
and control.
The major objective of the current study is the development
of a detailed model of a downward, entrained-ow, slurry-fed,
oxygen-blown (GEE-Texaco type) gasier that will be
eventually used for dynamic studies. The model includes
detailed energy balance equations for the reacting phases and
the gasier wall. Energy loss to the environment is also
considered. No assumptions about the wall temperature prole
are made. A heuristic mixing and recirculation model, simpler
than that of Smith and Smoot17 and similar to that of
Monaghan et al.,18 is included in the gasier model to capture
the initial energy transfer that promotes a stable ame zone
within the initial section of the gasier. This gasier model is
developed with the aim of incorporating it into an existing
plant-wide simulation of an IGCC plant.4

While carrying out the energy balances, potential and

kinetic energies of the system are considered to be
negligible in comparison to the thermal energy due to
the high temperature in the gasier.
No particle attrition is considered in the model.
In the two-phase model, conservation equations for mass,
momentum, and energy for each phase are developed and
solved in conjunction with the required constitutive closure
equations.
These balance equations are written for a control volume
(CV) in the gasier as shown in Figure 1. A heuristic
recirculation model is incorporated in the gasier model during
the initial processes of evaporation and devolatilization. This
involves recirculation of a predetermined fraction () of the gas
from the higher temperature combustion zone to the colder
region (mixing zone) just after the gasier entrance. The
fraction () is the ratio of the recirculated gas to the inlet gas
stream ow rates. The eect of the recirculation is accounted
for on the mass and energy balances in the gas phase, while its
eect on the momentum balance is neglected. Details of the
model equations for the recirculation zone are given in the
Appendix.
2.1. Continuity Equations. The continuity equations for
the solid and gas phases respectively, are obtained as

2. GASIFIER MODEL DESCRIPTION

The following assumptions are made in the gasier model
development:
The radial dispersions of mass, momentum, and energy
are neglected.
The entrained-ow system is assumed to be very dilute in
the solid phase such that the interparticle interactions
may be neglected. The ash layer formed due to the
reaction of the coal particle is assumed to remain on the
particle surface, and consequently a shrinking-core model
is assumed.
The ideal gas law is assumed to hold for the gas phase.
The temperature inside the solid particle is assumed to
be uniform.
The ash is assumed to be inert, but its eect as a catalyst
has been considered in the relevant kinetic equations.

where s and g are the densities of the solid and gas phases,
respectively, is the void fraction in the gasier, and sg is the
net rate of consumption of the solid phase (coal) by the
heterogeneous reactions. The last two terms on the right-hand
side of eq 2 account for the mass recirculated from the hotter
combustion region to the colder inlet region as illustrated in the
Appendix. The term mrg represents the mass that enters a CV,
while the term mmg represents the mass that leaves a CV.
Species conservation equations are written as

d(s (1 )Us)
dx

d(g Ug)
dx

= (1 )s g

(1)

= (1 )s g mrg + mmg

(2)

d
( Ugy ) = R gi mrg ygi + mmg gi
dx g gi

(3)

d
((1 )s Ux
s sj) = R sj
dx

(4)

where eqs 3 and 4 are the species balances in the gas and solid
phases, respectively, and gi is dened in the Appendix.
6430

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie202121h | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2012, 51, 64296440

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Article

Syamlal and Bisset.25 This simple phenomenological model

predicts the yields of tar and some major gas components while
preserving a strict elemental balance. This model is based on
data such as proximate and ultimate assays, tar composition,
etc., obtained from certain lab-scale experiments that characterize the coal. A number of assumptions are made in the model to
determine the stoichiometric coecients of the devolatilization
and cracking reactions. For example, all the sulfur in the coal is
converted to H2S while all the nitrogen is converted to NH3.
The kinetic parameters of the above reactions/processes are
given by Syamlal and Bisset.25
2.2.4. Heterogeneous CharGas Reactions. After coal
devolatilization, the residual char, represented as carbon (C),
can undergo any of the following heterogeneous reactions: char
combustion, charsteam gasication, charcarbon dioxide, and
charhydrogen. These reactions are shown in Table 1.

The gas phase can be modeled as a compressible gas obeying

an ideal gas law such that its density is calculated from the
following equation:
RTg
1
=
g
Pg

(yi /MW)i
i=1

(5)

where yi and MWi are the mass fraction and molar weight of the
ith gaseous species, respectively, and N is the total number of
gaseous species.
2.2. Chemical Reactions. The coal slurry mainly undergoes two broad reaction stages: the initial stage reactions
(processes) that occur when the fresh coal feed is rst heated
and the subsequent combustion and gasication reactions.
In some studies,6,7,19 the reactor is divided into several
reaction zones, such as drying, devolatilization, combustion, and
gasication zones, in which various sets of reactions are
considered. No such restriction is made in the current model,
thus eliminating the need to determine the interface between
these zones that would otherwise result in a multipoint
boundary value problem.20 Various reactions are considered to
take place simultaneously within the gasier with their rates
determined solely by the conditions at each point in the
reactor.
2.2.1. Initial Stage Processes. The initial stage reactions/
processes occurring when coal is heated are complex in nature
and lead to a wide variety of products whose composition
depends not only on the type of coal but also on the processing
conditions. The three initial stage reactions are postulated as
drying/water evaporation, devolatilization, and heterogeneous
chargas reactions.
moisture steam

Table 1. Solid Phase Reactions

reaction

VM d tar + dCOCO + dCO2CO2 + dCH4 CH4

+ dH2 H 2 + dH2OH 2O + dH2SH 2S + dNH3 NH3
(7)

C+

steam
gasication
CO2
gasication
H2
gasication

C + H 2O CO + H 2

C + CO2 2CO

C + 2H 2 CH4

diff

where VM is obtained from the proximate analysis of the coal.

The tar produced during the devolatilization reaction undergoes further cracking reactions:

Wen and
Chaung6
Wen and
Chaung6
Wen and
Chaung6
Wen and
Chaung6

ash

ksY

(9)

where Y = rc/Ro; rc is the radius of the unreacted core; Ro is the

original radius of the particle; and kdi, kash, and ks are the gas
lm diusion coecient, ash diusion coecient, and the
surface reaction constants, respectively.6 The ash diusion
constant is obtained using the correlation given by Syamlal and
Bisset.25

tar c FC + cCOCO + cCO2CO2 + cCH4 CH4 + cH2 H 2

+ cH2OH 2O + cH2SH 2S + cNH3 NH3
+ higher hydrocarbons

1
2
O2 2 CO + 1CO2

char
combustion

reference

In the char combustion reaction, is a mechanism factor

that gives the ratio of CO2 to CO in the reaction products. This
factor varies signicantly with the temperature of the reaction.26
For the high temperature environment prevailing in slagging
gasiers, carbon monoxide is favored at higher temperatures
while carbon dioxide is favored at lower temperatures.27
It has been generally accepted that, in the high temperature
environment within the entrained gasier (T > 1000 C), the
heterogeneous, chargas reactions can be considered as surface
reactions. Due to the dilute nature of the entrained gasier,
particleparticle collisions are less frequent and the ash layer
formed may be assumed to remain on the reacting particle.
Thus, it is reasonable to apply the shrinking-core model28
(SCM) to estimate the chargas reaction rates. In this
formulation, it is also assumed that the temperature is uniform
throughout the particle. According to the SCM model, the
overall reaction rate can then be written as
1
rate = 1
(Pi Pi*)
1
1
1
+
1

+
2
k
k
Y

(6)

2.2.2. Drying/Water Evaporation. The moisture entering

the gasier is assumed to be the combination of the makeup
water in the coal slurry feed and the original moisture in the
coal, as specied in the proximate analysis of the coal. The
water evaporation model adopted in this study assumes that the
two types of water exist as a single water phase and a single
evaporation rate is used. The evaporation rate is based on the
work of Rao et al.21
2.2.3. Devolatilization. During devolatilization, the dry coal
is thermally decomposed to release the volatile matter (VM),
leaving behind a high carbon residue generically known as char.
This process is shown below:

+ higher hydrocarbons

stoichiometry

kash = kdiff (ash 2.5)

(8)

where FC is the xed carbon.

Various devolatilization models, with varying degrees of
complexity, exist in the literature.2224 In the current study, the
devolatilization model used is taken from the MGAS model of

(10)

where ash is the voidage of the ash layer, Pi Pi* is the

eective partial pressure of the ith component (O2, H2, H2O, or
CO2) in the gas participating in the gasication reactions and
takes into account the reverse reaction eect, Pi is the partial
6431

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie202121h | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2012, 51, 64296440

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Article

pressure of component i, and Pi* is the equilibrium pressure6 of

reactant i.
2.2.5. Homogeneous GasGas Reactions. A number of
homogeneous reactions are possible in the gasier, but this
study is limited to the reactions shown in Table 2.

where dp and g are the particle diameter and dynamic viscosity

of the gas phase, respectively.
2.4. Energy Balance Equations. 2.4.1. Gas and Solid
Phase Energy Balances. Equations 16 and 17 are written for
energy conservation of the gas and solid phases:
d(Ugg Cp ,gTg)

Table 2. Gaseous Reactions

reaction

CO +

k4
1
O2 CO2
2
k5

CH4 + 2O2 CO2 + 2H 2O

k6
1
O2 H 2O
2

H2 +

dx

reference

+ hw g [Tw Tg ]} (1 )

Westbrook and Dryer29

{egFg s(Tg 4 Ts 4) + hg s(Tg Ts)}

gasphase
reactions

Wen and Onozaki,31 Karan et al.32

keq2

CH4 + H 2O CO + 3H 2
keq3
1
3
N2 + H 2 NH3
2
2

d((1 )s Us 2)

Friedrichs and Wagner34

dx

= (1 )

dx
Di
6
Fw s[Tw 4 Ts 4] + (1 )
=
AR
dp
{egFg s[Tg 4 Ts 4] + hg s[Tg Ts]}
solidphase
reactions

(11)

Nu = 2.0 + 0.6Re1/2Pr1/3

(13)

where the drag coecient, CD, is given by Rowe and

Henwood39 as
Re < 1000
(14)

The particle Reynolds number, Re, is given by

Re = (1 )g d p

|Ug Us|
g

(17)

(18)

where Nu, Re, and Pr are the dimensionless heat transfer

coecient, particle Reynolds number, and Prandtl number,
respectively. Because coal particles in a slurry feed are usually
very small, the Reynolds number, Re, can be neglected and as a
consequence Nu may be assumed to be equal to 2.
2.4.2. Wall Energy Balance. In order to determine the wall
temperature, Tw, a detailed energy balance across the wall is
carried out. This balance considers radiation between wall and
solids, convection between wall and gas, radiation between wall
and top and bottom ends of the gasier, and the energy loss to
the surrounding environment. At each wall element l, all the
energy contributions to the CV are summed up and must be
equal to 0 at steady state. The skin temperature of the wall is
also one of the calculated variables in the following study. The
gasier wall is assumed to be composed of an inner layer
comprised mostly of refractory, a middle insulation layer, and
an outer steel layer of given thicknesses.18

3C Dg (1 )2.65 (Ug Us)|Ug Us|

24
[1 + 0.15Re 0.687],
C D = Re
0.44,
Re 1000

(1 )( Hk)rk

where the term 6/dp is the ratio of the surface area of a particle
to its volume assuming spherical particles. The view factors Fgs
and Fwg, used in the radiation terms, must correctly account
for the change in area between the emitting and receiving
bodies. Radiation transfer to the gas phase is neglected as the
gas is assumed to be transparent. The various view factors
between the surfaces that exchange radiative heat are calculated
accordingly from Siegel and Howell.40
The last two terms in the gas balance equation (mrghrg and
mmghmg) are the enthalpies of the recirculated gas. These terms
are equal to 0 outside the recirculation zone.
The Nusselt number, Nu, for the gassolid interphase heat
transfer is calculated according to the equation due to Ranz and
Marshall41 as

(12)

4d p

where fs is the drag force per unit volume of particles, Us and Ug

are the solid- and gas-phase velocities, and Pt is the total
pressure in the system, taken to be the same as the gas-phase
pressure.
The drag force per unit volume, fs, is given by the correlation
of Arastroopour and Gidaspow38 as
fs =

(16)

d(Us(1 )s Cp ,sTs)

dPt
+ (1 )s g
dx

+ (1 )fs

( Hj)rj mrg hrg

+ mmg hmg

Lindstedt et al.33

dPt
+ g g (1 )fs
dx

The kinetic parameters for the above reactions were obtained

from the references in Table 2. The kinetics for the water gas
shift reaction (WGS) were modeled as a combination of the
catalytic rate of Wen and Onozaki31 and a noncatalytic rate.
The latter is a slightly modied form suggested by Karan et al.32
2.3. Momentum Balance. The momentum balance
equations for gassolid systems have been developed
previously3537 and have been modied in the current work
using some simplications such as neglecting the shear stress
and particleparticle interaction forces, to give the following
balance equations:
=

6
dp

Westbrook and Dryer29

keq1

dx

Di
{egFw g[Tw 4 Tg 4]
AR

Peters30

CO + H 2O CO2 + H 2

d(g Ug 2)

(15)
6432

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie202121h | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2012, 51, 64296440

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Article

Table 3. Proximate and Ultimate Analysis (As Received) of the Various Coal Feeds
proximate

ultimate

coal

moisture

VM

FC

ash

Pittsburgh No. 8
Illinois No. 6
PRB
lignite

1.00
11.12
17.89
14.20

33.52
34.70
36.24
43.40

57.69
44.19
40.27
41.40

7.79
9.99
5.60
1.00

76.83
63.75
58.37
62.07

5.49
4.50
3.85
4.49

6.03
6.88
13.20
17.55

1.40
1.25
0.80
0.68

1.46
2.51
0.29
0.08

(qconv,w g + qrad,w s + qrad,w w

l

all p l

study of Bhattacharrya et al.4 and correspond to the feed

conditions given in a U.S. Department of Energy report42 on
the Tampa Electric Company (TECO) gasier. The results are
then compared to the TECO data and to other results in the
literature.
The feed conditions to the gasier indicate that the slurry
makeup water enters the gasier in the liquid state and that this
water must be evaporated from the coal before any gasication
can take place. Other model parameters such as the heat
capacities for the solid and gas phases are obtained from the
METC Gasier Advanced Simulation (MGAS) model.25 The
wall thermal properties including the thicknesses of the
refractory, insulation, and outer steel layers are obtained from
Monaghan et al.18 A schematic diagram of the GEE-Texaco
gasier including the radiant syngas cooler is shown in Figure 2.

+ qloss + qrad,w top

+ qrad,w bot) = 0

(19)

where
qconv = h(Tw Tg),

qloss = heff (Tw Tsurr),

qrad,w s = Fw s(Tw 4 Ts 4),

qrad, w w
l

all p l

ewFw w (Tw 4 Tw 4)
l

(20)

2.5. Model Solution and Parameters. The system of

ordinary dierential equations for the gasier model described
above is discretized using the rst-order backward nite
dierence method and then simultaneously solved in the
Aspen Custom Modeler (ACM) environment using a Newtontype method with appropriate boundary conditions and a good
initial guess. The system of equations was solved for a small
length of the gasifer which was then increased stepwise until the
entire length of the gasier was reached.
Since the gasier model with coupled uid ow, heat and
mass transfer, and complex reactions proved dicult to
converge when the discretization mesh was changed, obtaining
a good initial guess for the newly introduced nodes was very
crucial. The initial guess of the variables for these new nodes
was taken as the values at the last grid points of the previous
domain length. A uniform grid was used throughout the
modeling process even though multiple grid sizes are possible
in the solver environment. The system of equations was then
solved iteratively until convergence was realized.
The gasier model is solved for the four dierent coal types
shown in Table 3, and additional parametric studies are
performed to gain more insights on the model behavior.
Table 4 gives some additional model input parameters that
were selected to closely match the feed conditions in the IGCC
Table 4. Additional Sample Model Parameters and Input
Conditions Used in the Simulation
parameter
gasier length (cm)
gasier inside diameter (cm)
particle diameter (m)
emissivity of gas, particle
emissivity of wall
gaswall heat transfer coe (kcal/hm2C)
input conditions
gasier pressure (atm)
coal feed rate (g/s)
particle diameter (m)
all feed temperature (K)
oxidant composition

value

Figure 2. Schematic of the GEE-Texaco gasier with RSC considered

in the study.

350
152
100
0.9
0.78
122

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The main results of the current gasier modeling work are
summarized below. These results are in the form of model
validation results, temperature proles, species concentration
proles, and additional sensitivity studies.
3.1. Model Validation. Using Illinois No. 6 coal type, the
gasier model results are validated by comparing two sets of
experimental data: Texaco pilot plant data42 and industrial
data43 from the Tampa Electric Company (TECO). The

54
60 000
100
303
95% O2, 5% N2
6433

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie202121h | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2012, 51, 64296440

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Article

Bhattacharrya et al.4 that certain reactions, most importantly

the WGS, continue to take place within the RSC. In order to
reconcile this inconsistency, the operation of the RSC was also
accounted for in this work as illustrated in Figure 2.
The RSC was modeled as a plug ow reactor in Aspen Plus
with the inlet conditions identical to those exiting the gasier.
The dimensions and conguration of the RSC were obtained
from Robinson and Luyben.45 Similar to the study by Robinson
and Luyben,45 a multiple tube reactor conguration with a
constant coolant temperature (336 C) was used and only the
WGS reaction was modeled in the RSC. The exclusion of other
reactions in the RSC is reasonable because other gas species,
such as CH4, have very low partial pressures for reaction rates
such as the methane reforming to have any signicant eect on
the overall gas composition. In fact, the results remained
unchanged when both the WGS and methane reforming
reactions were modeled within the RSC.
The results from the RSC modeling are shown in Figure 4,
and it is clearly seen that the WGS reaction continues to take

validation runs were carried out with the gasier dimensions

and operating conditions shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Conditions for the Validation Runs
conditions
gasier conguration
outer diameter (cm)
internal diameter (cm)
length (cm)
operating conditions
coal feed rate (kg/s)
oxygen/coal ratio
water/coal ratio
pressure (atm)

Texaco pilot plant

TECO

152
15.8
330

400
179
662

0.1875
0.90
0.61
24

40
0.82806
0.4108
26

The Texaco pilot plant gasier is internally divided into two

sections: a partial oxidation zone and a quench section for
cooling the syngas stream. During the validation run, only the
partial oxidation zone was considered and its length7 was taken
to be 330 cm as shown in Table 5. The inner diameter could
not be found in the open literature but was back-calculated
based on the assumption that the residence time in the pilot
gasier was similar to that of the TECO gasier, whose
dimensions were available.43,44 The validation is shown in
Figure 3.

Figure 4. Species composition prole along the RSC.

place within the initial 2025% length of the RSC before being
quenched by the cooling uid.
The RSC exit compositions are then compared to the TECO
data as shown in Figure 5. Figure 5 shows good qualitative and
Figure 3. Comparison of current model with pilot plant data (dry
basis).

The comparison shows a general qualitative agreement of the

models results with the pilot data. Quantitatively, the models
results compare fairly with the pilot data. The methane
concentration shows some mismatch, but the two values are
very low and are well within generally acceptable values. The
underprediction in the methane is attributed to the faster
kinetics of the methane destruction reactions. Slower kinetics
rate schemes are also available6 which end up overpredicting
the methane concentration. Tuning of the reaction kinetics
could have been done to match the pilot plant data, but no such
attempt was made in this study. Other apparent mismatches in
species concentration could be possibly attributed to the
dierences in the temperature proles in the two gasiers and
consequently the carbon conversion. However, even without
any tuning of the kinetic parameters, the model predictions
showed an acceptable agreement with the pilot plant data.
When comparing the current results with those from TECO,
it should be noted that these industrial data are from the clean
syngas stream downstream of the radiant syngas cooler (RSC),
while the current results are the conditions exiting the gasier
prior to entering the RSC. Moreover, it is reported by

Figure 5. Comparison of TECO data with current model results at

RSC exit (dry basis).

quantitative general agreement of the model predictions with

the industrial data. The CO and CO2 concentrations are
slightly higher in the current model than in the industrial data,
and this is attributed to the higher carbon conversion in the
current study (almost complete conversion for the conditions
considered) than in the industrial case (98%). The lower
methane as explained above is attributed to the faster methane
destruction kinetics. Again, no tuning of reaction kinetics was
6434

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie202121h | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2012, 51, 64296440

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Article

slightly leveling o at the point when the entire water is

evaporated but the temperature is still below the devolatilization temperature. The volatile matter is then released almost
instantaneously as the temperature reaches the devolatilization
temperature.
Figure 8 shows the proles of the major gas species along the
length of the gasier. Previous studies68 have shown that there

carried out in the current study other than using reaction

schemes as obtained from the open literature.
3.2. General Model Predictions. This section presents
general model predictions in the form of temperature proles,
species concentration, and carbon conversion proles and the
eect of coal types on the exit gasier product distribution.
These runs were obtained with gasier conguration and
operating conditions shown in Table 2.
For the use of Pittsburgh No. 8 coal, Figure 6 shows the gas
and solid temperature proles along the reactor length. At the

Figure 8. Major gas species concentration proles along the

dimensionless gasier length (water/coal, 0.4; oxygen/coal ratio, 0.8;
Pittsburgh No. 8 coal).

Figure 6. Temperature prole and carbon conversion along the

gasier length (water/coal, 0.4; oxygen/coal ratio, 0.8; Pittsburgh No.
8 coal).

is no coexistence of the combustible gas species components

such as CO and H2 when sucient oxygen is present. This is
also observed in the current study. The small accumulation of
CO and H2 at the front of the reactor is due to recirculation.
However, this occurs at locations before the combustion
temperature is reached in the gasier. The results also show
peaks in the CO2 and H2O concentration proles at the point
when the maximum temperature occurs in the gasier. This is
also consistent with previous results.68
As discussed previously, the current model assumes no a
priori wall temperature prole. The temperature of the wall is
calculated and its prole is shown in Figure 9. It should be

beginning of the gasier, the solid temperature gradually

increases and then levels o slightly at the point when all of the
water is evaporated (at a scaled reactor length of approximately
0.05). Following another gradual increase, the solid temperature rapidly increases as the volatile matter, consisting of CO,
H2, and CH4, evolves and is subsequently combusted, releasing
additional energy. This temperature behavior is further
illustrated in Figure 7. The corresponding carbon conversion

Figure 7. Proles of volatile matter, moisture content, and

temperature of the solids along the gasier length (water/coal, 0.4;
oxygen/coal ratio, 0.8; Pittsburgh No. 8 coal).

Figure 9. Calculated wall temperature prole (Tw) compared to the

linear wall temperature prole.6

prole shows that there is no signicant consumption of carbon

until all the devolatilization takes place and the temperature
rapidly increases due to the combustion of volatiles. However,
after the volatile products have combusted, there is appreciable
carbon conversion mainly due to the carbon gasication
reactions.
Figure 7 shows the prole of the mass fraction of the slurry
water and volatile matter (VM) of the Pittsburgh No. 8 coal
and the solid temperature prole. As the water starts to
evaporate with the initial increase in temperature, the mass
fraction of the volatile matter increases in the solid phase before

mentioned that, apart from the commonly assumed linear wall

temperature prole,6,7 which is also plotted in Figure 9, there is
no other known temperature prole in the literature to which
the current prole could be compared. The wall is seen to
experience an initial increase in temperature, attaining a
maximum value and then steadily decreasing. This characteristic
is remarkably dierent from the assumed linear temperature
prole. In addition, the temperature gradient along the wall is
6435

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie202121h | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2012, 51, 64296440

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Article

calculated to be much less steep than the assumed slope of the

linear temperature prole.
3.3. Sensitivity Studies. A series of sensitivity studies was
performed to gain more insight into the response of the gasier
to changes in certain key parameters. The studies include the
eect of coal feed properties on the product distribution, the
eect of water-to-coal and oxygen-to-coal ratios on the
maximum temperature attained in the reactor, the eect of
the recirculation ratio on temperature, and the eect of the
water-to-coal and the oxygen-to-coal ratios on coal conversion.
Figure 10 shows the product distributions obtained when
dierent coal feeds are used at the same feed conditions. The
Figure 12. Eect of water-to-coal ratio on maximum phase
temperatures at oxygen/coal ratios (oc) of 0.65 and 0.8 (Illinois No.
6 coal).

Figure 10. Product distribution of exit gas for dierent coal feeds
(water/coal, 0.4; oxygen/coal ratio, 0.8).

results show a marked variation in the gaseous product

distribution but with CO, CO2, and H2 consistently produced
as the major dominant species and CO having the highest
composition in all cases. It is also interesting to note that the
maximum phase temperature, particularly that of the solid
phase, varies markedly with coal type as seen in Figure 11.
These results highlight the strong dependence of the gasier
response on the coal type.

Figure 13. Eect of oxygen-to-coal ratio on maximum phase

temperatures at water/coal (wc) ratios of 0.4 and 0.5 (Illinois No. 6
coal).

from 0.4 to 0.5. As expected, increasing the water-to-coal ratio

decreases the maximum temperatures while increasing the
oxygen-to-coal ratio increases the maximum temperatures.
In addition to the above observations, the position of the
maximum temperature is seen to shift downstream from the
inlet of the gasier with increasing water-to-coal ratio. This
result is similar to that shown by Vamvuka et al.9 The higher
this ratio is the longer it takes to evaporate the water and hence
the ignition point tends to drift away from the gasier inlet as
seen in Figure 14.
A shift in the position of the maximum temperature seen in
Figure 14 is similarly observed when the model is run at
dierent recirculation ratios as seen in Figure 15. However, the
recirculation ratio has no appreciable eect on the maximum
values of the temperature.

Figure 11. Maximum gas and solid temperatures for dierent coal feed
types.

Figures 12 and 13 show the co-eect of the water-to-coal and

oxygen-to-coal ratios on the maximum temperatures attained
by the solid and gas phases inside the gasier for Illinois No. 6
coal. In Figure 12, as the water-to-coal ratio increases, the
maximum temperatures of both solid and gas phases decrease at
any xed oxygen-to-coal ratio. In addition, by increasing the
oxygen-to-coal ratio (for example from 0.65 to 0.8), the
maximum temperature of each phase increases. This is further
illustrated in Figure 13, in which the maximum phase
temperatures increase with increasing oxygen-to-coal ratio.
However, at a xed oxygen-to-coal ratio, the maximum
temperatures decreased as the water-to-coal ratio increased

Figure 14. Eect of water-to-coal ratio (wc) on solid temperature

(oxygen/coal, 0.8; coal, Illinois No. 6).
6436

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie202121h | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2012, 51, 64296440

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Article

oxygen-to-coal ratio signicantly aects the carbon conversion

more than the water-to-coal ratio.
Figures 18 and 19 show the co-eects of water-to-coal and
oxygen-to-coal ratios on the composition of the major gas

Figure 15. Eect of recirculation ratio () on solid temperature.

Additionally, the eect of the recirculation ratio on the

composition of the exit gas species is shown in Figure 16. The
results show that this ratio has a negligible eect on the gas
composition.
Figure 18. Product gas composition as a function of oxygen-to-coal
ratio (broken line, water-to-coal ratio = 0.55; solid line, water-to-coal
ratio = 0.4).

Figure 16. Eect of recirculation ratio on the main gas composition.

Figure 17 shows the eect of the water-to-coal and oxygento-coal feed ratios on carbon conversion. At a xed oxygen-toFigure 19. Product gas composition and carbon conversion as a
function of water-to-coal ratio (solid line, oxygen-to-coal ratio = 0.8;
broken line, oxygen-to-coal ratio = 0.9).

products. In Figure 18, CO and CO2 concentrations are seen to

increase while the H2 concentration decreased with increasing
oxygen-to-coal ratio. However, at any xed oxygen-to-coal ratio,
the concentrations of CO2 and H2 increased while that of CO
decreased with increasing water-to-coal ratio as shown by the
two plots with water-to-coal ratio values of 0.55 and 0.4. This is
due to mainly the competing char-gasication and WGS
reactions. The decrease in CO and increase in H2 and CO2 are
consistent with the direction of the WGS reaction equilibrium.
In Figure 19, increasing the water-to-coal ratio at xed oxygento-coal ratio leads to an increase in H2 and CO2 concentrations
and a decrease in CO concentration. Again this is consistent
with the direction of the WGS reaction equilibrium. Increasing
the oxygen-to-coal ratio (for example from 0.80 to 0.90) at any
xed water-to-coal ratio shows a decrease in H2 and an increase
in CO2 and CO concentrations. An increase in oxygen content
results in more combustion of H2 and carbon, hence the
observed reduction in H2 and increased CO and CO2, the
major products of the char-combustion reaction. These results
are due to the competing reactions (mainly char combustion,
char gasication, and WGS) taking place in the gasier as
reported by Wen and Chaung6 and Govind and Shah.7 It is also

Figure 17. Eect of water-to-coal feed ratio on carbon conversion as a

function of oxygen-to-coal ratio.

coal ratio, the carbon conversion is seen to decrease with

increasing water-to-coal feed ratio. This is largely attributed to
the decrease in temperature as the water-to-coal ratio is
increased. Conversely, conversion signicantly increases with
increasing oxygen-to-coal feed ratio. This is due to the increase
in temperature as a result of the additional energy added from
the exothermic combustion reactions. With the water-to-coal
and oxygen-to-coal ratios used in the model, carbon conversion
of at least 99% is achieved with an oxygen-to-coal ratio of 0.8
and a water-to-coal ratio of less than 0.4. It is evident that the
6437

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie202121h | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2012, 51, 64296440

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Article

apparent that the water-to-coal ratio has a larger eect on the

gas product composition than the oxygen-to-coal ratio.

In the model, a fraction of the hotter gas phase stream from

the recirculation section (2) of the gasier is recirculated back
to a colder region at the entrance of the reactor (region 1). The
total mass recirculated (m recir) is determined from the
recirculation ratio (), which is a parameter in the model,
and the inlet gas feed ow rate (m in):

4. CONCLUSIONS
A steady-state model of an entrained, GEE-Texaco type,
downward-ow gasier is presented. In addition to mass,
momentum, and energy balance equations for the solid and gas
phases, the gasier model includes heterogeneous chargas and
homogeneous gasgas reactions and equations describing the
drying and devolatilization processes for the slurry feed. The
gasier wall temperature prole is not assumed a priori, but
rather is calculated from the detailed multisurface, multimechanism energy balance model. A heuristic recirculation
model is considered to capture the initial energy transfer to the
slurry feed within the mixing zone at the gasier entrance.
For validating the gasier model, results are compared with
the pilot plant data and the available industrial data from the
TECO IGCC plant. The model predictions compared
appreciably with the pilot plant data even without any tuning
of the reaction kinetics. The model results compare
satisfactorily to the TECO results when an RSC model is
included at the gasier outlet. The residual mismatch in the
syngas composition is attributed to the higher carbon
conversion in the current model.
The gasier model is also used to simulate the gasication of
dierent coal types. The results show a strong dependence of
the product composition and maximum phase temperatures on
the type of the coal fed to the gasier.
A recirculation ratio of greater than 10.4% aects only the
position at which the ignition occurs in the gasier without
having any major eect on the maximum phase temperature
and the product gas composition in the gasier.
The optimum ranges for the water-to-coal and oxygen-tocoal ratios necessary for achieving at least 99% carbon
conversion for the cases considered in the study are 0.30.4
and 0.80.9, respectively.

= m recir /m in

(A.1)

The mass and energy balances in region 1 (mixing zone) and

region 2 (recirculation zone) are modied to account for the
recirculation as shown in eqs A.2 and A.3.
(g )

(g Ug)

(g Cp ,gTg)

= (1 )s g mrg + mmg

(A.2)

(Ugg Cp ,gTg)

x
t
Di
4
=
{egFw g[Tw Tg 4] + hw g [Tw Tg ]}
AR
6
(1 ) {egFg s(Tg 4 Ts 4) + hg s(Tg Ts)}
dp
gasphase
reactions

( Hj)rj mrg hrg + mmg hmg

(A.3)

where mrg and mmg denote the mass of the gas recirculating
from the recirculation zone (section 2) and that recirculating
into the mixing zone (section 1), respectively. The corresponding terms for the energy associated with the recirculating
streams into or out of regions 1 and 2 are mmghmg and mrghrg,
respectively, for which the specic enthalpy terms are calculated
as
hmg =

APPENDIX: RECIRCULATION MODEL

This section briey describes the heuristic recirculation model
incorporated in the current study. In an industrial gasier, two
regions, namely mixing and recirculation, are known to exist at
the immediate entrance of the gasier. These two regions are
crucial in maintaining stability of the ignition front as well as
aiding in the initial drying and devolatilization processes. The
recirculation model is thus used in the current model to mimic
these two sections, shown in Figure 20 as regions 1 and 2 of
lengths L1 and L2, respectively.
This model is based on the mixing and recirculation model
seen in previous studies by Smith and Smoot17 and Monaghan
et al.18

1
m

hk
k=1

(A.4)

h=

yh
i i

(A.5)

i=1

hi = h0 +

Cp dT

(A.6)

where m represents the total number of control volumes/cells

in the recirculating region (section 2) and i represents the gas
species. hrg is the same as h of the control volume under
consideration within section 2. mmg and mrg are calculated as
mmg = m recir /(AR L1)

(A.7)

mrg = m recir /(AR L 2)

(A.8)

where AR is the cross-sectional area.

The corresponding species balance equation in the above
regions is written as

( y ) +
( Ugy ) = R gi mrg ygi + mmg gi
t g gi
x g gi

(3a)

where

gi =
Figure 20. Illustration of the recirculation model.
6438

1
n

ygi ,k
k=1
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie202121h | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2012, 51, 64296440

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Article

gs = rate of char consumption (g/cm3s)

ygi is the mass fraction of the gas species in control volume k

within the length L1L2 and n is the total number of control
volumes in length L1L2. The lengths L1 and L2 are parameters
in the model.
A recirculation ratio of 1216% was found to be sucient
for initiating the ignition within 10% of the gasier length for all
the coals studied here, and a recirculation ratio of 14.8% was
used in most of the runs in this study.

Subscripts

w, g, s = wall, gas, and solid, respectively

rg = recirculated gas ow out of recirculation gas
mg = recirculated gas ow in mixing zone
Superscript

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

* = equilibrium value

REFERENCES

(1) Holt, H. A. N.; Alpert, B. S.Integrated combined-cycle power

plants. Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology; 2004; Vol. 18,
pp 897924.
(2) Maurstad, O. An Overview of Coal Based Integrated Gasication
Combined Cycle (IGCC) Technology; LFEE 2005-003 WP; MIT
Institute of Technology Laboratory and the Environment: Cambridge,
MA, 2005.
(3) Minchener, J. A. Coal gasication for advanced power generation.
Fuel 2005, 84, 22222235.
(4) Bhattacharyya, D.; Turton, R.; Zitney, S. E. Steady-state
simulation and optimization of an integrated gasication combined
cycle power plant with CO2 capture. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 1674
1690.
(5) Ubhayakar, K. S.; Stickler, B. D.; Gannon, E. R. Modeling of
entrained-bed pulverized coal gasiers. Fuel 1977, 56, 281291.
(6) Wen, C. Y.; Chaung, T. Z. Entrained coal gasication modeling.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 1979, 18 (4), 684695.
(7) Govind, R.; Shah, J. Modeling and simulation of an entrained
ow gasier. AIChE J. 1984, 30 (1), 7992.
(8) Vamvuka, D.; Woodburn, E. T; Senior, P. R. Modeling of an
entrained ow coal gasier, 1. Development of the model and general
predictions. Fuel 1995, 74, 14521460.
(9) Vamvuka, D.; Woodburn, E. T; Senior, P. R. Modeling of an
entrained ow coal gasier, 2. Eect of operating conditions on reactor
performance. Fuel 1995, 74, 14611465.
(10) Bearth, C. Mathematical modeling of entrained ow coal
gasication. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Chemical Engineering,
University of Newcastle, Australia, 1996.
(11) Ni, Q.; Williams, A. A simulation study on the performance of
an entrained-ow coal gasier. Fuel 1995, 74 (1), 102110.
(12) Chen, C.; Horio, M.; Kojima, T. Numerical simulation of
entrained ow gasiers. 1: modeling of coal gasication in an entrained
ow gasier. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2000, 55, 38613874.
(13) Liu, S. G.; Rezaei, H. R.; Lucas, A. J.; Harris, J. D.; Wall, F. T.
Modelling of a pressurized entrained ow coal gasier; the eect of
reaction kinetics and char structure. Fuel 2000, 17671779.
(14) Chen, C.; Horio, M.; Kojima, T. Use of numerical modeling in
the design and scale-up of entrained ow coal gasiers. Fuel 2001, 80,
15131523.
(15) Wanatabe, H.; Otaka, M. Numerical simulation of coal
gasication in entrained ow gasier. Fuel 2006, 85, 19351943.
(16) Shi, P. S.; Zitney, E. S.; Shahnam, M.; Syamlal, M.; Rogers, A.
W. Modelling coal gasication with CFD and discrete method. J.
Energy Inst. 2006, 79 (4), 217221.
(17) Smith, J. P.; Smoot, D. L. One-dimensional model for pulverized
coal combustion and gasication. Combust. Sci. Technol. 1980, 23, 17
31.
(18) Monaghan, D. Rory F.; Kumar, M.; Singer, L. S.; Zhang, C.;
Ghoniem, F. A. Reduced order modeling of entrained ow solid fuel
gasication. Proceedings of the ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition. IMECE2009-12985
(19) Arri, L. E.; Amundson, N. R. An analytical study of a single
particle char gasication. AIChE J. 1978, 24, 7487.
(20) Cho, Y. S.; Joseph, B. Heterogeneous model for moving-bed
coal gasication reactors. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 1981, 20,
314318.
(21) Rao, R. M.; Bhattacharyya, D.; Rengaswamy, R.; Choudhury, R.
S. A two-dimensional steady state model including the eect of liquid

*E-mail: Richard.Turton@mail.wvu.edu. Tel.: (304) 293-9364.

Notes

The authors declare no competing nancial interest.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This technical eort was performed in support of the National
Energy Technology Laboratorys ongoing research in Process
and Dynamic Systems Research under RES Contract No. DEFE0004000.

NOTATION
At = cross-sectional area of reactor (cm2)
Cp,g, Cp,s = specic heats of gas and solid, respectively (cal/
gK)
CD = drag coecient
Di, Do = inside and outer gasier diameters respectively (cm)
eg = emissivity of gas
Fws = view factor of solid from the wall
Fwg = view factor of gas from the wall
Fgs = view factor of gas from solid
Hk = enthalpy of kth reaction (cal/g)
Hj = enthalpy of jth reaction (cal/g)
fs = drag force on solids per unit volume of particles (N/
cm3)
g = acceleration due to gravity (cm/s2)
hgs = convective heat transfer coecient between gas and
solid (cal/cm2Ks)
hwg = convective heat transfer coecient between wall and
gas (cal/cm2Ks)
Pg = total pressure of gas (atm)
R = gas constant (cal/g-molK)
Rgi = net rate of generation or consumption of gas species i
due to chemical reactions (g/cm3s)
Rsi = net rate of generation or consumption of solid species i
due to chemical reactions (g/cm3s)
xi = mass fraction of solid species i
yi = mass fraction of gas species i
MWi = molar weight of gas species i (g/mol)
Tw = wall temperature (K)
Ts = solid-phase temperature (K)
Tg = gas-phase temperature (K)
Ug = gas-phase velocity (cm/s)
Us = solid-phase velocity (cm/s)
Kash = ash lm diusion constant (g/cm2atms)
Kdi = gas diusion constant (g/cm2atms)
Ks = surface reaction constant (g/cm2atms)

Greek Symbols

= void fraction
= StefanBoltzmann constant (cal/cm2sK4)
= density (g/cm3)
= recirculation ratio
6439

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie202121h | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2012, 51, 64296440

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Article

water for a PEM fuel cell cathode. J. Power Sources 2007, 173, 375
393.
(22) Anthony, B. D.; Howard, B. J. Coal devolatilization and
hydrogasication. AIChE J. 1976, 22 (4), 625656.
(23) Kobayashi, H.; Howard, J. B.; Sarom, A. F. Coal
devolatilization at high temperatures. Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on Combustion; The Combustion Institute,
Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh, PA, 1977; pp 411425.
(24) Niksa, S.; Kerstein, A. R. FLASHCHAIN theory for rapid coal
devolatilization kinetics, 1. Formulation. Energy Fuels 1991, 5, 647
665.
(25) Syamlal, M.; Bissett, L. A. METC Gasier Advanced Simulation
(MGAS) Model; Technical Note, NITS report No. DOE/METC-92/
4108 (DE92001111); 1992.
(26) Wen, C.-Y.; Lee, E. S.; Dutta, S. Rate of coal pyrolysis and
gasication reaction. Coal Conversion Technology; Addison-Wesley:
Reading, MA, 1979.
(27) Tognotti, L.; Longwell, J. P.; Sarom, A. F. The products of high
temperature oxidation of a single char particle in an electrodynamic
balance. Symposium (International) on Combustion; 1991; 23 (1), pp
12071213.
(28) Yagi, S.; Kunii, D. Studies on the combustion of carbon particles
in ames and uidized beds. Proceedings of the 5th International
Symposium on Combustion; Reinhold: New York, 1955; pp 231244.
(29) Westbrook, K, C.; Dryer, L. F. Simplied reaction mechanisms
for the oxidation of hydrocarbon fuels in ames. Combust. Sci. Technol.
1981, 27, 3143.
(30) Peters, N. Premixed burning in diusion amesThe ame
zone model of Libby and Economos. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 1979,
22, 691703.
(31) Wen, C. Y.; Chen, H.; Onozaki, M. C. Users Manual for
Computer Simulation and Design of the Moving-Bed Coal Gasier; DOE/
MC/16474-1390, NITS/DE83009533; 1982.
(32) Karan, K.; Mehrotra, K. A.; Behie, A. L. A high-temperature and
modeling study of homogeneous gas-phase COS reactions applied to
Claus plants. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1999, 54, 29993006.
(33) Jones, W. P.; Lindstedt, R. P. Global reaction schemes for
hydrocarbon combustion. Combust. Flame 1988, 73, 233249.
(34) Friedrichs, G.; Wagner, H. Direct Measurements of the reaction
NH2+H2NH3+H at temperatures from 1360 to 2130 K. Z. Phys.
Chem. 2000, 214 (8), 1151160.
(35) Benyahia, S.; Syamlal, M.; OBrien, T. J. Summary of MFIX
Equations, 2005-4. http://www.mx.org/documentation/
MxEquations2005-4-3.pdf .
(36) Fan, L.-S.; Zhu, C. Principles of Gas-Solid Flows; Cambridge
University Press: New York, 1998.
(37) Gidaspow, D. Multiphase Flow and Fluidization. Continuum and
Kinetic Theory Descriptions; Academic Press: New York, 1994.
(38) Arastoopour, H.; Gidaspow, D. Vertical pneumatic conveying
using four hydrodynamics models. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fund. 1979, 18 (2),
123.
(39) Rowe, P. N.; Henwood, G. A. Drag forces in Hydraulic Model of
Fluidized Bed. Trans. Chem. Eng. 1961, 39, 43.
(40) Siegel, R.; Howell, R. J. Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer;
McGraw-Hill Book Co.: New York, 1981.
(41) Ranz, W. E.; Marshall, W. R. Evaporation from drops. Chem.
Eng. Prog. 1952, 48, 141.
(42) Pilot Plant Evaluation of Illinois No.6 and Pittsburgh No.8 coal for
the Texaco Coal Gasication Process; EPRI Final Report, EPRI AP5029; Texaco Inc.; South El Monte, CA.1987
(43) Tampa Electric POLK power Station Integrated Gasication
Combined Cycle Project, Final Technical Report; Tampa Electric
Company: Tampa, FL, 2002. http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/
coalpower/cctc/cctdp/bibliography.
(44) Slezak, A.; Kuhlman, M. J.; Shadle, J. L.; Shi, S. CFD simulation
of entrained-ow gasication: Coal particle density/size fraction
eects. Powder Technol. 2010, 203, 98108.

(45) Robinson, P. J.; William, L. L. Simple dynamic gasier model

that runs in Aspen Dynamics. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2008, 47, 7784
7792.

6440

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie202121h | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2012, 51, 64296440