Fuel Vol. 77, No. 14, pp.

1611–1621, 1998
q 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
PII: S0016-2361(98)00075-1 0016-2361/98 $19.00+0.00

Modelling and simulation of time

varying slag flow in a Prenflo
entrained-flow gasifier

M. Seggiani
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Chimica, Chimica Industriale e Scienza dei Materiali,
Università di Pisa, Via Diotisalvi, 2-56126 Pisa, Italy
(Received 28 November 1997; revised 21 April 1998; accepted 27 April 1998)

A slag building simplified model has been developed to simulate the time varying phenomena connected to the
slag accumulation and flow on the walls of a Prenflo coal gasifier. For this purpose this model has been integrated
with a three-dimensional code which provides the temperature and concentration profiles of the gas phase within
the gasifier. The integrated models have been used to evaluate the effects of changes of the gasifier operating
conditions on the slag behaviour. q 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

(Keywords: coal slag; slag building model; entrained flow gasifier)

INTRODUCTION avoid, if necessary, the obstruction of the tap hole by

In a Prenflo entrained-flow gasifier, operating at high
temperatures well above ash slagging conditions, the
molten coal ash particles, under the action of intensive
centrifugal forces, accumulate on the internal walls of the
gasification chamber. Here, a molten slag layer is formed,
flows down the walls and is discharged out of the reactor
through a slag tap hole. Between the liquid layer and the
cold membrane wall is a solid slag layer, which usually
makes up the largest part of the deposit. In Figure 1 a typical
slag deposit is schematically shown.
The temperatures inside the gasifier and the fusibility and
flow properties of the ash must provide a free evacuation of
the slag through the tap hole, in order to avoid any
obstruction.
Some models have been proposed to describe the motion
of molten coal ash down a cooled wall. Reid and Cohen1
consider the molten slag as a Newtonian fluid above the
temperature of critical viscosity, T cv, and as a plastic fluid
below T cv; the slag flow in the plastic region is considered
negligible owing to the very high viscosity. Johnson2
considers the molten slag as a Bingham fluid over the entire
temperature range to account for the effect of undissolved
ash particles in the fluid slag; unfortunately, it is extremely
difficult to evaluate the internal yield stress.
In this paper, a simplified model is developed to simulate
the slag building behaviour in the Prenflo coal gasifier of the
IGCC power plant at Puertollano, Spain, operating at 25 bar.
The pulverized coal is mixed with limestone (calcium
carbonate) to lower the melting point of the ash in order to
improve the slag discharge. Four diametrically opposed
burners are fed simultaneously with a coal–limestone blend
(transported by nitrogen) and an oxygen–steam mixture.
The gasifier bottom is equipped with two oxygen lances to
slag.
Most of the total ash leaves the gasifier as molten slag,
both directly through the tap hole and downward on the
walls. The remaining ash is entrained as fly-ash by syngas
which flows out at the top of the reactor. The fly-ash,
containing unconverted carbon, is recovered and partially
recycled (transported by nitrogen) to the gasifier through
two of the four burners. The configuration of the gasifier
chamber is represented in Figure 2. In the slag building
model, the chamber is subdivided into 15 cells in the axial
direction.
The temperature and syngas concentration profiles inside
the reactor are evaluated by a three-dimensional code3,
based on the solution of the Navier–Stokes equations by the
finite volumes method together with the energy and mass
conservation equations, taking into account the gasification
kinetics and transport rates. The slag building model has
been integrated with this code.
SLAG PROPERTIES
In the slag building model, the physical properties of the
coal slag such as temperature of critical viscosity, viscosity,
density, specific heat and thermal conductivity are required.
The temperature of critical viscosity is generally dependent
on the composition, while the other properties depend on
both composition and temperature. The components of the
coal ash can be classified as basic or acid. The acid
constituents are silica, alumina and titania. The basic
constituents are iron, calcium, magnesium and alkali
oxides. The relatives amounts of the basic and acid
constituents in the slag can be used as a means of predicting
the T cv and viscosity of the slag.

Fuel 1998 Volume 77 Number 14 1611

Modelling of time varying slag flow: M. Seggiani

Reid and Cohen model1:

(1) the transition temperature between the solid and liquid
slag layers is the temperature of critical viscosity;
(2) the flow of liquid slag is Newtonian and the flow at
temperatures below T cv is negligible;
(3) the shear stress between the gas and slag layer is
negligible;
(4) the temperature profile across the slag layer is linear;
(5) the heat transfer occurs normal to the surface;
(6) the model is written in linear coordinates, owing to the
large difference between the slag deposit thickness and
the gasifier radius;
(7) the density, specific heat and thermal conductivity of
the slag are independent of temperature.
In non-stationary conditions assumption 4 is acceptable
Figure 1 Slag deposit formation
as long as the local variations of temperatures in the slag
deposit are moderate.

The T cv can be expressed as a function of the acid/base Mass conservation equation for the slag
ratio, which is defined as:
ddi min, i þ mex, i ¹ 1 ¹ mex, i
SiO2 þ Al2 O3 þ TiO2 r ¼ (1)
A=B ¼ dt Ai
Fe2 O3 þ CaO þ MgO þ Na2 O þ K2 O
where d i is the slag deposit thickness, t is time, m in,i is the
where the slag components are expressed in weight mass flow rate of slag supplied to the wall surface, m ex,i is
percentages. the leaving slag mass flow rate, and A i is the wall surface.
On the basis of T cv data determined in reducing conditions
for different types of coal ashes with Fe 2O 3 , 10 and A/B in
the range from 1 to 75,6, a linear regression has given: Energy conservation equation for the slag
Assuming the temperature of ash impinging on the wall,
Tcv ¼ 1385:44 þ 74:1(A=B) (K) T in,i, equal to the temperature of gas next to the slag surface,
The variation in slag viscosity (above T cv) with the tempera- T g,i, a general energy balance for the slag deposit may be
ture and composition in a reducing atmosphere has been formulated as
valued by the BCURA S 2 correlation6, based on an d(Ti ·di ) dd
Arrhenius-type equation: rc ¹ r s, i qf
dt dt
log h ¼ 4:468S2 þ 1:265(104 =T) ¹ 7:44 min, i cTg, i þ qex, i ¹ 1 ¹ qex, i
¼ qin, i ¹ qout, i þ ð2Þ
where h is the viscosity in poise, T is the temperature in K, Ai
and S is the silica ratio defined as: where T i is the average slag deposit temperature, d s,i is the
SiO2 solid slag thickness, q f is the slag fusion heat, q in,i is the
S¼
(SiO2 þ Fe2 O3 þ CaO þ MgO) specific heat flux from the gasifier to slag surface, q out,i is
the specific heat flux from the slag to the refractory, and q ex,i
The slag density and specific heat have been evaluated as is the heat flux associated to the leaving slag mass flow rate.
functions of composition and temperature by the Bottinga7 The specific heat flux from the slag to the refractory layer
and Mills8 methods, respectively. In the typical temperature is valued as:
range of the slag deposit, these properties are almost
independent of both the physical state (solid or liquid) and 2lr l
qout, i ¼ (T ¹ Tr, i )
temperature. (lr di þ ldr ) i
The slag thermal conductivity, l, has been calculated where l r is the refractory thermal conductivity, d r is the
from the thermal diffusivity, a, heat capacity, c, and density, refractory thickness, and T r,i is the average refractory tem-
r, using the following relationship8: perature.
l ¼ acr The heat flux associated to the leaving slag mass flow rate
is obtained by the following integration:
with a ¼ 4.5 3 10 ¹7 m 2 s ¹1.
The 3-D code assumes a constant value for slag Zdl, i
emissivity of 0.83 for the entire temperature range on the qex, i ¼ rpDi vi (x)cTi (x) dx (3)
0
basis of the total normal emissivity data reported for various
coal slags8. where D i is the average diameter of the ith cell, v i is the
velocity of an element of liquid slag at a distance x from the
slag/gas interface (see eqn (10)), and T i is the temperature of
SLAG BUILDING MODEL the element.
In accordance with assumption 4, in the liquid slag T i can
In order to describe the behaviour of the slag building, the be expressed as:
mass, energy and momentum quantity conservation equa-
(Tcv ¹ To, i )
tions are written for each control volume of ith cell (see Ti ¼ x þ To, i (4)
Figure 3) under the following assumptions according to the dl, i

1612 Fuel 1998 Volume 77 Number 14

 Modelling of time varying slag flow: M. Seggiani

Figure 2 Geometry and discretization of the Prenflo gasifier

Fuel 1998 Volume 77 Number 14 1613

Modelling of time varying slag flow: M. Seggiani

Figure 3 Slag building control volume of ith cell

Substituting eqns (10) and (4), and integrating eqn (3) we where l m is the metal wall thermal conductivity, d m is the
obtain: metal wall thickness, and T m,i is the average metal wall
   temperature.
r2 gpDi cos b d3l, i c eai 1 1 ÿ

qex, i ¼ ¹ 2 Tcv þ To, i
h(0)i 2 ai ai Momentum conservation equation
  The flow of an element of slag at a distance x from the
T ÿ
Tcv ¹ To, i To, i
þ o,3i eai ¹ 1 þ ¹ slag–gas interface, neglecting the acceleration term, is
ai a3i a2i expressed by4:
     
eai 1 To, i ¹ Tcv d dv
3 e ¹ ai
þ þ h ¼ ¹ rg cos b (8)
ai ai a2i dx dx
 
eai eai 1 where v is the velocity of the element, g is the gravity
3 eai ¹ 2 þ 2 2 ¹ 2 2
ai ai ai acceleration, and b is the slope of the wall on which the
liquid slag flows.
Substituting the mass balance eqn (1) and neglecting the The boundary conditions are:
term r(dds, i =dt)qf due to the very small values of dds, i =dt,
eqn (2) becomes: x¼0 dv/dx ¼ 0
dT x ¼ d l (liquid slag thickness) v¼0
rdi c i ¼ qin, i ¹ qout, i
dt
min, i cTg, i ¹ (min, i þ mex, i ¹ 1 ¹ mex, i )cTi þ qex, i ¹ 1 ¹ qex, i The temperature gradient across the slag layer affects the
þ flow behaviour, owing to the strong temperature depen-
Ai
dence of the slag viscosity. For a linear temperature profile
ð5Þ across the liquid slag layer, the expression of h(x) may be
well approximated by the following equation4:
Energy conservation equation for the refractory wall  
ax
h(x) ¼ h(0) exp ¹ (9)
dl
dTr, i
rr dr, i cr ¼ qout, i ¹ qm, i (6) with a ¼ ¹ ln(h(dl )=h(0)).
dt
Using eqn (9), eqn (8) gives:
where r r is the refractory density, c r is the refractory specific     
heat, and q m,i is the specific heat flux from the refractory to rg cos(b) d2l a 1 1 ax x 1
v(x) ¼ e ¹ 2 ¹ e dl ¹ 2
the metal wall. h(0) a a ad1 a
The specific refractory/metal heat flux is valued as: (10)
 
2lr lm
qm, i ¼ (Tr, i ¹ Tm, i ) (7) Integrating eqn (10) through the liquid slag thickness, the
lr dm þ lm dr mass flow rate of the liquid slag leaving the ith cell is

1614 Fuel 1998 Volume 77 Number 14

 Modelling of time varying slag flow: M. Seggiani

Figure 4 Input–output variables scheme of the integrated models

Table 1 Nominal input streams to the Puertollano Prenflo gasifier Table 2 Nominal composition and properties of coal-ash
Input streams Coal ash
Coal dust feed (kg s ¹1) 27.462 Component wt%
Composition (wt%)
C 63.99 Fe 2O 3 5.36
H 3.03 SiO 2 53.37
O 3.58 Al 2O 3 27.88
N 1.47 CaO 6.94
S 3.47 MgO 1.30
H 2O 2.08 Na 2O 0.33
Cl 0.02 K 2O 2.18
Ash 22.36 TiO 2 0.65
P 2O 5 0.10
Oxygen–steam mixture (kg s ¹1) 28.32 SO 3 1.89
wt%
O2 76.4 Acid/base ratio 5.08
N2 9.5 Silica ratio 0.797
Ar 3.2 T cv (K) 1762
H 2O 10.9 Viscosity h (poise) 2.59·10 ¹5 exp(29095/T)
Density r (kg m ¹3) 2490
Limestone (kg s ¹1) 1.03 Specific heat C p (kJ kg ¹1 K) 1.69
(100% CaCO 3) Thermal conductivity l (W m ¹1 K ¹1) 1.89
Emissivity 0.83
Carrier nitrogen (kg s ¹1) 2.07
wt%
N2 99.99
O2 0.01
The slag/refractory interface temperature is valued as:
Fly-ash recycle (kg s ¹1) 1.682
wt% (ls dr Ti þ lr di Tr, i )
Tw, i ¼
C 30.00 (ls dr þ lr di )
H 2O 16.7
Ash 53.33 The solid and the liquid slag thicknesses are fractions of the
Oxygen-lances (kg s ) ¹1
0. total slag deposit thickness, d i, and depend on the tempera-
wt% ture profile in the layer as follows:
N2 10.4
O2 86.0 ds, i ¼ fi di (13)
Ar 3.6
dl, i ¼ (1 ¹ fi )di (14)
f i is computed as:
obtained:  
    Ti ¹ Tcv
pDi r2 g cos(bi ) d3l, i ai 1 2 2 2 fi ¼ 0:5 ¹ 0:5 for Ti $ Tcv
mex, i ¼ e ¹ 2þ 3 ¹ 3 To, i ¹ Ti
h(0)i ai ai ai ai  
(11) T ¹ Tcv
fi ¼ 1 ¹ 0:5 o, i for Ti , Tcv
To, i ¹ Ti
In addition to the above equations, the following equations
hold for the slag/gas interface temperature, T o,i, and for the The integration of the slag building model with the 3-D code
liquid and solid slag thicknesses: of the gasifier and the scheme of input–output variables of
To, i ¼ 2Ti ¹ Tw, i (12) the models are shown in Figure 4. The gasifier supplies to
the slag model: the heat fluxes, q in,i, the slag mass flow rates,
where T w,i is the slag/refractory interface temperature. m in,i and the gas temperatures next to slag surfaces, T g,i. In

Fuel 1998 Volume 77 Number 14 1615

Modelling of time varying slag flow: M. Seggiani

Table 3 Nominal composition and properties of ash after adding Table 5 Syngas composition and outlet temperature at nominal
limestone conditions
Coal þ limestone ash CO 76.5 wt%
CO 2 3.2 wt%
Component % wt H2 1.8 wt%
Fe 2O 3 4.90 Tg out 1803 K
SiO 2 48.78
Al 2O 3 25.49
CaO 14.93
MgO 1.19 • outlet syngas composition,
Na 2O 0.30 • outlet syngas temperature, Tg out
K 2O 1.99 • solid and liquid slag thicknesses,
TiO 2
P 2O 5
0.60
0.10
• leaving slag flow rate, m ex,i.
SO 3 1.72
In Table 4 the solutions obtained at steady state in
Acid/base ratio 3.21
Silica ratio 0.699 nominal conditions for the 15 cells are reported. The syngas
T cv (K) 1623 composition and temperature at the top-cone of the reactor,
Viscosity h (poise) 5.59·10 ¹6 exp(29095/T) at nominal conditions, are reported in Table 5.
Density r (kg m ¹3) 2535 Starting from the steady state, the following simulation
Specific heat C p (kJ kg ¹1 K ¹1) 1.67
Thermal conductivity l (W m ¹1 K ¹1) 1.9
tests have been carried out by step changes:
Emissivity 0.83 (1) increase of 2% in the oxygen–steam mixture feed at
burners;
(2) variation of 6 50% in limestone feed at burners;
its turn, the slag model supplies the slag–gas interface tem- (3) starting of oxygen lances at gasifier bottom.
peratures, T o,i, to the 3-D code in order to evaluate the heat
fluxes transferred to the slag surfaces.
Increase of 2% in the oxygen–steam feed
Model responses to a þ2% step change in oxygen–steam
SIMULATION TESTS flow rate are reported in Figure 5a–f. The increase in
oxygen causes a stepwise increase in CO 2 formation and an
The simulation tests start from a steady state calculated
associated heat generation. This leads to higher gas
using the nominal data of the Prenflo gasifier of IGCC
temperatures in the chamber (see the outlet temperature of
Puertollano Plant (in Table 1 the input streams to the gasifier
the syngas in Figure 5a) and higher heat fluxes to the slag
are reported, in Table 2 the coal-dust ash composition and
surfaces (Figure 5b) and to the metal walls (Figure 5c). The
properties, and in Table 3 the ash characteristics after
slag liquid temperature increases accordingly, causing a
limestone adding). The thermal conductivities of refractory
temporary rise in slag flow (Figure 5d) due to the
and metal wall are 8 and 43 W (mK) -1, respectively. During
temperature–viscosity relationship. The liquid slag thick-
the tests the average temperature of the metal wall is kept
ness shows qualitatively the same trend of leaving slag flow,
constant (523 K). In the first three cells, where the surfaces
showing an initial increase and then decreasing to a
are turned down (see Figure 3), no dripping of the slag is
stationary value lower than the starting value. The solid
assumed.
thickness decreases uniformly until the exit slag flow equals
The output variables monitored run-time are:
its original value. Figure 5e,f show the liquid and solid slag
• heat flux from gas to slag, q in,i thicknesses of the 14th cell, where the higher values for d s
• heat flux from the refractory to the metal wall, q m,i and d l are obtained.

Table 4 Steady-state solutions for the 15 cells

Cell i A i (m 2) m in (kg s ¹1) m ex (kg s ¹1) T g (K) T o (K) q in (kW) d s (cm) d l (cm) T r (K) T (K) q m (kW)
1 2.95 0.12952 0.12952 1759 1670 116.401 6.006 0.277 573 1145 137.387
2 3.30 0.14487 0.27439 1760 1679 130.211 6.086 0.339 572 1149 151.836
3 3.75 0.16460 0.43899 1768 1686 147.967 6.051 0.380 573 1153 173.456
4 11.75 0.51590 0.95489 1778 1704 536.450 5.271 0.429 579 1168 615.383
5 11.75 0.51590 1.47079 1781 1715 536.450 5.301 0.490 579 1173 612.198
6 11.75 0.51590 1.98669 1782 1723 536.450 5.341 0.537 578 1177 608.098
7 11.75 0.51590 2.50259 1790 1729 536.450 5.394 0.576 578 1179 602.763
8 11.75 0.51590 3.01849 1800 1748 649.975 4.744 0.603 585 1195 675.531
9 11.75 0.51590 3.53439 1820 1755 649.975 4.676 0.630 586 1200 684.214
10 11.75 0.51590 4.05029 2253 1802 649.975 3.284 0.629 608 1245 931.011
11 11.75 0.51590 4.56619 1819 1784 649.975 3.980 0.666 595 1223 788.801
12 5.28 0.23181 4.79800 1831 1804 251.898 6.569 1.174 569 1208 225.799
13 3.60 0.15810 4.95610 1831 1818 171.748 6.855 1.316 567 1213 148.021
14 2.12 0.09310 5.04920 1832 1829 101.140 7.833 1.571 562 1214 77.026
15 1.50 0.06580 5.1150 1832 1832 71.562 6.051 1.259 572 1225 69.157
Total 116.5 5736.627 6500.681

1616 Fuel 1998 Volume 77 Number 14


Figure 5 (a–f) Model responses to a þ 2% step change in oxygen–steam mixture feed (* values relative to the 14th cell (the most critical);
** values relative to the last cell, 15th)
6 50% variation in the limestone feed
The variation in the limestone feed causes a variation in
the CaO content of the ash. In consequence, the properties of
the ash change, particularly the temperature of critical
viscosity and the viscosity of the liquid slag.
Simultaneously with the step change of the limestone
feed, the model assumes the new ash composition for the
liquid layer, owing to its small thickness, and the new
temperature of critical viscosity for the transition tempera-
ture between the solid and liquid slag layers.
50% increase in the limestone feed. The increase in the
limestone flow rate (from 1.03 to 1.545 kg s ¹1) causes an
Modelling of time varying slag flow: M. Seggiani
increase in the CaO content of molten ash (from 14.93 to
18.43 wt%); consequently the A/B ratio decreases from 3.21
to 2.71 and the silica ratio from 0.699 to 0.658.
On the basis of the correlations used for T cv and viscosity
of the slag, T cv changes from 1623 to 1586 K and the slag
viscosity decreases from 151 to 86 poise (at T ¼ 1700 K).
The transition front between the solid and the liquid slag
layers moves towards the refractory wall and consequently
the solid slag thickness decreases (Figure 6f). The slag flow
rate at gasifier bottom rapidly increases owing to the melting
of solid layer (see Figure 6d) and then decreases to a new
stationary value higher than the initial value. The liquid
thickness shows the same trend of the outlet flow (Figure
Fuel 1998 Volume 77 Number 14 1617
Modelling of time varying slag flow: M. Seggiani
Figure 6 (a–f) Model responses to a þ 50% step change in limestone feed (* values relative to the 14th cell (the most critical); ** values
relative to the last cell, 15th)
6e). Owing to the associated reduction in thermal resistance,
the heat fluxes to the slag surfaces and to the metal walls
increase (see Figure 6b,c) and the outlet gas temperature
decreases 138C (Figure 6a).
50% decrease in the limestone feed. In this case the
limestone flow rate changes from 1.03 to 0.515 kg s ¹1.
The CaO ash concentration decreases from 14.93 to
11.11 wt%, the A/B ratio increases from 3.21 to 3.94 and
the silica ratio from 0.699 to 0.745. Consequently, T cv
increases from 1623 to 1677 K and the slag viscosity from
151 to 301 poise (at T ¼ 1700 K). The transition front
moves towards the chamber side causing an increase in
1618 Fuel 1998 Volume 77 Number 14
solid slag thickness (Figure 7f); consequently, the outlet
slag flow rate shows an initial decrease and then reaches a
lower stationary value (Figure 7d).
The liquid slag thickness decreases slightly (Figure 7e)
because the decrease in total ash flow rate and the higher
temperatures across the slag deposit are counterbalanced by
the increase in viscosity. The heat fluxes to the slag surfaces
and to the metal walls decrease (see Figure 7b,c), and the
outlet gas temperature increases 168C (Figure 7a).
Starting of O 2 lances
Under particular operating conditions, at the gasifier
bottom the slag thicknesses can become so high as to cause

Figure 7 (a–f) Model responses to a ¹ 50% step change in limestone feed (* values relative to the 14th cell (the most critical); ** values
relative to the last cell, 15th)
the tap blockage. For this reason oxygen lances at the
bottom are used to avoid the excessive thickening of slag
deposit at the tap hole. Beginning from the steady state,
calculated at the nominal conditions, the starting of oxygen
lances is simulated (from 0 to 0.5 kg s ¹1). The model
responses are shown in Figure 8a–g.
A combustion zone is localized at the gasifier bottom
where the gas temperature increases from 1852 to
2983 K (Figure 8g). The higher gas temperatures (Figure
8a) lead to higher heat fluxes to the slag surfaces and to the
metal walls, particularly in the lower cells (Figure 8b,c).
The liquid slag viscosity decreases owing to the higher
temperature and, consequently, the outlet slag flow rate
increases, showing an initial peak and then slowly returning
Modelling of time varying slag flow: M. Seggiani
to its original value (Figure 8d ). The liquid slag thickness
shows qualitatively the same trend of the leaving slag flow
rate (Figure 8e), the solid slag thickness decreases (Figure
8f ) in particular in the lower cells (in the 14th cell d s
decreases 56%). These results confirm the importance of
oxygen lances to move away quite quickly the occurrence of
tap blockage.
CONCLUSIONS
A slag building simplified model has been developed and
integrated with a gasifier 3D code in order to analyse the
slag behaviour on the reactor walls. The model provides the
slag deposit thickness (solid and liquid), the temperature
Fuel 1998 Volume 77 Number 14 1619
Modelling of time varying slag flow: M. Seggiani

Figure 8 (a–g) Model responses to the starting of oxygen lances (* values relative to the 14th cell (the most critical); ** values relative to
the last cell, 15th)

1620 Fuel 1998 Volume 77 Number 14

 Modelling of time varying slag flow: M. Seggiani

across the deposit, and the heat flux to the metal wall in NOMENCLATURE
various operating conditions.
The transient responses of the integrated model have A heat transfer surface [m 2]
been analysed by step changes: increase of 2% in c slag specific heat [J kg ¹1 K]
oxygen–steam feed, increase and reduction of 50% in the cr refractory specific heat [J kg ¹1 K ¹1]
limestone added to the coal dust, and starting of the D diameter of the reactor [m]
oxygen lances at the gasifier bottom. Effects qualitatively g gravity acceleration [m s ¹2]
and quantitatively similar on the slag thickness are obtained m ex vertical outlet slag mass flow rate [kg s ¹1]
either by the O 2 increase (higher temperatures inside the m in mass flow rate of liquid slag impinging on the wall
gasification chamber) or by the increase in the limestone [kg s ¹1]
(decreasing of the slag viscosity and temperature of critical q ex heat flux associated to the leaving slag mass flow
viscosity). rate [W]
The analysis of the transient response times reveals that qf slag fusion heat [J kg ¹1]
the changes of variables related to the slag are very slow qm refractory ¹ metal wall heat flux [W m ¹2]
(about 2 h) compared with the changes of the variables q out slag-refractory heat flux [W m ¹2]
connected to the gas phase (about 15 min). T average slag deposit temperature [K]
T cv temperature of critical viscosity [K]
Tg gas temperature next to slag surface [K]
Tg out outlet syngas temperature [K]
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS T in temperature of the fluid mass impinging on the wall
I wish to thank the Research Centre PT of the ENEL for [K]
the support of a research programme of which this work To slag–gas interface temperature [K]
is a part. Special thanks are due to Professor R. Tartarelli Tr average refractory temperature [K]
for his invaluable aid during the preparation of this Tw refractory–slag interface temperature [K]
paper. t time [s]
v velocity of the liquid slag element [m s ¹1]

Greek letters
b slope of the wall on which the liquid slag flows [8]
REFERENCES
ds solid slag thickness [m]
1 Reid, W. T. and Cohen, P., Trans. ASME, 1944, 66, 685. dl liquid slag thickness [m]
2 Johnson, E. K., Trans. ASME, 1984, 106, 777. d total slag thickness [m]
3 ENEL, Puertollano Dynamic Simulator Project, ENL- dr refractory thickness [m]
MTM-FA1-001, 1997. dm metal wall thickness [m]
4 Bird, R. B., Stewart, W. E. and Lightfoot, E. N., Transport l slag thermal conductivity [W m ¹1 K ¹1]
Phenomena. John Wiley, New York, 1960. lr refractory thermal conductivity [W m ¹1 K ¹1]
5 Sage, W. L. and McIlroy, J. B., Journal of Engineering for lm metal thermal conductivity [W m ¹1 K ¹1]
Power, Trans. ASME, 1960, 82, 145.
h slag viscosity [Pa s]
6 Streeter, R. C., Diehl, E. K. and Schobert, H. H., Am. Chem.
Soc. Div. Fuel Chem., Prepr., 1983, 28(4), 174. f fraction of solid slag deposit
7 Bottinga, H. and Weill, D. E., Am. J. Sci., 1972, 272, r slag density [kg m ¹3]
438. rr refractory density [kg m ¹3]
8 Mills, K. C. and Rhine, J. M., Fuel, 1989, 68, 904. rm metal density [kg m ¹3]

Fuel 1998 Volume 77 Number 14 1621