Article

Cite This: Energy Fuels XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX pubs.acs.org/EF

Computational Fluid Dynamics Study of Biomass Combustion in a

Simulated Ironmaking Blast Furnace: Effect of the Particle Shape
Yiran Liu and Yansong Shen*
School of Chemical Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales 2052, Australia

ABSTRACT: Biomass is a carbon-neutral fuel and has potential to be used in pulverized coal injection (PCI) technology in
ironmaking blast furnaces (BFs). In comparison to pulverized coal particles, biomass particles vary considerably in particle shape,
and thus, the change of the aspect ratio of biomass particles may affect the motion and conversion of biomass particles. In this
study, a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model is developed to simulate the flow and thermochemical behaviors related to
biomass injection into BFs. The model features non-spherical particle shapes and an improved devolatilization model. The model
is then applied to a pilot-scale test of charcoal injection using a pilot-scale PCI test rig under simulated BF conditions for model
validation. The burnout comparisons between simulation and measurement indicate that, in comparison to spherical particles,
the non-spherical particles show smaller burnouts as a result of the shorter traveling time in the chamber; moreover, the burnouts
predicted by the model considering cylindrical particles and improved devolatilization model are more comparable to the
measurements. This confirms the model validity and also concludes that it is necessary to include the effect of the particle shape
in the modeling of biomass injection in BFs. Then, to give a full picture of charcoal injection, other typical phenomena
of flow and combustion behaviors are analyzed in detail for charcoals in cylindrical particle shape, aspects of gas−charcoal flow,
their temperature distribution, and gas composition distribution. This model provides an effective way for understanding and
optimizing biomass injection in BF practice.

1. INTRODUCTION exceeded coal at the same volatile matter (VM) content,13

As an environmentally friendly and carbon-balance renewable
energy, biomass comes from a variety of sources in the world.1,2
It has been widely used in coal-fired boilers for power
generation.3 On the other hand, blast furnaces (BFs) are the
predominant route of ironmaking, representing the main
energy consumer, nearly 70% of the whole plant as a result
of coke combustion.4 By means of pulverized coal injection
(PCI), coal is injected into the raceways to partially replace
expensive metallurgical coke.5−7 As a result, a large amount
of CO2 is emitted from the combustion of coal and coke.
Therefore, biomass, as a carbon-balance source, has potential to
be used in ironmaking BFs. That is, substituting traditional
pulverized coal with biomass is significant for not only meeting
the energy needs of ironmaking BFs but also the mitigation of
greenhouse gases.8,9 Practically, biomass injection technology
was reported to decrease CO2 emission by 21−28%10 up to
37−45%11 compared to PCI technology. However, biomass
and coal differ significantly from physicochemical properties,
such as the size, density, and especially non-spherical shape,
where the latter could greatly affect the motion and conversion
of fuel particles in combustors.12 On the other hand, the flow
and thermochemical behavior of PCI operation in BF differs
significantly from coal combustion in boilers, such as a higher
temperature, more intense heating rate and mixing, larger
velocity, and more complex gas concentration. Therefore, it is
of importance to understand the thermochemical behavior
of biomass injection in BFs and, in particular, consider the
irregular shape in studying the biomass injection in BFs.
Biomass combustion has been studied under BF conditions
using various methods. Lab- or pilot-scale experimental studies
of biomass combustion in BF indicated that the combustion
performance of the charcoal, a biomass-derived product,
and the solution loss reaction for biomass went faster than
pulverized coal,14 making full substitution possible.15 BHP
developed a pilot-scale PCI test rig, tested the charcoal
injection (Figure 1a), and found that charcoal injection into
BF lowered the pressure drop and its fluctuation amplitude.16,17
Moreover, charcoal injection was tested under actual produc-
tion conditions using mini-BFs in Brazil,18 where the charcoal
injection rate of 100−190 kg/tonne of heavy metal (HM) was
achieved19 and 200−225 kg/tonne of HM should be feasible
in large BFs.20 However, all of these experiments conducted
at either lab or plant scale failed to provide the detailed
information on multiphase flow and thermochemical processes
related to charcoal injection, such as flow distribution, turbulent
mixing, reaction zones, and species distribution.21
At present, mathematical modeling, especially computational
fluid dynamics (CFD), was used to overcome these problems.
Wijayanta et al.22,23 reported a two-dimensional (2D) CFD
investigation of pulverized biochar injection into a BF and
found that a longer raceway was required to obtain the same
combustibility of biochar as coal. However, this 2D model did
not consider the three-dimensional (3D) features and can
only generate useful results for practice. Wu et al.24 developed a
3D CFD model to evaluate the flow characteristics of charcoal
utilization in a PCI blowpipe and tuyere and optimize the posi-
tion of the blowpipe. However, the raceway was not considered.
Special Issue: 6th Sino-Australian Symposium on Advanced Coal and
Biomass Utilisation Technologies
Received: October 15, 2017
Revised: December 7, 2017
Published: December 12, 2017

© XXXX American Chemical Society A DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b03150

Energy Fuels XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Energy & Fuels Article

Figure 1. Schematic of the PCI test rig: (a) schematic of the PCI test rig and (b) geometry details of the computational domain (mm).30

Table 1. Governing Equations for the Gas and Particle Phases in the Model25
for the Gas Phase

mass
∇(ρU) = ∑ ṁ
np

⎛ 2 ⎞
∇(ρUU) − ∇((μ + μt )(∇U + (∇U)T )) = −∇⎜p + ρk ⎟ + ∑ fD
momentum ⎝ 3 ⎠ np

⎛ ⎛ λ μ ⎞ ⎞
energy ∇⎜⎜ρUH − ⎜ + t ⎟∇H ⎟⎟ = ∑q
⎝ ⎝ CP σH ⎠ ⎠ np

⎛ ⎛ μ ⎞ ⎞
gas species i ∇⎜⎜ρUYi − ⎜⎜Γi + t ⎟⎟∇Yi ⎟⎟ = Wi
⎝ ⎝ σYi ⎠ ⎠

⎛ ⎛ μ⎞ ⎞
turbulent kinetic energy ∇⎜⎜ρUk − ⎜μ + t ⎟∇k ⎟⎟ = (Pk − ρε)
⎝ ⎝ σ k⎠ ⎠
⎛ ⎛ μ⎞ ⎞ ε
turbulent dissipation rate ∇⎜⎜ρUε − ⎜μ + t ⎟∇ε⎟⎟ = (C1Pk − C2ρε)
⎝ ⎝ σε ⎠ ⎠ k
for a Particle in the Particle Phase
dm p
mass = − ṁ
dt
dUp
mp = −fD
dt
momentum
1
−fD = πd p2ρC D|U − Up|(U − Up)
8
dTp
mpCp = −q
dt
energy
dm p
− q = πd pλNu(Tg − Tp) + ∑ Hreac + A pεp(πI − σBTp 4)
dt

Shen et al.25 developed a 3D CFD model to simulate the the charcoal type, such as the VM content. Castro et al.26,27
injection of different charcoals in BFs to evaluate the effect of reported CFD studies of simultaneous injection of pulverized
B DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b03150
Energy Fuels XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
 Table 2. Reactions Considered in This Charcoal Injection Model with Respective Reaction Kineticsa
reaction reaction rate expression reaction kinetics38

k
⎛ E ⎞
moisture(l) → H 2O(g) k = A exp⎜− ⎟ A = 5.13 × 108 s−1; E = 88 kJ mol−1
⎝ RTP ⎠
Energy & Fuels

k v1
⎛ E ⎞
charcoal ⎯→
⎯ α1fuel gas + (1 − α1)char k = A exp⎜− ⎟ A1 = 4.3 × 107 s−1; E1 = 136 kJ mol−1; α1 = VM (daf); CS = 0
⎝ RTP ⎠

k v2 d ṁ
charcoal ⎯→
⎯ α2 fuel gas + (1 − α2)char d = CSd0 ref A2 = 1.46 × 1013 s−1; E2 = 251 kJ mol−1; α2 = Q × VM (daf) + 0.14; CS = 0
dt mref,0
⎛ E ⎞
CH4 + 0.5O2 → CO + 2H2 k = [i]A exp⎜− ⎟ A = 2.3 × 107 s−1; E = 125.5 kJ mol−1; [i] = [CH4]−0.3[O2]1.3
⎝ RTP ⎠

ε ⎛ [i] ⎞
CO + 0.5O2 → CO2 ri = CA min⎜ ⎟ A = 1014.6 s−1 mol−1 cm2.25; E = 167.3 kJ mol−1; [i] = [CO][O2]0.5
κ ⎝ vt′ ⎠
CO2 → CO + 0.5O2 A = 5 × 108 s−1; E = 167.3 kJ mol−1; [i] = [CO2]1
H2 + 0.5O2 → H2O A = 540 m3 kg−1 s−1; E = 15.1 kJ mol−1; [i] = [H2][O2]0.5
ε ⎛ [i] ⎞
H2O → H2 + 0.5O2 ri = CA min⎜ ⎟ CA = 4.0; [i] = [H2O]
κ ⎝ vt′ ⎠

2(ϕ − 1) ⎛ T⎞
ϕchar + O2 → 2(ϕ − 1)CO + (2 − ϕ)CO2 = AS exp⎜⎜− s ⎟⎟ Ac = 140 m s−1 K−1; Tc = 21580 K; As = 2500; Ts = 6240 K

C
2−ϕ ⎝ Tp ⎠
dmC 3ϕ MC ρ∞ −1
char + CO2 → 2CO =− (k1 + (k 2 + k 3)−1mC) Ac = 202300 m s−1 K−1; Tc = 39743 K; As = 0.0004; Ts = 6240 K
dt 1− e MO2 ρC
char + H2O → CO + H2 Ac = 6069 m s−1 K−1; Tc = 32406 K; As = 0.0004; T s = 6240 K
a 2 2 0.5
k1 = D/RP ; k2 = (1 − e)kc/RP; k3 = kcTp(β coth β − 1)/β α; kc = AcTp exp(−Tc/Tp); β = R(kc/Dpea) ; Dp = effic × D; D = Dref/ρfluid((Tp + Tg)/2Tref)α.
Article

DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b03150
Energy Fuels XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Energy & Fuels
coal and charcoal into a BF. However, in these model studies,
the irregular shape of biomass particles that may greatly affect
the motion and conversion of fuel particles in combustors28,29
was not considered. To date, the studies considering irregular
particle shape have not been conducted for biomass injection
into BFs.
In this study, a 3D CFD model is improved to describe the
flow and thermochemical behaviors related to biomass injec-
tion in BFs and study the effects of non-spherical particle
shapes. The model is applied to charcoal in a pilot-scale PCI
test rig. The comparisons against measurements show that the
simulations using the cylindrical particle shape give the most
comparable burnouts to the measurements. Then, other key phe-
nomena of injecting charcoal in cylinder shape are described,
including gas−particle flow, temperature, and concentrations.
2. MODEL DEVELOPMENT
2.1. Model Outline. The mathematical model of the biomass
injection is based on our previous PCI models.30−32 The governing
equations for the gas−solid flow and associated heat transfer and the
reactions of charcoal are outlined below for completion.
The gas phase is modeled using a 3D steady-state Reynolds-
averaged Navier−Strokes equation closed by a standard k−ε
turbulence model. The particle phase is modeled using the Lagrangian
method, where the trajectories of the discrete particles are determined
by integrating Newton’s second law of motion, where drag force
and turbulence dispersion are included. The heat transfer of the
gas−particle phase is modeled by considering three physical processes:
convective heat transfer, latent heat transfer associated with mass
transfer, and radiative heat transfer. Full coupling of continuity,
momentum, and energy are applied to the particle−gas phase inter-
action. The models are summarized in Table 1.
2.2. Model Improvements. Some model improvements specific
to biomass combustion are also included in this part, including the
model of the non-spherical particle shape and the improved devolatil-
ization model.
2.2.1. Non-spherical Particle Shape. Unlike coal that will soften
and form a spherical particle shape during devolatilization, biomass
particles will largely retain their initial irregularly shaped form.33
This large aspect ratio may affect gas−particle drag force and heat and
mass transfer correlations. This necessitates the introduction of a non-
spherical shape factor. In this model, two shape factors, namely, cross-
sectional area factor and surface area factor, are used to describe the
influence of the particle shape on the drag force and mass and heat
transfer correlations, respectively. The former factor is multiplied by
the calculated cross-sectional area when assuming spherical particles.
The latter factor is defined as the ratio of the surface area of the non-
spherical particle to the surface area of the spherical particle with the
equivalent diameter. With the cylindrical spherical particle taken for
example, the two shape factors are defined as eqs 1 and 2. The particle
shape factors are considered in the governing equations in the form of
the volume-equivalent sphere diameter of particle, de. For consistency
and tidiness, their definitions (i.e., eqs 1 and 2) are not specified in the
governing equations in Table 1.
scross‐cylinder πr 2
fcross‐sectional = = fitted, multi-block structured finite volume mesh is used, with
Scross‐sphere π(1/2de)2 (1)
ssurface cylinder 2πr 2 + 2πrd
fsurface = =
Ssurface sphere 4π(1/2de)2 (2)
2.2.2. Improved Devolatilization Model. Similar to pulverized
coal combustion, biomass combustion is considered to be a four-stage
chemical reaction; however, the parameters of reactivity and inner
particle structure are quite different, which gives highly different
reaction rates.34 They are modeled by means of the following: (i) The
moisture evaporation process is controlled by finite rate chemistry.
D DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b03150
Article
(ii) Devolatilization is modeled using two-competing reaction
models30,35 rather than a one-step global model used in the past.25
In the experimental study,10 it was found that the charcoal particles
used in the test do not swell much during the devolatilization. Thus, in
this numerical study based on the conditions of ref 10, the swelling
coefficient of charcoal particles is set to zero (Cs = 0). (iii) Gaseous
combustion reactions of fuel gas are modeled by the three-fuel gas
model and controlled by the combined eddy dissipation model and
finite rate chemistry. (iv) Char oxidation and gasification are modeled
by Gibb’s model. The models are summarized in Table 2. The models
are developed on the basis of the framework of software package
ANSYS-CFX, version 17.2.36
3. SIMULATION CONDITIONS
3.1. Properties of Charcoal. In this study, the model of
biomass injection is applied to charcoal in the base cases for
model validation. Charcoal, derived by carbonizing biomass, is
typically low in oxygen, VM, and ash contents compared to
biomass/cellulosic materials, while they all tend to remain the
original shape. The proximate (ad) and ultimate (daf) analyses
and mean particle size (de) of the pulverized charcoal are listed
in Table 3. For the injectant, 50 particle size groups ranging
Table 3. Proximate (ad) and Ultimate (daf) Analyses of the
Pulverized Charcoal Used in This Study25
moisture ash VM fixed carbon calorific value density
(%) (%) (%) (%) (MJ/kg) (kg/m3)
9.3 1.8 4.3 84.6 32.48 1150
C (%) H (%) O (%) N (%) S (%)
95.0 0.99 3.7 0.33 0.03
from 1 to 250 μm are sampled and 500 representative particles
are tracked in the simulations. In this model, de is the volume-
equivalent sphere diameter for different particle shapes,
27 μm in this study. In this study, charcoal is in the shape
of a cylinder, as shown in the scanning electron microscopy
(SEM) characterization.10
3.2. Geometry and Boundary Conditions. The model is
applied to a pilot-scale PCI test rig (Figure 1a).17 The test
rig was designed to simulate the flow and combustion in the
region of lance−tuyere−raceway (along the coal plume)
related to PCI operation under simulated BF conditions.
The computational domain (Figure 1b) includes lance,
tuyere, and raceway centerline. The main duct is used for
injecting the hot blast (i.e., oxygen-enriched air). The coaxial
lance is installed at an inclination angle of 6° with respect
to the centerline of the duct. The inner tube is used for injec-
ting pulverized charcoal and the conveying gas (i.e., 100%
nitrogen), and the outer tube is used for injecting cooling gas
(i.e., air). The geometry is plane-symmetric. The exit at the
end of the chamber is set as an outlet, and the wall of the
chamber is assumed non-slippery and adiabatic. A boundary-
a highly fine mesh around the lance and tuyere and along the
centerline of the chamber. Table 4 shows main parameters of
operating conditions.
3.3. Model Validation. The charcoal injection model is
validated against the measured burnouts obtained from the
pilot-scale test rig using two charcoal materials, as shown in
Table 5.10,25 The burnout is calculated according to ash
balance, as below. The ash data were collected at three positions,
+50 mm, centerline, and −50 mm, at 925 mm downstream from
the injection point.
Energy Fuels XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Energy & Fuels Article

Table 4. Operating Conditions in the PCI Test Rig Used in (case 2), and flat chip (case 3), where the cylindrical shape is
This Study26 common for charcoal particles and the flat chip is common for
wood chip particles: case 1, spherical charcoal injection; case 2,
temperature
flow rate (Nm3/h) (K) O2 (%) cylindrical charcoal injection; and case 3, flat-chip-shaped
charcoal injection.
blast gas 300 1473 20.9
cooling gas 3.2 600 20.9 eat‐upCO = mfCO /(mfCO + mfCO ) (4)
2 2
conveying gas 2 323 0 (i.e., 100% N2)
coal/charcoal 38 kg/h 320 Figure 2 compares the burnout evolutions along the centerline
of the raceway between the three cases. They are discussed in
Table 5. Experimental Conditions for Model Validation
blast
charcoal blast rate temperature blast O2 charcoal rate
case materiala (Nm3/h) (K) (%) (kg/h)
1 charcoal 1 301 1474 22.4 33.5
2 charcoal 1 304 1475 22.5 25.2
3 charcoal 2 302 1478 22.4 29.4
4 charcoal 2 301 1477 22.3 48.4
a
The injectants: charcoal 1, referenced in Table 3; charcoal 2, 9.5%
moisture, 2.9% ash, 10.2% VM, 77.4% fixed carbon, and de of 25 μm.

⎛ ma,0 ⎞
burnout = ⎜1 − ⎟ /(1 − ma,0)
⎝ ma ⎠ (3)
Table 6 compares the measured burnouts with the predicted
burnouts of particles in different shapes, i.e., sphere and cylinder.
Figure 2. Comparison of burnout evolutions along the centerline
Table 6. Model Validation in Terms of Burnout for Different among spherical (case 1), cylindrical (case 2), and flat-chip-shaped
Particle Shapes (case 3) charcoals.

predicted burnout (%)

measured burnout sphere-shaped
number (%) charcoal
1 70.1 72.12
2 80.8 81.44
3 70.4 75.10
4 72.1 80.40
It is indicated that the improved model can reasonably predict
burnouts for both spherical and cylindrical particles. Moreover,
it is also indicated that, in comparison to spherical particles,
the burnout predicted by cylindrical particle shapes is more
comparable to the measurements; that is, it is necessary to con-
sider the particle shape when injecting non-spherical materials
into the BF.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
After the model is validated against the measurements from
the pilot-scale test rig, the model is then used to investigate the
effects of the particle shape on the flow and thermochemical
behaviors of biomass injection in BFs and the significance of
improving the devolatilization model from a one-step global
reaction model to a two-completing reaction model in the
modeling of biomass injection in BFs. Finally, to give a full
picture of charcoal injection into BFs specifically, in additional
burnout and eat-up, other key flow and thermochemical behaviors
are overviewed for cylindrical charcoals under simulated BF
conditions.
4.1. Effects of the Particle Shape. To clarify the effects of
particle shapes in the modeling of biomass injection in BFs,
burnout and the so-called “eat-up” (defined as the rate of gas
conversion, shown in eq 4) along the centerline are compared
for charcoal particles in the shapes of a sphere (case 1), cylinder
two aspects: overall trend and difference between them. First, it
cylinder-shaped is indicated that the overall trends are similar for all three curves
charcoal
of the three cases. That is, there are two fast increases along the
70.79 burnout curves around 0.1−0.3 and 0.7−1.0 m. They resulting
79.82 from the release and combustion of VM at a lower temperature
73.75 upstream and higher temperature downstream, along the two
71.61 competing reaction paths in the two-competing reaction model
of devolatilization (Table 2), respectively. Second, the burnout
evolutions along the centerline and burnout at 1.1 m, traveling
time, and maximum temperature are then compared among
spherical (case 1), cylindrical (case 2), and flat-chip-shaped
(case 3) charcoals. It is indicated that the burnout evolution of
spherical charcoal particles is always larger than those of the
two irregularly shaped charcoal particles along the centerline.
The same trend can be found in burnout at the end of the
raceway, i.e., 1.1 m, and maximum temperature. The differ-
ence may result from the longer traveling time of the sphe-
rical particle of 0.404 s than those of the corresponding
irregularly shaped cases, 0.328 and 0.241 s, as shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Comparisons of Burnout at 1.1 m, Traveling Time,
and Maximum Temperature among Spherical (Case 1),
Cylindrical (Case 2), and Flat-Chip-Shaped (Case 3)
Charcoals
predicted burnout at traveling time maximum
number 1.1 m (%) (s) temperature (K)
1 65.50 0.404 1900
2 64.74 0.328 1882
3 64.39 0.241 1872
This is because the deviation of a particle from the spherical
shape causes a decrease of its terminal velocity in the fluid.
E DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b03150
Energy Fuels XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Energy & Fuels Article

This implies a higher drag force of the non-spherical particles

compared to the spherical particles.37 It should be noted that
the small difference in traveling time as a result of the PCI
process is a highly intense process, where the mixing rate is very
high and the traveling time is very short.
Figures 3 and 4 compare the effect of particle shapes on gas
concentrations among the three cases, along the symmetry

Figure 5. Comparison of “eat-up” among sphere (case 1), cylinder

(case 2), and flat chip (case 3).

Figure 6. Comparison of burnout evolution of cylindrical charcoals

using two different devolatilization models.

Figure 3. Comparison of the CO2 concentration among sphere (case 1),

cylinder (case 2), and flat chip (case 3).

Figure 4. Comparison of gas composition along the centerline among Figure 7. (a) Gas velocity vector and (b) charcoal particle trajectories
sphere (case 1), cylinder (case 2), and flat chip (case 3). colored by the particle size in the case of cylindrical charcoal injection.

F DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b03150
Energy Fuels XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Energy & Fuels
Figure 8. (a) Gas-phase temperature contours and (b) radiation inten-
sity in the case of cylindrical charcoal injection.
Figure 9. Gas-phase temperature contours in the case of pulverized
coal injection.30
plane and along the centerline, respectively. It is indicated that
the non-spherical charcoal injection cases obtain smaller CO2
Figure 10. Contours of gas concentrations of cylindrical charcoal injection, in terms of (a) H2O, (b) H2, (c) CO, and (d) O2.
G DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b03150
Article
concentrations than those of the spherical particle cases.
The non-spherical charcoal particle cases with a relatively
smaller burnout, especially the cylindrical case, show a slower
conversion from O2 to CO2 and CO, as shown in Figure 4.
However, in Figure 5, the comparison between “eat-up” curves
(rate of gas conversion) along the longitudinal direction of
different shaped particles shows that, when the particle shape is
taken into consideration, the rate of gas consumption of the
cylindrical particle is higher than those of other two cases in
the upstream (in the range of 0−0.4 m). In the downstream,
although the “eat-up” of non-spherical particles has a larger
value than that of the spherical counterpart, the final value
of eat-up is similar. In view of “eat-up” of one particle shape, a
rapid gas conversion upstream and slow convergence down-
stream are found for charcoal, indicating that homogeneous
reactions are the dominant reactions in determining the burnout
of charcoal.
4.2. Effect of the Improved Devolatilization Model.
The one-step global model is a relatively simple model
widely used in the modeling of coal combustion. This may
lead to insufficient accuracy in the prediction of the product
yield distributions with temperature and heating conditions.
The two-competing reaction model includes a primary path and
a secondary path, during which biomass materials undergo
additional cracking to produce gases, and, thus, has potential to
overcome the inaccuracy in the one-step global model.
Figure 6 compares the burnout evolutions predicted by
the two models, i.e., one-step global devolatilization and
two-competing reaction devolatilization, and the average
burnout measurement at 0.925 m in the validation case 1
(Table 6), i.e., 70.1%. It can be seen that the predicted burnout
using the two-competing reaction model is comparable to the
measurement, while the model using the one-step global model
gives a much lower burnout evolution. That is, the present
model using the two-competing reaction model with a suitable
Q factor is adequate to illustrate the impacts of shape on
charcoal combustion. Thus, the two-competing reaction model
rather than the one-step global model is suggested for the
modeling of biomass combustion in the future.
4.3. Typical Results of Other Flow and Thermochem-
ical Behaviors of Charcoal Particles in a Cylindrical
Particle Shape. In this study, the charcoal particles are largely
Energy Fuels XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Energy & Fuels
Figure 11. Combustion characteristics along the centerline for
different size groups for cylindrical charcoal injection: (a) burnout,
(b) VM content, and (c) particle temperature.
in a cylindrical shape, as observed in ref 10, as confirmed in the
model validation that the predicted burnout using a cylindrical
particle shape is more comparable to the measurements. Some
typical results of a cylindrical particle shape have been discussed
above, including burnout evolution and gas conversation.
In this section, other typical results of flow and thermochemical
phenomena related to charcoal injection using a cylindrical
shape are studied under simulated BF conditions, including
spatial distribution of flow and temperature distributions in the
entire chamber and, more quantitatively, evolutions of burnout,
VM content, and particle temperature along the centerline.
H DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b03150
Article
4.3.1. Flow Patterns. Figure 7a shows the velocity vector of
the gas phase along the symmetry plane for cylindrical charcoal
injection. The results show the velocity of the conveying gas at
the lance tip to be ∼9 m/s and the gas velocity at the tuyere to
be ∼125 m/s. The gas stream forms a high-speed inclined jet
after exiting the tuyere, and then the jet starts to expand in the
radial direction and finally dispersing near the exit. A low-speed
recirculation occurs near the wall. Similar phenomena are also
observed in the particle flow (Figure 7b), where the charcoal
plume is concentrated until exiting the jet and then starts
to rapidly disperse, mainly fine particles toward the exit of
the chamber. Some fine particles recirculate above, behind, and
below the jet.
4.3.2. Temperature Field. Figure 8a shows the gas-phase
temperature along the symmetry plane for cylindrical charcoal
injection. The asymmetric temperature distribution shows
that the temperature in the lower part is higher toward the
exit, which is due to the inclined lance arrangement. The high-
temperature part surrounding the lance tip corresponds to the
combustion of volatile, which starts to release after a preheating
stage of a high heating rate in front of the tuyere. Different from
PCI simulations, the charcoal injection does not show a flame-
front high temperature over the coal plume surface in front of
tuyere, as observed in Figure 9.30 In the chamber, the high
temperature resulted from the combustion of the recirculated
small charcoal particles. In the downstream, the highest temper-
ature was achieved because of the combustion of char released
from the charcoal particles. From Figure 8b, similar to the
temperature field, the radiation intensity contour shows that
there are different dominant reactions along the distance from
the lance tip.
4.3.3. Gas Concentrations. Figure 10 shows the gas species
distributions (H2O, H2, CO, and O2) along the symmetry plane
in charcoal injection. As the combustion proceeds, the moisture
evaporation process for charcoal combustion resulted in releas-
ing more H2O at the upstream, which is observed at the upstream
for the charcoal injection (Figure 10a). The significant moisture
content makes the evaporation process obvious and may delay
the ignition process. As one of the products of devolatilization
of charcoal, H2 has two relatively high-concentration parts
along the symmetry plane (Figure 10b), which may result from
the two-competing reaction model of devolatilization. Partial
O2, CO, and CO2 gasification conditions produced similar con-
centration profiles (panels c and d of Figure 10 and Figure 3b),
and the following changes in the concentration were observed:
rapid consumption of the O2 concentration and a rapid increase
of CO and CO2 at the downstream. This indicates a fast devola-
tilization reaction at a low temperature and a fast char com-
bustion at a higher temperature.
4.3.4. Combustion Characteristics Analyzed by Particle
Size Groups. Combustion characteristics related to charcoal
injection are further analyzed by particle size groups. Figure 11
shows the combustion characteristics in terms of burnout, VM
content, and particle temperature in six particle size groups.
Although similar to the overall performance of burnout, the
burnout evolution curve for each size group (Figure 11a)
varies for different size groups. The particle of a smaller size
has a larger specific surface area and faster devolatilization
(Figure 11b) and, thus, achieves a higher particle temperature
(Figure 11c). The smaller particles are going through a higher
heating rate (Figure 11c) and start the devolatilization process
earlier than larger particles (Figure 11b); thus, the burnout of
Energy Fuels XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Energy & Fuels
smaller particles starts earlier and achieves a higher value than
that of larger particles.
5. CONCLUSION
A 3D CFD model is developed for describing the injection of
irregularly shaped charcoal particles and applied to a pilot-scale
PCI test rig to simulate the charcoal injection under simulated
BF conditions. The model is validated against the measure-
ments in terms of burnout. The model is then used to
investigate the effects of particle shapes on irregularly shaped
charcoal particles and the significance of the improved
devolatilization model and illustrate other flow and thermo-
chemical behaviors of charcoal particles in a cylindrical par-
ticle shape. The following is found: (1) This model with the
introduced shape factors can better describe the evolutions
of irregularly shaped charcoal particles in terms of burnout.
For the charcoal injection, the burnouts using a cylindrical
shape are more comparable to the measurements, consistent
with the practice. (2) The present model using the two-competing
reaction model with a suitable Q factor is more suitable to
illustrate the impacts of particle shape on charcoal combustion
than that using the one-step global model. (3) In comparison to
spherical charcoal cases, the two cases of irregularly shaped
charcoal particles have a slower combustion process and lower
burnouts. (4) The significant moisture content of charcoal
makes the evaporation process obvious at the upstream and
may delay the ignition process for the charcoal injection.
(5) Different from PCI simulations, the charcoal injection does
not show a flame-front high temperature over the coal plume
surface in front of tuyere.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail: ys.shen@unsw.edu.au.
ORCID
Yansong Shen: 0000-0001-8472-8805
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the financial support from the
Australian Research Council and Baosteel (LP150100112) and
the first author wishes to acknowledge the financial support
from China Scholarship Council.
■ NOMENCLATURE
A1 and A2 = pre-exponential factors of devolatilization
reactions (s−1)
Ac = pre-exponential factors in the Gibb model (m s−1 K−1)
Ap = particle area (m2)
As = constant in the Gibb model (0.0004)
a = exponent in the Gibb model (0.75)
C0 = mass of raw charcoal (kg)
C1 and C2 = turbulent model constants
CD = drag coefficient
Cp = particle heat capacity (J kg−1 K−1)
D = external diffusion coefficient of oxygen in the Gibb
model (m2 s−1)
Dref = reference dynamic diffusivity in the Gibb model (1.8 ×
10−5 kg m−1 s−1)
Dp = pore diffusivity
daf = dry and ash free
I DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b03150
Article
d = particle diameter (μm)
de = volume-equivalent sphere diameter (μm)
e = void fraction of char particles
E1 and E2 = activation energy of devolatilization reactions
(kJ/mol)
fD = drag force from a particle (N)
fcross‑sectional = cross-sectional area factor
fsurface = surface area factor
H = enthalpy (J kg−1)
Hreac = reaction heat (J kg−1)
I = radiation intensity on the particle surface (W m−2)
[i] = molar concentration of component i
K = turbulent kinetic energy (m2 s−2)
kv1 and kv2 = devolatilization rate constants (s−1)
k1 = rate of external diffusion in the Gibb model (s−1)
k2 = rate of surface reaction in the Gibb model (s−1)
k3 = rate of internal diffusion and surface reaction in the
Gibb model (s−1)
kc = carbon oxidation rate in the Gibb model (m s−1)
ṁ = mass transfer rate from a particle (kg s−1)
ma = ash mass fraction
ma,0 = original ash mass fraction
mc = mass of char (kg)
mfCO = mass fraction of carbon monoxide
mfCO2 = mass fraction of carbon dioxide
Mc = molecular weight of carbon
MO2 = molecular weight of the oxygen molecule
np = particle number per unit volume (m−3)
Nu = Nusselt number
Pk = turbulence production by viscous force
p = pressure (Pa)
q = heat transfer from a particle (W)
Q = Q factor for the devolatilization model
rp = particle radius (m)
ri = reaction rate of gas species i (mol m−3 s−1)
Re = Reynolds number
T = temperature (K)
Tblast = blast temperature (K)
Tc = activation temperature (E/R) in the Gibb model (K)
Tg = gas temperature (K)
Tp = particle temperature (K)
Tref = reference temperature in the Gibb model (293 K)
Ts = constant in the Gibb model (6240 K)
U = mean velocity of gas (m s−1)
Up = mean velocity of the particle (m s−1)
u, v, and w = gas velocity components (m s−1)
VM = volatile matter
vi = stoichiometric coefficient of species i.
Wi = reaction rate of species i (per unit volume) (kg m−3 s−1)
Yi = mass fraction of species i
Greek Letters
α = volume/internal surface area ratio in the Gibb model
α1 and α2 = volatile yields
ε = turbulent dissipation rate (m2 s−3)
εp = particle emissivity
λ = thermal conductivity (W m−1 K−1)
σB = Stefan−Boltzmann constant (5.67 × 10−8 W m−2 K−4)
σk and σε = turbulence model constants
σH = turbulent Ptandtl number for enthalpy
ϕ = mechanism factor in the Gibb model
ρ = density (kg m−3)
μ = dynamic viscosity (Pa s)
μt = turbulent viscosity (Pa s)
Energy Fuels XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Energy & Fuels Article

Γi = molecular diffusivity of species i (kg m−1 s−1) (27) de Castro, J. A.; Araújo, G. M.; da Mota, I. O.; Sasaki, Y.; Yagi, J.
J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2013, 2 (4), 308−314.
Subscripts (28) Zhang, X.; Chen, Q.; Bradford, R.; Sharifi, V.; Swithenbank, J.
C = char Fuel Process. Technol. 2010, 91 (11), 1491−1499.
G = gas (29) Momeni, M.; Yin, C.; Kaer, S. K.; Hansen, T. B.; Jensen, P. A.;
P = particle Glarborg, P. Energy Fuels 2013, 27, 507−514.

■
(30) Shen, Y.; Guo, B.; Yu, A.; Maldonado, D.; Austin, P.; Zulli, P.
ISIJ Int. 2008, 48 (6), 777−786.
REFERENCES (31) Shen, Y.; Maldonado, D.; Guo, B.; Yu, A.; Austin, P.; Zulli, P.
(1) Jin, X.; Ye, J.; Deng, L.; Che, D. Energy Fuels 2017, 31, 2951− Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2009, 48, 10314−10323.
2958. (32) Shen, Y.; Guo, B.; Yu, A.; Zulli, P. ISIJ Int. 2009, 49 (6), 819−
(2) Thanapal, S. S.; Chen, W.; Annamalai, K.; Carlin, N.; Ansley, R. 826.
J.; Ranjan, D. Energy Fuels 2014, 28, 1147−1157. (33) Backreedy, R. I.; Fletcher, L. M.; Jones, J. M.; Ma, L.;
(3) Li, P.; Wang, F.; Tu, Y.; Mei, Z.; Zhang, J.; Zheng, Y.; Liu, H.; Pourkashanian, M.; Williams, A. Proc. Combust. Inst. 2005, 30, 2955−
Liu, Z.; Mi, J.; Zheng, C. Energy Fuels 2014, 28, 1524−1535. 2964.
(4) Kuang, S.; Li, Z.; Yu, A. Steel Res. Int. 2017, 87 (9999), 1−25. (34) Shen, F.; Ding, Z.; Yang, W.; Jiang, X.; Mu, L.; Shen, Y. J. Iron
(5) Kim, J.-H.; Kim, R.-G.; Kim, G.-B.; Jeon, C.-H. Exp. Therm. Fluid Steel Res. Int. 2009, 16, 753−757.
Sci. 2016, 79, 266−274. (35) Guo, B.; Zulli, P.; Rogers, H.; Mathieson, J. G.; Yu, A. ISIJ Int.
(6) De Girolamo, A.; Grufas, A.; Lyamin, I.; Nishio, I.; Ninomiya, Y.; 2005, 45 (9), 1272−1281.
Zhang, L. Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 1858−1868. (36) ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS-CFX Documentation; ANSYS, Inc.:
(7) Gao, Q.; Li, S.; Yuan, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Yao, Q. Energy Fuels 2016, 30, Canonsburg, PA, 2017.
1815−1821. (37) Tran-Cong, S.; Gay, M.; Michaelides, E. E. Powder Technol.
(8) Fitzpatrick, E. M.; Bartle, K. D.; Kubacki, M. L.; Jones, J. M.; 2004, 139, 21−32.
Pourkashanian, M.; Ross, A. B.; Williams, A.; Kubica, K. Fuel 2009, 88 (38) Shiozawa, T. Numerical Modelling of Multiphase Flow in
(12), 2409−2417. Raceway of Ironmaking Blast Furnace. Ph.D. Thesis, Materials Science
(9) Söderman, J.; Saxén, H.; Pettersson, F. Comput.-Aided Chem. Eng. & Engineering, Faculty of Science, The University of New South
2009, 26, 567−571. Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, 2013.
(10) Rogers, H.; Mathieson, J. G. BlueScope Internal Report;
BlueScope Steel Research: Port Kembla, New South Wales, Australia,
2010.
(11) Babich, A.; Senk, D.; Fernandez, M. ISIJ Int. 2010, 50 (1), 81−
88.
(12) Tabet, F.; Gökalp, I. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2015, 51,
1101−1114.
(13) Norgate, T.; Haque, N.; Somerville, M.; Jahanshahi, S. ISIJ Int.
2012, 52 (8), 1472−1481.
(14) Feliciano-Bruzual, C.; Mathews, J. A. Rev. Metal. 2013, 49 (6),
458−468.
(15) Jahanshahi, S.; Mathieson, J. G.; Somerville, M. A.; Haque, N.;
Norgate, T. E.; Deev, A.; Pan, Y.; Xie, D.; Ridgeway, P.; Zulli, P. J.
Sustain. Met. 2015, 1, 94−114.
(16) Mathieson, J.; Rogers, H.; Somerville, M.; Ridgeway, P.;
Jahanshahi, S. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Energy
Efficiency and CO2 Reduction in the Steel Industry (EECR Steel 2011);
Dusseldorf, Germany, June 27−July 1, 2011; pp 1−10.
(17) Mathieson, J. G.; Rogers, H.; Somerville, M. A.; Jahanshahi, S.
ISIJ Int. 2012, 52 (8), 1489−1496.
(18) Braga, R. N. B.; Goncalves, H. T.; Santiago, R.; Neto, J. Met.
ABM 1986, 42 (343), 389−394.
(19) Machado, J. G. M. S.; Osório, E.; Vilela, A. C. F.; Babich, A.;
Senk, D.; Gudenau, H. W. Steel Res. Int. 2010, 81 (1), 9−16.
(20) Nogami, H.; Yagi, J.; Sampaio, R. S. ISIJ Int. 2004, 44 (10),
1646−1652.
(21) Ahmed, P.; Habib, M. A.; Ben-Mansour, R.; Ghoniem, A. F.
Energy Fuels 2016, 30 (3), 2458−2473.
(22) Wijayanta, A. T.; Alam, M. S.; Nakaso, K.; Fukai, J.; Kunitomo,
K.; Shimizu, M. ISIJ Int. 2014, 54 (7), 1521−1529.
(23) Wijayanta, A. T.; Alam, M. S.; Nakaso, K.; Fukai, J.; Kunitomo,
K.; Shimizu, M. Fuel Process. Technol. 2014, 117, 53−59.
(24) Wu, B.; Roesel, T.; Zhou, C. Q. Proceedings of the ASME 2009
International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition; Lake
Buena Vista, FL, Nov 13−19, 2009; pp 445−451, DOI: 10.1115/
IMECE2009-13107.
(25) Shen, Y.; Shiozawa, T.; Yu, A.; Austin, P. Proceedings of the 7th
International Symposium on Multiphase Flow, Heat Mass Transfer and
Energy Conversion; Xi’an, Shaanxi, China, Oct 26−30, 2012; pp 78−87,
DOI: 10.1063/1.4816855.
(26) de Castro, J. A.; da Silva, A. J.; Sasaki, Y.; Yagi, J. ISIJ Int. 2011,
51 (5), 748−758.

J DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b03150
Energy Fuels XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX