2011 11th International Conference on Control, Automation and Systems

Oct. 26-29, 2011 in KINTEX, Gyeonggi-do, Korea

Process Modeling of an Entrained flow Coal Gasifier

Mi-Yeong Kim1 and Ui-Sik Kim1
1
Power Generation Laboratory, Korea Electric Power Research Institute, Daejeon, 305-760, Korea
(Tel : +82-42-865-5366; E-mail: elysium003@kepco.co.kr)

Abstract: In this paper, a process model of coal gasifier was developed using MATLAB, MS EXCEL. The proposed
model in this paper was developed to predict syngas compositions correctly through calculating heat and mass balances
and detail design for gasification in reactor. Furthermore, the proposed model was made to calculate carbon conversion
and cold gas efficiency which represent the performance of gasifier. In order to validate the proposed model, result of
syngas compositions was compared with RGibbs model in ASPEN PLUS for 4 coals which have experimental results
of shell gasifier. Errors of results between experimental data and the proposed model is within 0.5%, the standard
deviation of errors is 0.27. The value is smaller than 1.27 of RGibbs model, so that results from the proposed model is
stable for prediction of syngas compositions. Carbon conversion and cold gas efficiency 4 coals were about 99% and
80% for as same with typical performance of Shell gasifier. In addition, the proposed model calculated volatile yields
and reaction coordinates for 4 coals. Specially, it notices that reaction coordinates of gasification depend on coal type
and what kinds of reaction are superior in gasification for each coal. The proposed model will be used effectively for
process modeling of gasification plant process.

Keywords: Selected keywords relevant to the subject.

1. INTRODUCTION where Hi is the molar enthalpy of a species i, △Hf is

the standard enthalpy of formation, Cpi is the molar heat
Coal gasification is a famous technology to product
capacity of a species i, T is a temperature of system.
syngas from gasifying coal as well as an environmental
Physical properties of species took from a literature
process to take hydrogen using separation CO2. Coal
gasification has been used for a long time but recently, and △Hf, Cp of coal are calculated through the heat of
once again comes to the fore for resolving CO2 combustion of coal (Eq. (3)) and the Kirov correlation
emissions and other environmental problems from (Eq. (4)) [2-3].
energy industry. Specially, an emitted CO2 from ΔH f ,coal = ΔH c − ΔH f , product (3)
conventional pulverized coal power plant occupies 40% where △Hc is heat of combustion.
of global energy related CO2 emissions. Therefore the
power industry is interested in IGCC in order to capture C p = wm C p + wV . M C p
m V .M
+ wF . C C p F .C
+ wAsh C p Ash
(4)
CO2 easily or power generation with converted H2 where wi is a mass fraction of i, m means a moisture of
using coal gasification in the future. The core coal, V.M means a volatile of coal, F.C means a fixed
component in IGCC is coal gasifier. In this paper carbon of coal.
developed a process model of coal gasifier which can The proposed model consists of MS Excel (VBA) and
predict compositions of syngas and efficiency of Matlab for calculating the heat and mass balance of
gasifier for various coals and tested 4 kinds of coal. The gasifier. Calculation logic inside model is shown in Fig.
proposed model in this paper was validated results with 1 below.
RGibbs model of ASPEN PLUS in order to measure
model’s accuracy. In addition, the proposed model
performed calculation of efficiency and analysis of
reaction coordinate.

2. PROCESS MODEL
2.1 Gasifier Model
A Process model needs calculation of heat and mss
balance. The mass balance will be introduced at 2.2
Reaction design and the heat balance can be calculate Fig.1 Calculation logic inside model.
by Eqs. (1) ~ (2) [1].
Matlab was used for solving non-linear equations and
Q = ΔH = ∑ nout H out − ∑
nin H in (1)
reversed functions. MS Excel (VBA) was used for
where Q is total rate of heat transfer to or from a system, calculating the heat and mass balance of whole system
H is the molar enthalpy, n is moles of inlet or outlet. and making PFD (Process Flow Diagram) for
T
supporting convenience to user. Two programs were
H i = ΔH f ,i + ∫
298.15
C pi (T ) dT (2)

978-89-93215-03-8 98560/11/$15 ⓒICROS 1724

link each other and exchanged information. Fig. 2 is a
PFD which will be supported to user including input
data and output data.

Fig. 4 The devolatilization model.

Merrick’s devolatilization model calculates mass

fraction of char using elements balance, ultimate and
proximate analysis of coal. The elemental compositions
Fig. 2 PFD of gasifier. of char and the tar are fixed. The fixed elemental
compositions are obtained from correlation of flash
2.2 Reaction Design chain of Niksa and Freihaut, Kan [6]. The final
constraint on devolatilization is the correlation relating
The proposed model designs chemical reaction in
the actual volatiles yield to initial volatile matter (V.M)
gasifier into volatilization, combustion and gasification
content obtained by proximate analysis from Eq. (6) [7].
according to reaction zone and phase.
The devolatilization is a phenomenon that coal V .M 2 = V .M 1 ⋅ (1 − 0.066 ln P ) (6)
pyrolyzes to produce char and volatiles in range of where Wi is a weight of specie i, V.M is a volatile matters,
200~900℃with heating. The below reaction (Eq.(5)) 1 is mass flow rate of volatile matters at 1 atm, 2 is mass
represents the devolatilization. flow rate of volatile matters at P atm.
Coal ( s ) → aCO (g)+ bH 2 (g) +c CO 2 (g) + dH 2 O(g) + eH 2 S(g) Combustion is oxidations of volatiles and char with
oxygen. The combustion of volatiles takes place within
+ fCH 4 (g) + gSoot(s) + hC 2 H 6 (g)+iHCN(g)+jChar(s) the gas phase like Eqs. (7 ) ~ (9).
(5) CH4+2 O2 Æ CO2 + 2H2O (7)
The considered volatile gases are H2, CO, CO2, H2S, C2H6 + 3.5O2 Æ 2CO2 + 3H2O (8)
CH4, C2H6, HCN, H2O, solids are char and soot. Char CO + O2 Æ CO2 (9)
has compositions of the form CaNbSc and soot consists Those reactions are assumed complete combustion
of only C. Soot as unburned carbon affects to carbon which undergoes in enriched oxygen for short time.
conversion of coal. All of the ash remains in the char. Hence conversion of those reactions was set to 100% by
The devolatilization divided by first devolatilization and stoichiometry equations.
second devolatilization as shown Fig. 3 [4-5]. The combustion of char takes place in solid – gas
phase like Eq. (10) [7].
C(s) + 0.508O2(g) Æ 0.987CO(g) + 0.014CO2 (g) (10)
The stoichiometry of this reaction is set by a reaction
temperature and particle size and was derived from Wen.
Particle size is smaller than 90㎛, the reaction
temperature is 1500℃.
Char gasification, Water shift gas reaction and CO
shift reforming reaction take place after totally
consuming oxygen. The equations are like Eqs. (11) ~
(15).
Fig.3 Schematic diagram of coal pyrolysis. Char gasification
C + CO2 = 2CO (11)
The first devolatilization includes tar, char and then C + H2O = CO + H2 (12)
tar pyrolyzes volatiles during the second devolatilization. C + 2H2 = CH4 (13)
Volatiles yield during the first devolatilization were
calculated by modified Merrick’s devolatilization model Water shift gas reaction
as shown in Fig. 4 and volatiles yield of tar during the CO+H2O=CO2+H2 (14)
second devolatilization were calculated through element
balance. The tar has compositions of the form CO shift reforming reaction
CaHbOcNdSe [4]. CO+3H2=CH4+H2O (15)

Those reactions in entrained flow gasifier are

assumed that there is equilibrium in order to have

1725
residence time sufficiently. Hence equilibrium equations from reference in ASPEN PLUS. Compositions of
of five reactions and five components can calculate syngas were compared between three cases and heat
equilibrium constants, reaction coordinates and syngas duty of gasifier was compared between two process
compositions. Expression of compositions of syngas models. Properties of tested four coals are shown in
and reaction coordinate is described like Eq. (16) [8]. Table 1.
nio + ∑ j ν i , j ε j
yi = (16) Table 1 Coal properties and Operation conditions
no + ∑ j ν j ε j EI Texas Pike Skyline
Cerrejon Lignite County
where no= initial moles (un-reacted), νi,j= stoichiometric O2/C ratio 0.92 0.88 1.01 0.96
numbers of i in reaction j,ε=. Reaction coordinate of H2O/C ratio 0.13 0 0.14 0.12
reaction j. Proximate Moisture 11.86 30.7 6.04 7.95
In addition, Compositions of syngas is defined as (wt%, AD) V.M 33.3 30.19 30.8 33.36
pressure and equilibrium constant like Eq. (17). F.C 47.09 22.15 52.45 49.89
P Ash 7.75 16.96 10.71 8.80
∏ ( yi )ν i , j = ( Po ) −ν j K j (17) Ultimate C 81.92 74.52 84.92 82.32
i (wt%,MAF) H 5.47 5.78 5.27 5.34
where y = mol fraction of species i, K= equilibrium O 9.86 15.99 7.10 9.42
constant of reaction j. N 1.68 1.50 1.68 1.67
The value y in Eq. (16) is substituted in Eq. (17), the S 1.07 2.21 0.89 1.23
expression for reaction coordinate and equilibrium
constant is obtained. The equilibrium constant can be The gasifier type is Shell Gasifier and a pressure and
calculated by Eq. (18). a temperature on operation are 23.69 atm and 1773K.
K ΔH ° 1 1 Result of syngas compositions as shown in Fig. 5.
ln =− ( − ) (18)
K' R T T'
where R= gas constant. Ho is the molar enthalpy at 1 68 Experiment
atm, 15℃. RGibbs
Proposed model
In conclusion, five reaction coordinates are derived to
CO Molfrac(%)

66

solve five non-linear equations for enthalpy. 64

Compositions of syngas are obtained from five reaction
coordinates. Non-linear equations are solved by 62

direction set Powell’s method [9]. 60

EI Cerrejon Texas Lignite Pike County Skyline

2.3 Efficiency Coal

(a) CO
The performance of gasifier measures with cold gas
efficiency(ηcg) and a carbon conversion(ηcc). The 34
proposed model in this paper can obtain two parameters. 33 Experiment
RGibbs
ηcg and ηcc are defined like Eqs (19) ~ (20). 32 Proposed model
H2 Mol Frac(%)

wsyn ⋅ HHVsyn 31
η cg (%) = ⋅ 100 (19) 30
wcoal ⋅ HHVcoal 29

where w = mass flow rate, HHV= the higher heating 28

27
value. EI Cerrejon Texas Lignite Pike County Skyline

wrc Coal
ηcc (%) = ⋅ 100 (20) (b) H2
wic
where rc = reacted carbon, ic = initial carbon in coal. 6

5 Experiment

3. VALIDATION 4
RGibbs
CO2 Mol Frac(%)

Proposed model
3
Application tests for four coals were performed using
2
the proposed model and RGibbs model in ASPEN
1
PLUS and results from two models and experiments
0
were compared to validate accuracy of results from the
proposed model. Results of experiments were obtained EI Cerrejon Texas Lignite Pike County Skyline
from literatures [10]. RGibbs model is an equilibrium Coal

reactor, which minimizes the gibbs free energy in (c) CO2

ASPEN PLUS and a common process model about Fig. 5 Results of syngas compositions (a) CO (b) H2 (c)
entrained flow gasifier. RGibbs model was obtained CO2.

1726
 As shown Fig. 5, range of errors between results of
syngas compositions from RGibbs and experiments
were wide to 0.8%~ 7.5%. The standard deviation is
1.85 and Deviations of texas lignite were most wide.
Furthermore mol fractions of CO and H2 in over all
were higher than one of experiments. Those trends may
cause by reacting over-reaction of carbon. Because in
case of RGibbs, it assumed that carbon has excess. In
order to resolve such a problem, the proposed model has
a constraint which is that reacted carbon mass cannot be
over mass of carbon in coal. Comparing with RGibbs
model, results of syngas compositions from the
proposed model fit well with results from experiment
because errors between two results is within 0.5% and
the standard deviation is 0.27. Therefore the proposed
model is more stable than RGibbs regarding predicting
syngas compositions.
Calculated ηcg and ηcc from the proposed model is
like Table 2.
Table 1 Results of ηcg and ηcc
EI Texas Pike
Cerrejon Lignite County
η cg (%) 99 99.73
η cc (%) 80.35 83.37
As shown in Table 2, it shows that values of ηcg and
ηcc of the proposed model is similar with typical
data(ηcg: 80%, ηcc: 99%) of shell gasifier.
Fig. 6 is results of reaction coordinates for each
reaction. It represents that syngas compositions are
decided according to reaction coordinates which depend
on coal types.
0.04
0.03
0.02
Reaction Codinate
0.01
0.00
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
Boudouard Water gas Methanation
Reaction
Fig. 6 Comparison reaction coordinates with coals.
The proposed model can predict what kinds of
reaction are superior in gasification through analysis of
reaction coordinates depending on coal type, operation
condition.
4. CONCLUSIONS
This paper was studied a process model of coal
gasifier to accept coal flexibility and a new process
design was developed. Results from the proposed model
were compared with RGibbs model. The RGibbs model
in ASPEN PLUS is common used for entrained flow
coal gasifier, but prediction of syngas composition from
this model is unstable for coal flexibility due to design
reaction simply. The proposed model in this paper was
designed reactions in detail in order to have high
accuracy for predicting sygas compositions. Syngas
compositions for coal flexibility can predict by volatile
yield and reaction coordinates which are calculated by
the proposed model. Reaction coordinates can analysis
superior reaction in gasifier according to coal type,
operation condition.
The next steps in the study are: sensitivity analysis
for reaction coordinates according to operation
condition, analysis of relations between coal properties
and reaction coordinates.
5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by the Development of
300MW class Korean IGCC demonstration plant
technology of the Korea Institute of Energy Technology
Evaluation and Planning(KETEP) grant funded by the
Korea government Ministry of Knowledge Economy
(No.2011951010001C).
Skyline
99.03 98.73 REFERENCES
80.57 75.78 [1] R. M Felder, Elementary principle of chemical
processes, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York,
2000.
[2] K. Asano, Mass transfer from fundamentals to
modern industrial applications, Wiley-VGH,
Weinheim, 2006.
[3] N.Y. Kirov, BCURA Monthly Bulletin, pp.29-33,
1965.
[4] R. Monaghan, M. Kumar, S. L. Singer, C. Zhang,
A. Ghoniem, “Reduced order modeling of
entrained flow solid fuel gasification”, Proc.
International Mechanical Engineering Congress
EI Cerrejon
Texas Lignite
& Exposition, No.12985, 2009.
Pike County
Skyline
[5] H. Y. Park, S. I. Seo, “The calculation method
of coal pyrolysis products depending on the coal
rank”, Trans. of the Korean Hydrogen and New
Energy Society, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 391-397, 2010
[6] H. Y. Park, Report and DB for products of coals
used in coal gasification and combustion, KEPCO
Research Institute Reports, Daejeon, 2010.
WGS CO Shift [7] C.Y. Wen, T.Z. Chaung, “Entrainment Coal
Gasification Modeling”, Ind. Eng. Chem. Process
Des. Dev., Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 684-695. 1979.
[8] J.M Smith, Chemical engineering thermodynamics,
Mc Graw Hill, New York, 2001.
[9] D. Keffer, Chemical Equilibrium, Univ. Tennessee,
Knoxville, 2001.
[10] L.J. Shadle, D.A. Berry, M. Syamlal, Coal
Conversion Processes, Gasification, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., New York, 2002.
1727