Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 18

I NTERNATIONAL J OURNAL OF C HEMICAL R EACTOR E NGINEERING

Volume 7 2009 Article A40

Thermo Chemical Equilibrium Modelling of a Biomass Gasifying Process Using ASPEN PLUS
Fr d ric Paviet e e Florent Chazarenc Mohand Tazerout

Ecole des Mines de Nantes, frederic.paviet@emn.fr Ecole des Mines de Nantes, orent.chazarenc@emn.fr Ecole des Mines de Nantes, mohand.tazerout@emn.fr ISSN 1542-6580 Copyright c 2009 Berkeley Electronic Press. All rights reserved.

Thermo Chemical Equilibrium Modelling of a Biomass Gasifying Process Using ASPEN PLUS
Fr d ric Paviet, Florent Chazarenc, and Mohand Tazerout e e

Abstract
This article deals with the use of ASPEN PLUS to model the thermo chemical processes occurring in wood biomass gasiers. An original equilibrium gasication model using ASPEN PLUS was rst built and validate based on existing data of a downdraft gasier (DDG). The thermo chemical models assume that reactants reach chemical equilibrium. The simulations enabled to predict the composition of the aming pyrolysis gas as well as the nal composition of the producer gas. A parametric study based on air/fuel ratio variation was then conducted. The model was nally adapted to the operating conditions of a staged gasier developed at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU). Parametric studies were conducted to observe the effect of humidity with a low air injection. ASPEN PLUS was shown to be well adapted to model the gasication process (equilibrium), and it was possible to simulate both a DDG and a DTU using the same model. Data about the composition of aming pyrolysis and the exit gas were obtained. KEYWORDS: gasication, equilibrium modelling, ASPEN PLUS

Paviet et al.: Modelling of a Biomass Gasifier Using ASPEN PLUS

1. Introduction
1.1 Nature and scope of the problem investigated
There is an increasing interest in the use of biomass for heat and power production considering the growing concern for future energy supply. Gasification is an attractive technology for the thermo chemical valorisation of biomass. Equilibrium models were used to describe gasification process, and enable to achieve a good understanding of the different processes involved in syngas production. Several works have been conduced to better understand gasifier behaviour through equilibrium modelling approaches (Carlos et al., 2003; Ruggiero et al., 1999; Agus Haryanto et al., 2009 and Hiroki Yoshida et al., 2008). The use of ASPEN PLUS software has been successfully applied to model a large number of combustion processes (e.g. Cimini et al., 2005) but was seldom applied for modelling wood biomass gasification process. Thus our work aimed first at building an original equilibrium gasification model using ASPEN PLUS and to validate the model from existing data of a downdraft gasifier used for wood biomass. A parametric study was then conducted and enabled to predict the exit gas composition and the flaming pyrolysis gas composition. The model was finally adapted to the DTU operating conditions and a parametric study was conducted to observe the effect of humidity with a low air injection.

1.2 Review of a pertinent literacy


Gasification involves three main steps including, 1) the first initial rapid devolatilization of biomass (production of char, tar and gases), 2) the second exothermic incomplete oxidation of volatile substances (tars are broken down into smaller incondensable molecules by thermal reaction), 3) the third subsequent gasification of the char generated. This process leads to a fuel gas (CO, H2) with a high calorific value, suitable for efficient gas turbines feeding. Among the available moving bed gasification processes, the down draft gasifiers (DDG) and the staged gasifier developed at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) can use biomass as fuel. In down draft gasifiers (Jayah, 2002), the pyrolytic and gasification reactions proceed vertically within stratified layers. Down-draft gasifiers have relatively low tar content which is adapted for small scale power generation. The classical downdraft gasifier with its typical throat cannot be scaled-up. Most units

Published by Berkeley Electronic Press, 2009

International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering

Vol. 7 [2009], Article A40

had a wet gas cleaning system and used a diesel engine to drive a generator of typically 20-100kWe capacity, but seldom sowed satisfactory performance (Beenackers, 1999). In a two-stage gasifier (DTU) the pyrolysis and char gasification takes place in separate reactors. The pyrolysis products are partially oxidised between the pyrolysis and the gasification, by means of air addition. Thus the tar content in the volatiles is reduced by a factor of 100 compare to down draft gasifiers and thermal energy for the endothermic char gasification is produced. The resulting tar content in the produced gas is less then 15 mg per Nm3 (Henrikssen et al., 2006). The main difference in the operating conditions between the DDG and DTU are the air/ fuel ratio and the used or not of steam as oxidant in the char gasification. Typical gas compositions at the exit of the gasifier are given in Table 1. The staged gasifier developed by the biomass gasification group (DTU) has an exit gas with a low content of nitrogen and a high content of hydrogen compared to other downdraft gasifiers. These differences are respectively due to the recuperation of enthalpy energy in the process along with the use of steam. Indeed, in the DTU process, the exhaust gas from the connected gas engine is used for external heating of the pyrolysis reactor and less internal energy is needed in the process and thus a less air/ fuel ratio is used compared to classical downdraft without external energy recuperation. Table 1: Exit gas of gasifiers (expressed on a dry molar basis) Down draft (Jayah, 2002) 20 - 25 11 -17 9 - 13 2-3 48 - 54 DTU (Henrikssen et al., 2006) 20 30 15 1 34

CO H2 CO2 CH4 N2

1.3 State methods of investigation


In gasification modelling, models are steady state, quasi-steady state or transient state. Quasi-steady and transient models do not neglect the time derivatives. They are based on the mass and energy balances (Di Blasi, 2000 and Gobel et al., 2007). The steady state models are further classified as kinetics free equilibrium and rate models. Rate models are used for reactor design. Steady state rate models are used to compute the gas composition and the temperature profile along the reactor axis but they cannot predict the effects of variation of input parameter

http://www.bepress.com/ijcre/vol7/A40

Paviet et al.: Modelling of a Biomass Gasifier Using ASPEN PLUS

such as moisture content and size of solid fuel, inlet air temperature, reactor load, insulation and reactor size on conversion efficiency. These models include rate equations that consist of mass and energy balances for the heterogeneous and homogeneous reactions and result in a set of algebraic and ordinary differential equations. Kinetics-free, equilibrium models can predict the exit gas composition, given the solid composition and the equilibrium temperature based on the assumption that the gasifier reactions are in thermodynamic equilibrium. Moreover, the description of the flaming pyrolysis (Reed & Markson, 1983), including biomass pyrolysis and combustion of volatile pyrolysis products, is based on equilibrium models. The use of this sub-model can calculate the composition of the product gas such as CO, H2, CO2, H2O, CH4 and N2 entering the gasification zone. The flaming pyrolysis gas composition is the inlet parameter in the steady state rate modelling of char gasification. Melgar et al. (2007) presented a biomass gasification model by means of chemical equilibrium, minimizing the Gibbs free energy in which the influence of the gasifying agents/fuel ratio and humidity on the equilibrium temperature (adiabatic case) was analysed. A two zones model was built by Jayah and al., 2003; the two zones correspond to flaming pyrolysis and the gasification. In the flaming pyrolysis zone, the producer gas composition was estimated by chemical equilibrium. These parameters form the input of the second zone. In all these works, as for all equilibrium models, a set of non-linear equations describing the conservation of chemical species (C, O, H, N, S) and the additional equations for thermal equilibrium of the independent reactions (which corresponds to the minimisation of the free energy of reaction) allows a prediction of the output under given composition of the reactants and operating conditions (pressure and temperature). ASPEN PLUS has been used to simulate a variety of processes related to coal conversion including methanol synthesis (Kundsen et al., 1982), indirect coal liquefaction (Barker, 1983), atmospheric fluidized bed combustor (Douglas and Young, 1990) coal hydro gasification, and coal gasification (Zhao Yuehong et al., 2006). However, few investigations have been conducted on biomass gasification (Corella et al., 1998; Nikoo and Mahinpey, 2008). In the rate model developed by Nikoo and Mahinpey (2008) for biomass gasification both hydrodynamic parameters and reaction kinetic were taken into account In our study the emphasis was put on predicting the composition of both exit gas and flaming pyrolysis gas. The originality of our work was to use a two step ASPEN PLUS model for modelling chemical equilibrium in wood biomass gasification process. ASPEN PLUS can model single-phase chemical equilibrium, or simultaneous phase and chemical equilibrium by minimizing Gibbs free energy, subject to atom balance

Published by Berkeley Electronic Press, 2009

International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering

Vol. 7 [2009], Article A40

constraints. This model is useful when temperature and pressure are known and reaction stoichiometry is unknown. In equilibrium modelling of a gasifying process, it is generally assumed that the biomass is totally converted into gas thus enabling to neglect charcoal formation (Melgar et al., 2007). This simplifying hypothesis was not followed in our work since we showed that the exit gas composition of a gasifier was easily obtained using a two step model. In the first step, biomass decomposition into volatiles and char was simulated. The char represented the solid outlet of the gasifier and contained ashes along with the charcoal not gasified in the process. In the second step, the volatiles, including the pyrolysis gas and the gasified charcoal, react with steam and air. The products are assumed to be at chemical equilibrium at constant temperature.

1.4 Principal results obtained, main conclusions


ASPEN PLUS was shown to be well adapted to model the gasification process (equilibrium), and it was possible to simulate both a DDG and a DTU using the same model. Data about the composition of flaming pyrolisis and the exit gas were obtained. In all our simulations we hypothesised the residence time of the reactants was high enough to reach chemical equilibrium.

2. Model description
2.1 Modelling hypothesis
The following hypotheses were considered to draw the model: - The process is in steady state and either isothermal or adiabatic conditions were assayed. - Char only contains carbon and ash - This process was supposed to occur instantaneously at equilibrium with volatile products mainly made of H2, CO, CO2, CH4, and H2O. - Tars are assumed to be negligible in the syngas and are not taken into account in this study.

http://www.bepress.com/ijcre/vol7/A40

Paviet et al.: Modelling of a Biomass Gasifier Using ASPEN PLUS

2.2 ASPEN PLUS model


The model considers the two main following stages: the biomass decomposition and the volatile reactions with steam and air. In the first stage, Biomass was decomposed into volatiles and char. The char represented the solid outlet of the gasifier and contained ashes and the remaining charcoal not gasified. The volatiles include the pyrolysis gas and the charcoal that is gasified. In the second stage, the composition of the producer gas is estimated from the volatile reactions with steam and air, minimizing the Gibbs free energy for calculation of the equilibrium. This model was based on the proximate analysis and moisture content (H) of the biomass, the air/fuel ratio (Ra), the steam/fuel ratio (Rh) and the char conversion (X). Ra and Rh represented respectively the mass flow rate of air and steam injected in the process over the biomass mass flow rate. The char conversion X represented the fraction of fixed carbon that was gasified. Finally three different units were considered in ASPEN PLUS simulation (Figure 1), to take into account the overall gasification process including a yield reactor for the decomposition of the feed, a separation column to separate volatile materials and solids and a Gibbs reactor in which the partial volatile combustion was modelled.

Figure 1: Comprehensive diagram for the DDG and DTU gasification processes. AspenTech copyright. 2.2.1 Biomass decomposition The ASPEN PLUS yield reactor, RYIELD, was used to simulate the decomposition of the feed. In this step, biomass was decomposed into volatiles

Published by Berkeley Electronic Press, 2009

International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering

Vol. 7 [2009], Article A40

and char. Volatiles were converted into its constituting components including carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen; and char was converted into ash and carbon. This was done by specifying the yield distribution according to the biomass composition given in the ultimate analysis (Table 2) and the char conversion X. Breaking Biomass (non-conventional solid) into ASPEN conventional components was done here. 2.2.2 Separator The separation of volatile product into Volatile and char took place in the separator block. The char contains ashes and the charcoal not gasified. This stream (SOLOUT) contains the char and represents the solid outlet of a global gasifying process. 2.2.3 Volatile reactions The ASPEN PLUS Gibbs reactor, RGIBBS, was used for volatile partial combustion, based on the assumption that volatile reactions follow the Gibbs equilibrium. Inlet stream include, the volatile stream coming out of the separator (GASOUT), air and steam. We considered that oxidation and reduction processes were occurring in this block. There is only one product stream defined as GIBBSOUT which is the final product of our modelling simulation and represents the syngas.

2.3 Property method


The thermodynamic models had to be specified in ASPEN to represent the physical properties of the components and mixtures. Property method was used to calculate properties such as enthalpy, density, heat duty and temperature. Various property methods were tested and the Redlich Kwong Soave Equation of state with Boston Mathias modifications (RKS-BM) was selected. All of the property methods assayed gave almost the same mass balance but varied in the energy balance. The selected property method was chosen to calculate the thermodynamic properties of the simulation because it gave reliable heat duty values and was also supported by literature review (Matthew et al., 2009).

http://www.bepress.com/ijcre/vol7/A40

Paviet et al.: Modelling of a Biomass Gasifier Using ASPEN PLUS

2.4 Isothermal and adiabatic modelling


Both options (isothermal or adiabatic) were available in the setup of the RGIBBS reactor. Either the temperature or the heat duty of the RGIBBS unit was required in the model. Through the energetic balance of the process, it was possible to estimate the final reaction temperature and to calculate the producer gas composition when choosing the heat duty option. Therefore the model required to input a value for heat losses in the reactor. Since experimental heat losses of the considered gasifying processes were unknown, heat duty accounting for heat losses were used as adjusting parameters in our work. On the contrary, experimental gas temperature was known, isothermal investigations were thus first conducted to validate the model. Adiabatic investigations were then conducted when air ratio was modified. Heat losses were estimated to reach the observed gas temperature, and were assumed to be constant along the process.

3. Validation of the model


3.1 Validation based on the exit gas composition
The model presented in this article has been compared to the experimental and predicted producer gas presented by Jayah (2002). The experimental test consists of a downdraft wood gasifier. The 80 kWth test gasifier has an inner reactor diameter of 0.92 m and is 1.15 m long. Rubber wood has been selected as the feed material for this study. The proximate and ultimate analyses of rubber wood used in these experiments are given in Tables 2. The moisture content of rubber wood is 18.2% defined on a dry mass basis. Table 2: Proximate analysis and ultimate analysis Proximate Wt % dry basis Volatile matter 80.1 Fixed carbon 19.2 Ash 0.7 Ultimate C H O N ash Wt % dry basis 50.6 6.5 42 0.2 0.7

Published by Berkeley Electronic Press, 2009

International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering

Vol. 7 [2009], Article A40

In the work provided by Jayah (2002): - Various run have been done varying the biomass particle size, the humidity, the air/fuel ratio and a mass balance on the gasifier was carried out. - The material balance of the gasifier enabled to determine the char conversion. - The temperature profile was measured along the char gasification. The model was validated for a particular run (no. 13) of this work. The model was validated for the exit gas of this run using the following inlet parameters moisture on dry (H): 18.2, char conversion (X): 80%, air/wood ratio (Ra) 2.53 and a Gibbs temperature of 1300 K. H, Ra, and X were taken from the operating conditions and the mass balance of the gasifier for the run no. 13. The temperature was taken at 1300 K as the average temperature of the char gasification. In this run, the temperature profile along the char gasification ranged from 1400 to 1200K. Slight differences have been observed between experimental and modelled data (Table 3) except for methane. ASPEN PLUS did not predict formation of methane in the exit gas of the gasifier at this temperature. This was observed by others authors (Melgar et al., 2007 and Jayah et al., 2003). To overcome this, the methane value used in the model is generally fixed at the value observed experimentally. Table 3: Model validation (concentration expressed on a dry molar basis) Experimental (Jayah, 2002) 13 18 10.5 1.5 57 This work AspenTech Copyright 13 16 12 0 58

H2 CO CO2 CH4 N2

3.2 Validation based on the flaming pyrolysis gas composition


We did not find so far experimental measurements of the pyrolysis gas composition within a gasifier in the literature. Results of the flaming pyrolysis zone submodel were thus compared with the results of the theoretical models given in the literature (Milligan, 1994; Jayah, 2002). The inlet parameters used in the simulation were as follow (H=10%, X=0, T = 1300K and Ra=1.8). The char conversion was fixed to zero since the gas composition modelled here was the one of the gas entering the char gasification unit.

http://www.bepress.com/ijcre/vol7/A40

Paviet et al.: Modelling of a Biomass Gasifier Using ASPEN PLUS

Our ASPEN PLUS simulation was compared with the results obtained by Milligan (1994) and Jayah (2002). Our results are in good agreement except for methane (Table 4). The hydrogen and monoxide carbon content were higher with ASPEN PLUS simulation compared to other works since the methane is not predicted. Table 4: Flaming pyrolysis model validation Milligan, 1994 H2 CO CO2 CH4 H2O N2 11 12 12 2 19 45 Jayah, 2002 10 11 12 2 19 46 This work AspenTech Copyright 14 14 10 0 17 45

4. Discussion
Effect of Ra, X and Rh on the producer gas composition has been studied after the ASPEN PLUS thermo chemical equilibrium was validated. In the following simulations, the biomass composition was still assumed to be the same as the one given in Table 2.

4.1 Down draft gasifier (DDG)


4.1.1 Influence of char conversion The gas composition in Figure 2A for a char conversion of 0 % corresponds to the flaming pyrolysis gas. As the char is converted, the concentrations of hydrogen and monoxide carbon increase and water and dioxide carbon are consumed. The char is generally assumed by others authors (Melgar et al., 2007) totally converted; or this is generally not experimentally observed (Jayah, 2002). 4.1.2 Influence of the air/fuel ratio In gasification process, the air/fuel ratio controls the temperature at the end of the process. This temperature depends on the heat losses. In ASPEN simulation either

Published by Berkeley Electronic Press, 2009

10

International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering

Vol. 7 [2009], Article A40

temperature or heat loss can be specified. Here, the heat losses are deduced from the validated simulation of part 3.1 when temperature is fixed. The influence of the air/fuel ratio on the exit gas and process temperature is observed respectively in Figure 2B and 2C. The distribution of the concentration of the different species is controlled by the reaction temperature and thus depends on the air fuel ratio. The methane concentration decreases as temperature increases and becomes null when the temperature is above 1000 K. In practice, processes at low temperature are difficult to sustain without tar formation. Changes in the air ratio (Ra) generated opposite effects. As the temperature is increased the methane is decomposed into hydrogen and monoxide carbon, but as Ra is increased, the nitrogen generates a dilution of CO and H2, and CO2. Also, at the same time, CO2 concentration is increased by volatiles combustion and as the temperature is increased the shift reaction equilibrium inclines in the production of CO and H2O (Figure 3). These phenomena result in a maximum concentration of hydrogen and monoxide carbon for an air/fuel ratio around 2 (corresponding to a null methane concentration) and in a minimum concentration of CO2 for an air/fuel ratio around 2.4. Finally, at high air/fuel ratio, the processes in the gasifier approximate complete combustion of the biomass, resulting in a producer gas with a high content of carbon dioxide diluted in nitrogen.

http://www.bepress.com/ijcre/vol7/A40

Paviet et al.: Modelling of a Biomass Gasifier Using ASPEN PLUS

11

60%

A
Concentration (Vol%)
H2 40% CO CO2 N2 H2O

20%

0%
60%

20

40

60

80

100

B
Concentration (Vol%)

Char conversion X

H2 40% CO CO2 CH4 N2 20%

0% 0,8 1,2 1,6 2 2,4

1200

air/fuel RatioRa (-)

C
Temperature (K)

900

600 0,8 1,2 1,6 2 2,4

air/fuel RatioRa (-)

Figure 2: (A) Wet exit gas composition in function of char conversion (H=18.2 %, T=1300 K, Ra=2.53) (B) Dry exit gas composition in function of the air/fuel ratio (X=100%, adiabatic, H=18.2%) and (C) Exit gas temperature in function of the air/fuel ratio (X=100%, adiabatic, H=18.2%). AspenTech Copyright.

Published by Berkeley Electronic Press, 2009

12

International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering

Vol. 7 [2009], Article A40

50%

45%

Composition (%)

40%

35%

30%
H2 CO CO2

25%

20% 800

850

900

950

1000

1050

1100

1150

1200

Temperature of the reactor (K)

Figure 3: Dry exit gas composition (N2 free) in function of temperature (H=18.2 %, X = 100%, Ra=2.53). AspenTech Copyright.

4.2 DTU gasifier


The staged gasifier from DTU operates with a low air/fuel ratio of 1.1 (Gobel et al., 2007) compared to classical down draft gasifier. The temperature of the process is not as low as the one observed for a classical down draft reactor with an air/fuel ratio of 1.1 (Figure 2C), because in the DTU process there is recuperation of enthalpy energy coming from the engine exit gas. For this study, the process temperature can not be determined through the energy balance because this energy recuperation is unknown. This is the reason why, the simulation was done here with the isothermal option of the RGIBBS reactor. In the simulation, the temperature of the RGIBBS reactor was taken at 1300 K. This temperature was supposed to be the average temperature of the DTU char gasification and taken the same as the experimental data provided by Jayah (2002). In process with a low air/fuel ratio, if steam is not added, the water composition of the flaming gas pyrolysis, produced by combustion in the oxidation zone, is lower compared to process with higher air/fuel ratio. As steam gasification is preponderant (Van den Aarsen, 1985) in char conversion, steam is added in the gasification zone in order to convert totally the char. The evolution of water concentration in the flaming pyrolysis gas in function of the steam ratio is given in Figure 4A. The staged process operates for a steam ratio around 25 % (Gobel et al., 2007). In this condition, the modelled steam concentration of the

http://www.bepress.com/ijcre/vol7/A40

Paviet et al.: Modelling of a Biomass Gasifier Using ASPEN PLUS

13

flaming pyrolysis gas is 25% (Figure 4A) and similar to the one modelled for classical down draft (23%) process in Figure 2A. The simulated exit gas composition in function of the steam ratio, for an air/fuel ratio of 1.1 and a RGIBBS temperature of 1300 K, is given in Figure 4B. The equilibrium inclines to the production of hydrogen and carbon dioxide due to the water shift reaction when there is more water available in the reaction. In the operating conditions of DTU, it means for a steam ratio of 25 % in the Figure 4B, the exit gas composition is in good agreement with experimental data given in Table 1. The slightly difference may be due to the biomass composition and the operating conditions.
40,0%

A
30,0%

H2 CO CO2 N2 H2O

Concentration (Vol%)

20,0%

10,0%

0,0% 0
40,0%

10

20

30

40

Rh (%)

B
30,0%

Concentration (Vol%)

H2 CO 20,0% CO2 N2

10,0%

0,0% 0 10 20 30 40

Rh (%)

Figure 4: Wet flaming pyrolysis gas (A) and dry exit gas (B) composition in function of the steam/fuel ratio (H=18.2, T=1300 K, Ra=1.1, X=0 (A) or X=100% (B)). AspenTech Copyright.

Published by Berkeley Electronic Press, 2009

14

International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering

Vol. 7 [2009], Article A40

5. Conclusion
In this study, a thermochemical equilibrium model for downdraft and staged gasifiers has been proposed. The model under ASPEN PLUS is easy to build and predicts with accuracy the composition of the flaming pyrolysis gas and the producer gas. The reaction temperature is the parameter that controls the whole gasification process. It influences directly the final producer gas. And, an optimal temperature has to be found between a too high temperature process corresponding to a gas with a low calorific value and a low temperature process where the gas contains tar because the exit gas is not at equilibrium. The models developed in this work can be used as input parameters in the design of a gasifier. Concentrations given by the flaming pyrolysis gas model can be used as input parameters to the char gasification model. Concentrations given by the producer gas model can in this case be used as input data to the combustion model of a SI engine, in order to design or to predict the overall performance, of a gasification unit. Nomenclature Ra: air/fuel ratio (-) Rh: steam/fuel ratio (%) X: char conversion (%) T: temperature (K) H: humidity on dry (%) References Agus Haryanto, Sandun D. Fernando, Lester O. Pordesimo, Sushil Adhikarid, Upgrading of syngas derived from biomass gasification: A thermodynamic analysis, 2009, Biomass and Bioenergy, 33:882-889. Barker RE. ASPEN modeling of the tri-state indirect-liquefaction process. Oak Ridge, USA: Oak Ridge National Laboratory; 1983. Beenackers, Biomass gasification in moving beds: A review of European technologies, 1999, Renewable Energy 16: 1180-l186.

http://www.bepress.com/ijcre/vol7/A40

Paviet et al.: Modelling of a Biomass Gasifier Using ASPEN PLUS

15

Carlos R. Altafini, Paulo R. Wander, Ronaldo M. Barreto, Prediction of the working parameters of a wood waste gasifier through an equilibrium model, 2003, Energy Conversion and Management, 44: 27632777. Cimini Silvano, Prisciandaro Marina and Barba Diego. Simulation of a waste incineration process with flue gas cleaning and heat recovery sections using Aspen Plus, 2005, Waste Management 25: 171-175. Corella J, Orio A, Aznar P. Biomass gasification with air in fluidized bed: reforming of the gas composition with commercial steam reforming catalysts. Ind Eng Chem Res 1998; 37:461724. Di Blasi, Dynamic behaviour of stratified downdraft gasifiers, Chemical Engineering Science, 2000, 55:2931-2944. Douglas PL, Young BE, Modelling and simulation of an AFBC steam heating plant using ASPEN/SP, 1990, Fuel, 70:14554. Gbel, B., Bentzen, J.D., Henriksen, U., Houbak, N., The development of a computer model for a fixed bed gasifier and its use for optimization and control, Bioresource Technology, 2007, 98:20432052. Henriksen, U., Ahrenfeldt, J., Jensen, T.K., Gbel, B., Bentzen, J.D., Hindsgaul, C., Srensen, L.H., The design, construction and operation of a 75 kW two-stage gasifier. Energy, 2006, 31:1542-1553. Hiroki Yoshida, Fumio Kiyon, Hideo Tajima, Akihiro Yamasaki, Keiichi Ogasawara, Tadashi Masuyama, Two-stage equilibrium model for a coal gasifier to predict the accurate carbon conversion in hydrogen production, 2008, Fuel 87:21862193. Jayah TH, Evaluation of a downdraft wood gasifier for tea manufacturing in Sri Lanka, 2002, PhD thesis, University of Melbourne, available on http://www.civenv.unimelb.edu.au/~lua/Jayah-MEngSc.pdf. Jayah TH, Aye L, Fuller RJ, Steawart DF, Computer simulation of a downdraft wood gasifier for tea drying, Biomass Bioenergy, 2003, 25:459-69. Kundsen RA, Bailey T, Fabiano LA. Experience with ASPEN while simulating a new methanol plant. AIChE Symposium Series, 1982, 78:214.

Published by Berkeley Electronic Press, 2009

16

International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering

Vol. 7 [2009], Article A40

Matthew J. De Kama, R. Vance Moreya, Douglas G. Tiffanyb, Biomass Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle for heat and power at ethanol plants, 2009, Energy Conversion and Management 50 (2009) 16821690. Melgar A., Prez JF, Laget H., Horillo A., Thermochemical equilibrium modelling of a gasifying process, Energy conversion and management, 2007, 48:59-67. Milligan, 1994, Downdraft Gasification of Biomass, PhD thesis, Aston University, Birmingham, UK. Nikoo Mehrdokht B., Nader Mahinpey, Simulation of biomass gasification in fluidized bed reactor using ASPEN PLUS, 2008, Biomass and Bioenergy, 32:12451254. Reed, T. B. & Markson, M., A predictive model for stratified downdraft gasification of biomass, 1983, Progress in Biomass Conversion, eds D. A. Tillman & E. C. Jahn, Academic Press, New York, vol. 4, pp. 219-254. Ruggiero M. and Manfrida G., An equilibrium model for biomass gasification processes, 1999, Renewable Energy, 16:1106-1109. Van den Aarsen FG, Beenackers AACM, Van Swaaij WPM, Wood pyrolysis and carbon dioxide char gasification kinetics in a fluidized bed, Fundamentals of thermo chemical biomass conversion, 1985, New York: Elsevier; p. 691715. Zhao Yuehong, Wen Hao, Xu Zhihong, Conceptual design and simulation studyof a co-gasification technology, Energy conversion and management, 2006, 48:14161428.

http://www.bepress.com/ijcre/vol7/A40