Journal
ENERGY
Volume 219, Issue -, Pages -Publisher
PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2020.119533
Keywords
Bubbling fluidized bed; Gasification; Biomass; Fluidization number
Categories
Funding
- Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP)
- Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE) of the Republic of Korea [20193010093000]
- Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation & Planning (KETEP) [20193010093000] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)
Ask authors/readers for more resources
This study numerically investigated the air-blown gasification of biomass in a BFB gasifier, revealing that an increase in FN beyond a certain value was not recommended and the optimum FN and ER values were considered as 3.56 and 0.3.
In this study, air-blown gasification of biomass in a bubbling fluidized bed (BFB) gasifier was numerically investigated. A discrete element model coupled with computational fluid dynamics (CFD-DEM), in which gas is considered as continuum and particle is considered as discrete phase, was employed. The flow characteristics of the BFB were discussed and compared with the reported experimental data. Then, the gasification performance of the BFB was discussed for cases with varying fluidization number (FN) values at a constant equivalence ratio (ER). In a parametric study, calculations were performed for various FN values, and the ER value was fixed as 0.27. The formation of CO2 commenced inside the fluidized bed region for FN values exceeding 3.6. When the FN value increased, slight decreases were observed in the CO and H-2 concentrations as well as CCE. Thus, an increase in FN beyond a certain value was not recommended. Another parametric study was performed for various combinations of FN & ER values. The CGE increased for FN & ER values between 2.49 & 0.21 and 3.56 & 0.3, whereas it decreased for FN & ER values exceeding 3.56 & 0.3. Therefore, the optimum FN & ER values were considered as 3.56 & 0.3. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available