Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 583593

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Biomass gasication models for downdraft gasier:

A state-of-the-art review
Tapas Kumar Patra, Pratik N. Sheth n
Chemical Engineering Department, Birla Institute of Technology and Science Pilani, Pilani Campus, Pilani 333031, Rajasthan, India

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Among the different methods of energy production from biomass, gasication is considered as the most
Received 9 February 2015 suitable option as it is a simple and economically viable process to produce thermal energy or decentralized
Accepted 6 May 2015 electricity generation. Downdraft gasiers are typically small-scale units having maximum power production
Available online 29 May 2015
capacity up to 5 MW. This feature makes it more suitable for decentralized power generation and
Keywords: distribution to the remote villages/islands deprived of grid electricity. Mathematical models can be helpful
Biomass for the design of gasiers, prediction of operational behavior, emissions during normal conditions, startup,
Modeling and simulation shutdown, change of fuel, change of loading, and to alleviate the type of problems mentioned above. It has
Gasication been observed that although many researchers have developed models of various types and degrees of
Downdraft gasier
complexity, reviews of these modeling and simulation studies are scarce. Largely, it is observed that the
Equilibrium model
review articles reported in the literature fail to address the basic understanding of each model types and
Transport and kinetic model
their applicability to design different gasiers for a certain feedstock and variation of operating parameters.
This review article discusses different models available for downdraft gasiers such as thermodynamic
equilibrium, kinetic, CFD, ANN and ASPEN Plus models. A comparative analysis of each model and its output
is carried out. A critical analysis of the effect of different modeling parameters and nally the advantages and
disadvantages of each modeling technique is outlined.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583
2. Gasication process and gasier types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585
2.1. Gasication process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585
2.2. Types of gasiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585
2.2.1. Fixed-bed gasication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585
2.2.2. Fluidized-bed gasication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586
2.2.3. Advantages/disadvantages of different gasifying reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586
3. Biomass gasication models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586
3.1. Equilibrium models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586
3.2. Combined transport and kinetic modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588
3.3. CFD models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 590
3.4. ANNs model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591
3.5. ASPEN Plus models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591
4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592
Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592

1. Introduction
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: 91 1596 515636 (ofce); 91 9799212070
(mobile); fax: 91 1596 244183. India has massive energy needs and difculty to meet those needs
E-mail address: pratik@pilani.bits-pilani.ac.in (P.N. Sheth). through conventional power generation technologies is increasing day

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.05.012
1364-0321/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
584 T.K. Patra, P.N. Sheth / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 583593
by day. The Central Electricity Authority (CEA), Government of India,
anticipated a base load energy decit of 5.1% for the scal year 2014
15 in their Load Generation Balance report [1]. Based on the progress
report on village electrication by CEA, 25894 villages are not elec-
tried [2]. Apart from developing domestic energy sources to satisfy
the growing demand, increasing amounts of fossil fuels are imported
that is exacerbating the trade decit and can be harmful to the
environment as well. Coal imports hit a record high during the last
scal year and will likely rise further over the next ve years since
India aims to expand its power-generation capacity by 44% (Ministry
of coal). According to data reported by Ministry of Coal, Government of
India, the total import of coal and products, i.e. coke, for the year 2013
14 is 154.55 million tones [3]. There is a rise of 6.4% in the coal import
from the previous year. It is observed that there is a hike in power
tariff rates continually in both categories: domestic and non-domestic.
Decentralized electricity generation is also rapidly growing by taking
advantage of abundantly available renewable energy sources like solar,
wind, hydropower, biomass, biogas, geothermal and hydrogen energy,
and fuel cells. Power generation from renewable sources is on the rise
in India, with the share of renewable energy in the country's total
energy mix rising from 7.8% in 2008 to 12.3% in 2013. Wind accounts
for 68% of the capacity, with 19.1 GW of installed capacity, making
India the world's fth largest wind energy producer. As shown in
Table 1, small hydropower (3.6 GW), bio-energy (3.6 GW) and solar
energy (1.7 GW) constitute the remaining capacity.
For the regions deprived of grid electricity supply, remote villages
in states such as Assam, Odisha, Meghalaya, Andaman and Nicobar
Islands, and Arunachal Pradesh, there is an urgent need to utilize and
promote renewable energy sources in order to make them indepen-
dent of grid supply. Until these remote villages are connected to the
national grid, projects based on solar energy, biomass gasiers and
small hydropower plants are suitable options. The Government of
India provides substantial nancial assistance for decentralized elec-
tricity generation from renewable sources such as biomass gasica-
tion, solar, wind and small hydropower projects.
However, biomass gasication is the most preferable alternative
in India for various reasons: (1) availability and uniform distribution
of biomass in the country, (2) it is available throughout the year at
cheap rates, (3) capital investments for gasier, duel fuel or 100%
producer gas generator, gas cleaning system and other accessories
are quite low, and (4) technology is simple and unskilled/semi-
skilled labor can handle operation and maintenance of the plant [4].
Today, biomass gasication is able to provide a solution to mitigate
environmental pollution as well as heath issues arising due to the
inefcient cooking method adopted by the rural people in India. It
also fulls the power requirements of the remote areas by providing
them an affordable and sustainable source of energy from biomass.
It is a carbon-neutral process that reduces global warming and
climate change effects as well.
Gasication is a process that converts solid or liquid hydro-
carbon into synthesis gases. It proved to be a successful option for
the waste management, chemical production, and energy produc-
tion from non-conventional feeds like forest waste, agricultural
waste, poultry waste, municipal refuge and sewage. Gasication
Table 1
Total renewable energy installed capacity (May 2014) [4].
Source Total installed capacity (MW)
Wind power 21,262.23
Solar power (SPV) 2647.00
Small hydropower 3803.65
Biomass power 1365.20
Bagasse Cogeneration 2512.88
Waste to Power 106.58
Total 31,833.01
adds value to low- or negative-value feedstocks by converting
them into marketable fuels and products. This conversion process
is considerably more complex than combustion, and is inuenced
by a number of factors, including amount of oxidant, feedstock
composition, gasier temperature, reactor geometry and mode of
gassolid contact. Thus, the size of a gasier could not be based on
criteria like volumetric energy release rates as it is done at times
for combustors [5]. Various types of gasication systems have been
developed and some of them are commercialized. Fixed-bed
gasication is the most common technology for the energy use
of biomass and solid municipal wastes.
The gasier reactor needs to be designed either based on experi-
mental data on similar fuel fed into a gasier of similar size or by
using mathematical models of the gasication process in the reactor.
The rst approach, though most reliable, is not always practical,
leaving modeling as the next best option. Besides sizing of the reactor,
modeling is also very effective in optimizing the operation of an
existing gasier, and in exploring operational limits. A good model
could help in identifying the sensitivity of the gasier performance, to
the variation in different operating and design parameters [6].
Models can be helpful for the design of gasiers, prediction of
operational behavior, emissions during normal conditions, startup,
shutdown, change of fuel, change of loading, and to alleviate the
type of problems mentioned above. The modeling may be under-
taken with different aims: the eld of interest ranges from pre-
liminary design of an industrial process to complex simulation of a
unit. Experiments, especially at a large scale, are often expensive
and complicated; modeling can save time and money, and it can
support preparation and optimization of experiments to be under-
taken in a real system.
Mathematical models and simulations are being practiced excee-
dingly in the eld of research and development work. Simulations
provide a less-expensive means of evaluating the benets and
associated risk with applied eld. Gasication is a complex mechan-
ism, which incorporates thermochemical conversion of carbon-based
feedstock. Therefore, simulation of gasication provides a better
comprehension of physical and chemical mechanisms inside the
gasier than general conjecture and assists in optimizing the yield.
Considerable research has been done in modeling the different types
of gasiers.
Current interest in using xed bed as an attractive means
especially for gasication of biomass, underlines a need for
summarization of the work done in modeling of xed-bed gasi-
ers. It has been observed that although many researchers have
developed the models of various types and degrees of complexity,
reviews of these modeling and simulation studies are scarce. Puig
et al. [7] reviewed briey different biomass gasication models
including the xed and uidized bed. The article covers the review
of few research articles pertaining to mathematical modeling of
each type of gasication. However, the model development over
the years in terms of modeling complexity is not discussed and it
leads to inconclusive information. They have also not discussed
CFD models related to gasication and detailed mechanism of each
modeling technique is not covered. Ahmed et al. [8] discussed the
mathematical and computational approaches for hydrogen pro-
duction from biomass. They have divided the models into two
broad categories, i.e. mathematical models and simulation models.
Mathematical models include equilibrium, kinetic and ANN mod-
els whereas regarding simulation models they have only discussed
CFD models. However, they have not covered ASPEN Plus models.
In the nal section, they have mentioned about process optimiza-
tion and heat integration effects. Recently, Baruah and Baruah [9]
contributed a review article on biomass gasication modeling. The
authors have explained the importance of modeling for complex
processes like biomass gasication. The paper largely discusses
equilibrium models for both uidized bed and downdraft gasiers.
 T.K. Patra, P.N. Sheth / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 583593
However, other models, i.e. kinetic, CFD and ANN, are discussed
briey. Like Ahmed et.al. [8], the authors did not discuss ASPEN
Plus models. Largely, it is observed that these review articles fail to
address the basic understanding of each model type and their
applicability for designing different gasiers for a certain feedstock
and variation of operating parameters.
In this article, we have tried sincerely to cover all these aspects
in our article to provide a better understanding on the modeling of
downdraft biomass gasication process. This article reviews the
current state of the art of modeling of biomass gasication in xed
beds. A brief review of individual processes involved in gasication
is presented to set the stage for the description of models of the
process.
2. Gasication process and gasier types
2.1. Gasication process
Biomass gasication process usually involves the reactions
pertaining to various phenomena such as drying, pyrolysis, oxida-
tion, and reduction. In the drying stage, moisture content of the
biomass is reduced. It occurs at 100200 1C and decreases the
moisture content of the biomass as low as 5%. In general, the
moisture content of raw biomass ranges from 5% to 35%. In the
pyrolysis stage, the thermal decomposition of biomass occurs in
the absence of oxygen or air and volatile matter is released as a
consequence of the thermal breakdown of biomass. As a result, the
mixture of gases containing carbon monoxide, hydrogen, carbon
dioxide and hydrocarbon gases from the biomass is released and
biomass is reduced to solid charcoal. The hydrocarbon gases
condense at a low temperature to generate liquid tars. The gases
released from drying and pyrolysis zones may or may not pass
through the oxidation zone depending upon the type of gasier.
Combustion is a reaction between solid carbonized biomass and
oxygen in the air, resulting in the formation of CO2. Hydrogen
present in the biomass is also oxidized to generate water. An
excessive amount of heat is released with the oxidation of carbon
and hydrogen. The heat released is utilized for drying, pyrolysis
and gasication reactions. In the gasication, several reduction
reactions occur and the temperature ranges between 800 and
1000 1C. These reactions are mostly endothermic in nature. The
main reactions in this zone are as follows:
Watergas reaction:
C H2O-COH2 H 131.4 kJ/mol
Boudouard reaction:
C CO2-2CO H 172.6 kJ/mol
Shift reaction:
CO2 H2-CO H2O H 42 kJ/mol
Methane reaction:
C 2H2-CH4 H 75 kJ/mol
2.2. Types of gasiers
Gasiers can be divided into two principal types: xed beds
and uidized beds. A third type, the entrained suspension gasier,
has been developed for nely divided coal gasication (o0.1
0.4 mm) [10]. This design is not recommended for brous materi-
als such as wood [11].
585
2.2.1. Fixed-bed gasication
Fixed-bed gasiers are the oldest and most common reactors
employed to synthesize syngas. Large-scale (higher than 10 MW)
xed-bed gasiers are losing the interests of industrial units due to
scale-up issues [12]. However, small-scale (lower than 10 MW)
xed-bed gasiers with high thermal efciency are in use for
decentralized power generation and for thermal applications in
many industries [13]. Due to easy construction and simple opera-
tion, xed-bed gasiers are widely used and studied. Depending
upon the direction and entry of airow, the gasiers are classied as
updraft, downdraft, or cross-draft [14]. The positioning of reaction
distribution regions, i.e. drying, pyrolysis, combustion and reduc-
tion, in a xed-bed reactor differ depending on the type of gasier.
2.2.1.1. Updraft gasier. In an updraft gasier, the biomass is fed from
top of the gasier, while air is supplied at the bottom of the gasier. At
the top of the gasier, the fed biomass gets dried and it passes through
the pyrolysis zone, where the feed is decomposed to volatiles, tar and
char. Volatile-free biomass moves downward towards the combustion
zone and released volatile combine with the gas stream leaving the
reduction zone located above the bottom-most zone, i.e. combustion
zone. In the combustion zone, the biomass gets oxidized and ue
gases are generated. It passes through the reduction zone containing
charcoal, produced by pyrolysis of the biomass, and gets converted
into producer gas. The producer gas leaving the reduction zone passes
through the pyrolysis and subsequently the drying zone. It provides its
sensible heat to the biomass resting in the respective zone and
partially meets the energy requirement of pyrolysis and drying. The
heat generated in the combustion zone is utilized by reduction,
pyrolysis and drying zones. The producer gas leaving from top of the
gasier is accompanied by a high amount of tar and moisture.
2.2.1.2. Downdraft gasier. In a downdraft gasier, both biomass
and air move in the downward direction in the lower section of
the gasier unit. The downdraft gasier has four distinct zones:
(1) drying zone, (2) pyrolysis zone, (3) oxidation zone, and
(4) reduction zone. The product gases leave at a point just below
the grate of the gasier, which enables partial cracking of the
formed tars and hence a gas with low tar content is produced. The
product gas contains a low concentration of particulates and tars
(approximately 1 g/Nm3) as most of the tars are combusted in the
gasier. The downdraft gasier is ideal when clean gas is desired
[15]. The disadvantages of this type of gasier include a relatively
low overall thermal efciency and difculties in handling biomass
with high moisture and ash content.
(1)
2.2.1.3. Cross-ow gasier. In a cross-ow gasier, the biomass fed
at the top of the unit moves downward, while the air enters from
(2)
the side of the gasier. Product gas leaves from the upper side of
the unit at about the same level that the biomass is fed. A hot
combustion/gasication zone forms around the air entrance and
(3) pyrolysis and drying zones get formed in the vessel. Ash is
removed from the bottom of the unit and the temperature of the
gas leaving the unit is about 800900 1C. As a result, low overall
energy efciency with a gas having high tar content is expected in
(4)
cross-ow gasier units.
In general, xed-bed gasiers have the advantage of involving
simple designs but have the shortcoming of producing a low gas
caloric value with high tar content. The product gas composition
is typically 4050% N2, 1520% H2, 1015% CO, 1015% CO2 and 3
5% CH4, with a net CV of 46 MJ/Nm3 [16]. To obtain a high gas
caloric value, the moisture content of the feed should remain
below 1520 wt%. Fixed-bed gasiers generally produce outlet
gases with a lower particulate loading (e.g. ash, tar, char) than
uidized-bed gasiers
586 T.K. Patra, P.N. Sheth / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 583593
2.2.2. Fluidized-bed gasication
Among the technologies that can be used for biomass combus-
tion, uidized beds are emerging as the best due to their exibility
in terms of type of fuel and high efciency. Fluidized bed (FB)
gasication is used extensively for coal gasication for many years.
Its advantage over xed-bed gasiers is the uniform temperature
distribution in the reduction zone. This temperature uniformity is
accomplished using a bed of ne granular material (e.g. sand) into
which air is circulated, uidizing the bed. Fluidized beds are used
for a broad variety of fuels. Loss of adequate uidization or
deuidization due to bed agglomeration is a major problem in
uidized-bed gasiers. However, there are successful solutions
that have been reported for other biomass feedstocks [17]. These
solutions are mainly based on lowering and controlling the bed
temperature. Two main types of uidized-bed gasiers are in
current use: (a) circulating uidized bed and (b) bubbling bed. A
third type of FB gasier, an internally circulating bed, which is
based on the design features of the other two types, is being
investigated at the pilot plant scale.
2.2.2.1. Circulating uidized beds. Circulating uidized-bed gasier
is based on the mechanism of continuous circulation of the bed
material between the reaction vessel and a cyclone separator,
where the ash is separated and the bed material and char return
back to the reaction vessel. These types of gasiers are able to cope
with high-capacity biomass throughputs. Circulating uidized-bed
gasiers can be operated at high pressures. Output gases produced
are delivered at gas turbine operating pressure without requiring
further compression.
2.2.2.2. Bubbling bed. In a bubbling-bed FB gasier, the air is fed
from the bottom of the reactor through the grate. The ne bed
material is placed above the grate into which the biomass feed is
introduced. The bed temperature is maintained between 700 and
900 1C by controlling the air/biomass ratio. The biomass is
pyrolyzed in the hot bed forming char, gaseous compounds and
tar. The high molecular weight tar reacts with the hot bed
material, to give a product gas with lower tar content ( o13 g/
Nm3).
2.2.3. Advantages/disadvantages of different gasifying reactors
A reported comparison between xed-bed and uidized-bed
reactors based on technology, size restriction of material, energy
requirement, environment and economy shows that there is no
signicant advantage between these two systems [18]. Selection of
a particular gasier type and its design will require however a
close scrutiny of a number of other factors such as the properties
of the feedstock (both chemical and physical), the quality of
product gas required, the heating method and the various opera-
tional variables involved [19]. The features of a uidized-bed
gasier that make it appear less attractive are a more complex
design and operation and energy expenses in biomass particle size
reduction. Particle size reduction as well entails the formation of
dust unsuitable for uidization. The product gas contains as well a
higher tar content requiring extensive external gas cleaning. High
plant costs make uidized-bed gasication economical at the 5
10 MW scale. In comparison to uidized-bed gasiers, the xed-
bed gasier appears the most adaptable for the production of low
caloric value gas in small-scale power generation stations with
gas turbines. The xed-bed gasier plant is simpler in this
application and has no or very few moving parts [20].
3. Biomass gasication models
3.1. Equilibrium models
The thermodynamic equilibrium model is a tool to calculate the
maximum yield that can be attained for a desired product in a
reacting system. Practically it is impossible to attain chemical or
thermodynamic equilibrium within the gasier. However, this
model provides the designer with a reasonable prediction of
maximum achievable yield of a desired product. The model
calculations are independent of gasier design and hence helpful
for studying the inuence of fuel and process parameters only.
Chemical equilibrium is determined by either of the following:
 The equilibrium constant.
 Minimization of the Gibbs free energy.
For a given reaction condition thermodynamic equilibrium
state gives the maximum conversion of the reactants. Normally
equilibrium is achieved at higher temperatures (41500 K), where
the effect of variation in operating parameters can be observed.
There are two following methods for equilibrium modeling:
 Stoichiometric method.
 Non-stoichiometric method.
A detailed specication of all the chemical reactions and
species involved in the model are required for the stoichiometric
approach whereas the non-stoichiometric method is based on
Gibbs free energy minimization [21].
Chern et al. [22] developed an equilibrium model to evaluate
the degree of approximation in predicting the performance of an
air-blown wood downdraft gasier over wide ranges of operating
parameters. The experimental parameters such as char yield, exit
temperature and gas composition were simulated and the results
were compared with comprehensive experimental data. The basic
assumptions and simplications used in the model are: (a) the dry
and ash-free feed material, which is represented by CHaObNc,
(b) air is composed of oxygen and nitrogen only; their molar ratio
is 21/79, (c) the char comprises pure solid carbon, (d) the product
gas consists of N2, H2, CO, CH4, H2O and CO2, as only these gas
species are thermodynamically signicant under the gasication
conditions, and (e) exiting char and wet product gas are at
thermodynamic equilibrium.
The air-blown gasication process was represented by the
overall stoichiometric reaction (Eq. 5):
CHaObNc nwH2O na (0.21O2 0.79N2)-ncC nG
(y1H2 y2COy3CO2 y4H2O y5CH4 y6N2) (5)
In addition to stoichiometric equation, four elemental balances
(C, H, O and N) and energy balance were used as described by Eqs.
(6)(10).
1 nC nG yCO yCH4 yCO2 6
a 2nW nG 2yH2 yCH4 yH2 O 7
b nW 20:21nA yCO yH2 O 2yCO2 8
c 20:79nA 2nG yN2 9
hF nW hW nA hA nC hC nG hG q 10
Chern et al. [22]considered homogeneous and heterogeneous
equilibrium reactions [Eqs. (11)(15)] to nd the equilibrium gas
compositions.
C 2H2-CH4 (11)
 T.K. Patra, P.N. Sheth / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 583593
C CO2-2CO
C H2O-COH2
H2O CO-CO2 H2
CO2 CH4-2H2 2CO
In their simulation, the elemental and energy balance equa-
tions are solved simultaneously with the relation of mole fractions
of gaseous species with equilibrium constants for a particular
reaction in order to nd the product composition. The model
predicts the temperature, gas composition and char yield at the
exit of the gasier for a specied set of heat loss and input
conditions. A parametric study was also conducted through
simulations for nding the inuences of the air-to-feed mass ratio
and the moisture-to-feed mass ratio on the performance of the
gasier. The model predictions were compared with a compre-
hensive set of experimental data obtained from the gasication of
wood in a commercial-scale downdraft gasier; the air-to-feed
ratios range from 1.1 to 2.1 and the moisture to feed ratios range
from 0.05 to 0.3. The predicted trends for variations in the
operating parameters were in general in good agreement with
the experimental data.
Zainal et al. [23] proposed an equilibrium model for the gasica-
tion of biomass in a downdraft biomass gasier for the prediction of
product gas composition and its caloric value. The model proposed
is a modied version of the model developed by Chern et al. [22]. The
model assumes that all reactions are in thermodynamic equilibrium.
All the pyrolysis products burn completely in the reduction zone of
the gasier. The chemical formula for the wood does not contain
nitrogen and sulfur. It was assumed that global gasication reaction
[Eq. (5)] does not yield any solid carbon. In the model, three elemental
balances (C, H and O), two equilibrium constant relationships [Eqs.
(11) and (14)] and energy balance are used to solve six unknowns
(molar fractions of H2, CO, CO2, H2O, CH4 and oxygen content for the
reaction). These sets of equations were converged to a set of three
equations, one linear and two nonlinear equations. These above set of
equations were solved using the NewtonRaphson method. This
model predicted the caloric value and composition of the producer
gas using wood as a raw material for the downdraft gasier. It also
determined the predictions for paddy husk, paper and municipal
waste. The predicted value closely matches with the experimental
values available in the literature for wood. By knowing the composi-
tion and caloric value of any biomass, this model can accurately
predict the composition and caloric value of the producer gas.
The equilibrium model proposed by Melgar et al. [24] incorpo-
rates the mass fraction of sulfur in the biomass formula along with
C, H, O and N. The global gasication reaction [Eq. (5)] is modied
by incorporating the production of SO2 and release of unconverted
O2 in the product gas. The ve atomic balances (C, H, O, N and S),
two equilibrium constant relationships [Eqs. (11) and (14)], and
energy balance constitute the model equations. The proposed
equilibrium model also takes care of the water dissociation for
the hydrogen production. The NewtonRaphson method has been
employed to solve the set of nonlinear equations. In each iteration,
partial correction (/5) is performed to guarantee the stability of
the algorithm. The reported model is validated with the experi-
mental data of Jayah et al. [25].
Jarungthammachote and Dutta [26] modied the equilibrium
model proposed by Zainal et al. [23]by incorporating the nitrogen
in the biomass formula and multiplying the equilibrium constants
with a coefcient. Experimental data reported at Zainal et al. [23],
Altani et al. [27] and Jayah et al. [25] were used to modify the
model. This combination gives a total of eleven cases to use as
experimental data. A coefcient of 11.28 was used to multiply with
the equilibrium constant of Eq. (14) in the calculation procedure in
587
(12) order to improve the performance of the model. This coefcient
came from the average value of the ratio of CH4 from the eleven
(13) experimental data and CH4 calculated from the model. A value
0.91 was dened to be the coefcient for modifying the equili-
(14)
brium constant of Eq. (11). After modifying the model, the amount
(15) of H2 signicantly reduced as compared to the predicted value
from the unmodied model. The amount of CH4 dramatically
increased and was found closer to the experimental values. It is
reported that the predicted results of the modied model were
better compared to unmodied model. The results from the
modied model are satisfactorily close to the experimental value.
The modied model was employed to simulate the gasication of
Thailand MSW and to study the effect of moisture content on the
temperature and producer gas composition.
Vaezi et al. [28] used the thermodynamic equilibrium model
reported by Zainal [23] and subsequently modied by Jarungth-
ammachote and Dutta [26]. The model is used to nd the
suitability of a particular biomass for certain applications. The
authors have reported the range of variations of oxygen content
and C/H ratio for 55 different biomass materials from the ultimate
analysis data. The inuence of such variation on the syngas
composition is analyzed. The results are plotted in a generalized
format, which can be used for a variety of biomass materials. The
variation of higher heating value (HHV) of the produced syngas
with respect to oxygen content and C/H ratio is depicted by a
contour plot. It is reported that the inuence of C/H ratio on HHV
is much higher than that of the oxygen content. For xed oxygen
content, an increase in C/H ratio to about 8.2 results in an increase
in HHV and beyond that value the reduction of HHV is reported.
Sharma [29] reported a brief review of the historic equilibrium
models developed in the past. He has proposed the global
gasication reaction based on the heterogeneous model including
char formation. He has incorporated the three heterogeneous
reactions [Eqs. (11)(13)] and methane reforming reaction [Eq.
(16)] in his model.
CH4 H2O-CO3H2 (16)
Four atomic balances (C, H, O and N), four equilibrium constant
relationships [Eqs. (11)(13) and (16)], energy balance, and equa-
tion based on Dalton's law of partial pressure constitute the model
proposed by Sharma [29]. This model predicts the unreacted char
at various thermodynamic conditions prevailed in downdraft
gasier over and above the producer gas composition. The
proposed model is validated with the experimental data of Jayah
et al. [25].
Ratnadhariya and Channiwala [30] proposed a three-zone
equilibrium and kinetic free model of biomass gasier. The rst
zone of the model was drying and pyrolysis combined together;
the second and third zones were oxidation and reduction, respec-
tively. Each zone has been formulated with: (i) reaction stoichio-
metry; (ii) constituent balance; and (iii) energy balance along with
a few empirical relationships. In the drying and pyrolysis zone
equilibrium model, the species considered are C, CH4, CO, CO2,
C2H2, H2 and H2O. The empirical relation such as 50% of the
available hydrogen in the biomass releases as hydrogen and the
rest releases as C2H2 and CH4 is considered. The ratios of moles of
CO and CO2 and the same of CH4 and C2H2 were inversely related
to their molecular masses, respectively. It is also assumed that 80%
of the available oxygen produces H2O and the rest associated with
fuel carbon to release CO and CO2 on decomposition. In the
oxidation zone model, it is assumed that all the hydrogen coming
from pyrolysis zone gets combusted to release water. The char
oxidation releases CO and CO2 and their distribution was assumed
to be inversely proportional to the exothermicity of their reactions.
Moreover, it is assumed that CO, CO2, CH4, and C2H2 are assumed
588 T.K. Patra, P.N. Sheth / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 583593
to be carried forward to the reduction zone without reacting with
oxygen. In the reduction zone, Boudouard and watergas shift
reactions are incorporated. It is observed the proposed model does
not use any thermodynamic equilibrium constant relationships.
Moreover, many assumptions used in this model lack justication
such as no heat transfer across zones, no reaction of CH4 and C2H2
in oxidation and reduction zones, etc. The model can be named as
stoichiometric kinetic free model rather than equilibrium kinetic
free model.
Barman et al. [31] incorporated the species tar in the global
gasication reaction. The tar composition used in the model was
taken from the literature. The model is constituted of three atomic
balances (C, H, and O), three equilibrium constant relationships
[Eqs. (11), (14) and (16)], and the energy balance equation. To t
the data better with the experimental data of Jayah et al. [25],
similar to the modication proposed by Jarungthammachote and
Dutta [26] regarding the equilibrium constant multiplication with
some coefcient, Barman et al. [31] also modied the model. They
reported that the modied model with the coefcient of 3.5 for
equilibrium constant of Eq. (11) better predicts the experimental
producer gas composition. Barman et al. [31] also validated their
model with the experimental data of Ptasinski et al. [32], Dogru
et al. [33] and Pedroso et al. [34].
Silva and Rouboa [35] presented a realistic gasication model
based on the carbon boundary point concept developed by Ptasinski
et al. [32] by discussing the effect of oxygen enrichment air. The
equilibrium model considered both homogeneous (above the CBP
where all the compositions are in the gaseous state) and hetero-
geneous equilibrium (below and at the CBP, with the presence of
unconverted solid carbon). Both elemental mass balance and energy
balance were satised in the model, leading to the prediction of exit
gas temperature and gas composition. Silva and Rouboa [35] also used
the modied equilibrium constant values proposed by Jarungth-
ammachote and Dutta [26]. The proposed model determines the
temperature at the carbon boundary point, i.e. optimum gasication
point. With increase in oxygen content, the temperature at the CBP
increases and it decreases with the increase in the moisture content
of biomass. It was also observed that the molar fractions of hydrogen
and carbon monoxide decrease as oxygen content increases and the
carbon dioxide shows the opposite trend. The methane molar fraction
increment was only minor. The oxygen content increment leads to
increased energetic and exergetic efciencies.
The thermodynamic equilibrium model discussed above is also
used by other researchers such as Balu and Chung [36], Koroneos
and Lykidou [37] Azzone et al. [38]and Bhavanam and Sastry [39].
Considering little contribution in terms of model development/
upgradation, these models are not discussed in the present article.
3.2. Combined transport and kinetic modeling
The inadequacy of the equilibrium model to correlate the
reactor design parameter with the nal product gas composition
leads to the development of kinetic models to evaluate and imitate
the gasier behavior. A kinetic model involves parameters such as
reaction rate, residence time, reactor hydrodynamics (supercial
velocity, diffusion rate) and length of reactor. Thus, the kinetic
model provides a wide dimension to investigate the behavior of a
gasier via simulation and they are more accurate but computa-
tionally intensive. As biomass gasication is quite an extensive
process that it is difcult to formulate the exact reaction pathways
and difcult to simulate. Most of the models account for modeling
for reduction reaction and often separate sub-models for pyrolysis,
oxidation and reduction. Separating the overall process into sub-
models of pyrolysis, oxidation and reduction zones help in
simplifying the model and provide better understanding of the
downdraft gasier behavior.
Blasi [40] proposed a one-dimensional unsteady state model for
biomass gasication in a stratied downdraft gasier. The model
proposes the generalized set of equations for all zones of the biomass
gasier. The proposed model includes mass and energy balances of
both solid and gaseous phases separately. The model incorporates
the reactions of various processes such as drying, biomass pyrolysis,
combustion and gasication of char, combustion of the gases and tar
cracking. The species considered are oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen,
steam, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane and hydrocar-
bons. Moisture evaporation was considered as a diffusion-limited
process and represented by an empirical expression for the vapor
pressure. The author neglected the bed porosity considering it had
very little effect on devolatilization of biomass based on their earlier
study [41]. Pyrolysis was represented as a one-step global reaction,
where the fractions of gases, tars and chars are produced [42].
Secondary tar cracking occurs in the voids of the bed to produce
secondary gases. For the proposed kinetic scheme, the kinetic
constants for tar cracking are taken from Liden et al. [43]. The
composition of the secondary gas has been estimated based on
literature data obtained for wood [44]. For the simulation of
gasication process, the composition of the gases produced from
pyrolysis is required. Three sets of devolatilization data have been
generated by performing the experimental study at a surface
temperature of 850 1C. Similarly for the combustion of volatiles the
method proposed by Bryden and Ragland [45] for the xed-bed
combustion of biomass was used. Combustion and gasication
reactions of char are heterogeneous and were described by the
unreacted core, shrinking particle model. In their study, chars were
assumed to consist of pure carbon and those of heterogeneous
combustion products were taken as only carbon dioxide. Literature
correlations are used for the effective thermal conductivity of the bed
[46], the effective bed-to-wall heat transfer coefcients [47], the
solid/gas heat transfer and the mass transfer coefcients [48].
However, as a consequence of unsteady heat transfer the solid/gas
heat transfer coefcient is multiplied by empirical factors () with
values in the range 0.021 [49,50]. The operator splitting procedures
and nite-differences approximations were used to solve the
modeling equations. Blasi [40] has not validated the developed
model due to non-availability of enough experimental data. From
the qualitative point of view, the model predictions match well the
dynamic behavior of downdraft wood gasiers and also the depen-
dence of the air/fuel feed rate on steady-state congurations. Blasi
[40] discussed the effect of various parameters such as model
parameters, the physico-chemical properties of feedstock and the
plant size, single-particle effects, and char reactivity on the product
gas compositions. It was concluded that more reliable input data are
required in relation to both transport coefcients and intrinsic
reaction kinetics to simulate the biomass gasication process.
Giltrap et al. [51] proposed a steady-state kinetic model for
predicting the product gas composition and temperature inside a
downdraft biomass gasier using the reaction kinetics parameters
obtained by Wang and Kinoshita [52]. The model was developed
specically for reduction zone of the downdraft biomass gasier
only. It was assumed that all the pyrolysis products get completely
cracked and complete combustion occurs in the combustion zone.
The pyrolysis and tar cracking reactions were not included in the
developed model. The reaction scheme used was the same as that
proposed by Wang and Kinoshita [52]. The reaction rates were all
considered to have an Arrhenius-type temperature dependence
and to be proportional to the difference between the actual
reactant/product ratio and the corresponding equilibrium ratio.
The values for the activation energies in the rate equations were
taken as reported by Wang and Kinoshita [52]. However, the
frequency factor values in this model are not used exactly as
reported by Wang and Kinoshita [52]. In fact a multiplication
factor, i.e. Char Reactivity Factor (C), that represents the relative
 T.K. Patra, P.N. Sheth / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 583593
reactivity of different char types is incorporated in the model. A set
of seven rst-order ordinary differential equations was obtained
by applying mass and energy balances to the system. Shell mass
and energy balance was applied to the system of cylindrical
gasier with uniform cross-sectional area with negligible radial
variation. Two more equations (empirical equation for pressure
drop and velocity variation equation based on differentiation of
ideal gas law equation) were added in the model. The nine ordi-
nary differential model equations were solved using the ODE45
function in MATLAB. The model predicts the output gas composi-
tion for a particular set of input parameters. The gas composition
predicted by the model was in reasonable agreement with the
experimental results apart from over-prediction of the CH4 con-
centration. The model produced reasonable agreement with the
experimental results of Chee [53] and Senelwa [54] for all
components except CH4. It is reported that the model could be
improved with more data on the initial gas concentrations at the
top of the reduction region, the relationship between the amount
of pyrolysis products produced and temperature, and the variation
of the char reactivity factor along the length of the gasier bed.
Jayah et al. [25] proposed a kinetic model which consists of two
sub-models, namely, the aming pyrolysis and gasication zones.
The aming pyrolysis zone sub-model is used to determine the
maximum temperature and the product concentration of gas
leaving that zone. The concepts of equilibrium in chemical reac-
tions with mass and energy balance principles are used in the
model development. The concentrations and temperatures calcu-
lated by the aming pyrolysis zone sub-model are used as inputs
to the gasication zone sub-model. The gasication zone sub-
model represents a single-particle one-dimensional model along
the vertical axis of the gasier. This sub-model includes a descrip-
tion of the physical and chemical processes, ow equations,
transport phenomena and conservation principles. Jayah et al.
[25] also carried out an experimental study to validate the
proposed model. The model was calibrated using the experimen-
tally determined gas compositions. The gas compositions pre-
dicted by the gasication zone sub-model are within 75.8% of the
measured values. The gasication zone sub-model predicts the
gasication temperature as well with reasonable accuracy. They
have also performed the computer simulations to investigate the
effects of various operating parameters on conversion efciency. It
was concluded that moisture content and heat loss have greater
effects on reactor temperature and hence on the conversion
efciency. It was found that the design with smaller throat angle
increases the conversion efciency provided the gasication zone
length is extended. From the above study it can be concluded that
the length of the gasication zone is an important design para-
meter for downdraft gasiers. The optimum gasication zone
length has to be selected for maximum output for a given range
of operating parameters. Another parameter studied is the tem-
perature of the inlet air. It was reported that the high inlet air
temperatures are improving the gasier performance but not to
the extent that it can compensate the heating cost involved.
Tinaut et al. [55] developed a one-dimensional steady-state
model for the gasication process in a xed-bed downdraft
biomass gasier. The model takes into account almost all the
phenomena that occur during the gasication process such as
moisture evaporation and biomass devolatilization; heteroge-
neous reactions of the char with water vapor, carbon dioxide,
hydrogen and oxygen; combustion of the volatile matter; homo-
geneous reactions such as watergas shift reaction and reforming
reactions of methane and tars. The model is developed by
incorporating mass and heat transfer along the bed, heat transfer
between solidgas, solid-walls and gas-walls, heat transfer by
radiation in the solid phase, variation of the bed void fraction
throughout the length of the gasier, variation of the transversal
589
section of the gasier (geometry), variation of the biomass
particles diameter, and pressure losses in the bed. The gaseous
phase includes the species H2O, H2, CO2, CO, CH4, C6H6.2O0.2, O2
and N2 and the solid phase includes biomass (CnHmOp), vegetal
char and ash. The different mass and energy interchanges between
the gaseous phase, the solid phase and the reactor wall are
considered in the model development. Tinaut et al. [55] applied
the shell balance approach to develop the differential equations of
conservation of species, energy, and pressure losses in the bed
along the reactor length. The equations of energy conservation in
each phase consider the heat transfer by convection between the
phases and the gasier wall, by conduction in the axial direction
and by radiation. The pressure losses along the bed are described
by the equations proposed by Ergun. The source terms of the
conservation equations such as convection between the gaseous
and solid phases, and between each of these phases and the
gasier wall are calculated using the equations reported by Di Blasi
[40,56]. To account for the energy losses, the equations proposed
by Hobbs et al. [47,57] have been adapted. The correlations for the
Nusselt and Sherwood numbers for mass and energy transfer in a
packed bed reported by Wakao and Kaguei [58] are integrated in
the model. The model equations are solved iteratively considering
temperature prole as an iteration variable. The model has been
validated with biomasses of different size and varying air super-
cial velocity. They have found a reasonable agreement between
the experimental and calculated results.
Sharma [59] developed a 1-dimensional steady state kinetic
model to predict the performance of a downdraft biomass gasier.
The packed bed of the biomass gasier was assumed to be porous
in nature. Hence, the uid ow rate increases in the direction of
ow due to the shrinkage of solid particles constituting the bed.
The thermo-chemical processes were described by ve separate
zones, i.e. preheating zone, drying, pyrolysis, combustion and
reduction. In the developed model, biomass drying has been
described via thermal equilibrium, where mass transfer deter-
mines the rate of moisture removal from wet biomass particles.
The ow of air and biomass consumption in the gasier was
related by the phenomena of uid ow, heat transfer, and thermo
chemical processes. In the drying and preheating zones, shrinkage
in particle size has not been considered. But in pyrolysis, oxidation
and reduction zones, as different chemical reactions occur which
leads to reduction in particle size, hence particle shrinkage is
incorporated in the modeling equations. Moving porous bed of
suction gasier was modeled as one-dimensional (1-D) with nite
control volumes (CVs). These modules were solved using the tri-
diagonal matrix algorithm (TDMA). A steady state kinetic model
for reduction reactions as described by Sharma [60,61] is used. The
kinetic model predicts the un-reacted char and nal gas composi-
tion. Kinetic modeling approach for the reduction zone constitutes
an efcient algorithm allowing rapid convergence with adequate
delity. A constant value of 1000 for the char reactivity factor
(CRF) as recommended by Giltrap et al. [51] is included in order to
account for the active sites present on char surface. A 20 kWe open
top downdraft biomass gasier developed in Indian Institute of
Science, Bangalore, was chosen. The experimental data of Sharma
[61], generated on the same conguration, have been used for
validation or testing of various modules and overall gasier model.
The uid ow module, mass transfer model for biomass drying
and the equilibrium based oxidation model all were validated and
found to be robust and adequate for the prediction of product
composition. Finally, the gasier model was validated against the
experimental data with good agreement.
Gordillo and Belghit [62] developed a numerical model of a
solar downdraft gasier of biomass char (biochar) with steam
based on the systems kinetics. The model simulates the gasifying
process of biochar. The pyrolysis and cracking reactions were not
590 T.K. Patra, P.N. Sheth / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 583593
considered. The model uses the reactions kinetics proposed by
Wang and Kinoshita [52].
Simone et al. [63] proposed a mathematical model, based on the
literature kinetic, mass transfer and heat transfer sub-models. The
gasier is represented with a 1D domain. The model is for the
reduction zone of the gasier. The model treats the gas and the
solid phase separately, which is similar to that followed by authors
Shin and Choi [64], Blasi [40] and Tinaut et al. [55]. The two phases
are correlated by mass and energy uxes. The two phases exchange
heat via radiation and conduction. The gasier is divided into
several small cells of thickness dz. Each cell incorporates all the
chemical and physical phenomena along with source terms. Bio-
mass drying is represented with an Arrhenius-type relationship. In
this work biomass devolatilization is represented with a global
devolatilization reaction generating gas, tar and char according to
the assigned coefcient for the macro-products distribution [40].
Tar and its decomposition into CO, CO2, and CH4 are represented as
in Blasi [40]. Char is assumed to be composed of pure carbon.
Model equations were solved using the software gPROMS
(Process System Enterprise). The domain is meshed with a
variable-length grid with a total number of intervals of 460. The
system of differential equation is solved with a rst-order back-
ward nite difference method. To simplify the simulation execu-
tion, heat and mass transfer coefcients are imposed constant on
different sections of the gasier. To validate the model, the syngas
composition and the temperature proles calculated by the model
were compared to the experimental values. The discrepancy
between the model and experimental results was minimized by
adjusting the parameter a and thus the char reactivity. The model
satisfactorily represents the gasier behavior and can be used for
evaluating the effect of the operating parameters. In particular, the
modeling approach is able to catch whether stable operating
conditions can be reached or not.
Blasi [65] proposed a mathematical model for gasication of
wood pellets in an open-core downdraft gasier, with dual air
entry. The authors have carried out a parametric analysis on the
inuences of the quantity and position of secondary air on the
temperature prole and the conversion of both tar and char for a
pilot-scale reactor developed by Barrio and coworkers [6668].
The data reported by these authors are also validated with the
experimental data. The conservation equations for the solid and
the gas phase are written for a one-dimensional, unsteady packed
bed. The assumptions of the model were no spatial variation of
temperature within the particle, uniform size and (spherical)
shape of the particles and constant bed porosity. The main
processes modeled include: (1) moisture evaporation, (2) nite-
rate kinetics of wood pyrolysis, (3) primary tar cracking, (4) gasi-
cation of steam, carbon dioxide and hydrogen, (5) combustion of
char, (6) combustion of volatile species and refractory tar, (7) steam
reforming of methane and refractory tar, (8) nite-rate watergas
shift, (9) heat and mass transfer across the bed due to convection
and diffusion, (10) absence of thermal equilibrium (different solid
and gas temperatures), (11) solid and gas-phase heat transfer with
the reactor walls, (12) radiative heat transfer through the porous
bed, and (13) variable solid and gas ow rates.
A one-step global reaction is considered for wood devolatiliza-
tion, where the fractions of gas, primary tar and char produced are
included. The solution of the model equations is carried out using
operator splitting procedure and nite-differences approximations.
The entire solution process was split into three segments, the rst
one corresponds to chemical reaction processes, the subsequent
steps were heat exchange (between phases and with the reactor
wall) and transport phenomena. For each time step, in the rst two
stages, the ordinary differential equations were solved by the rst-
order implicit Euler method. In the third step the transport
equations are solved using a semi-implicit procedure. The model
is experimentally validated using the measurements reported by
Barrio et al. [6668]. The predicted temperatures are in good
quantitative agreement with the measured ones, although the latter
miss the maximum values. There is also agreement between the
predictions and the measurements for the changes in the shape of
the temperature prole from the case of no secondary air injection
to the case of the forced, center-stabilized front conguration. It is
observed that the actual temperature values predicted along the
char bed are highly dependent on the wall heat losses. However, it
has been found that only a very small portion of the bed (approxi-
mately 0.01 m thick) is affected by the bottom heat losses. The
comparison between predicted and measured composition of the
producer gas shows a good agreement except for the higher
predictions in the yields of methane.
3.3. CFD models
Computational uid dynamics (CFD) play an important role in
the modeling of both uidized-bed gasier and xed-bed down-
draft gasier. A CFD model implicates a solution of conservation of
mass, momentum of species, energy ow, hydro-dynamics and
turbulence over a dened region. Solutions of such a sophisticated
approach can be achieved with commercial software such as
ANSYS, Fluent, Phoenics and CFD2000. CFD appears to be a cost-
effective option to explore the various congurations and operat-
ing conditions at any scale to identify the optimal conguration
depending on the project specication.
Fig. 1 exposes the several sub-models that can be incorporated
within the CFD model. CFD modeling involves advanced numerical
methods for accounting solid phase description, gas phase cou-
pling and also focuses on the mixing of the solid and gas phase.
The turbulent mixing may be modeled by the application of
several equations such as Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS),
Large-eddy simulation (LES) and Reynolds-averaged Navier
Stokes (RANS) equations. Furthermore, complex parameters such
as drag force, porosity of the biomass and turbulence attenuation
are mostly taken into consideration. The ow phase is modeled
using either the Two-uid model or the Discrete particle model.
Moreover, the heterogeneous chemistry of biomass gasication
including devolatilization, char combustion and gas phase chem-
istry also required to be modeled simultaneously considering the
heat, mass and momentum change at each phase.
Comprehensive CFD simulations for biomass gasication are
scarce, mainly due to lack of broad computational resources and
the anisotropic nature of biomass. However, some simplied CFD
models had been established to simulate the gasication behavior
by Fletcher et al. [69], Yu et al. [70] and Janajreh et al. [71]. The CFD
models reveal promising results that indeed are benecial for
further investigation on hydrodynamic inside the gasier. How-
ever, modeling of tar is quite challenging even in CFD modeling
There are very less number of articles on the modeling of
GAS PHASE CHEMISTRY
Turbulent mixing Heterogeneous chemistry
Direct Numerical Simulation Biomass devolatilization
Heat mass
(DNS)
and
Char combustion
Large-eddy simulation (LES)
Gas phase chemistry
Reynolds-averaged Navier-
momentum
exchanges
Stokes (RANS) Primary tar decomposition
Secondary tar formation
Fig. 1. Modeling scheme of biomass gasication by the CFD approach.
 T.K. Patra, P.N. Sheth / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 583593
downdraft biomass gasication by the CFD approach. A few of
them are discussed below.
Rogel and Aguillon [72] formulated a hybrid 1-D 2-D numer-
ical model to simulate the gasication of pine wood pellets in a
stratied downdraft gasier. The model incorporates reactions for
drying, primary pyrolysis of biomass, secondary tar cracking, com-
bustion, gasication and particle shrinkage. The particle model for
the stratied gasier is based on intraparticle mass and energy
balances and is written in spherical coordinates for a one-dimen-
sional unsteady system. However, the gas phase model incorporates
mass, energy and momentum balances for two-dimensional unst-
eady system in cylindrical polar coordinates. PHOENICS, a commer-
cially available CFD code, was used to solve the model numerically. As
the bed permeability was very high, it was assumed that the pressure
inside the reactor remains constant. The pressure drop model was
based on modied Ergun equation. All transport equations were
solved numerically and nite rate kinetics was used for all reactions.
For the transport coefcients and chemical kinetics, correlations
available in the literature were used. A nite volume has been
adopted to simulate the gasication process. The model predictions
were reported to be in good agreement with the experimental data
in terms of syngas composition, gas temperature prole, biomass
temperature prole and biomass particle shrinkage.
3.4. ANNs model
Articial neural networks (ANNs) modeling may be considered
as a computational paradigm in which a dense distribution of
simple processing element is supplied to provide a representation
of complex process including nonlinear and discrete systems. ANN
is a standard modeling tool consisting of multilayer perceptron
(MLP) paradigm [33]. MLP further consists of an input layer, a
hidden layer and an output layer of neurons.
The neurons in the input layer, consisting of inputs and weights,
simply forward the signals to the hidden neurons. However, each
neuron in the hidden and output layers has a threshold parameter
known as bias. ANN models are mostly characterized as non-
mechanistic, non-equilibrium and non-analytical model. However,
it can produce numerical results that can be used to predict the
composition of product gas from the gasier.
The neural network simulation of downdraft gasier requires
an extensive set of database, which consists of a large amount of
experimental downdraft biomass gasication data. Thus, collected
data is used as input in articial neural network modeling. The
next step involves the training of the network and its validation
that can be successfully achieved with the help of Statistical Neural
Networks SNN (Statsofts) software.
Because of its non-mechanistic, non-equilibrium and non-
analytical behavior, ANNs have many limitations in terms of dynamic
modeling, despite its accuracy in composition prediction. The per-
formance of ANNs solely depends on its training and, in addition,
training requires a large set of experimental data to calibrate and
evaluate the constant parameters of the neural network.
ANN is widely used for signal processing, function approxima-
tion and simulation and recognition of patterns. However, the use
of ANN for biomass gasication is rare. ANN is a useful tool
especially when the primary aim is to optimize the process
parameters and output of a complex system. It does not require
any information on the mathematical description of the process,
the only input required is the inlet data sets. Therefore ANNs are
best suited for simulation and scaling-up of a process. Thus, ANNs
modeling may not be the viable option for a new technology such
as biomass gasication as the number of experimental data sets is
limited. Even any kind of open literature describing the ANNs
modeling for downdraft biomass gasication was not found.
However, Maurcio Bezerra et al. [73] proposed an articial neural
591
network model for circulating uidized-bed gasier and described
the methods, results and validation in reference [33].
3.5. ASPEN Plus models
ASPEN Plus is a chemical process optimization software, which
was developed at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). It
uses unit operation blocks, such as reactors, heaters, pumps, etc.
These blocks are joined using material and energy streams to
create a ow sheet for the process. The simulation calculations are
performed using the in-built physical properties database. The
program uses a sequential modular (SM) approach, i.e. solves the
process scheme module by module, calculating the outlet stream
properties using the inlet stream properties for each block. This
simulation package has been used for modeling coal and biomass
power generation systems in many research projects. Non-
conventional fuels, e.g. biomass, municipal solid waste (MSW),
and specic coals, can be used by ASPEN Plus by incorporating a
user-dened Fortran code. User models can be created in Excel or
written using Fortran and can be fully integrated into the ASPEN
Plus ow sheet.
To model a gasier using ASPEN Plus, the overall process must
be broken down into a number of sub-processes. For example a
model may include the following zones: drying and pyrolysis,
partial oxidation, and gasication. Each zone may be represented
by a reactor/separator. The mass and energy transfer across these
zones can be incorporated in such a way that all unit operations
combination represent the entire biomass gasier.
Many researchers have developed gasication models for coal
and biomass using Aspen Plus. De Kam et al. [74] studied the
potential of coproducts of the dry grind ethanol process and Corn
Stover to generate combined heat and power (CHP) using Aspen
Plus. Mansaray et al. [7577] developed and analyzed a model for
gasication of rice husks using a uidized-bed gasier. Ersoz et al.
[78] developed a model by integrating fuel cell with coal or biomass
gasication and simulated for the generation of electricity.
Aspen Plus contains builtin models for common (conven-
tional) downstream equipment and processes such as cyclone
separators, heaters, and gas turbines, but it lacks a gasication
model. Validation of the model predictions with the experimental
data is essential, because the downstream processing of syngas is
largely dependent on the nal syngas composition. Since Aspen
Plus database lacks the properties of the biomass, gasication
models developed by many authors (Nikoo and Mahinpey [79],
Sharma [60]; Shen et al. [80]; De Kam et al. [74]) incorporated an
Ryield reactor, which decomposed the biomass into its individual
components before feeding them into the gasication reactor
(RGibbs) for further reactions to take place.
Ramzan et al. [81] developed a steady state computer model for
hybrid biomass gasier using commercial simulation software
ASPEN Plus. The model used gasication of three different biomass
feedstocks, i.e. food waste (FW), municipal solid waste (MSW) and
poultry waste (PW). The gasication process has been modeled in
three stages. In the rst stage moisture content of the fuel is
reduced before feeding to the reactor. In second stage biomass is
decomposed into volatile components and char. The yield distribu-
tion for this stage has been specied by using a FORTRAN statement
in calculator block. The third stage models the partial oxidation and
gasication reactions by minimizing Gibbs free energy.
The PengRobinson equation of state with BostonMathias
alpha function (PRBM) has been used to estimate all physical
properties of the conventional components in the gasication
process. For the estimation of the enthalpy and density for both
biomass and ash, which are non-conventional components, HCOAL-
GEN and DCOALIGT models were used. Four ASPEN Plus blocks have
been used to simulate the gasier. The RStoic block has been used
592 T.K. Patra, P.N. Sheth / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 583593
to model the drying of the biomass whereas the drying operation is
controlled by writing the FORTRAN statement in the calculator
block. The RGibbs model is used to simulate the gasication of
biomass. The RGibbs models chemical equilibrium by minimizing
Gibbs free energy. Before feeding the biomass into the RGibbs block,
it was fed to the RYield reactor, which decomposes biomass into its
elements (C, H, O, N, S, etc.). This is based on the ultimate analysis of
the biomass compound.
The simulationed model was validated with the experimental
data obtained by the authors from gasication of three wastes in a
lab-scale hybrid gasier. They have observed that the model results
were in good agreement with the experimental results for food
waste and municipal solid waste. However, there is considerable
difference between the experimental and simulation results for
poultry waste. The authors predict that the deviation may be due to
the specic composition of poultry waste.
Kuo et al. [82] developed an Aspen Plus-based model to evaluate
the gasication potentials of raw bamboo, torreed bamboo at 250 1C
(TB250), and torreed bamboo at 300 1C (TB300) in a downdraft
xed-bed gasier using thermodynamic analysis. The stream classes
were used to dene the structure of simulation streams. The
MCINCPSD stream class was used since biomass and ash properties
are not available in the standard Aspen Plus component database. In
this study, the PengRobinson equation of state was utilized to
estimate the physical properties. The enthalpies of nonconventional
components such as biomass and ash were calculated by the
HCOALGEN model, which includes a number of empirical correlations
for heat of combustion, heat of formation, and heat capacity. For the
calculation of the density of biomass the DCOALIGT model was used.
The authors have used the Gibbs energy minimization
approach in the gasication rector, i.e. the RGibbs reactor, to
predict the equilibrium composition of the produced gas. The
output compositions from watergas shift reaction at various
operating conditions like steam/CO ratios and reaction tempera-
tures were compared with the experimental data of Chen et al.
[83]. It was reported that the predictions from the RGibbs reactor
in Aspen Plus closely matches with the results of Chen et al. [83].
The developed model of gasication was also validated with the
experimental data of Jayah et al. [25].
4. Conclusions
Modeling of biomass gasiers is one of the important areas of
research that needs more attention. In order to study complex
processes like gasication, without relying on the experimental
method of verication, which is time consuming and expensive,
modeling and simulation studies may prove to be helpful. It has
been found that most of the modeling studies focus on thermo-
dynamic equilibrium modeling because it is simple and easy to
develop. However, equilibrium modeling provides the maximum
yield achievable under equilibrium conditions which are not the
real conditions inside a gasier. Hence, the results produced are less
reliable and we should focus on more accurate modeling techniques
like kinetic modeling. A very few researchers have developed
kinetic models for downdraft gasier; some of them have devel-
oped only for reduction zone of the gasier. The complete transport
and kinetic model including the particle model for all zones for the
whole gasication process is yet to be developed. There is a need to
develop both gasication bed model as well as a model for
individual particles in the bed. ANN and ASPEN Plus models are
used to study the effect of inlet parameters, which need a large
number of experimental data input. The models are optimization
tools to achieve the desired product composition. However they do
not correlate with the actual operating conditions. CFD models are
also one of the tools to develop 2D and 3D models with better
accuracy but it requires lot of kinetic and design data from the
literature.
Acknowledgment
The authors acknowledge the nancial assistance received from
Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, New
Delhi, for carrying out the present work under the fast-track
scheme for young scientists (Grant no. SB/FTP/ETA-213/2012).
References
[1] Mathur N. Load Generation Balance Report 201415. Central Electricity
Authority, Ministry of Power, Government of India; 2014.
[2] Authority CE. Progress report of village electrication; 2014.
[3] Coal MO. Import of coal. Government of India; 2014.
[4] Buragohain B, Mahanta P, Moholkar VS. Biomass gasication for decentralized
power generation: the Indian perspective. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2010;14:7392.
[5] Basu P, Cen K, Jestin L. Boilers and burner. New York: Springer & Verlag; 2000.
[6] Basu P. Combustion and gasication in uidized beds. Boca Raton, USA: CRC
Press, Taylor & Francis; 2006.
[7] Puig-Arnavat M, Bruno JC, Coronas A. Review and analysis of biomass
gasication models. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:284151.
[8] Ahmed TY, Ahmad MM, Yusup S, Inayat A, Khan Z. Mathematical and
computational approaches for design of biomass gasication for hydrogen
production: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:230415.
[9] Baruah D, Baruah DC. Modeling of biomass gasication: a review. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2014;39:80615.
[10] Salaices E. Catalytic steam gasication of biomass surrogates: a thermody-
namic and kinetic approach. Canada: The University of Western Ontario; 2010.
[11] Huber GW, Iborra S, Corma A. Synthesis of transportation fuels from biomass:
chemistry, catalysts, and engineering. Chem Rev 2006;106:404498.
[12] Dhepe PL, Fukuoka A. Cellulose conversion under heterogeneous catalysis.
ChemSusChem 2008;1:96975.
[13] Klimantos P, Koukouzas N, Katsiadakis A, Kakaras E. Air-blown biomass
gasication combined cycles (BGCC): system analysis and economic assess-
ment. Energy 2009;34:70814.
[14] Chaiwat W, Hasegawa I, Mae K. Examination of the low-temperature region in
a downdraft gasier for the pyrolysis product analysis of biomass air gasica-
tion. Ind Eng Chem Res 2009;48:893443.
[15] Sheth PN, Babu BV. Experimental studies on producer gas generation from
wood waste in a downdraft biomass gasier. Bioresour Technol
2009;100:312733.
[16] Gordillo G, Annamalai K, Carlin N. Adiabatic xed-bed gasication of coal,
dairy biomass, and feedlot biomass using an airsteam mixture as an oxidizing
agent. Renew Energy 2009;34:278997.
[17] Khan AA, de Jong W, Jansens PJ, Spliethoff H. Biomass combustion in uidized
bed boilers: potential problems and remedies. Fuel Process Technol
2009;90:2150.
[18] Warnecke R. Gasication of biomass: comparison of xed bed and uidized
bed gasier. Biomass Bioenergy 2000;18:48997.
[19] Demirbas A. Trace element concentrations in ashes from various types of
lichen biomass species. Energy Sources 2004;26:499506.
[20] McKendry P. Energy production from biomass (part 3): gasication technol-
ogies. Bioresour Technol 2002;83:5563.
[21] Basu P. Biomass gasication and pyrolysis: practical design and theory.
Burlington, Massachusetts: Elsevier; 2010.
[22] Chern S-M, Walawender WP, Fan LT. Equilibrium modeling of a downdraft
gasier i overall gasier. Chem Eng Commun 1991;108:24365.
[23] Zainal ZA, Ali R, Lean CH, Seetharamu KN. Prediction of performance of a
downdraft gasier using equilibrium modeling for different biomass materi-
als. Energy Convers Manag 2001;42:1499515.
[24] Melgar A, Prez JF, Laget H, Horillo A. Thermochemical equilibrium modelling
of a gasifying process. Energy Convers Manag 2007;48:5967.
[25] Jayah TH, Aye L, Fuller RJ, Stewart DF. Computer simulation of a downdraft
wood gasier for tea drying. Biomass Bioenergy 2003;25:45969.
[26] Jarungthammachote S, Dutta A. Thermodynamic equilibrium model and
second law analysis of a downdraft waste gasier. Energy 2007;32:16609.
[27] Altani CR, Wander PR, Barreto RM. Prediction of the working parameters of a
wood waste gasier through an equilibrium model. Energy Convers Manag
2003;44:276377.
[28] Vaezi MP-F M, Moghiman M, Charmchi M. Modeling biomass gasication: a
new approach to utilize renewable sources of energy. Boston, Massachusetts,
USA: ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition;
2008.
[29] Sharma AK. Equilibrium and kinetic modeling of char reduction reactions in a
downdraft biomass gasier: a comparison. Sol. Energy 2008;82:91828.
[30] Ratnadhariya JK, Channiwala SA. Three zone equilibrium and kinetic free
modeling of biomass gasier a novel approach. Renew Energy
2009;34:10508.
 T.K. Patra, P.N. Sheth / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 583593
[31] Barman NS, Ghosh S, De S. Gasication of biomass in a xed bed downdraft
gasier a realistic model including tar. Bioresour Technol 2012;107:50511.
[32] Ptasinski KJ, Prins MJ, Pierik A. Exergetic evaluation of biomass gasication.
Energy 2007;32:56874.
[33] Dogru M, Howarth CR, Akay G, Keskinler B, Malik AA. Gasication of hazelnut
shells in a downdraft gasier. Energy 2002;27:41527.
[34] Pedroso DT, Aiello RC, Conti L, Mascia S. Biomass gasication on a new really
tar free downdraft gasier. Rev Cienc Exatas UNITAU 2005;11:5962.
[35] Silva VB, Rouboa A. Using a two-stage equilibrium model to simulate oxygen
air enriched gasication of pine biomass residues. Fuel Process Technol
2013;109:1117.
[36] Balu E, Chung JN. System characteristics and performance evaluation of a
trailer-scale downdraft gasier with different feedstock. Bioresour Technol
2012;108:26473.
[37] Koroneos CLS. Equilibrium modeling for a dwndraft biomass gasier for
cotton stalks biomass in comparison with experimental data. J Chem Eng
Mater Sci 2011;2:618.
[38] Azzone E, Morini M, Pinelli M. Development of an equilibrium model for the
simulation of thermochemical gasication and application to agricultural
residues. Renew Energy 2012;46:24854.
[39] Bhavanam A, Sastry RC. Modelling of solid waste gasication process for
synthesis gas production. J Sci Ind Res 2013;72:6116.
[40] Blasi CD. Dynamic behaviour of stratied downdraft gasiers. Chem Eng Sci
2000;55:293144.
[41] Di Blasi C. Inuences of physical properties on biomass devolatilization
characteristics. Fuel 1997;76:95764.
[42] Di Blasi C. Modeling and simulation of combustion processes of charring and
non-charring solid fuels. Prog Energy Combust Sci 1993;19:71104.
[43] Liden AG, Berruti F, Scott DS. A kinetic model for the production of liquids
from the ash pyrolysis of biomass. Chem Eng Commun 1988;65:20721.
[44] Boroson ML, Howard JB, Longwell JP, Peters WA. Product yields and kinetics
from the vapor phase cracking of wood pyrolysis tars. AlChE J 1989;35:1208.
[45] Bryden KM, Ragland KW. Numerical modeling of a deep, xed bed combustor.
Energy Fuels 1996;10:26975.
[46] Goldman J, Xieu, D, Oko, A, Milne, R, Essenhigh, RH. A comparison of
predictions and experiment in the gasication of anthracite in air and
oxygen-enriched/steam mixtures. In: Proceedings of the 20th International
symposium on combustion. Pittsburgh: The Combustion Institute; 1984. p.
1365.
[47] Hobbs ML, Radulovic PT, Smoot LD. Combustion and gasication of coals in
xed-beds. Prog Energy Combust Sci 1993;19:50586.
[48] Gupta AS, Thodos G. Direct analogy between mass and heat transfer to beds of
spheres. AlChE J 1963;9:7514.
[49] Cho YS, Joseph B. Heterogeneous model for moving-bed coal gasication
reactors. Ind Eng Chem Process Des Dev 1981;20:3148.
[50] Radulovic PT, Ghani MU, Smoot LD. An improved model for xed bed coal
combustion and gasication. Fuel 1995;74:58294.
[51] Giltrap DL, McKibbin R, Barnes GRG. A steady state model of gas-char
reactions in a downdraft biomass gasier. Sol Energy 2003;74:8591.
[52] Wang Y, Kinoshita CM. Kinetic model of biomass gasication. Sol Energy
1993;51:1925.
[53] Chee CS. The air gasication of wood chips in a downdraft gasier. Manhattan,
KS 66506, United States: Kansas State University; 1987.
[54] Senelwa K. Air gasication of woody biomass from short rotation forests. New
York: Massey University; 1997.
[55] Tinaut FV, Melgar A, Prez JF, Horrillo A. Effect of biomass particle size and air
supercial velocity on the gasication process in a downdraft xed bed
gasier. An experimental and modelling study. Fuel Process Technol
2008;89:107689.
[56] Di Blasi C. Modeling wood gasication in a countercurrent xed-bed reactor.
AlChE J 2004;50:230619.
[57] Hobbs ML, Radulovic PT, Smoot LD. Modeling xed-bed coal gasiers. AlChE J
1992;38:681702.
[58] Wakao N, Kaguei S. Heat and mass transfer in packed beds. New York: Gordon
and Breach Science; 1982.
[59] Sharma AK. Modeling and simulation of a downdraft biomass gasier 1. Model
development and validation. Energy Convers Manag 2011;52:138696.
593
[60] Sharma AK. Equilibrium modeling of global reduction reactions for a down-
draft (biomass) gasier. Energy Convers Manag 2008;49:83242.
[61] Sharma AK. Experimental investigations on a 20 kWe, solid biomass gasica-
tion system. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:4218.
[62] Gordillo ED, Belghit A. A downdraft high temperature steam-only solar
gasier of biomass char: a modelling study. Biomass Bioenergy
2011;35:203443.
[63] Simone M, Nicolella C, Tognotti L. Numerical and experimental investigation
of downdraft gasication of woody residues. Bioresour Technol
2013;133:92101.
[64] Shin D, Choi S. The combustion of simulated waste particles in a xed bed.
Combust Flame 2000;121:16780.
[65] Di Blasi C, Branca C. Modeling a stratied downdraft wood gasier with
primary and secondary air entry. Fuel 2013;104:84760.
[66] Barrio M. Experimental investigation of small-scale gasication of woody
biomass. Trondheim, Norway: The Norwegian University of Science and
Technology; 2002.
[67] Barrio M, Hustad J, Fossum M. A smallscale stratied downdraft gasier
coupled to a gas engine for combined heat and power production. Prog
Thermochem Biomass Convers 2001:42640.
[68] Barrio M, Fossum, M, Hustad, JE. Operational characteristics of a small-scale
stratied downdraft gasier. In: Proceedings of the sixth international con-
ference on technologies and combustion for a clean environment. Porto,
Portugal; 2001. p. 126976.
[69] Fletcher DF, Haynes BS, Christo FC, Joseph SD. A CFD based combustion model
of an entrained ow biomass gasier. Appl Math Model 2000;24:16582.
[70] Yu L, Lu J, Zhang X, Zhang S. Numerical simulation of the bubbling uidized
bed coal gasication by the kinetic theory of granular ow (KTGF). Fuel
2007;86:72234.
[71] Janajreh I, Al Shrah M. Numerical and experimental investigation of downdraft
gasication of wood chips. Energy Convers Manag 2013;65:78392.
[72] Rogel A, Aguilln J. The 2D Eulerian approach of entrained ow and
temperature in a biomass stratied downdraft gasier. Am J Appl Sci
2006;3:206875.
[73] Maurcio Bezerra JdS, Leonardo CN, Amaro Jr. GB, Cristina PB. Neural network
based modeling and operational optimization of biomass gasication pro-
cesses. In: Yun Y, editor. Gasication for practical applications. Intech Open;
2012. p. 297312.
[74] De Kam MJ, Morey RV, Tiffany DG. Integrating biomass to produce heat and
power at ethanol plants. Appl Eng Agric 2008;25:22744.
[75] Mansaray K, Al-Taweel A, Ghaly A, Hamdullahpur F, Ugursal V. Mathematical
modeling of a uidized bed rice husk gasier: part I model development.
Energy Sources 2000;22:8398.
[76] Mansaray K, Ghaly A, Al-Taweel A, Hamdullahpur F, Ugursal V. Mathematical
modeling of a uidized bed rice husk gasier: part II model sensitivity.
Energy Sources 2000;22:16785.
[77] Mansaray K, Ghaly A, Al-Taweel A, Ugursal V, Hamdullahpur F. Mathematical
modeling of a uidized bed rice husk gasier: part III model verication.
Energy Sources 2000;22:28196.
[78] Ersoz A, Ozdogan S, Caglayan E, Olgun H. Simulation of biomass and/or coal
gasication systems integrated with fuel cells. J Fuel Cell Sci Technol
2006;3:4227.
[79] Nikoo MB, Mahinpey N. Simulation of biomass gasication in uidized bed
reactor using Aspen Plus. Biomass Bioenergy 2008;32:124554.
[80] Shen L, Gao Y, Xiao J. Simulation of hydrogen production from biomass
gasication in interconnected uidized beds. Biomass Bioenergy
2008;32:1207.
[81] Ramzan N, Ashraf A, Naveed S, Malik A. Simulation of hybrid biomass
gasication using Aspen plus: a comparative performance analysis for food,
municipal solid and poultry waste. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:39629.
[82] Kuo P-C, Wu W, Chen W-H. Gasication performances of raw and torreed
biomass in a downdraft xed bed gasier using thermodynamic analysis. Fuel
2014;117(Part B):123141.
[83] Chen W-H, Lin M-R, Jiang TL, Chen M-H. Modeling and simulation of hydrogen
generation from high-temperature and low-temperature water gas shift
reactions. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008;33:664456.