Note: Further to my earlier work that can found at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/63792730, this file contains the set of kinetic

parameters, which gives the best simulation results. Results have also been
compared to experimental data and they are in qualitative agreement. This is a
good starting point for any modeling work on gasificaton processes. Although a
tubular reactor has been modeled in this instance, a fluidized bed gasifier can also
me be easily modeled by user external user-subroutines written in FORTRAN.
Ahsan Qayum

Results for revised kinetic model:

Table 1 (Reactions)
Reaction
no.

Reactions:

EA

s-1

11922

Cal/mol [1-2]

0.12

s-1

4.28035731 Cal/mol [1, 3]

4.40

s-1

38693.0353 Cal/mol

K (units)

2.0105

- 74.8
+171

H (MJ/kmol)

C + H2OCO + +75
H2

C + 2H2CH4

Order of EA
reaction
(value)
(n)

K
(value)

References
(units)

C + CO2 2 CO
[1, 3]

CH4+ H2OCO +206

+ 3H2

CO+H2OCO2
+ H2

-35

3105

s-1

6474.7

atm-1 s-1

29805

Cal/mol [1-2]
Cal/mol [4-5]

40000
-111

0.046

atm-1 s-1

26392.4716 Cal/mol [4-5]

-283

0.046

atm-1 s-1

94050.3487 Cal/mol [4-5]

C + 0.5O2 CO

C + O2 CO2

Kinetic Model
Parameter studied: Temperature
ER

S/F

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2

1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33

Temperature
(C)
650
700
750
800
850
900

HYDROGEN

CO

CO2

CH4

WATER

GHSV (1/s)

0.32220521
0.37587255
0.3898984
0.40006723
0.40751491
0.41304811

0.129411
0.12273
0.142484
0.156743
1.67E-01
0.175033

4.79E-02
0.064345
0.051638
0.042461
0.035724
0.030698

7.09E-02
5.36E-02
4.11E-02
3.21E-02
2.55E-02
2.06E-02

0.03410688
0
0
0
0
0

0.345594
0.375731
0.404117
0.431044
0.456804
0.481643

PE : 0.1 kg/hr, Steam: 0.1333 kg/hr and Air: 0.3266 kg/hr

Mole Fraction vs temperature
0.45
0.4

Mole Fraction

0.35
0.3

HYDROGEN

0.25

CO

0.2

CO2

0.15

CH4

0.1

WATER

0.05
0
625

675

725

775
Temperature C

825

875

925

Mole Fraction vs temperature from [6] Tsuji, T. and A. Hatayama

Discussion
Reaction 1 is the primary reaction for the production of hydrogen and carbon monoxide [1, 4, 6-10]. It is
an endothermic reaction. As the temperature of the reactor is increased, the yield of hydrogen and
carbon monoxide goes up.
A comparison is done between the kinetic model and a gasification experiment from the literature. The
model is in qualitative agreement with the data available in the literature.

H2 & CO Efficiency
100
90
80
Efficiency

70
60
50

CO efficiency

40

H2 efficiency

30
20
10
0
650

700

750

800

850

900

Temperature C

Parameter studied: Steam to fuel ratio

Temperature
(C)
900
900
900
900
900
900
900
900
900
900
900

ER

S/F

HYDROGEN

CO

CO2

CH4

WATER

GHSV

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2

1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3

0.33176247
0.39894896
0.41995244
0.43951457
0.45780739
0.47495659
0.49104501
0.49481923
0.48064257
0.4670336
0.45433353

0.194722
0.203295
0.161246
0.122087
0.085471
0.051129
0.018924
0
0
0
0

0.00374615
0.0073827
0.04206928
0.074375
0.10458437
0.13290683
0.15947594
0.17310796
0.16817319
0.16338049
0.15894921

5.92E-02
2.11E-02
2.03E-02
1.96E-02
1.90E-02
1.84E-02
1.78E-02
0.0173
0.01681
0.01633
0.01589

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.011352
0.039736
0.066863
0.092264

0.423
0.470
0.487
0.504
0.521
0.538
0.555
0.572
0.589
0.606
0.623

PE : 0.1 kg/hr, Steam: varies and Air: 0.3266 kg/hr

Mole fraction vs S/F ratio

0.6

Mole fractiom

0.5
0.4

HYDROGEN
CO

0.3

CO2

0.2

CH4

0.1

WATER

0
0.5

1.5

2
Steam to Fuel ratio

2.5

3.5

Mole Fraction vs Steam to carbon ratio- from [6] Tsuji, T. and A. Hatayama

Discussion
Reaction 5 (CO+H2OCO2 + H2) consumes carbon monoxide and steam to generate hydrogen and
carbon dioxide. When steam to fuel ratio is increased, the gas compositions of hydrogen and carbon
dioxide increases according to the water gas shift reaction (Reaction 5).

A comparison is done between the kinetic model and a gasification experiment from the literature. The
model is in qualitative agreement with the data available in the literature.

CO & H2 Efficiency

100
90
80
Efficiency

70
60
50

CO efficiency

40

H2 efficiency

30
20
10
0
1

5
6
7
8
Steam to fuel ratio

10

11

Parameter studied: Equivalence ratio

Temperature (C)
900
900
900
900
900
900
900
900
900
900
900

S/F
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33

ER
0.1
0.125
0.15
0.175
0.2
0.225
0.25
0.275
0.3
0.325
0.35

HYDROGEN
0.50387857
0.47763787
0.45398645
0.43256673
0.41307398
0.39526578
0.37890324
0.36388751
0.35000827
0.33712979
0.32517222

CO
0.213524
0.202372
0.192351
0.183276
0.175029
0.167481
0.160651
0.154192
0.148277
0.142839
0.137774

PE : 0.1 kg/hr, Steam: 0.1333kg/hr and Air: varies

CO2
0.037445
0.03551
0.033752
0.032159
0.030704
0.029382
0.028118
0.027046
0.026034
0.025064
0.024175

CH4
WATER GHSV
2.51E-02
0
0.395
2.38E-02
0
0.417
2.26E-02
0
0.438
2.15E-02
0
0.460
2.06E-02
0
0.482
1.97E-02
0
0.503
0.018868
0
0.525
0.018115
0
0.547
0.017423
0
0.569
0.016783
0
0.590
0.016187
0
0.612

Mole fraction vs Equivalence ratio

0.6

Mole Fration

0.5
HYDROGEN

0.4

CO
0.3

CO2
CH4

0.2

WATER

0.1
0
0.05

0.15

0.25

0.35

0.45

Equivalene Ratio

Efficiency vs ER
100
90
80
Efficiency

70
60
50
40

CO efficiency

30

H2 efficiency

20
10
0

Equivalence ratio

CO efficiency vs ER

CO efficiency (%)

CO efficiency
77.5
77.4
77.3
77.2
77.1
77
76.9
76.8
76.7
76.6
76.5

CO efficiency

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

Equivalence ratio

A plot is made between CO efficiency and Equivalence ratio. From literature [4], it is known that
optimum point for ER is 0.23. The kinetic model suggests that optimum ER is 0.25. Still very close to the
suggested value. The optimum ER is usually between 0.2 and 0.3.

References
1.

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

10.

Inayat, A., M.M. Ahmad, Abdul Mutalib, M.I. Yunus and M. Khairuddin, Kinetic Modeling of
Biomass Steam Gasification System for Hydrogen Production with CO2 Adsorption. Proceedings
of International Conference for Technical Postgraduates (TECHPOS 2009), 2009.
Corella, J. and A. Sanz, Modeling circulating fluidized bed biomass gasifiers. A pseudo-rigorous
model for stationary state. Fuel Processing Technology, 2005. 86(9): p. 1021-1053.
Choi, Y.C., X.Y. Li, T.J. Park, J.H. Kim and J.G. Lee, Numerical study on the coal gasification
characteristics in an entrained flow coal gasifier. Fuel, 2001. 80(15): p. 2193-2201.
Nikoo, M.B. and N. Mahinpey, Simulation of biomass gasification in fluidized bed reactor using
ASPEN PLUS. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2008. 32(12): p. 1245-1254.
Lee, J.M., Y.J. Kim, W.J. Lee and S.D. Kim, Coal-gasification kinetics derived from pyrolysis in a
fluidized-bed reactor. Energy, 1998. 23(6): p. 475-488.
Tsuji, T. and A. Hatayama, Gasification of waste plastics by steam reforming in a fluidized bed.
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 2009. 11(2): p. 144-147.
Ahmad, M.M., A. Inayat, S. Yusup and C.K. Chiew, Simulation of Integrated Pressurized Steam
Gasification of Biomass for Hydrogen Production using iCON. Journal of Applied Sciences 2011.
Doherty, W., A. Reynolds and D. Kennedy, The effect of air preheating in a biomass CFB gasifier
using ASPEN Plus simulation. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2009. 33(9): p. 1158-1167.
L, P., X. Kong, C. Wu, Z. Yuan, L. Ma and J. Chang, Modeling and simulation of biomass airsteam gasification in a fluidized bed. Frontiers of Chemical Engineering in China, 2008. 2(2): p.
209-213.
Mitta, N.R., S. Ferrer-Nadal, A.M. Lazovic, J.F. Parales, E. Velo and L. Puigjaner, Modelling and
simulation of a tyre gasification plant for synthesis gas production, in Computer Aided Chemical
Engineering, W. Marquardt and C. Pantelides, Editors. 2006, Elsevier. p. 1771-1776.