Comprehensive modelling and simulation of

fluidized bed boilers and gasifiers

M. L. de Souta-Santos
IPT-lnstituto de Pesquisas Tecnolbgicas do Estado de Slo Paul0 S/A (DEMIAET),
Cidade Universithia, Caixa Postal 7141, Slo Paula-SP, Brazil
(Received 12 May 1988; revised 19 April 1989)

A comprehensive mathematical model and computer program to simulate a fluidized bed boiler or a
fluidized bed gasifier have been developed. The program can predict several important parameters that
describe the operation of the equipment such as: composition and temperature profiles for all gas and
solid phases in the bed and freeboard; solid particle size distributions at any point; heat transfer between
all phases and tubes or walls at any point; gas pressure losses, etc., as well as the usual engineering
equipment performance data. The basic structure of the model includes a system of 46 differential equations,
which represent the mass and energy balance for all phases at any point of the equipment. The results
generated by the simulation were compared with values measured during the operation of fluidized bed
units by Babcock & Wilcox and by the National Coal Board. Average deviations of between 2 and 5%
for several parameters were achieved. This represents an improvement in the use of simulation as an
engineeringhesign tool for such equipment.

(Keywords: fluidized beds; modelling; gasification)

Several studies on mathematical modelling of fluidized
bed combustion and gasification have been published.
From the analysis of previously published mathematical
models and simulations of fluidized bed boilers and
gasifiers, it is possible to justify the development of the
present model.
The work published so far does not cover many
important aspects and phenomena of the process.
Devolatilization reactions are either not considered or
are taken as an instantaneous processlP6. Other authors
assume that the rate of volatiles release is homogeneously
inert bed material and/or limestone are fed in
continuously. Any variations in conditions are assumed
to occur only in the vertical or axial ‘z’ direction (Figure
1). At the base of the bed (z = 0), the two-phase mode12’,22
has been assumed, although this model can be
criticized’6,23,24 for beds working at ‘slow bubble’ or at
‘fast growing bubble’ regimes. Most boilers and gasiliers
work at ‘fast bubble regime’, and the program provides
GAS AND
SMALL PARTI -

distributed throughout the bed’ or that the rate is

proportional to the feeding rate or to the mixing rate of
solid#- lo.
The dynamics of drying processes for the various solids
added to the reactor, are not considered in most of the
existing workrP9. Chemical reactions other than carbon
and CO combustion are not considered’*3,5*6*8.
Despite its importance on various aspects of the
process, no published simulation model of the FBC boiler
has included the kinetics of limestone calcination. The
possibility of dealing with different carbonaceous solids
according to physical structure or reactivity is not well
documented, nor is heat transfer between different kinds
of particles.
A continuous differential mathematical treatment of
the mass and energy balances for the bed and freeboard
sections contrasts with the overall’*’ ‘-i3, compart-
mented”’ ‘*16 or differential balances for imagined
separated sections of the bed5-7,‘7-20.

MATHEMATICAL MODEL
Basic hypotheses and model strategy
The program simulates the steady-state regime PLENUM
operation of a fluidized bed combustor boiler or a
fluidized bed gasifier, where the carbonaceous material, Figure 1 Schematic diagram of a fluidized bed reactor

001~2361/89/121507-15$3.00
0 1989 Butterworth & Co. (Publishers) Ltd. FUEL, 1989, Vol 68, December 1507
Comprehensive modelling and simulation of fluidized bed boilers and gasifiers: M. L. de Souza-Santos

STACK GAS ENTRAINMENT Lir TOP OF FREEBOARD.

-2.2,
4
t 1-- -------I

HEAT a
I -R-S
, mm%
< HEAT. I

HEAT.
MASS. ’ (~+~=OQRN=+JR t
Rt3Cl-lONW 4
OAS IN THE LIMESlONE. * /
FREEBOARD.
IuaES
I c
HEAT: , HEAT a MASS (HETEROQBEOUS ,HFA
T.>
TUBES
a
wmOMNms ( I ’ RE&.TlONS.) ’ ’
WALL& HEAT. WALLS.
REACTIONSI
P-F
I I
INERT SOWD @FAT: t
< HEAT 8 I ) DRYINS.
HEAT. 1
MASS. I(
P-E P-F
I

I SOLIDS. , FREEBOARD.

HEAT a MASS.
6
QA9 IN THE Q&S IN THE
EMULSIW.

(NB
HEAT 8 MASS.
REACTIONS1

I
P-F P-F

-.-. .-.-.-.-.-._. r.~~~~.F~~-.-.-.-._._._.‘“;”

a GASIFICATION POWTS.

UC. = UNIFORM COMPOSITION.

Figure 2 Simplified diagram of the model basic structure

an automatic check of the fluidization condition. The unreacted core model is followed for these processes,
Fluidization parameters change with changes in the regardless of the model adopted for the other reactions.
temperature and composition in the emulsion and bubble The unreacted core model is also assumed for the
phases, throughout the bed height. gas-solid reactions in the freeboard. The gas is assumed
Species taking part in the emulsion phase are: to be transparent with respect to radiative heat transfer.
interstitial gas; carbonaceous solid; inert material and/or To illustrate the assumptions described, Figure 2 shows
limestone. The bubble phase is free of solid particles and a simplified diagram of the model structure.
the clouds are incorporated in the emulsion phase. It is
assumed that plug-flow regimes operate for the gas in
the bubble and for the interstitial gas of the emulsion Basic equations
phase. The gas flow in the freeboard is also treated as a The system of differential mass and energy balances is
plug-flow regime. Limestone and inert material (normally summarized in the Appendix and includes 46 coupled
sand and free ash from the carbonaceous material) are equations for each section, which must be solved by the
assumed to have a homogeneous composition throughout simulation strategy.
the bed, but temperatures which change with bed height.
This is also assumed for the carbonaceous solid with
Boundary conditions
respect to its fixed carbon composition, which is
calculated by a reiterative procedure. The condition of the gas stream injected through the
To verify the influence of the feed point position, the distributor (z=O) is known, so the total gas flow rate,
drying process and the devolatilization reactions are Fo, its composition, and temperature, To, are set.
Wc,j,

allowed to progress only in regions near the feeding point Therefore, it is possible to write:
in the bed, Within the freeboard, all solids are treated as
WGE,j.z=O- - WGB,j,z=O= wG,j.z=OT l~j$13 m
flowing in the vertical direction with a decreasing flow
rate due to the return of particles to the bed, i.e., due to and
entrainment and to chemical reactions. Bubble size is a
TGE,z=Q -T
- G&z=0 -T
- G,z=Q (2)
function of the bed height. For the beds with immersed
tubes, the maximum bubble size is limited by the The partition (at z = 0) of the gas flow between emulsion
minimum horizontal distance between neighbouring and bubble phases, follows the two-phase theory. For
tubes in the tube bundle region. heights where z >O, the fIow through these phases is
The heterogeneous reactions between gases and dictated by the mass balances. The boundary conditions
carbonaceous solid can be described by two possible for the lowest part of the freeboard are the same as for
mechanisms : the unreacted-core or shrinking-core the top of the bed.
model; or the exposed-core or segregated-ash model. The The boundary conditions for the temperature of the
drying of solids and the devolatilization of carbonaceous various solids at the base of the bed are calculated by
material are assumed to be complete within the bed. equating the heat flux transferred by convection and the

1508 FUEL, 1989, Vol 68, December

 Comprehensive modelling and simulation of fluidized bed boilers and gasifiers: M. L. de Souza-Santos

heat transferred by conduction at the bed base: Moist inert + dry inert + H,O (R-13)
dT, CO+H,O i&O,+H, (R-14)
Abe&z=0-dz z=. =rbed--dist(TA,z=o- Gist) (3)
2co + 0, *2co, (R-15)
and 2H, + 0, +2H,O (R-16)
(R-17)
2 (Twist-TG.s=o)=Clbed-dist(TA,r=O-Tdist)
(4)
CH, + 20, *CO, + 2H,O
2C,H, + 70, +4CO, + 6H,O (R-18)
The heat transfer coefficient between bed and distributor 4NH, + 50,*4NO + 6H,0 (R-19)
is taken from Zhang and Ouyang24.
Therefore, Tp.,,, = o is achieved by a convergence 2H,S + 30, P2S0, + 2H,O (R-20)
routine based on the above equations. N,+O, +2NO (R-21)
Chemical reactions
The model includes the set of possible chemical
reactions listed below:
b,,C02+b;SH20+bl,NO+b,,S02 (R-22)
CH,,,O,,,N,I,S,,,+ j+y-?+?+a,, 02+
>
Tar + 6,CO, + b&O + i&O2 + b4N2 + b,H,O
(28-1)C02+(2-2jl)CO+~H,O+a,,NO+ + bSH2 + b&H, + b,SO, + ti,NO + tjloC2H,
+b,,H2S+li,2NH, (R-23)
a1sS02 (R-l)
Tar + coke (R-24)
CH,,,O,,,N$%,,+ (1 -aAH +
The forms presented in reactions (R-l) and (R-2) were
1 +y-a,,-a,, H,+CO+~N,+a,,H,S taken from DeSai and Wen25, and forms in reactions
> (R-3)-(R-5) were adapted from the work of Kim and
Joseph26. The stoichiometry coefficient, /$ will depend
(R-2) on the particle temperature27. Calculations of the
CLQ,,%,S,,, +CO2 + stoichiometry coefficients in reactions (R-6)-(R-8),
(R-23) and (R-24) should be accomplished by convergence
2CO+a,,H,O+a,,NH,+a,,H,S
calculations that involve estimating the devolatilization
products*‘.
+ ?_a 16-%a17-a18 H2 (R-3)
( >
Reaction kinetics
Models for gas-solid reactions. The unreacted and
CH,,,O,,,N,,,S,,,+ 2-~+a,,+~a,,+a,, H,*
( > exposed core models have been described29 for the
carbonaceous gas-solid reaction. In this work these
CH,+a,,H,O+a,,NH,+a,,H,S (R-4) models have been generalized to deal with devolatilization
CH,,,0,,,N,,,Sa18+(2-a,,)NO * reactions, drying of solids, calcination of limestone, and
sulphur absorption.
CO,+ H, (R-5) The simulation program allows the user to choose
between the two models, depending on the processed
Volatiles -+ tar solid characteristics. However, inside a fluidized bed the
(R-6) severe attrition seldom allows the carbonaceous solid
Here the volatiles, and therefore tar, are represented by: particle to retain the formed ash layer as the surface
C6,,H6,,06,,N,,,S6,,. reactions proceed. Therefore, with few exceptions, the
exposed core model should be chosen. In any case, a
Volatiles + 6,CO, + 6,CO + i&O2 + b4N2 + &H,O
simple experimental test is enough to indicate the best
+&HZ + tj,CH, + 6,SO, + t&NO +tj10C2H6 decision.
The picture is different for drying of solids,
+tj,,H,S+ti,,NH, (R-7)
. . devolatilization of carbonaceous solids, calcination of
limestone or sulphur absorption by CaO: this is because
Volatiles+ 6,,8+$-~+$+ti,, 0, +
no fragile shell develops during these processes (only
( >
dried, devolatilized or reacted external layers of the
particles are formed). Therefore, in all these cases the
(26,,/?-l)CO,+(2-26,,~)CO+~H20+6,,N0
program calculates the reaction rates for these processes
+&$O* (R-8) using an adaptation of the unreacted core model.
The general expression for the gas-solid reaction using
Moist carbonaceous solid -+ dry solid + H,O (R-9) the unreacted core model is:
CaCO, + CaO + CO, (R-10)
2CaO + 2S0, + 0, + 2CaS0, (R-11) (5)

Moist limestone + dry limestone + H,O (R-12)

FUEL, 1989, Vol 68, December 7509

Comprehensive modelling and simulation of fluidized bed boilers and gasifiers: M. L. de Souza-Santos

Table 1 Correspondence between the heterogeneous reaction, i, and The parameter k is given by:
its respective representative component, j, and solid phase m
iti=ig; (7)
Representative
Gas-solid Representative Solid unreacted where
reaction component phase solid
i j m component mass fraction of fixed carbon
f,= (8)
1 3 14 mass fraction of volatile matter
2 5 14 The coefficients are described in Table 3. The kinetic
3 1 14
4 6 14 coefficients for reactions (R-3) and (R-4) are given in
5 9 14 Appendix A. The coefficients are shown in Table 4, and
6 20 20 equilibrium parameters for various reactions are listed
7 20 20 in Table 5.
8 20 20
9 5 21
10 1 22 Devolatilization reactions. Because of the comprehensive
11 8 2 23 approach used here, the devolatilization or pyrolysis
12 5 2 25 reactions cannot be completely separated from the other
13 5 3 26
reactions and processes in the system. The kinetics of the
devolatilization reactions ((R-6), (R-7), (R-23) and
(R-24)), have been included independently for the case
Table 2 Kinetic coefficients for some of the considered reactions of wood34. The coefficients are reported in Table 6.

Reaction k,,i Unit .WR (K) Ref.

Table 3 Auxiliary parameters used for solid-fuel reactivity estimation.
R-l & R-8 17.67 Pa-is-i 13597 69 The composition of the Illinois coal is reproduced from Yoon et ~1.‘~
R-14 2.78 x lo3 kmol-’ m3 s-i 1510 70 and the Spanish lignite from Adlnez et a1.32
R-15 1.0 x lo5 kmol-0.75 m2.r5 16000 64
Ki.5 s-i
Reaction I 6 Reference coal fr,_r
R-16 5.159 x lOi kmol’,’ rn“.’ K’.5 s-l 3430 64
R-17 & R-18 3.552 x 1014 kmol-’ m3 s-l K 15700 64 R-2 & R-4” Illinois 1.32
R-19 9.78 x 10” kmol-O.g m2.‘sW1 19655 65 .tX3 4.49 x lo+ - 1.736
R-21 1.815 x lOi kmol-0.5 m1.S s-i 67338 66 03 3.97 x 1o-5 0.491
R-22 59.8 kmol-0,5 m1.5 Pa-0.3 12200 61 R-3 Lignite 1.93
s-i K-i
1.33 x 1o-3 - 4.454
7.67 x lo-’ 2.152

’ The same correction was assumed for reactions R-2 and R-4

where l<i<13, lGjd16and l<m<3.Theconnection

Table 4 Arrhenius coefficients related to the reactions R-2, R-3 and
between the three indices i, j and k, which describe the
R-4
choice of the representative component (j) in the solid
phase (m) of the reaction (i), is shown in Table 1. This Coefficient
table also indicates the component chosen to represent index ko Unit J?/R (K) Coal Ref.
the solid material of the unreacted core for each reaction.
2 6.05 x 1O-3 Pa-‘s-i 21150 Illinois 71
The parameter resistance terms, &, shown in Appendix 31 1.91 x 1o-3 Pa-‘s-l 16840 Spanish 32
A, account for: diffusion through the gas boundary layer lignite
surrounding the particle; diffusion through the formed 32 1.33 x 1o-8 Pa-’ - 7220 Spanish 32
non-active shell surrounding the unreacted core; and lignite
diffusion through the core combined with the kinetics. 33 3.13 x 10-s Pa-’ - 5050 Spanish 32
lignite
In the exposed core model, the gas-solid reaction rate 41 2.345 x lo-” PaeZ s-l 13670 Illinois 72
is given by Equation (5), in which Cz,i, the resistance 42 4.742 x lo-” Pa-’ - 11096 Illinois 72
through the ash layer, is zero.

Individual kinetic coefficients. The Arrhenius coefficients

for several considered reactions are given in Table 2. Table 5 Equilibrium constants for some reactions
Although it is recognized that several factors influence
the reactivity of the carbonaceous solid3’, a reasonable
correlation between the reactivity and the basic
composition of the carbonaceous solid (the volatiles/ Relationship
fixed-carbon ratio), has been found31. Basically, this AH,/R with partial
involves a correction coefficient that is multiplied by the Reaction K0.i Unit (K) pressures Ref.
kinetic coefficients of the reactions R-i (i=2, 3 or 4)
that have been evaluated for a reference coal. This allows R-2 3.139 x 10” Pa 16344 PZPSP;’ 73
R-3 1.238 x lOi Pa 20294 p;p; 1 74
the kinetic coefficients for the respective reactions with R-4 1.453 x lo-” Pa-’ -11005 p,p;* 73
the given carbonaceous material to be determined: R-14 0.0265 -3958 pIpsp;lp;l 74
R-15 8.264 x lo-” Pa-’ - 68080 p: p;zp; 1 75
E. R-16 8.109x lo-l3 Pa-’ - 60230 p: p; 2p; 1 75
ki = ki,ref I
R-21 19.254 21570 p;p;‘p;’ 15
ki,mf

1510 FUEL, 1989, Vol 68, December

 Comprehensive modelling and simulation of fluidized bed boilers and gasifiers: M. 1. de Souza-Santos

Table 6 Arrhenius coefficients for devolatihzation reactions function of the calcium fractional conversion and the
Reaction Type of material k, (Pa-’ s-t)
limestone particle diameter by interpolation among
E/R (K) Ref.
various curves relating these three parameters. This is
R-6” bituminous coal w,,, 1.1 x los/P - 10669 33 used in the present work and the kinetic coefficient is
subbituminous coal Wtar7.5 x lO'/P -9406 33 written as:
lignite Wtsr 5.1 x 104/P -8155 33
wood 4.125 x 106/P - 13555 34
R-7” bituminous Weas 1.1 x 105/P - 10669 33 k,,=Fexp(-4OgO/T,,,,)~ (Pa-’ s-l) (11)
subbituminous Wsas 7.5 x 104/P -9406 33
lignite Wgas5.1 x 104/P -8155 33
wood 1.435 x 104/P - 10657 34
No correlation has been found to account for the effect
R-23b bituminous 9.7 x lo9 - 14590 33 of temperature on the reactivity, although the presence
subbituminous 3.5 x 10’0 - 13964 33 of chemical compounds, other than calcium based
lignite 8.0 x 10” - 13339 33 compounds, may be important. The thickness of the
wood 9.7 x lo9 - 14590 34 CaSO, layer is determined by the calcium conversion in
R-24* bituminous 5.3 x lo4 - 3524 33
subbituminous 2.5 x lo4 - 2766 33 the bed and found by convergence of the mass balance
lignite 1.1 x lo3 -2009 33 throughout the bed.
wood 5.3 x lo4 - 3524 34
Shift reaction. The water-gas shift reaction rate is given
’ Tr,r must be used in calculations
b Tos must be used, and k, units are s-r
by42 :

It is assumed that the devolatilization reactions follow

the unreacted core model, in which the already
devolatilized material acts as the reacted shell. Therefore,
the pre-exponential coefficients were related to pressure,
as in the unreacted core model equation. This led to the
definition of a pseudo partial pressure for the volatiles
in the solid:
p20=P WPLW,l (9)
The rate of production of gases due to the devolatilization
reactions depends on the distribution of stoichiometric
coefficients, as shown by reaction (R-7). The stoichiometry
also depends on an approximate formula for the tar and
the correlations used to compute this are shown in
Appendix A.
Combustion of gases. The kinetics of gas combustion
are summarized in Table a in Appendix A.
Mass and heat transfer
The performance of a mathematical model for a
fluidized bed combustor or gasifier is very sensitive to
the mass and heat transfer between the various phases
in the system 5- ’ . A list of the references used to calculate
the more important heat and mass transfer processes
considered in the model, among other correlations, is
given in Table 7.
The radiative heat transfer between the various solids
is calculated by:

Drying processes. d4 m
In the devolatilization reactions E RSESE,m,n = W::V;,,- T;,,) -1 (13)
(R-6), (R-7) and (R-8), the drying processes are treated dz
by the unreacted core model. It is obvious that in this where 1 <m<3 and 1 <n<3. It was assumed that a
case the term ‘reaction rate’ is meaningless, and therefore
[3,i (for i=9, 12, 13) is equal to zero. The equilibrium
Table 7 List of sources used to describe various phenomena
partial pressure of water for the drying process is the considered in simulation model. Full details can be found elsewhere**
saturation partial pressure at the respective solid
temperature. Phenomena Ref.

Calcium carbonate decomposition. The calcination of Minimum fluidization voidage 43

Bed expansion 43
limestone, represented by reaction (R-IO), provides Emulsion voidage and solids-solids heat transfer 44
calcium oxide, which is the active solid in the absorption Bubble size as function of z 15
of SO2 (reaction (R-11)). The thermodynamics of the Bubble rise velocity 22
calcination show that at high partial pressures of carbon Bubbles-emulsion gas M-T 45
Solids-emulsion gas M-T 46
dioxide equilibrium35 can be attained. This condition Bubbles-emulsion gas H-T and pressure loss in bed 47
would stop the calcination process. Solids-emulsion gas H-T 48, 49
The kinetics of the limestone calcination reaction are Tubes-emulsion gas H-T 50
given by36.37: Tubes-bubbles H-T 50
Tubes-bed total H-T 51
k _ 3.07 x 10” Internal tube H-T 52
10 ~ exp(-24670/T,,,) (Pa-’ SK’) (10) Tubes-solids H-T 53
P: Bed-distributor H-T 24
Heat transfer to surroundings 54
where pT is given by Equation (A34). The kinetics of this Solid circulation” 55
reaction have been studied3s,39, and the kind of limestone Production of tine particles due to attrition 56
is known to influence the rate of reaction. The formation Entrainment and elutriation 57
of CaSO, tends to block the pores of the limestone Transport disengaging height 57
particles and reduce the reactivity of limestone. Cyclone efficiencies 58
Distributor, pressure loss 59
Therefore, reaction rate is a function of temperature,
limestone conversion and particle size. The correction ‘Adaptation is shown by Equation (A35)
factor for the reactivity, I, may be calculated40-41 as H-T, Heat transfer; M-T, mass transfer

FUEL, 1989, Vol 68, December 1511

Comprehensive modelling and simulation of fluidized bed boilers and gasifiers: M. L. de Souza-Santos

including their mass flows and particle size distribu-

tions;
2. complete characterization of the gaseous agent
injected through the distributor, including mass flows;
3. complete description of the equipment geometry, e.g.
basic dimensions, tube bank position in the bed and
in the freeboard, geometry of the distributor,
description of the insulation system and of the cyclone
system (if used).

Real operation data and comparison with simulations

The task of obtaining operational data is a difficult
one, due to confidentiality, unreliability, inaccuracy, and
incompleteness. In spite of these problems, some data
were collected to use as references for comparisons
between real operation and simulation results. As an
example, the data from Babcock & Wilcox Co. (USA)
fluidized bed unit (B&W)63 have been chosen, because
they allow more complete comparisons between
simulation and real operation. The data are the same as
used by other workers5,6.
Figure 3 Basic logic diagram of the simulation program Plant operational data are described elsewhere28*63.
Some basic data regarding plant operation and the
equipment are shown in Table 8, while Tables 9-l 4 below
show the computation results.
particle of type m is surrounded by all kinds of particles
Figures 4-15 show several important features of the
and therefore ‘sees’ the n type particles by an area
operation of the Babcock & Wilcox unit.
fraction, f,“.

Particle size distribution CONCLUSIONS

The effects are:
1. reduction of particle size due to chemical reactions;
2. reduction of particle size due to attrition among the
various particles;
3. variation due to entrainment and elutriation of
particles from the bed.
To compute the combined effects of these factors, a mass
balance for the size level, 1, of particles of type m is set,
and an iterative routine is followed. The balance is given
by:
A comprehensive mathematical model and computer
program that simulate the operation of fluidized bed
boilers and gasihers consuming carbonaceous solids have
been developed. The computer program based on the
mathematical model, has been tested for some commercial
Table 8 Details of B&W equipment and operation (test no. 26)‘sS6’
Detail Value

Coal proximate analysis (w.b. %)

Moisture 5.0
Volatiles 40.0
Fixed carbon 50.1
Ash 9.9
Coal ultimate analysis (d.b.)
The auxiliary equations are presented in Appendix A. C 0.7320
For the sake of simplicity, the solid friability coefficients H 0.0510
have been taken as constants56, despite the fact that some 0 0.0790
recent works@-62 have shown that they are not truly N 0.0090
s 0.0300
constant. Boiler
The routine to compute the size distribution starts from Equivalent diameter 1.118 m
the highest size level for which there is no mass increase Bed height” 0.700 m
due the generation of lines by attrition. As the next size Freeboard height” 3.442 m
Feeding point height” 0.305 m
is l= lm - 1, the new value of Sm,,,,,can be used to calculate
Tube bank
l-m,lm,and the process can be repeated until 1= 1. No. tubes in bed 30
No. tubes in f.b. 30
Pitch 0.114 m
DESCRIPTION OF THE SIMULATION Length of each tube 0.991 m
PROGRAM Height of 1st tube” 0.33 m
Outside diameter 0.0483 m
A simplified block diagram of the computer simulation Inside diameter 0.0409 m
program, based on the present mathematical model, is No. orifices in distributor 1504
presented in Figure 3. The basic necessary input data for Flow of coal 0.0505 kg s- ’
the simulation program are: Flow of limestone 0.01215 kg s-l
Air flow 0.6952 kg s-r
1. complete physical and chemical characterization of the
fed carbonaceous, limestone, and inert solids, a Measurements from distributor

1512 FUEL, 1989, Vol 68, December

 Comprehensive modeling and simulation of fluidized bed boilers and gasifiers: M. L. de Souza-Santos

and pilot plants. Comparisons between simulation Basic hypothesis and mathematical approach
generated results and real operational data have shown The modification to the two-phase model, which
only small deviations for almost all parameters. Some includes the cloud region in the emulsion and allowing
specific comments on the simulation model and this phase to depart from the minimum fluidization
indications for future developments are given below. condition, has proved to be a good representation for
the fluidization dynamics. The conceptual separation of
the cloud region seems to be unnecessary.
The highly coupled mass and energy transfer processes,
Table 9 Composition of gas leaving freeboard (stack gas) during combined with the various chemical process and particle
operation of Babcock & Wilcox unit, test no. 26
flows and size variations, are the basis of the fluidized
Gas composition (molar %, dry basis) carbonaceous solid combustion or gasification. The
so-called gasification reactions cannot be excluded even
Real Present Data from for a combustion model, because they contribute not
Component operation simulation Refs. 5 and 6 only to the generation of important final and intermediate
CO, 13.8 13.00275 7.9 to 12.55
co 0 to 0.9 o.OOoO3 0.25 to 0.49
0, 3.9 3.83350 3.93 to 9.23 Table 11 Total solid composition in bed during operation of
N, 81.2 83.05625 n.d. Babcock & Wilcox unit, test no 26
NO 0.03 0.03789 n.d. _
SO, 0.08 0.06946 n.d. Average in bed (mass, X)
HZ n.d. o.Ot3013 n.d.
CH, n.d. 1.3 x 10-15 n.d. Component Experimental Simulation
C,H, n.d. <1.0x 1o-4o n.d.
H,S 0 to 2.4 x lo-“ 1.2 x lo-’ n.d. C 0.21 0.110
NH, n.d. 2.2 x lo- iz n.d. CaCO, 0.91 0.000
Tar n.d. <1.0x 1o-4o nd. CaO 46.34 50.529
CaSO, 42.84 49.281
n.d., Not determined Moisture 0.00 0.0000
Inert 9.70b 0.80
_
0 Includes all components in the carbonaceous solid
Table 10 Carbonaceous solid compositions during operation of b Uncertain value (calculated by difference)
Babcock & Wilcox unit, test no. 26 (simulation results)

Mass percentage (wet basis)

Table 12 Entrainment flows of particles at the top of the freeboard
Average in Top of during operation of Babcock & Wilcox unit, test no. 26
Component Fed bed freeboard _
Flow (g s-r)
C 40.260 10.932 14.806
H 2.805 0.76165 1.0315 Solid Operation Simulation
0 4.345 1.1798 1.5979
N 0.495 0.13441 0.18204 Carbonaceous 4.46 2.9985
S 1.650 0.44803 0.60679 Limestone 3.46 4.8000
Ash 5.445 86.544 81.776 Free ash 4.78 5.6997
Volatiles 40.000 0.0000 0.0000 Carbonaceous plus free ash 9.25 8.6983
Moisture 5.000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 12.70 13.498

Table 13 Various process parameters for operation of the Babcock & Wilcox unit, test no. 26

Process parameter Real operation Simulation

Mass flow of flue gas (kg s-i) 0.790 0.7525

Total flow solids leaving bed (including entrainment at the top of the bed) (kg s-i) nd. 79.772
Minimum fluidization voidage in centre of bed n.d. 0.520
Overall voidage in centre of bed n.d. 0.8080
Minimum fluidization velocity in centre of bed (m s-r) n.d. 0.635
Superficial velocity in centre of bed (m s- ‘) 2.5” 2.691
Bed transversal area (m’) 0.9817 0.9817
Carbon conversion (fraction of fed carbon) (%) 95.8 98.158
Mass of bed (kg) n.d. 444.8
Transport disengaging height, TDH (from bed surface) (m) nd. 4.049
Freeboard space (m) 2.742 2.742
Calcium to sulphur (Ca/S) ratio in bed 2.2 2.287
Calcium conversion (%) 28.09 28.9864
Sulphur retention (based on fed sulphur) (%) 58.7 57.449
Static bed depth (m) n.d. 0.411
Rate of energy input to system (kW) 1713.9 1713.9
Percentage of energy input lost to external environment through walls n.d. 1.048
Pressure loss across distributor (Pa) n.d. 412
Pressure loss across bed (Pa) n.d. 3029
_
@Probably calculated at bed base
nd., Not determined

FUEL, 1989, Vol 68, December 1513

Comprehensive modeling and simulation of fluidized bed boilers and gasifiers: M. L. de Souza-Santos

Table 14 Some parameters related to heat transfer during operation of the Babcock & Wilcox unit, test no. 26

Parameter Real operation Simulation

Total heat transfer to tubes in system (kW) 788.4“ 655.11

Heat transfer to tubes inside bed (kW) n.d. 397.31
Heat transfer to tubes in freeboard (kW) n.d. 257.80
Total mass flow of steam generated by the system (ks s-l) 0.0 0.0
Total heat loss to external surroundings (kW) 113.1b 17.97’
Heat loss in bed section (kW) n.d. 4.25
Heat loss in freeboard section (kW) n.d. 13.72
Overall heat transfer coefficient between tubes and bed in centre of bundle (W m-’ K-l) n.d. 69.28
Overall heat transfer coefficient between tubes and free board in centre of bundle (W mm2 K-l) n.d. 5.35
Wall temperature of tubes in bed (centre of bundle) (K) n.d. 702.5
Wall temperature of tubes in freeboard (centre of bundle) (K) n.d. 455.3
Percentage of heat loss to surroundings in relation to heat transfer to tubes n.d. 2.699
Temperature of water leaving tubes (K) 400 395.3
Temperature of external wall at top of bed section (K) n.d. 356.7
Temperature of external wall at top of freeboard section (K) n.d. 347.2
Heat transfer coefiicient between external wall and surroundings (top of bed section) (W m-* K-l) n.d. 21.56
Heat transfer coefficient between external wall and surroundings (top of freeboard) (W me2 K-l) n.d. 20.68

’ Babcock and Wilcox report gives only total value for heat transfer to tubes, including tubes in stack gas cooling system
b Losses to water jacket
’ Losses to external surroundings
n.d.. Not determined

; 1300

: 1200
c’
; 1100
P
p Doe

900
I
800 I

700

600

500
/
/
400 /

300
0.00 0.14 0.28 0.42 0.56 I 70

Figure 4 Schematic view of the Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) test unit HEIGHT (ml

products, but they also play a fundamental part in the
energy balances. Small variations in the temperature
profile can cause significant variations in the bed fluid
dynamics, carbon conversion, gas compositions, particle
size distributions in the bed and freeboard, entrainment,
etc. The reverse is also true, i.e. imprecise determinations
of e.g. emulsion-bubble flow partition, bubble size and
bubble growth or particle size distributions, can lead to
great deviations in other parameters. The conditions vary
tremendously from point to point in the fluidized bed,
and therefore only comprehensive models that solve the
combined set of differential mass and energy balances
are able to achieve a realistic simulation of a fluidized
bed boiler or gasifier. Therefore, the fact that the present
simulation program is capable of being processed to
generate information that describes, within reasonable
degree of deviations, the behaviour of a real operation,
is in itself a strong indication of the coherence of the
mathematical structure. It also shows that apparently
independent correlations taken from the literature, which
Figure 5 Bed temperature profiles for B&W, test no. 26: E, emulsion
gas; B, bubble gas; C, coal; L, limestone; +, measured average;
*, tube bank region
describe various phenomena of the processes, can be put
together in a logical building exercise that uses basic
differential mass and energy balances, to give an
important tool that allows real equipment operation to
be predicted.
The vertical one-dimensional differential mass and
energy treatment, for the bed and freeboard section,
proved to be a reasonable mathematical approach to the
simulation.
Temperature projZes
The model allows the computation of individual
temperature profiles for gas in the emulsion, bubbles,
carbonaceous, limestone and inert solids throughout the
bed and freeboard. This information is vital for safe
design, allowing the identification of high temperature

1514 FUEL, 1989, Vol 68, December

 Comprehensive modelling and simulation of fluidized bed boilers and gasifiers: M. L. de Souza-Santos

increase slowly towards the emulsion gas and particle

temperatures from the bottom to the top of the bed
(Figure 5). This behaviour is typical. The bubble
temperature eventually passes the emulsion average
temperature, mainly in regions near the top of the bed,
and is more likely to occur in gasification processes.
Sharper increases in the bubble phase temperature can
be achieved near the tube bundle if the space between
the tubes is smaller than the bubble diameter. This is
800 mainly due to an increase in the bubble phase area for
heat and mass transfer (Figure 5).
The temperature of the gaseous phase tends to increase
just above the bed surface due to fast combustion of CO
600 and other gases previously stored in the lean 0, emulsion
phase that now contacts the rich 0, bursting bubble
phase (Figure 6). No appreciable variations of temperature
have been computed in the freeboard above the region
.I, water jacket
300 I * 7 I I I I
I.IO 1.65 2.20 2.75 3.30 2 0.00150 ,

HEIGHT (m) 2
p 0.00135
Figure 6 Freeboard temperature profiles for B&W, test no. 26: G,
gas; C, coal; L, limestone; + , measured average; *, tube bank region 2 0.00120

E
(r 0.00105

5 bed
$ o.oOQ90
I-+

+_--_ ---
NO
0. 125- \ C .J I Wrd
\
0.100 - ‘,
0.00 0.69 1.36 2D7 2.76 3.45

HEIGHT (ml

Figure 8 Concentration profiles in the system for B&W, test no. 26:
A, coal feeding point; *, tube bank region
OL-__-_____--_

1
y- 35.0
0.69 I. 36 2.07 2.76

HEIGM
3.45

Lrn)
0
z 31.5
T-
0
Figure 7 Concentration profiles in the system for B&W, test no. 26: 2 20.0
A, coal feeding point; *, tube bank region
s
,= 24.5
: ,H2S
: 21.0
regions in the solid phases or on the tubes. The former
can, in some conditions, lead to bed collapse if the %
J 17.5
temperature is higher than the ash softening point, and %
the latter to erosion of the tube surface. 14. t )-
Although variations in temperature for each phase
IO. !j-
have been verified, the average value does not vary too
much throughout the entire system (Figures 5 and 6).
7. c
The temperature of the carbonaceous solid reaches its
maximum at points near the distributor where these 3.:
particles meet layers of high 0, concentration (Figure mF Freeboard
5). As there is close contact, the temperature of the gas 0.c
- I I I
)O 0.69 1.38 207 2.76 3.45
and solids in the emulsion tends to be almost the same
in regions just above the distributor (Figure 5). HEIGHT Cm)

For fluidized bed combustion boilers, the simulation Figure 9 Concentration profiles in the system for B&W, test no. 26:
shows that the bubble phase temperature tends to A, coal feeding point

FUEL, 1989, Vol 68, December 1515

Comprehensive modeling and simulation of fluidized bed boilers and gasifiers: M. L. de Souza-Santos

from the bubble phase (Figure IO). CH,, H,, H,S, NH,,
3 tar and C,H, (in the test ethane was fed continuously
0.225
with the fluidizing air) are produced mainly by the
devolatilization process (Figures 7 and 9). This is shown
by the sharp increase in their concentrations near the
feeding point in the bed. Their concentrations drop to
almost nil a few centimetres from the feeding point and
therefore no appreciable concentrations are detected in
the freeboard. This behaviour is characteristic of
combustors with the feeding port inside the bed. When
the feeding point is above the bed surface it is possible
that a noticeable concentration could be detected at the

P
2 1.0

2
E 0.9
0.00 0.14 0.26 0.42 0.56 0.70 w0.8
HEIGHT (ml I
0. 7
Figure 10 Concentration profiles in the emulsion and bubble phases
for B&W, test no. 26: A, coal feeding point, *, tube bank region;
0.6
E, emulsion phase; B, bubble phase
0.5

= 1.0 0.4

E
a 0.9- 0. 3
E
2 o.a- 0.2

s 0.7 - 0. I -I

0.6 0.0 c
0.0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0
0. 5 PARTICLE DIAMETER (mm)

Figure 12 Limestone particle size distribution for B&W, test no. 26:
0.4
F, as fed; D, bed; TF, at the top of freeboard

0. 3

0. 2 g 1.0 ,
0. I L
$0.9-
IL

0.0 3 0.8-
0 I 2 3 4 5
9
PARTICLE DIAMETER (mm) 0.7 -

Figure 11 Coal particle size distribution for B&W, test no. 26: F, as
0.6 1
fed to the bed; D, in the bed; TF, at the top of freeboard

near the bed surface (Figure 6). The temperature profiles

in the bed are especially sensitive to the rate of solid
circulation. Equation (A35) is useful as a first attempt to
calculate individual solid circulation, but more research
in this area is necessary.

Concentration profile of gases

As expected, the simulations predicted a much sharper
decrease of 0, concentration and increase of CO, 0.0 0.S 1.8 2.4 ; 0
concentration in the emulsion phase than in the bubble PARTICLE DIAMETER (mm)
phase (Figure IO). Greater CO concentration peaks are
shown in the emulsion than the bubble phase. At higher Figure 13 Total average particle size distribution, -, in the bed,
and ---, at the top of the freeboard for B&W, test no. 26:
points in the bed, the concentration of CO tends to +, experimental determinations for the solids in the bed;
vanish, even in the emulsion, due to the diffusion of 0, A, experimental determinations for the top of the freeboard

1516 FUEL, 1989, Vol 68, December

 Comprehensive modeling and simulation of fluidized bed boilers and gasifiers: M. L. de Souza-Santos

top of the freeboard. This simulation can deal with this
case.
When bituminous and semi-bituminous coal were
used, SO, was produced mainly by the combustion of
the carbonaceous solid rather than by devolatilization
(Figure 8). No appreciable changes in the gas
composition were detected in the freeboard. This is a
characteristic of deep beds, which provide space for most
chemical transformations to occur before the gas currents
reach the top of the bed. This could change if the
operation allowed a relatively low carbon conversion,
which could react in the freeboard section (some work6*
has shown NO, decline in the freeboard due to this
cause).
The predicted composition of gas leaving the freeboard
agrees with the real operational data within a 5% average
deviation. However, greater deviations have been
obtained for the SOa concentrations. As the deviations
do not follow a consistent pattern, future work should
concentrate on the study of SO2 absorption by limestone
and limestone reactivity. Also, as the rate of SO,
absorption by CaO is strongly influenced by the
limestone temperature, improvements in the calculation
of the solid temperature profiles would lead to better
predictions of SOZ concentrations.
2 0.090
Composition of solids
The various elements in the carbonaceous particles,
apart from ash, decrease more or less proportionally with
the carbon during the processing. The aImost complete
consumption of volatiles from the solid carbonaceous
was verified in all cases. No moisture survives in the
average processed solid. In some operations, the carbon
in the volatiles can constitute the major contribution to
the maintenance of combustion in the bed. It is possible,
therefore, that in some cases the elutriated carbonaceous
particles can have their carbon in the ‘fixed carbon’
consumed mainly in the freeboard.
The best results were obtained using the exposed core
(or ash free) model for the carbonaceous solid-gas
reactions ((R-l) to (R-5)) and with the unreacted-core
model for all other solid reactions or decompositions.
Particle size distributions
The mathematical model is capable of predicting the
particle size distributions and flow for all golids in the
bed and through the freeboard. These parameters are
calculated for each individual solid and for the mixture
(Figures I1 and 12). The average particle diameter in the
bed can be either greater or smaller than the respective
fed stream. This is due to the competing effects: chemical
reactions, attrition and recycling of particles on one side
and entrainment of fines to the freeboard, leaving the
larger ones in the bed, on the other side (Figure 13).

b
gl

s
P
0.081
T
09
o.m-
_,~_\______’
4.0 F
5
ct 0.72 - _- -3.6 2
-_J-
s=
2 0.64- ’ ,+UElT -3.2 -
1 L- z
/
0.56- /

I
0.48 - - 2.4
/
0.40 -y 2 - 2.0

0.32 -- I. 6

0.24 i -r--t---- i 1.2

&
0.009 -
0. GQO 1
$I>
. = __Q--_.
I
--
--_a-__

1 1
0.00
0.00
I

0.14
I Ak
0.28
1
0.42
*
r-
0.56
$

0.70
0.0

1.10 I.65 2.20 2.75 3.30 HEIGHT (ml

HEIGHT (ml
Figure 15 Gas flows (E, through emulsion phase; B, through bubble
Figure 14 Gas and solid flows in the freeboard for B&W, test no. 26: phase; T. total of E+B). bubble velocitv (UB) and bubble diameter
G, gas (scale factor: 0.1); C, coal; L, limestone (scale factor: 0.001); A, (DB) throughout the bed: A, coal feeding point; *, tube bank region
free ash

Table 15 Entrainment flows of particles at the top of the freeboard during the tests of the NCB test rig

Mass flow (g s-l)

____~___
Test no. 3 Test no. 5 Test no. 6

Solid Experimental Simulated Experimental Simulated Experimental Simulated

Carbonaceous n.d. 12.07 n.d. 26.98 n.d. 0.75

Limestone n.d. 0.10 n.d. 0.82 n.d. 0.13
Free ash n.d. 4.44 n.d. 1.39 n.d. 0.80
Total 16.0 16.61 23.6 35.19 2.08 1.68

n.d., Not determined

FUEL, 1989, Vol 68, December 1517

Comprehensive modelling and simulation of fluidized bed boilers and gasifiers: M. L. de Souza-Santos

The effect of recycling particles on the average diameter 35 Kubashewski, O., Evans, E. L. and Alcock, C. B. ‘Metallurgical
in the bed and on the entrainment of particles to the Thermochemistry’, Pergamon Press, London, UK, 1967, p. 422
freeboard is shown in Table 15, which reproduces 36 Asaki, Z., Fukunaka, Y., Nagase, T. and Kondo, Y. Transaction
1974,5,381
experimental and simulation results of a NCB plant (test 37 Borgwardt, R. H. AlChE J. 1985.31 (l), 103
nos. 3 and 5 used particles recycling to the bed). Complete 38 Borgwardt, R. H. Environmental Science and Technology 1970,
data are available elsewhere28. 4 (l), 59
39 Borgwardt, R. H., Drehmel, D. C., Kittleman, T. A. er al.
‘Selected Studies on Alkaline Additives for Sulfur Dioxide
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Control’, EPA-RTP, 1971
40 Rajan, R., Krishnan, R. and Wen, C. Y. AZChE Symp. Ser. 1978,
The author would like to thank A. B. Hedley and 74,112
P. Foster of the University of Sheffield for their 41 Rajan, R., Krishnan, R. and Wen, C. Y. in ‘Simulation of
Fluidized Bed Coal Combustors’, West Virginia Univ.,
suggestions, and the CNPq (Conselho National de
Morgantown, WV, USA, NASA CR-159529, 1978
Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnoiogico, Brazil) for the 42 Franks. R. G. E. in ‘Mathematical Modelline in Chemical
support given. Engineering’, Wiley, NY, USA, 1967
43 Babu, S. P., Shah, B. and Talwalkar, A. AIChE Symp. Ser. 1978,
14, 176
REFERENCES 44 Delvosalle, C. and Vanderschuren, J. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1985, 40
(5), 769
1 Gibbs, B. M. Institute of Fuel Symposium Series, 1978, 1, 45 Sit, S. P. and Grace, J. R. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1981, 36, 327
A5.1-A510 46 La Nauze, R. D., Jung, K. and Kastl, J. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1984,
2 Horio, M., Rengarajan, P, Krishnan, R. and Wen, C. Y. in 39 (ll), 1623
‘Fluidized Bed Combustor Modelling’, NASA Report No. 47 Kunii, D. and Levenspiel, 0. in ‘Fluidization Engineering’,
NAS3-19725, 1977 J. Wiley, NY, USA, 1969
3 Park, D., Levenspiel, 0. and Fitzgerald, T. J. AIChE Symp. 48 Kothari, A. K. M.Sc. Thesis, Illinois Institute of Technology,
Ser. 1981, 77(277), 116 Chicago, USA, 1967
4 Raman, P., Walawender, W. P., Fan, L. T. and Chang, C. C. 49 Gelperin, N. I., Einstein, V. G. and Kwasha, V. B. ‘Fluidization
Ind. Eng. Chem. Proc. Des. Deo. 1981,2Q (4), 686 Technique Fundamentals’, Izd. Khimia, Moscow, USSR, 1967
5 0verturf.B. W. and Reklaitis, G.V. AIChEJ. 1983,29 (5), 813 50 Xavier, A. M. and Davidson, J. F. in ‘Fluidization’ (Eds. J. F.
6 Overturf, B. W. and Reklaitis, G. V. AIChE J. 1983,29 (S), 820 Davidson and D. L. Keairns), Cambridge University Press,
7 Weimer. A. W. and Clough, D. E. Chemical Engineering Science 1978, p. 333
1981,36, 549 51 Gallo, J. G., Quassim, R. Y. and Saddy, M. Fluidized
8 Baron, R. E., Hodges, J. L. and Sarotim, A. F. AIChE 70th Combustion Conference, Energy Research Inst., Univ. of Cape
Annual Meetina. NY. USA. 1977 Town, 1981
9 Rajan, R. and Ken, C. Y. ArChE J. 1980,26 (4), 642 52 Isachenko, V. P., Osipova, V. A. and Sukomel, A. S. ‘Heat
10 Chang, C. C., Fan, L. T. and Walawender, W. P. AIChE Symp. Transfer’, Mir, Moscow, USSR, 1977
Ser. 1984, 80, 80 53 Botteril, J. S. M. ‘Fluidized Beds, Combustion and Applications’
11 Avedesian, M. M. and Davidson, J. R. Transactions of the (Ed. J. R. Howard), Applied Science Publishers, 1983
Institute of Chemical Engineers 1973, 51, 121 54 Hughes, R. and Deumaga, V. Chem. Eng. 1974,27, 95
12 Gordon, A. L. and Amundson, N. R. Chemical Engineering 55 Talmor, E. and Benenati, R. F. AIChE J. 1963, 9, 536
Science 1976, 31 (12), 1163 56 Merrick, D. and Highley, J. AZChE Symp. Ser. 1974, 70, 366
13 Gordon, A. L., Caram, H. S. and Amundson, N. R. Chemical 57 Wen, C. Y. and Cheh, L. H. AIChE J. 1982,28, 117
Engineering Science 1978, 32 (6), 713 58 Leith, D. and Mehta, D. in ‘Cyclone Performance and Design’,
14 MIT Energy Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Atmospheric Environment, Pergamon Press, 1973, Vol. 7,
Report to US Dept. ofEnergy, contract No. E(49-18)-22951978 pp. 527-549
15 Mori, S. and Wen, C. Y. AIChE J. 1975, 21, 109 59 Ho, T.-C., Chen, T. K. and Hopper, J. R. AIChE Symp. Ser.
16 Horio, M. and Wen, C. Y. AIChE Symp. Ser. 1977, 13, 9 1984,80, 34
17 Chen, T. P. and Saxena, S. Fuel 1977,56,401 60 Chirone, R., D’Amore, M. and Massimilla, L. 20th Symp. (Int.)
18 Chen,T. P. and Saxena, S. C. AIChE Symp. Ser. 1978,74,149 on Combustion, The Combustion Institute, Ann Arbor, 1984
19 Saxena, S. C., Grewal, N. S. and Venhatoramana, M. University 61 Salatino, P. and Massimilla, L. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1985, 40 (lo),
of Illinois at Chicago Circle, Report No. FE-1787-10 to US 1905
Dept. of Energy 62 Vaux, W. G, and Schruben, J. S. AIChE Symp. Ser. 1983,79,97
20 Tojo, K., Chang, C. C. and Fan, L. T. Ind. Eng. Chem. Proc. 63 Babcock & Wilcox, EPRI FP-308, Vol. II, 1976
Des. Deu. 1981, 20 (3), 411 64 Vilienskii, T. V. and Hezmalian, D. M. ‘Dynamics of the
21 Toomey, R. D. and Johnstone, H. F. Chemical Engineering Combustion of Pulverized Fuel (Dinamika Gorenia Prilevidnovo
Progress 1952,48 (5), 220 Tolpliva)‘, Energia, Moscow, USSR, 1978, p. 246
22 Davidson, J. F. and Harrison, D. in ‘Fluidized Particles’, 65 Branch, M. C. and Sawyer, R. F. 14th Symp. (Int.) on
Cambridge University Press, 1983 Combustion, The Combustion Institute, Pittsburg, PA, USA,
23 Catipovic, N. M., Jovanovic, G. N. and Fitzgerald, T. 3. AIChE 1972, pp. 967-974
J. 1978,24 (3) 543 66 Quan, V., Marble, F. E. and Kliegel, J. R. 14th Symp. (Int.) on
24 Zhang, G-T. and Ouyang, F. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process. Des. Dev. Combustion, The Combustion Institute, Pittsburg, PA, USA,
1985, 24 (2), 430 20-25 August 1972, pp. 851-860
25 DeSai, P. R. and Wen, C. Y. MERC/CR-78/3, U.S. Dept. of 67 Siminski, V. J., Wright, F. J., Edelman, R. B., et al. AFAPLTR
Energy, Morgantown (WV) Tech. Information Center, 1978 72-74, Vols. I and II, Air Force Aeropropulsion Lab., Wright
26 Kim, M. and Joseph, B. Ind. Eng. Chem. Proc. Des. Deu. 1983, Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, USA, 1972
22,212 68 Brikci-Nieassa. M. Ph.D. Thesis. Universitv of Sheffield, UK,
27 Rossberg, M. Z. Elektrochem. 1956,60, 952 1982 -
28 de Souza-Santos, M. L. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Sheffield, 69 Sergeant, G. D. and Smith, I. W. Fuel 1973,52, 52
UK, 1987 70 Biba, V., Macak, J., Klose, E. and Malecha, J. fnd. Eng. Chem.
29 Yoon, H., Wei, J. and Denn, M. M. AIChE J. 1978,24 (5), 885 Proc. Des. Deo. 1978, 17 (I), 92
30 van Heek, K. H. and Muhlen, H. J. Fuel 1985,64, 1405 71 Gibson, M. A. and Euker, C. A. ‘Mathematical Modeling of
,31 Kasaoka, S., Sakata, Y. and Tong, C. International Chemical Fluidized Bed Coal Gasification’, paper presented at AIChE
Engineering 1985, 25 (I), 160 Meeting, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1975
32 Adknez, J., Miranda, J. L. andGavil&n, J. M. Fuel 1985,64,801 72 Johnson, J. L. in ‘Kinetics of Coal Gasification’, Wiley, NY,
33 Wen, C. Y. and Chen, L. H. Journal of The Chinese Inst. of USA, 1979
Chem. Engineers 1983, 14, 173 73 Hottel, H. C. and Howard, J. B. in ‘New Energy Technology’,
34 Thurner, F. and Mann, U. Ind. Eng. Chem. Proc. Des. Deu. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1971
1981, 20, 482 74 Parent, J. .D. and Katz, S. ‘Equilibrium Compositions and

1518 FUEL, 1989, Vol 68, December

 Comprehensive modeling and simulation of fluidized bed boilers and gasifiers: M. L. de Souza-Santos
Enthalpy Changes for the Reaction of Carbon, Oxygen and
Steam’, IGT Research Bulletin, 1948
15 Kanury, A. M. ‘Introduction to Combustion Phenomena’,
Gordon & Breach Science, London, UK, 1975
NOMENCLATURE
stoichiometry parameter
aj
A area (m’)
b, 6, tj stoichiometry parameters
c molar concentration (kmol mm3)
C specific heat (J kg-l K- ‘)
d diameter or equivalent hydraulic diameter (m)
D diffusivity coeficient (m2 s- ‘)
E rate of energy produced( +), consumed(-) or
transferred per unit of length of the vertical
direction (W m-l)
activation energy (J kmol- ‘)
f” mass fraction of particles : e.g. fi = mass fraction
of carbonaceous material particles among all the
solids
f’ fraction based on the number of particles in the
bed
fraction based on the area of particles in the bed
{“,
fraction based on the volume of particles in the
bed
mass fraction of the entrained particles at the
f
top of the bed that return as forced recycle to
the bed
factor of bed expansion from the minimum to
f bexp
the operating fluidizing conditions43
fuel ratio (fixed carbon d.b/volatile matter d.b)
s mass flow (kg s-‘)
G mass flux (kg me2 s-l)
H enthalpy (J kmol- ‘)
Arrhenius constant for reaction i (dimension
ki
depends on the reaction)
pre-exponential Arrhenius constant for reaction
k,i
i (same dimension as k)
equilibrium constant for reaction i (dimension
Ki
depends on the reaction)
Ko,i pre-exponential equilibrium constant for reaction
i (same dimension as K)
L length (m)
Mj molecular mass of component j (kg kmol- ‘)
P partial pressure (Pa)
P pressure (Pa)
ri rate of chemical reaction i (for gas-solid
reactions: kmol me2 (of particle surface) s- ’ ; for
gas-gas reactions: kmol mm3 (volume of gas
phase) s-‘)
R universal gas constant (J kmol- ’ K- ‘)
Rs rate of production of chemical component due to
solid-gas reactions (base=area of solid phase
referred to in inferior index) (kg m- 2 s- ‘)
R GE rate of production of chemical component due
to gas-gas reactions occurring in gas phase of
emulsion (base=volume of gas phase in the
emulsion) (kg mm3 s- ‘)
R GB rate of production of chemical component due
to gas-gas reactions occurring in bubble phase
(base = volume of bubble phase) (kg rnM3 s- ‘)
S mass fraction in particle size distribution
s mass fraction in particle size distribution referred
to the individual species. The mass fraction
distribution within each species m is given by
kl,I and the mass fraction in the mixture is s,,~.
They are related by: s,,,~=S,,,~,
%LI mass fraction of particles in the bed smaller than
size dp,m,l
S bed sectional area (m2)
S' surface area (m2)
T temperature (K)
T* reference temperature (298.15 K)
u superficial gas velocity (m s- ’ )
V volume (m3)
W mass fraction in solid or gas phases
Xdist thickness of the distributor plate (m)
Yj
molar fraction of component j
Z vertical coordinate (m)
a coefficient of heat transfer (W mm2 K- ‘)
stoichiometry coefficient
F rate of fines production due to particle attrition
(kgs-‘)
A indicates variation related to the accompanying
variable
void fraction in the bed
surface emissivity
resistance factor to chemical reactions (Pa m3 s
kmol- ‘)
9 effectiveness factor for a reaction in the core or
relative to cyclone efficiency
limestone reactivity
thermal conductivity (W m- ’ K- ‘)
fraction of conversion of chemical component in
the system
V coefficient of stoichiometry
P density (kg mw3)
0 Stefan-Boltzmann constant (W mm2 Kd4)
z fraction of the particle radius occupied by the
unreacted core
material friability constant (m- ‘)
f D total mass in the bed (kg)
WBE coefficient of mass transfer between bubble and
emulsion (s- ‘)
Subscripts
amb relative to the external ambient to the reactor
ash relative to the ash content in the proximate
analysis of carbonaceous material (wet basis)
A relative to the average condition at a point z on
the bed or freeboard
bed relative to the bed (normally to define a property
as an average at a point in the bed)
B relative to the bubble phase
core relative to the unreacted or not still affected
internal core of a solid particle
C relative to heat transfer by convection
d dry or calculated at dry basis
dist relative to the distributor or distributor surface
in contact with the bed
D relative to the bed or at the top of the bed, as in ZD
E relative to the emulsion phase
F relative to the freeboard section or at the top of
the freeboard, as in zF
G relative to gas phase
GE relative to gas in the emulsion
GB relative to the gas in the bubble
i relative to the reaction R-i
I entering the system or section
FUEL, 1989, Vol 68, December 1519
Comprehensive modeling and simulation of fluidized bed boilers and gasifiers: M. 1. de Souza-Santos

j relative to the component j. Gas components: Table a Description of the correlations used to compute the rates of
l=CO,; 2=CO; 3=0,; 4=N,; 5=HzO; the gas-gas reactions with the general form
6=H,; 7=CH4; 8=SO,; 9=NO; 10=CzH,;
ll=H,S; 12=NH,; 13 = Tar. Solid com-
ponents in the carbonaceous particles: 14=C;
15=H; 16=0; 17=N; 18=0; 19= Ash; Reactions
20 = Volatiles; 21= Moisture. Solid components (i) a b 6 C E d a Ref.
in the limestone particles: 22 =CaCO,; 23 = 15 1.52 13 0.25 5 0.5 64
CaO; 24 = CaSO,; 25 = Moisture. Solid com- 16 1.5 6 1.5 3 1 - - 64
ponent in the inert particles: 26=SiO,; 17 1713 l--64
27 = Moisture 18 1 13 l--64
19 0 :: 0.86 3 1.04 - - 65
J relative to the internal surface 20 0 11 0.86 3 1.04 - - Assumed
K relative to recycling of particles to the bed similarity
1 relative to the level in the particle size with 19
classification (1 increases with the particle size) 21 0 4 1 3 0.5 - - 66
22 -1 13 0.5 3 1 67
lm maximum number of levels in the size particle
classification of the solid type m ’ Multiply by p”.3
L leaving the system or the indicated section
m relative to the solid type m (1 =carbonaceous
material, 2 = limestone, 3 = inert) dA
mf at the minimum fluidizing condition R SE,m.j PE,m&
dz
M relative to mass transfer between phases
N due to the solid turnover in the bed 14<j<27 (A4)
relative to the solid particles
relative to chemical reactions Energy balance for the emulsion phase:
! relative to radiative heat transfer
shell relative to the reacted or processed external shell FGECGEdTGE= - &GE+ 5 (&~EGE.III+~~sEGE,~IJ
dz m=l
that covers the core of a solid particle
S relative to solid phase in the emulsion +J%GBGE+&GBGE-&GETD+EGEWD 645)
T relative to the tubes
Energy balance for the bubble phase:
vol relative to the volatiles content in the proximate
analysis of carbonaceous material (wet basis)
V relative to the devolatilization processes FGBCGB~=-EQGB-&GBGE+&GBGE-ECGBTD
dz
W relative to the wall (e.g. WOTD = relative to the
(A6)
outside wall of the tubes in the bed) Energy balances for the solid phases:
Y relative to particle entrainment
d&m _E
Superscript F~.mCs~.rn)= QSE,m-ECS~~~,m -E~s~~~,m
dz
* relative to the equilibrium condition
- '%sETD.~- "$1 (ERsEsE,~,~+~c~E~E,~,~)

l<m<3 (A7)
APPENDIX A
Mass balances for the components in the freeboard:
Basic and auxiliary equations
This section gives the basic differential equations that
describe the mass and energy balances for each
component or phase. Some important auxiliary equations 1 <j<27 (A8)
are also listed. More details may be obtained from the
references cited in Table 7 or Ref. 28. Energy balances for gases in the freeboard section:
Mass balances for the emulsion phase:
FGFCGF dTGF= - EQGF+ i ~%sFGF,~+EMsFGF,~)
dz m=l
R ,-dvoE
GE.> dz
--ECGFTF+EGFWF (A%

Energy balances for the solids in the freeboard:

dAB
+G~GBGE,jx l<j<13 (AlI
d&m
F PF,mCsF,m A=-dz EQSF,.,,- E CSFGF,m -'%s~~F,rn
Mass balances for the bubble phase: 3

dFGB,i
_ R dvi G dbz 1 <j< 13 (A2)
-&SFTF,~- 1
n=l
E~~~~~,m,n
GB,j x- MGBGJ2.i x
dz 1 <m,<3 (AlO)
Total solid component conversions: Freeboard overall solid type m mass balance:
(All)
14<j<27 (A3) FLD,m=F~,m+FK,m+Fy,m,z=zo-Fy,m,z=zF

F K,m,l--F y,m,z=z~%y,m,l 6412)

1520 FUEL, 1989, Vol 68, December

 Comprehensive modeling and simulation of fluidized bed boilers and gasifiers: M. L. de Souza-Santos

Rate of fines generation (see Equation (14)): reactions (Equation 5):

f-,,I = VL‘yn(U - V&,,,_L&l,, (A13) +$!% (~27)

Rate of component production or consumption (Equation SEGE.m
Al): i =(d~~,m)2Cl-~i)RTPE,m
24 2J (A2g)
12tiDshell,i
RGE,j= C Vj,iMjTiITGE l<j<l3 (A14)
i= 14
13,i= ’ (~29)
Rate of solids production or consumption (Equation Al): tliT?kiCSl,i

Some special kinetic coeficients:

R %n~.i=~~~ vj,i”jrilTsE.m 1 <m<3, 1 <j<27 (A15)
k 33
k,= (A30)
Rate of mass transfer between emulsion and bubbles f +k,,p, +k,,p,
(Equation A 1):
k = k,rPb
(YGB,j-YGE.j)
(A31)
GMGBGE.jzdBaBECGMj (‘416) 4 l+k,,p,
6
Devolatilization related coefficients (Table 6):
Rate of component production or consumption in the
Fv,13
bubble phase (Equation A2): W tar = F (~32)
24
RGB,j= C Vj.iMjrilTGB l<j<l3 (A17) C
j=l
FV,j
i=14

Rate of energy production by gas-gas reactions in the

W gas = 1 - Wtar (A33)
emulsion (Equation A5): CO2 equilibrium partial pressure used in Equation (10):
dG/,,
E QGE- -f RGE,jHjlTGE __ VW pt = 3.336 x 1O’P exp -__ (A34)
j=l dz
Rate of energy transfer associated with mass transfer Solid rate circulations:
between the solids and gases in the emulsion (Equation
F
A5): F = PpJn(l - %lfw - %I,)

Ehl
SEGE.m -- f RSE,,,j(HjIT,,,~-HjI=~,E) % x exp( - 6630d,,,,)fzS ldm<3 (A35)
j=l

Differential surface particle areas in the emulsion

(A19) (Equation Al):
Rate of energy transfer associated with mass transfer
dA A
between the emulsion and the bubble (Equation A5): 25!LsE(1-&E)f~ pem l<m&3 (A36)
dz P&m

E MGBGE= jilGMGBGE.j(HjlTGu-HjlTm)2 0420) Differential surface particle areas in the freeboard

(Equation A8):
Rate of energy production or consumption due to dA A
heterogeneous reactions (Equation A7): L5E=SF(1-EF)f;~ ldmS3 C437)
dz PF.m

E QSE.m = jfl RSE,m,j Hj 1Tsc.,,,

2 6421) Differential surface area of the bubbles (Equation A2):

Assumed average temperature at a point in the emulsion: x=s,+

d&
B
(A38)
T =T~+(TGE-~*)F,EcGE+(TGB--*)F,BcGB
Differential volume occupied by the gas in the emulsion
GE
FGE cGE + FGBCGB (Equation Al):
6422)
Some fluidization parameters: d&E
---=SEEE (A39)
F dz
u, = _GE (A23) Differential volume occupied by the bubbles (Equation
PGESE
A2):
s=sE+sB (A24)
db_s
B (A40)
s, = Slfbexp * (A25) dz

&
0.15 Total gas flow at each point of the referred phases:
&E = hf (A26)
C-1
u mf
FG= g Fj F,= y Fj (A41)
Resistance coefficients used to describe the heterogeneous j=l j=14

FUEL, 1989, Vol 68, December 1521