Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
www.fuel®rst.com
Abstract
A one-dimensional steady state mathematical model and a numerical algorithm have been developed to simulate the coal gasi®cation
process in ¯uidised bed. The model incorporates two phases, the solid and the gas. The gaseous phase participates in the emulsion (with the
solid phase) and forms the bubble. The solid phase is composed of carbonaceous material, limestone and/or inert bed material. The model can
predict temperature, converted fraction, and particle size distribution for the solid phase. For the gaseous phase, in both emulsion and bubble,
it can predict pro®les of temperature, gas composition, velocities, and other ¯uid-dynamic parameters. In the feed zone, a Gaussian
distribution for the solid particle size is considered. This distribution changes due to attrition, elutriation, consumption and drag inside
the reactor. A system of 29 differential and 10 non-linear equations, derived from the mass, energy and momentum balances for each phase, at
any point along the bed height, are solved by the Gear and Adams Method. Experimental data from the Universidad de Antioquia and
Universidad Nacional-Medellin have been used to validate the model. Finally, the model can be used to optimise the gasi®cation process by
varying several parameters, such as excess of air, particle size distribution, coal type, and geometry of the reactor. q 2002 Published by
Elsevier Science Ltd.
Keywords: Gasi®cation; Mathematical model; Fluidised beds
place very quickly when the gasi®cation or combustion Adanez et al. [14] made a population balance of each
occurs in a ¯uidised bed. Therefore we decided to consider family of char particles in order to perform the carbon
both processes as instantaneous and to include the species mass balances in a bed with shrinking particles. In the
released [7] as a mass source term in the mass conservation present work, a distribution function (Fig. 3) which changed
equations. during the process due to several mechanisms such as attri-
Ross et al. [8] investigated the time required for devola- tion, elutration, drag, and chemical reaction processes was
tilisation of large coal particle in a ¯uidised-bed operating at taken, thus achieving a better approach for modelling and
750, 850, and 950 8C and in gas environments simulating understanding the actual combustion phenomena.
pyrolysis, combustion, and gasi®cation conditions. From Huilin et al. [15] developed a steady state model for a coal
this work, we can see that the particle less than 6 mm ®red circulating ¯uidised bed boiler which included the
need less than 10 s. Our experiments in pilot plant were hydrodynamics, heat transfer and combustion and analysed
performed with particles of average diameter of about both the dense zone and the dilute region in the furnace.
1 mm, so we expect even shorter volatilisation times. They also used empirical equations for the hydrodynamics
These works and other more recent ones such as the work in the ¯uidised bed and a model of one ¯uid without taking
by Ciesielcyk and Gawdzik [9], Guo and Chan [10], and into account the possible variation of gas temperature inside
Chen et al. [11] use the classical equations of continuity and the furnace.
energy in a way similar to that one described in the present Kim et al. [16] proposed a mathematical model to predict
work. The great majority of coal gasi®cation models in gasi®cation in an internally circulating ¯uidised bed reactor
¯uidised beds use empirical correlations to describe the with draught tube, based on hydrodynamics, reaction
¯uid dynamics inside the reactor, thus they avoid the solu- kinetics and empirical correlations for pyrolysis. They
tion of the momentum equations as it is proposed in this were not able to predict neither the temperature pro®les
paper. nor the gas concentration inside the bed, nevertheless their
Darton et al. [12] described the phenomenon related with results and predictions were reasonably accurate.
bubbles growth due to coalescence in ¯uidised bed by using The main characteristics and advantages of the coal gasi-
a simple theory which gives an empirical equation for the ®cation model (MGC) described in this paper are:
bubble diameter. Coronella et al. [13] have studied the slug-
ging of ¯uidised beds by using a new method based on 1. One-dimensional and steady-state.
detecting pressure drop ¯uctuations. 2. It includes two ¯uids; emulsion and bubble; and two
We have tested several of these aforementioned empirical phases; gas and solid.
equations in order to avoid the solution of the momentum 3. The emulsion is formed by gas and solids.
equation and to know the behaviour of the gasi®cation 4. The bubble is considered free of solid particles, there-
process. fore it is formed only by gas.
Our main contribution to the prediction of coal gasi®ca- 5. The solid is considered isothermal and the consumption
tion in ¯uidised beds is to develop an original proposal uniform through the bed height.
which includes the evolution of particles distribution inside 6. The mass and heat transfer between solid and gas in the
the reactor starting from an initial Gaussian distribution of emulsion, are considered. This is also true for the mass
the ¯ow of coal fed into the equipment. Another important and heat transfer between the emulsion gas and the
contribution made in the present work is to use the non- bubble (mass or heat transfer between solid and bubble
linear conservation equations in compact form which have are NOT considered).
allowed us to obtain an ef®cient numerical solution with fast 7. Attrition, elutriation and drag are included for solid
convergence and minimisation of the numerical error. phase.
In our algorithm for the numerical solution we have used 8. Reaction models are used for homogeneous (gas±gas)
the subroutine DIVPAG from the IMSL ver. 3.0 to evaluate and heterogeneous (gas±solid) chemical reactions.
the transport coef®cients such as the diffusivity of species in 9. Devolatilisation and drying are considered instanta-
the mixture, the thermal conductivity of gases, and the visc- neous in the feed zone.
osity of gases as a function of temperature. These calcula- 10. The gasi®cation process can be achieved with stream
tions were performed for each of the chemical species and (H2O) or with carbon dioxide (CO2).
also for the mixture which has led to numerical predictions 11. A partial differential equation for mass and heat trans-
that agree very well with experimental results as can be seen fer, for each component in the gas and solid phases, is
in ®gures presented in the paper. derived and solved.
Adanez [14] developed a model considering the hydro- 12. Experimental correlations for the ¯uid-dynamic para-
dynamic behaviour of a turbulent circulating ¯uidised bed, meters are used.
the kinetics of coal combustion and sulphur retained in the 13. Chemical reactions, convection and diffusion are
riser. They have also used empirical equations to include the included in the differential equations for the gas and
hydrodynamics of a turbulent bed just as we had done in this solid phases. The energy equations for both phases are
paper. coupled by convection phenomena on the surface of the
1690 F. Chejne, J.P. Hernandez / Fuel 81 (2002) 1687±1702
Table 1
Equations for the physical properties
!1=2
4Dp 1mf ub ± [2±4]
Shj 21mf 1
pDj;M
umf rge Cpg;M lg;M 1mf ub rge Cpg;M 1=2 W m 22 K 21 [20]
hg±b 12
3 Db
Nulg;M W m 22 K 21 [2±4]
hg±s
Dp
2=3
Re ± [2±4]
Nu 0:4 Pr1=3
1
X
12
li W m 21 K 21 [17,31]
lg;M X
i1 11 xk 1:065F ik
k±i
1 2 wi m 2 s 21 [17,31]
DM
i X xk
k±i
Dik
1=2 !2
1 M 1=2 mi Mi 1=4 ± [17,31]
F ik p 1 1 i 11
2 2 Mk mk Mk
coef®cients, for each component in the gas phase are cal- where the reaction rate for each species i due to gas±gas and
culated as a function of temperature at each point, and the gas±solid reactions (Table 2) can be expressed like,
mixture's properties are then calculated. Table 1 summarises nrgg
X
the most important coef®cients of the MGC model. rgg;i rgg;i ni;gg MMi
2
gg1
axial direction is equivalent to the generation (or consump- For the gas in the bubble, the variation in the composition is
tion) from the heterogeneous and homogeneous reaction due to the generation (or consumption) from the homoge-
and the exchange by convection with the bubble, neous reaction and by the exchange through convection with
d
rge uge yi dVg dA dA the gas in the emulsion,
rgg;i 1 hm;i ye;i 2 yb;i rg b 1 rgs;i s
dz dz dz dz d
rb ub yk dV dA
rgg;k b 2 hm;k ye;i 2 yb;k rg b
4
1 dz dz dz
1692 F. Chejne, J.P. Hernandez / Fuel 81 (2002) 1687±1702
Table 2
Chemical reactions
Due to the homogeneity and isothermal conditions for the through the reactor wall,
solid phase (coal, limestone and/or inert material), the mass
balance is global and is integrated over the volume of the 1 ln
Dr 1 tw =Dr
RT 1
reactor. For the coal, the difference between the inlet and pDzNuin lg;M 2pDzlw
outlet ¯ow is equivalent to the oxygen and gasi®cation reac-
tions in the reactor, 1
1
9
ZL pDz
Dr 1 tw hout
i Vol
Fmc;out 2 Fmc;in rsg;mc
1 2 1Ar fmc dz
5
0 For the gas in the bubble the balance is
The mass balance for the limestone requires that the rate of d
rb ub Hb dA
generation (or consumption) due to sulphur reactions is 2hg±b Tb 2 Tge b
10
dz dz
equivalent to the differences between the inlet and outlet
¯ow, The enthalpy in Eqs. (8) and (10) consider changes in
ZL temperature and consumption (or generation) due to the
Fcal;out 2 Fcal;in i
rsg;cal Vol
1 2 1Ar fcal dz
6 chemical reactions [17] from the mass balance represented
0 by the formation enthalpy of each component,
X X
Finally, the inlet and outlet ¯ow for the inert material are 0
Hj ym DHf;m 1 Cp;m Tj ym Hm
11
equal, m m
Farf;out 2 Farf;in 0
7 where j represents the gas in emulsion or bubble, and m
represents the ith or kth component of the speci®c ¯uid.
For the gaseous phase; in both emulsion and bubble; the Expanding the left hand side of Eqs. (8) and (10) and by
differential energy balance considers that the change in substitution of the enthalpy de®nition (Eq. (11)) in the
enthalpy along the axial direction is equivalent to the resulting expression, we obtain the reaction energy term.
exchange by convection with the solid phase, with the See appendix 1 for details. v.g. The energy generated due
other ¯uid (either emulsion or bubble) and the energy losses to chemical reactions is appreciated by taking the derivative
through the reactor wall. In consequence, the energy balance of Eq. (8),
for the gas in emulsion is
!
X
d
rge uge Hge d rge uge yi Hi
dA dA d
rge uge Hge
hg±b Tb 2 Tge b 1 hg±s Ts 2 Tge s i
dz dz dz dx dx
where the equivalent resistance for heat transfer includes By using mass balance equation (e.g. Eq. (1)), enthalpy
convection inside and outside the reactor and the conduction equation (Eq. (11)) and by introducing in the latter
F. Chejne, J.P. Hernandez / Fuel 81 (2002) 1687±1702 1693
The gas velocity in the emulsion is related to the area and To complete the set of ¯uid-dynamic parameters the bubble
density by: area fraction and porosity can be obtained with the follow-
Fge ing relations [4],
uge
22
rge Ae Ab A r 2 A e
31
The emulsion area fraction (Ae) is a function of the bed 1 2 1e
expansion coef®cient [4,12], 112
32
fexp
Ar
Ae
23 1=6:7
fexp Ue
1e 1mf
33
8 Umf
>
> 1:032
ug 2 umf 0:57 rga
>
> 11 for Dr , 0:0635
< rp u0:063
mf Dr
0:445 121
fexp 1b 1 2
34
> 1 2 1e
>
> 14:314
ug 2 umf 0:738 D1:006
p r0:376
p
>
:11 for Dr $ 0:0635
0:126 0:937
rga umf
2.3. Particle size distribution
24
Using mass conservation, the ¯ow of the gaseous phase is The MGC model considers a Gaussian distribution for the
the sum of the ¯ow of the gas in the emulsion and in the initial size distribution. Inside the reactor, the shape is
bubble, conserved but the average diameter changes due to attrition,
elutriation, drag, and consumption. The average diameter at
Fg Fge 1 Fb
25
the feed point and inside the reactor is calculated as,
As mentioned earlier, for the bottom of the reactor, the ¯ow 1
of gas in the emulsion is known equal to the minimum Dp;M nX
21
35
Wi
¯uidisation ¯ow. From Eq. (25), the ¯ow for the bubble
can be obtained. From here, the ¯ows in this equation are Di;ave
given from the mass balance equation for each ¯uid, and the where
¯ow of the gaseous phase is calculated. The average gas
velocity is then calculated as follows: M
Wi X i
36
Mj
Fg
ug
26 j
Ar r g
Di11 1 Di
where the average density of the gasses is Di;ave
37
2
Fge rge 1 Fb rb
r g
27 At the feeding point the initial diameter and mass of each
Fg
level in the distribution are given, and with Eq. (36) the
The bubble diameter and velocity can be calculated from the mass fraction of each level is found. The model manipulates
gas velocity. The bubble results from the difference between these three vectors (diameter, mass, and fraction) with the
the minimum ¯uidisation condition in the emulsion and the elutriation fraction, and new values are obtained. From these
¯ow of the gaseous phase. For the bubble diameter, a perfo- vectors, the diameters and masses are affected by the
rated plate was considered and the correlation of Mori and consumption fraction, while the fractions remain constant.
Wen [22] is used, In other words, the mass fraction of each level is not affected
by the consumption, but its value will be affected by attrition
20:3Dz
Db Db;max 2
Db;max 2 Db;or exp
28 and drag. The mass fraction of each level in the distribution
Dr inside the reactor is obtained by:
where the bubble diameter in the plate (Db,or) and the maxi-
Fmc;i 1 Att;i;sup 2 Att;i;inf 1 Arr;i
mum diameter (Db,max) are de®ned as, Wi;in
38
Mrem
Db;max 1:638
Ar
ug 2 umf 0:4
where the attrition and drag ¯ows are given by [2,4,24,25]:
0:4
29 0 1
Ar
ug 2 umf X
Db;or 0:872
Nor Att;i G s Mrem
ug 2 umf fs Wi @ Wj A
vol
39
i±j
Finally, for the bubble velocity, the recommended expres-
sion by Davidson and Harrison [12,23] is used,
3:07e 2 9A2r Db r3:5 0:5 2:5
g g
ug 2 umf Wi
0:5 Arr
40
ub ug 2 umf 1 0:711
gDb
30 m2:5
F. Chejne, J.P. Hernandez / Fuel 81 (2002) 1687±1702 1695
Table 4
Kinetic coef®cients
" #
2a 213 650 Pa 21 s 21 MGC model
k2a 5:95 £ 1025 exp
Tp
" #
2b 226 927 Pa 21 s 21 MGC model
k2b 3:92 exp
Tp
" #
5 1510 kmol 21 m 3 s 1 2±4
k5 2:78 £ 103 exp 2
Tg
" #
5 3968 ± 2±4
k5p 0:0265 exp
Tg
" #
6 16 000 kmol 20.75 m 2.25 K 1.5 s 21 2±4
k6 1:0 £ 1015 exp 2
Tg
" #
7 3430 kmol 21.5 m 4.5 K 1.5 s 21 2±4
k7 5:159 £ 1015 exp 2
Tg
" #
8 14 15 700 kmol 20.9 m 2.7 s 21 2±4
k8 3:552 £ 10 exp 2
Tg
" #
9 15 700 kmol 20.9 m 2.7 s 21 2±4
k9 3:552 £ 1014 exp 2
Tg
" #
10 19 655 kmol 21 m 3 s 21 k 2±4
k10 9:78 £ 1011 exp 2
Tg
1696 F. Chejne, J.P. Hernandez / Fuel 81 (2002) 1687±1702
and gasi®cation reactions, while for the limestone reaction the bed as functions of composition and temperature.
the unreacted core model was used. The rates include reac- Thus, the MGC model deals with a non-linear and stiff set
tion and diffusion resistance. The rates of combustion, gasi- of equations. Stiffness occurs when there are two or more
®cation and limestone reactions are then calculated as very different scales of an independent variable, which in
follows: turns affects the dependent variable. There are several high-
2 ri order methods for the solution of stiff problems, the most
Ri
41 important are:
Dp;feed RmT;i
where i is the type of reaction (combustion, gasi®cation or ² Generalisations of the Runge±Kutta method, like the
limestone). The mass resistance for the exposed core are, Rosenbrock methods or the Kaps±Rentrop method [26,27].
² Generalisations of the Bulirsch±Stoer method, in parti-
1 Dp =Dp;feed cular a semi-implicit extrapolation method due to Bader
RmT;i 1 !
Shi Di;M Dp and Deu¯hard [26,27].
Di;M A2dens;1 M A 21 ² Multi-step, Predictor±corrector methods, like Gear's
Dp;feed T;i dens;2
backward differentiation method and the Adams±Bash-
42
foth±Moulton scheme [26,28,29].
while for the unreacted core,
1 2 Dp =Dp;feed Normally, the integral of a function is easy to ®nd
1
RmT;i 1 because the integrand has a known dependence on the inde-
Shi Di;M Dp
D pendent variable x, but in an ordinary differential equation
Dp;feed i;M the integrand depends both on x and on the dependent vari-
able y. Thus to ®nd the solution of y 0 f
x; y from xn to x
Dp =Dp;feed the following equation has to be solved:
1 !
43
Dp Zx
Di;M A2dens;1 M A 21 y
x yn 1 f
x 0 ; ydx 0
48
Dp;feed T;i dens;2 xn
The additional constants in Eqs. (42) and (43) are de®ned as In a single-step method like Runge±Kutta or Bulirsch±
follows: Stoer, the value yn11 at xn11 depends only on yn. In a
! Multi-step method, f
x; y is approximated by a polynomial
rapp Dp
Adens;1 1 2 ; Adens;2 coth M
44 passing through several previous points xn ; xn21 ; ¼ and
rreal Dp;feed T;i possibly also through xn11 : The result of evaluating the
!0:5 integral Eq. (48) at x xn11 is then of the form,
Ki
MT;i 0:5 Dp
45 yn11 yn 1 h
b0 y 0n11 1 b1 y 0n 1 b2 y 0n21 1 b3 y 0n22 1 ¼
A2dens;1
49
The consumption factor does not affect the mass fraction of
where y 0 n denotes f
xn ; yn ; and so on. If b0 0; the method
each level in the particle size distribution. This implies that
is explicit; otherwise it is implicit. The order of the method
the consumption is assumed equal for all particles. In order
depends on how many previous steps are used to get the new
to better approximate the consumption, an average rate is
value of y.
calculated as a function of each mass fraction and diameter
The MGC model uses the implicit Adams±Moulton
as follows:
method, or backward differentiation formulas: BDF or
1 Gear's method. In both cases, the basic formulas are impli-
Ri;M X
46
Wj cit, so a system of non-linear equations must be solved at
j Ri;ave
each step. Newton's method is used for the iteration scheme.
Several matrix±vector operations subroutines from the
where IMSL [30] were used.
Ri;sup 1 Ri;inf
Ri;ave
47
2 4. Basic description of the algorithm
At ®rst, the solid temperature, coal consumption frac- (b) Reactor geometry parameters; i.e. reactor diameter,
tion and the new diameter distribution is given as an bed length, wall thickness.
initial guess, and the Adams or Gear's method are used (c) Distributor plate type and geometry data; number of
in order to obtain the temperatures and composition of holes, hole diameter.
the different phases. With equations for the attrition, elutria- (d) Inlet gaseous phase conditions; temperature, compo-
tion and drag, a new diameter distribution is found and sition, moisture.
compared with the initial guess. When this distribution is (e) Inlet solid phase conditions; percentages of coal, lime-
equal to the guess, the solid reactions rates are integrated stone and inert material, temperature, densities, friability
over the bed height, a new coal consumption fraction is constants.
obtained and compared with the initial guess. Finally, (f) Complete characterisation of the coal; i.e. ®xed
when the coal consumption fraction iteration process is carbon, volatile material, moisture, carbon, sulphur, etc.
®nished, the energy equation of the solid phase is integrated, (g) Combustion, gasi®cation (CO2 and H2O) and lime-
thus the solid temperature is found and compared with the stone reaction constants.
initial guess. (h) Numerical data; i.e. number of nodes, tolerances,
The necessary input data for the MGC program are the iterations.
following:
a COMPAQ Deskpro with 500 MHz Pentium II processor, 4, while for the coal consumption fraction were between 5
64MB RAM and 5GB of virtual memory. The convergence and 10.
criterion for the diameter and the coal consumption fraction In Fig. 5 several ¯uid-dynamic parameters are shown as a
was taken as, function of the bed height. For these results, the feed point
was ®xed at 0.3 m. The strong in¯uence of the feed point
uxnew 2 xold u position can be observed in the results. The gas ¯ow
# 1026
50
xold rate increases, due to the combustion and gasi®cation reac-
tions at every point of the bed, but it reaches its maximum at
while for the temperature, the feed point due to the devolatilisation, drying and lime-
stone reactions. The velocities and porosity increase in
uTnew 2 Told u the same way. The bubble increases its diameter and at
# 1022
51
Told the end, the bubble area is greater than that of the gas in
the emulsion.
The typical computer time for a case with 1000 nodes and It is important to remark that the emulsion phase reaches
the above tolerances was 20 min. The number of iterations a porosity value of 0.9 because the solid material feeding is
for the solid temperature and diameters were between 2 and not enough to raise the participation. The curve of minimum
F. Chejne, J.P. Hernandez / Fuel 81 (2002) 1687±1702 1699
¯uidisation is related to the velocity and Reynolds number ¯uidisation conditions. The temperatures drop at the feed
required to attain minimum ¯uidisation. point due to the energy necessary for the drying and
The temperature pro®le along the bed does not show any devolatilisation processes. The gasi®cation process is
modi®cations within the reactor as it was expected in a presented through the bed height but it has a different
¯uidised bed where the distribution of solid particles is behaviour after the feed point, where the H2 has a higher
uniform. On the other hand, the temperature of the bubbles molar fraction than the CO, due to devolatilisation.
and the emulsion are very akin for the conditions with which The right part of Fig. 6 shows how the temperature of the
the computer programme was run. This behaviour is basi- gas phase increases in a short distance, due to the convection
cally due to the heat transfer coef®cients between both parts inside and the large and fast combustion processes, which
and the coal particles which are uniformly distributed along consumes oxygen a few millimetres beyond the inlet point
the bed. of gasses.
The in¯uence of the feed point is also clear in the left part Finally in Fig. 7, the comparison between experimental
of Fig. 6, where the gas phase temperatures and composition data, from the Universidad Nacional-Medellin (A. Ocampo
are shown for both ¯uids (emulsion and bubble). The et al., 2000. Proyecto COLCIENCIAS CoÂdigo No. 1118-06-
temperature of both ¯uids at each point of the bed is similar 192-95, BogotaÂ, Colombia), and the MGC model are
due to the higher convection coef®cients presented in the shown. The input data for the MGC program were changed
1700 F. Chejne, J.P. Hernandez / Fuel 81 (2002) 1687±1702
according to the conditions of the UN reactor, and the coal The ¯uidised bed gasi®cation reactor has an internal
characterisation (Tables 5±7) and reaction rates represented diameter of 0.22 m, a total height of 2 m and it has three
the different coals used in the reactor, we also, changed the main modules. The distribution plate is made of a 3 mm
inlet gas ¯ow rate, temperature, composition; in order to thick stainless steel plate with 142 1 mm holes.
predict the behaviour of the UN reactor. The reaction Six different experiments and numerical results are
rates for the coals were obtained with experimental proce- compared (Table 7), and the results are satisfactory.
dures at the laboratories of the Universidad de Antioquia The dashed lines represent 20% calculation error. It
(A. Ocampo et al., 2000. Proyecto COLCIENCIAS CoÂdigo can be observed that most of the results are within
No. 1118-06-192-95, BogotaÂ, Colombia). the 20% range. The higher differences are presented
The pilot gasi®cation plant of ¯uidised coal bed at the in the H2 molar composition, due to the fact that the
Universidad Nacional-MedellõÂn is made of the following devolatilisation rates were not changed for each coal,
parts: The gasi®cation reactor, air compressor, air due to the dif®culty of ®nding data for Colombian
preheated, a small electric boiler, a feeding system of the coals. This is a research project at the Universidad Ponti-
mixture coal±lime,a combustion system of propane, an ®cia Bolivariana and once the rates are known the MGC
elimination system of particulate material and a chromato- model is easy to modify due to the modular form of the
graph on line for the analysis of gases. program.
F. Chejne, J.P. Hernandez / Fuel 81 (2002) 1687±1702 1701
Table 5 data thus proving the ef®ciency and accuracy of both the
Proximate and elemental analysis of coal mathematical and numerical model. The presented model is
TitiribõÂ coal (%) Venice coal (%) being used recently for designing a new reactor which will
produce gases with enough energy for drying bricks in
Moisture 2.6 9.3 industry.
Volatile material 41.8 40.0
Fixed coal 54.1 44.8
Ash 1.5 5.9
Coal density Acknowledgements
23
X TitiribõÂ coal: 1250 kg m
23
X Venice coal: 1328 kg m
X Lime: 2700 kg m
23 In a huge project like the one presented in this paper there
Element TitiribõÂ coal (%) Venice coal (%) are a lot of institutions and people the authors wish to thank.
C 75.28 64.95 In particular, COLCIENCIAS (Instituto Colombiano para el
H 5.36 5.33 desarrollo de la Ciencia y Tecnologia Francisco JoseÂ
N 1.82 1.95 Caldas), MINERCOL (Minerales de Colombia), Universi-
O 15.67 21.46
S 0.37 0.41
dad Ponti®cia Bolivariana, Universidad Nacional-MedellõÂn
and Universidad de Antioquia for their logistic and
economic support. Alonso Ocampo, Erika Arenas, John
Jairo Ramirez, Jorge Espinel, Carlos LondonÄo, Leonardo
6. Conclusions Velasquez and J. Fredy Escobar who helped with the experi-
ments at the UN reactor, to Fannor Mondragon for the reac-
We have developed a gasi®cation model using the basic tion rate constants and to Marcio L. Sousa-Santos for
conservation equations in compact form in order to obtain technical support. The author apologise, if due to size of
an adequate and accurate numerical solution. The numerical the project, someone is missed in the list of acknowledge-
results presented here agree very well with the experimental ments.
Table 6
Particle size distribution
Table 7
Operation conditions and results
Exp. N 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
21
Coal feed (kg h ) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 6.6
Air supply (kg h 21) 21.9 17.0 19.4 21.9 28.4 14.8
Lime feed (kg h 21) 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.66
Steam supply (kg h 21) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0
Air and steam temperature 420 413 422 435 368 336
at entrance (8C)
Temperature of reactor (8C) 855 812 841 866 826 829
H2 (%) 8.53 8.84 9.63 7.88 6.48 10.80
CO2 (%) 19.31 18.38 14.40 15.60 14.86 21.59
N2 (%) 60.37 61.10 64.62 64.52 71.54 56.60
CH4 (%) 0.84 1.07 1.34 1.01 1.29 0.86
CO (%) 10.94 10.59 9.97 10.94 5.80 10.14
1702 F. Chejne, J.P. Hernandez / Fuel 81 (2002) 1687±1702