Kjell-Arne Solli
Department of Process, Energy and Environmental Technology, University College of Southeast Norway, Norway
Cornelius Agu
Department of Process, Energy and Environmental Technology, University College of Southeast Norway, Norway
Download articlehttp://dx.doi.org/10.3384/ecp1713897Published in: Proceedings of the 58th Conference on Simulation and Modelling (SIMS 58) Reykjavik, Iceland, September 25th – 27th, 2017
Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 138:13, p. 97-107
Published: 2017-09-27
ISBN: 978-91-7685-417-4
ISSN: 1650-3686 (print), 1650-3740 (online)
Gasification of biomass into suitable feedstock has
become a feasible alternative technology for reducing
the use of energy feedstock from fossil sources. Usually,
fluidized bed technology is used in the biomass
gasification reactor.
Optimization of a fluidized bed reactor needs to take
into account the bed behavior in the presence of both
biomass and bed material, as well as chemical
conversion of particles and volatiles, among other
process parameters. CFD simulation of the process is a
valuable tool to go about the optimization. However,
simulation result validation is limited by the accuracy of
input parameters such as those characterizing several
drag models given in the literature. This study is
focusing on the drag model parameters.
The simulation is aimed at validating some of the
commonly used models for drag forces against the bed
material(s) used in the fluidized bed gasification reactor.
Drag models included in this study are those given by
Syamlal and O’Brien, Gidaspow, and BVK. The MFiX
CFD-software (version 2016.1) from The National
Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) is used. The
Two-Fluid Model (TFM) are applied for comparison of
the results. The key factors for validation of the drag
models are based on the superficial gas velocity at the
minimum fluidization condition and the degree of bed
expansion.
The simulation results show that the minimum
fluidization velocity could be predicted using the
Gidaspow and BVK drag models by adjusting the
particle diameter used in the simulation. For the Syamlal
& O’Brien drag model, two parameters are fitted to
predict the minimum fluidization velocity. The bubbling
bed behavior is not captured using the Syamlal &
O’Brien drag model while Gidaspow and BVK drag
models fairly captures this phenomenon. The bed
expansion from the simulation is higher than that
observed in the experiment, and the deviation is even
higher with the Syamlal & O’Brien drag model.