4.7 Article

Particle-scale modeling of biomass gasification in the three-dimensional bubbling fluidized bed

期刊

ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT
卷 196, 期 -, 页码 1-17

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2019.05.105

关键词

Biomass gasification; Bubbling fluidized bed; Discrete element method; Numerical simulation; Heterogeneous reaction; Operating parameter

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China-Yunnan joint fund [U1602272, NRF2017ITS002-013]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biomass gasification in a three-dimensional bubbling fluidized bed is numerically simulated via the computational fluid dynamics coupled with the discrete element method (CFD-DEM) incorporated with heat and mass transfer, and chemical reactions. The particle-scale investigation of the heterogeneous reaction rate of the biomass particles along with the essential aspects (including fluid force, collision force, dispersion) of the solid phase is presented. The results indicate that biomass particles behave with larger horizontal and vertical distance especially in the freeboard region than the sand particles. Strong backmixing of the solid material exists near the sidewall, and large fluid force on the particles appears in the lower bed. Similar trends of the particle-scale fluid force, velocity and dispersion can be observed for the biomass and sand particles, though the magnitudes are larger for the biomass. Chemical reactions result in the axial segregation of the biomass particles. Among all the heterogeneous chemical reactions, the char oxidation is fastest while the hydrogenating reaction is the slowest. Increasing the temperature, and steam-to-biomass ratio and equivalence ratio values all enhance the particle-scale behaviors of both the biomass and sand particles. Also, the temperature improves nearly all the reaction rates. The results obtained here provide essential understanding regarding the particle-scale behaviors of the biomass gasification process in the fluidized bed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据