Biomass gasification models for downdraft gasifier: A state-of-the-art review

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 583–593 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser Biomass gasification models for downdraft gasifier: A state-of-the-art review Tapas Kumar Patra, Pratik N Sheth n Chemical Engineering Department, Birla Institute of Technology and Science – Pilani, Pilani Campus, Pilani 333031, Rajasthan, India art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t Article history: Received February 2015 Accepted May 2015 Among the different methods of energy production from biomass, gasification is considered as the most suitable option as it is a simple and economically viable process to produce thermal energy or decentralized electricity generation Downdraft gasifiers are typically small-scale units having maximum power production capacity up to MW This feature makes it more suitable for decentralized power generation and distribution to the remote villages/islands deprived of grid electricity Mathematical models can be helpful for the design of gasifiers, prediction of operational behavior, emissions during normal conditions, startup, shutdown, change of fuel, change of loading, and to alleviate the type of problems mentioned above It has been observed that although many researchers have developed models of various types and degrees of complexity, reviews of these modeling and simulation studies are scarce Largely, it is observed that the review articles reported in the literature fail to address the basic understanding of each model types and their applicability to design different gasifiers for a certain feedstock and variation of operating parameters This review article discusses different models available for downdraft gasifiers such as thermodynamic equilibrium, kinetic, CFD, ANN and ASPEN Plus models A comparative analysis of each model and its output is carried out A critical analysis of the effect of different modeling parameters and finally the advantages and disadvantages of each modeling technique is outlined & 2015 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved Keywords: Biomass Modeling and simulation Gasification Downdraft gasifier Equilibrium model Transport and kinetic model Contents Introduction 583 Gasification process and gasifier types 585 2.1 Gasification process 585 2.2 Types of gasifiers 585 2.2.1 Fixed-bed gasification 585 2.2.2 Fluidized-bed gasification 586 2.2.3 Advantages/disadvantages of different gasifying reactors 586 Biomass gasification models 586 3.1 Equilibrium models 586 3.2 Combined transport and kinetic modeling 588 3.3 CFD models 590 3.4 ANNs model 591 3.5 ASPEN Plus models 591 Conclusions 592 Acknowledgment 592 References 592 Introduction n Corresponding author Tel.: þ 91 1596 515636 (office); (mobile); fax: þ91 1596 244183 E-mail address: pratik@pilani.bits-pilani.ac.in (P.N Sheth) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.05.012 1364-0321/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved þ 91 9799212070 India has massive energy needs and difficulty to meet those needs through conventional power generation technologies is increasing day 584 T.K Patra, P.N Sheth / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 583–593 by day The Central Electricity Authority (CEA), Government of India, anticipated a base load energy deficit of 5.1% for the fiscal year 2014– 15 in their Load Generation Balance report [1] Based on the progress report on village electrification by CEA, 25894 villages are not electrified [2] Apart from developing domestic energy sources to satisfy the growing demand, increasing amounts of fossil fuels are imported that is exacerbating the trade deficit and can be harmful to the environment as well Coal imports hit a record high during the last fiscal year and will likely rise further over the next five years since India aims to expand its power-generation capacity by 44% (Ministry of coal) According to data reported by Ministry of Coal, Government of India, the total import of coal and products, i.e coke, for the year 2013– 14 is 154.55 million tones [3] There is a rise of 6.4% in the coal import from the previous year It is observed that there is a hike in power tariff rates continually in both categories: domestic and non-domestic Decentralized electricity generation is also rapidly growing by taking advantage of abundantly available renewable energy sources like solar, wind, hydropower, biomass, biogas, geothermal and hydrogen energy, and fuel cells Power generation from renewable sources is on the rise in India, with the share of renewable energy in the country's total energy mix rising from 7.8% in 2008 to 12.3% in 2013 Wind accounts for 68% of the capacity, with 19.1 GW of installed capacity, making India the world's fifth largest wind energy producer As shown in Table 1, small hydropower (3.6 GW), bio-energy (3.6 GW) and solar energy (1.7 GW) constitute the remaining capacity For the regions deprived of grid electricity supply, remote villages in states such as Assam, Odisha, Meghalaya, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, and Arunachal Pradesh, there is an urgent need to utilize and promote renewable energy sources in order to make them independent of grid supply Until these remote villages are connected to the national grid, projects based on solar energy, biomass gasifiers and small hydropower plants are suitable options The Government of India provides substantial financial assistance for decentralized electricity generation from renewable sources such as biomass gasification, solar, wind and small hydropower projects However, biomass gasification is the most preferable alternative in India for various reasons: (1) availability and uniform distribution of biomass in the country, (2) it is available throughout the year at cheap rates, (3) capital investments for gasifier, duel fuel or 100% producer gas generator, gas cleaning system and other accessories are quite low, and (4) technology is simple and unskilled/semiskilled labor can handle operation and maintenance of the plant [4] Today, biomass gasification is able to provide a solution to mitigate environmental pollution as well as heath issues arising due to the inefficient cooking method adopted by the rural people in India It also fulfils the power requirements of the remote areas by providing them an affordable and sustainable source of energy from biomass It is a carbon-neutral process that reduces global warming and climate change effects as well Gasification is a process that converts solid or liquid hydrocarbon into synthesis gases It proved to be a successful option for the waste management, chemical production, and energy production from non-conventional feeds like forest waste, agricultural waste, poultry waste, municipal refuge and sewage Gasification Table Total renewable energy installed capacity (May 2014) [4] Source Total installed capacity (MW) Wind power Solar power (SPV) Small hydropower Biomass power Bagasse Cogeneration Waste to Power Total 21,262.23 2647.00 3803.65 1365.20 2512.88 106.58 31,833.01 adds value to low- or negative-value feedstocks by converting them into marketable fuels and products This conversion process is considerably more complex than combustion, and is influenced by a number of factors, including amount of oxidant, feedstock composition, gasifier temperature, reactor geometry and mode of gas–solid contact Thus, the size of a gasifier could not be based on criteria like volumetric energy release rates as it is done at times for combustors [5] Various types of gasification systems have been developed and some of them are commercialized Fixed-bed gasification is the most common technology for the energy use of biomass and solid municipal wastes The gasifier reactor needs to be designed either based on experimental data on similar fuel fed into a gasifier of similar size or by using mathematical models of the gasification process in the reactor The first approach, though most reliable, is not always practical, leaving modeling as the next best option Besides sizing of the reactor, modeling is also very effective in optimizing the operation of an existing gasifier, and in exploring operational limits A good model could help in identifying the sensitivity of the gasifier performance, to the variation in different operating and design parameters [6] Models can be helpful for the design of gasifiers, prediction of operational behavior, emissions during normal conditions, startup, shutdown, change of fuel, change of loading, and to alleviate the type of problems mentioned above The modeling may be undertaken with different aims: the field of interest ranges from preliminary design of an industrial process to complex simulation of a unit Experiments, especially at a large scale, are often expensive and complicated; modeling can save time and money, and it can support preparation and optimization of experiments to be undertaken in a real system Mathematical models and simulations are being practiced exceedingly in the field of research and development work Simulations provide a less-expensive means of evaluating the benefits and associated risk with applied field Gasification is a complex mechanism, which incorporates thermochemical conversion of carbon-based feedstock Therefore, simulation of gasification provides a better comprehension of physical and chemical mechanisms inside the gasifier than general conjecture and assists in optimizing the yield Considerable research has been done in modeling the different types of gasifiers Current interest in using fixed bed as an attractive means especially for gasification of biomass, underlines a need for summarization of the work done in modeling of fixed-bed gasifiers It has been observed that although many researchers have developed the models of various types and degrees of complexity, reviews of these modeling and simulation studies are scarce Puig et al [7] reviewed briefly different biomass gasification models including the fixed and fluidized bed The article covers the review of few research articles pertaining to mathematical modeling of each type of gasification However, the model development over the years in terms of modeling complexity is not discussed and it leads to inconclusive information They have also not discussed CFD models related to gasification and detailed mechanism of each modeling technique is not covered Ahmed et al [8] discussed the mathematical and computational approaches for hydrogen production from biomass They have divided the models into two broad categories, i.e mathematical models and simulation models Mathematical models include equilibrium, kinetic and ANN models whereas regarding simulation models they have only discussed CFD models However, they have not covered ASPEN Plus models In the final section, they have mentioned about process optimization and heat integration effects Recently, Baruah and Baruah [9] contributed a review article on biomass gasification modeling The authors have explained the importance of modeling for complex processes like biomass gasification The paper largely discusses equilibrium models for both fluidized bed and downdraft gasifiers T.K Patra, P.N Sheth / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 583–593 However, other models, i.e kinetic, CFD and ANN, are discussed briefly Like Ahmed et.al [8], the authors did not discuss ASPEN Plus models Largely, it is observed that these review articles fail to address the basic understanding of each model type and their applicability for designing different gasifiers for a certain feedstock and variation of operating parameters In this article, we have tried sincerely to cover all these aspects in our article to provide a better understanding on the modeling of downdraft biomass gasification process This article reviews the current state of the art of modeling of biomass gasification in fixed beds A brief review of individual processes involved in gasification is presented to set the stage for the description of models of the process Gasification process and gasifier types 2.1 Gasification process Biomass gasification process usually involves the reactions pertaining to various phenomena such as drying, pyrolysis, oxidation, and reduction In the drying stage, moisture content of the biomass is reduced It occurs at 100–200 1C and decreases the moisture content of the biomass as low as 5% In general, the moisture content of raw biomass ranges from 5% to 35% In the pyrolysis stage, the thermal decomposition of biomass occurs in the absence of oxygen or air and volatile matter is released as a consequence of the thermal breakdown of biomass As a result, the mixture of gases containing carbon monoxide, hydrogen, carbon dioxide and hydrocarbon gases from the biomass is released and biomass is reduced to solid charcoal The hydrocarbon gases condense at a low temperature to generate liquid tars The gases released from drying and pyrolysis zones may or may not pass through the oxidation zone depending upon the type of gasifier Combustion is a reaction between solid carbonized biomass and oxygen in the air, resulting in the formation of CO2 Hydrogen present in the biomass is also oxidized to generate water An excessive amount of heat is released with the oxidation of carbon and hydrogen The heat released is utilized for drying, pyrolysis and gasification reactions In the gasification, several reduction reactions occur and the temperature ranges between 800 and 1000 1C These reactions are mostly endothermic in nature The main reactions in this zone are as follows: Water–gas reaction: C þH2O-COþH2 ΔH¼ 131.4 kJ/mol (1) Boudouard reaction: C þCO2-2CO ΔH ¼172.6 kJ/mol (2) Shift reaction: CO2 þH2-COþ H2O ΔH¼ 42 kJ/mol (3) Methane reaction: C þ2H2-CH4 ΔH¼ 75 kJ/mol (4) 2.2 Types of gasifiers Gasifiers can be divided into two principal types: fixed beds and fluidized beds A third type, the entrained suspension gasifier, has been developed for finely divided coal gasification (o0.1– 0.4 mm) [10] This design is not recommended for fibrous materials such as wood [11] 585 2.2.1 Fixed-bed gasification Fixed-bed gasifiers are the oldest and most common reactors employed to synthesize syngas Large-scale (higher than 10 MW) fixed-bed gasifiers are losing the interests of industrial units due to scale-up issues [12] However, small-scale (lower than 10 MW) fixed-bed gasifiers with high thermal efficiency are in use for decentralized power generation and for thermal applications in many industries [13] Due to easy construction and simple operation, fixed-bed gasifiers are widely used and studied Depending upon the direction and entry of airflow, the gasifiers are classified as updraft, downdraft, or cross-draft [14] The positioning of reaction distribution regions, i.e drying, pyrolysis, combustion and reduction, in a fixed-bed reactor differ depending on the type of gasifier 2.2.1.1 Updraft gasifier In an updraft gasifier, the biomass is fed from top of the gasifier, while air is supplied at the bottom of the gasifier At the top of the gasifier, the fed biomass gets dried and it passes through the pyrolysis zone, where the feed is decomposed to volatiles, tar and char Volatile-free biomass moves downward towards the combustion zone and released volatile combine with the gas stream leaving the reduction zone located above the bottom-most zone, i.e combustion zone In the combustion zone, the biomass gets oxidized and flue gases are generated It passes through the reduction zone containing charcoal, produced by pyrolysis of the biomass, and gets converted into producer gas The producer gas leaving the reduction zone passes through the pyrolysis and subsequently the drying zone It provides its sensible heat to the biomass resting in the respective zone and partially meets the energy requirement of pyrolysis and drying The heat generated in the combustion zone is utilized by reduction, pyrolysis and drying zones The producer gas leaving from top of the gasifier is accompanied by a high amount of tar and moisture 2.2.1.2 Downdraft gasifier In a downdraft gasifier, both biomass and air move in the downward direction in the lower section of the gasifier unit The downdraft gasifier has four distinct zones: (1) drying zone, (2) pyrolysis zone, (3) oxidation zone, and (4) reduction zone The product gases leave at a point just below the grate of the gasifier, which enables partial cracking of the formed tars and hence a gas with low tar content is produced The product gas contains a low concentration of particulates and tars (approximately g/Nm3) as most of the tars are combusted in the gasifier The downdraft gasifier is ideal when clean gas is desired [15] The disadvantages of this type of gasifier include a relatively low overall thermal efficiency and difficulties in handling biomass with high moisture and ash content 2.2.1.3 Cross-flow gasifier In a cross-flow gasifier, the biomass fed at the top of the unit moves downward, while the air enters from the side of the gasifier Product gas leaves from the upper side of the unit at about the same level that the biomass is fed A hot combustion/gasification zone forms around the air entrance and pyrolysis and drying zones get formed in the vessel Ash is removed from the bottom of the unit and the temperature of the gas leaving the unit is about 800–900 1C As a result, low overall energy efficiency with a gas having high tar content is expected in cross-flow gasifier units In general, fixed-bed gasifiers have the advantage of involving simple designs but have the shortcoming of producing a low gas calorific value with high tar content The product gas composition is typically 40–50% N2, 15–20% H2, 10–15% CO, 10–15% CO2 and 3– 5% CH4, with a net CV of 4–6 MJ/Nm3 [16] To obtain a high gas calorific value, the moisture content of the feed should remain below 15–20 wt% Fixed-bed gasifiers generally produce outlet gases with a lower particulate loading (e.g ash, tar, char) than fluidized-bed gasifiers 586 T.K Patra, P.N Sheth / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 583–593 2.2.2 Fluidized-bed gasification Among the technologies that can be used for biomass combustion, fluidized beds are emerging as the best due to their flexibility in terms of type of fuel and high efficiency Fluidized bed (FB) gasification is used extensively for coal gasification for many years Its advantage over fixed-bed gasifiers is the uniform temperature distribution in the reduction zone This temperature uniformity is accomplished using a bed of fine granular material (e.g sand) into which air is circulated, fluidizing the bed Fluidized beds are used for a broad variety of fuels Loss of adequate fluidization or defluidization due to bed agglomeration is a major problem in fluidized-bed gasifiers However, there are successful solutions that have been reported for other biomass feedstocks [17] These solutions are mainly based on lowering and controlling the bed temperature Two main types of fluidized-bed gasifiers are in current use: (a) circulating fluidized bed and (b) bubbling bed A third type of FB gasifier, an internally circulating bed, which is based on the design features of the other two types, is being investigated at the pilot plant scale 2.2.2.1 Circulating fluidized beds Circulating fluidized-bed gasifier is based on the mechanism of continuous circulation of the bed material between the reaction vessel and a cyclone separator, where the ash is separated and the bed material and char return back to the reaction vessel These types of gasifiers are able to cope with high-capacity biomass throughputs Circulating fluidized-bed gasifiers can be operated at high pressures Output gases produced are delivered at gas turbine operating pressure without requiring further compression 2.2.2.2 Bubbling bed In a bubbling-bed FB gasifier, the air is fed from the bottom of the reactor through the grate The fine bed material is placed above the grate into which the biomass feed is introduced The bed temperature is maintained between 700 and 900 1C by controlling the air/biomass ratio The biomass is pyrolyzed in the hot bed forming char, gaseous compounds and tar The high molecular weight tar reacts with the hot bed material, to give a product gas with lower tar content ( o1–3 g/ Nm3) 2.2.3 Advantages/disadvantages of different gasifying reactors A reported comparison between fixed-bed and fluidized-bed reactors based on technology, size restriction of material, energy requirement, environment and economy shows that there is no significant advantage between these two systems [18] Selection of a particular gasifier type and its design will require however a close scrutiny of a number of other factors such as the properties of the feedstock (both chemical and physical), the quality of product gas required, the heating method and the various operational variables involved [19] The features of a fluidized-bed gasifier that make it appear less attractive are a more complex design and operation and energy expenses in biomass particle size reduction Particle size reduction as well entails the formation of dust unsuitable for fluidization The product gas contains as well a higher tar content requiring extensive external gas cleaning High plant costs make fluidized-bed gasification economical at the 5– 10 MW scale In comparison to fluidized-bed gasifiers, the fixedbed gasifier appears the most adaptable for the production of low calorific value gas in small-scale power generation stations with gas turbines The fixed-bed gasifier plant is simpler in this application and has no or very few moving parts [20] Biomass gasification models 3.1 Equilibrium models The thermodynamic equilibrium model is a tool to calculate the maximum yield that can be attained for a desired product in a reacting system Practically it is impossible to attain chemical or thermodynamic equilibrium within the gasifier However, this model provides the designer with a reasonable prediction of maximum achievable yield of a desired product The model calculations are independent of gasifier design and hence helpful for studying the influence of fuel and process parameters only Chemical equilibrium is determined by either of the following:  The equilibrium constant  Minimization of the Gibbs free energy For a given reaction condition thermodynamic equilibrium state gives the maximum conversion of the reactants Normally equilibrium is achieved at higher temperatures (41500 K), where the effect of variation in operating parameters can be observed There are two following methods for equilibrium modeling:  Stoichiometric method  Non-stoichiometric method A detailed specification of all the chemical reactions and species involved in the model are required for the stoichiometric approach whereas the non-stoichiometric method is based on Gibbs free energy minimization [21] Chern et al [22] developed an equilibrium model to evaluate the degree of approximation in predicting the performance of an air-blown wood downdraft gasifier over wide ranges of operating parameters The experimental parameters such as char yield, exit temperature and gas composition were simulated and the results were compared with comprehensive experimental data The basic assumptions and simplifications used in the model are: (a) the dry and ash-free feed material, which is represented by CHaObNc, (b) air is composed of oxygen and nitrogen only; their molar ratio is 21/79, (c) the char comprises pure solid carbon, (d) the product gas consists of N2, H2, CO, CH4, H2O and CO2, as only these gas species are thermodynamically significant under the gasification conditions, and (e) exiting char and wet product gas are at thermodynamic equilibrium The air-blown gasification process was represented by the overall stoichiometric reaction (Eq 5): CHaObNc þnwH2O þna (0.21O2 þ 0.79N2)-ncC þnG (y1H2 þy2COþy3CO2 þy4H2O þy5CH4 þy6N2) (5) In addition to stoichiometric equation, four elemental balances (C, H, O and N) and energy balance were used as described by Eqs (6)–(10) ¼ nC þ nG ðyCO þ yCH4 þ yCO2 Þ ð6Þ a þ 2nW ¼ nG ð2yH2 þ yCH4 þ yH2 O Þ ð7Þ bþ nW þ 2ð0:21ÞnA ¼ ðyCO þ yH2 O þ 2yCO2 Þ ð8Þ c þ 2ð0:79ÞnA ¼ 2nG yN2 ð9Þ hF þ nW hW þnA hA ¼ nC hC þ nG hG þ q ð10Þ Chern et al [22]considered homogeneous and heterogeneous equilibrium reactions [Eqs (11)–(15)] to find the equilibrium gas compositions Cþ 2H2-CH4 (11) T.K Patra, P.N Sheth / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 583–593 C þCO2-2CO (12) C þH2O-COþH2 (13) H2O þCO-CO2 þH2 (14) CO2 þCH4-2H2 þ2CO (15) In their simulation, the elemental and energy balance equations are solved simultaneously with the relation of mole fractions of gaseous species with equilibrium constants for a particular reaction in order to find the product composition The model predicts the temperature, gas composition and char yield at the exit of the gasifier for a specified set of heat loss and input conditions A parametric study was also conducted through simulations for finding the influences of the air-to-feed mass ratio and the moisture-to-feed mass ratio on the performance of the gasifier The model predictions were compared with a comprehensive set of experimental data obtained from the gasification of wood in a commercial-scale downdraft gasifier; the air-to-feed ratios range from 1.1 to 2.1 and the moisture to feed ratios range from 0.05 to 0.3 The predicted trends for variations in the operating parameters were in general in good agreement with the experimental data Zainal et al [23] proposed an equilibrium model for the gasification of biomass in a downdraft biomass gasifier for the prediction of product gas composition and its calorific value The model proposed is a modified version of the model developed by Chern et al [22] The model assumes that all reactions are in thermodynamic equilibrium All the pyrolysis products burn completely in the reduction zone of the gasifier The chemical formula for the wood does not contain nitrogen and sulfur It was assumed that global gasification reaction [Eq (5)] does not yield any solid carbon In the model, three elemental balances (C, H and O), two equilibrium constant relationships [Eqs (11) and (14)] and energy balance are used to solve six unknowns (molar fractions of H2, CO, CO2, H2O, CH4 and oxygen content for the reaction) These sets of equations were converged to a set of three equations, one linear and two nonlinear equations These above set of equations were solved using the Newton–Raphson method This model predicted the calorific value and composition of the producer gas using wood as a raw material for the downdraft gasifier It also determined the predictions for paddy husk, paper and municipal waste The predicted value closely matches with the experimental values available in the literature for wood By knowing the composition and calorific value of any biomass, this model can accurately predict the composition and calorific value of the producer gas The equilibrium model proposed by Melgar et al [24] incorporates the mass fraction of sulfur in the biomass formula along with C, H, O and N The global gasification reaction [Eq (5)] is modified by incorporating the production of SO2 and release of unconverted O2 in the product gas The five atomic balances (C, H, O, N and S), two equilibrium constant relationships [Eqs (11) and (14)], and energy balance constitute the model equations The proposed equilibrium model also takes care of the water dissociation for the hydrogen production The Newton–Raphson method has been employed to solve the set of nonlinear equations In each iteration, partial correction (δ/5) is performed to guarantee the stability of the algorithm The reported model is validated with the experimental data of Jayah et al [25] Jarungthammachote and Dutta [26] modified the equilibrium model proposed by Zainal et al [23]by incorporating the nitrogen in the biomass formula and multiplying the equilibrium constants with a coefficient Experimental data reported at Zainal et al [23], Altafini et al [27] and Jayah et al [25] were used to modify the model This combination gives a total of eleven cases to use as experimental data A coefficient of 11.28 was used to multiply with the equilibrium constant of Eq (14) in the calculation procedure in 587 order to improve the performance of the model This coefficient came from the average value of the ratio of CH4 from the eleven experimental data and CH4 calculated from the model A value 0.91 was defined to be the coefficient for modifying the equilibrium constant of Eq (11) After modifying the model, the amount of H2 significantly reduced as compared to the predicted value from the unmodified model The amount of CH4 dramatically increased and was found closer to the experimental values It is reported that the predicted results of the modified model were better compared to unmodified model The results from the modified model are satisfactorily close to the experimental value The modified model was employed to simulate the gasification of Thailand MSW and to study the effect of moisture content on the temperature and producer gas composition Vaezi et al [28] used the thermodynamic equilibrium model reported by Zainal [23] and subsequently modified by Jarungthammachote and Dutta [26] The model is used to find the suitability of a particular biomass for certain applications The authors have reported the range of variations of oxygen content and C/H ratio for 55 different biomass materials from the ultimate analysis data The influence of such variation on the syngas composition is analyzed The results are plotted in a generalized format, which can be used for a variety of biomass materials The variation of higher heating value (HHV) of the produced syngas with respect to oxygen content and C/H ratio is depicted by a contour plot It is reported that the influence of C/H ratio on HHV is much higher than that of the oxygen content For fixed oxygen content, an increase in C/H ratio to about 8.2 results in an increase in HHV and beyond that value the reduction of HHV is reported Sharma [29] reported a brief review of the historic equilibrium models developed in the past He has proposed the global gasification reaction based on the heterogeneous model including char formation He has incorporated the three heterogeneous reactions [Eqs (11)–(13)] and methane reforming reaction [Eq (16)] in his model CH4 þH2O-COþ3H2 (16) Four atomic balances (C, H, O and N), four equilibrium constant relationships [Eqs (11)–(13) and (16)], energy balance, and equation based on Dalton's law of partial pressure constitute the model proposed by Sharma [29] This model predicts the unreacted char at various thermodynamic conditions prevailed in downdraft gasifier over and above the producer gas composition The proposed model is validated with the experimental data of Jayah et al [25] Ratnadhariya and Channiwala [30] proposed a three-zone equilibrium and kinetic free model of biomass gasifier The first zone of the model was drying and pyrolysis combined together; the second and third zones were oxidation and reduction, respectively Each zone has been formulated with: (i) reaction stoichiometry; (ii) constituent balance; and (iii) energy balance along with a few empirical relationships In the drying and pyrolysis zone equilibrium model, the species considered are C, CH4, CO, CO2, C2H2, H2 and H2O The empirical relation such as 50% of the available hydrogen in the biomass releases as hydrogen and the rest releases as C2H2 and CH4 is considered The ratios of moles of CO and CO2 and the same of CH4 and C2H2 were inversely related to their molecular masses, respectively It is also assumed that 80% of the available oxygen produces H2O and the rest associated with fuel carbon to release CO and CO2 on decomposition In the oxidation zone model, it is assumed that all the hydrogen coming from pyrolysis zone gets combusted to release water The char oxidation releases CO and CO2 and their distribution was assumed to be inversely proportional to the exothermicity of their reactions Moreover, it is assumed that CO, CO2, CH4, and C2H2 are assumed 588 T.K Patra, P.N Sheth / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 583–593 to be carried forward to the reduction zone without reacting with oxygen In the reduction zone, Boudouard and water–gas shift reactions are incorporated It is observed the proposed model does not use any thermodynamic equilibrium constant relationships Moreover, many assumptions used in this model lack justification such as no heat transfer across zones, no reaction of CH4 and C2H2 in oxidation and reduction zones, etc The model can be named as stoichiometric kinetic free model rather than equilibrium kinetic free model Barman et al [31] incorporated the species tar in the global gasification reaction The tar composition used in the model was taken from the literature The model is constituted of three atomic balances (C, H, and O), three equilibrium constant relationships [Eqs (11), (14) and (16)], and the energy balance equation To fit the data better with the experimental data of Jayah et al [25], similar to the modification proposed by Jarungthammachote and Dutta [26] regarding the equilibrium constant multiplication with some coefficient, Barman et al [31] also modified the model They reported that the modified model with the coefficient of 3.5 for equilibrium constant of Eq (11) better predicts the experimental producer gas composition Barman et al [31] also validated their model with the experimental data of Ptasinski et al [32], Dogru et al [33] and Pedroso et al [34] Silva and Rouboa [35] presented a realistic gasification model based on the carbon boundary point concept developed by Ptasinski et al [32] by discussing the effect of oxygen enrichment air The equilibrium model considered both homogeneous (above the CBP where all the compositions are in the gaseous state) and heterogeneous equilibrium (below and at the CBP, with the presence of unconverted solid carbon) Both elemental mass balance and energy balance were satisfied in the model, leading to the prediction of exit gas temperature and gas composition Silva and Rouboa [35] also used the modified equilibrium constant values proposed by Jarungthammachote and Dutta [26] The proposed model determines the temperature at the carbon boundary point, i.e optimum gasification point With increase in oxygen content, the temperature at the CBP increases and it decreases with the increase in the moisture content of biomass It was also observed that the molar fractions of hydrogen and carbon monoxide decrease as oxygen content increases and the carbon dioxide shows the opposite trend The methane molar fraction increment was only minor The oxygen content increment leads to increased energetic and exergetic efficiencies The thermodynamic equilibrium model discussed above is also used by other researchers such as Balu and Chung [36], Koroneos and Lykidou [37] Azzone et al [38]and Bhavanam and Sastry [39] Considering little contribution in terms of model development/ upgradation, these models are not discussed in the present article 3.2 Combined transport and kinetic modeling The inadequacy of the equilibrium model to correlate the reactor design parameter with the final product gas composition leads to the development of kinetic models to evaluate and imitate the gasifier behavior A kinetic model involves parameters such as reaction rate, residence time, reactor hydrodynamics (superficial velocity, diffusion rate) and length of reactor Thus, the kinetic model provides a wide dimension to investigate the behavior of a gasifier via simulation and they are more accurate but computationally intensive As biomass gasification is quite an extensive process that it is difficult to formulate the exact reaction pathways and difficult to simulate Most of the models account for modeling for reduction reaction and often separate sub-models for pyrolysis, oxidation and reduction Separating the overall process into submodels of pyrolysis, oxidation and reduction zones help in simplifying the model and provide better understanding of the downdraft gasifier behavior Blasi [40] proposed a one-dimensional unsteady state model for biomass gasification in a stratified downdraft gasifier The model proposes the generalized set of equations for all zones of the biomass gasifier The proposed model includes mass and energy balances of both solid and gaseous phases separately The model incorporates the reactions of various processes such as drying, biomass pyrolysis, combustion and gasification of char, combustion of the gases and tar cracking The species considered are oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, steam, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane and hydrocarbons Moisture evaporation was considered as a diffusion-limited process and represented by an empirical expression for the vapor pressure The author neglected the bed porosity considering it had very little effect on devolatilization of biomass based on their earlier study [41] Pyrolysis was represented as a one-step global reaction, where the fractions of gases, tars and chars are produced [42] Secondary tar cracking occurs in the voids of the bed to produce secondary gases For the proposed kinetic scheme, the kinetic constants for tar cracking are taken from Liden et al [43] The composition of the secondary gas has been estimated based on literature data obtained for wood [44] For the simulation of gasification process, the composition of the gases produced from pyrolysis is required Three sets of devolatilization data have been generated by performing the experimental study at a surface temperature of 850 1C Similarly for the combustion of volatiles the method proposed by Bryden and Ragland [45] for the “fixed-bed” combustion of biomass was used Combustion and gasification reactions of char are heterogeneous and were described by the unreacted core, shrinking particle model In their study, chars were assumed to consist of pure carbon and those of heterogeneous combustion products were taken as only carbon dioxide Literature correlations are used for the effective thermal conductivity of the bed [46], the effective bed-to-wall heat transfer coefficients [47], the solid/gas heat transfer and the mass transfer coefficients [48] However, as a consequence of unsteady heat transfer the solid/gas heat transfer coefficient is multiplied by empirical factors (ξ) with values in the range 0.02–1 [49,50] The operator splitting procedures and “finite-differences” approximations were used to solve the modeling equations Blasi [40] has not validated the developed model due to non-availability of enough experimental data From the qualitative point of view, the model predictions match well the dynamic behavior of downdraft wood gasifiers and also the dependence of the air/fuel feed rate on steady-state configurations Blasi [40] discussed the effect of various parameters such as model parameters, the physico-chemical properties of feedstock and the plant size, single-particle effects, and char reactivity on the product gas compositions It was concluded that more reliable input data are required in relation to both transport coefficients and intrinsic reaction kinetics to simulate the biomass gasification process Giltrap et al [51] proposed a steady-state kinetic model for predicting the product gas composition and temperature inside a downdraft biomass gasifier using the reaction kinetics parameters obtained by Wang and Kinoshita [52] The model was developed specifically for reduction zone of the downdraft biomass gasifier only It was assumed that all the pyrolysis products get completely cracked and complete combustion occurs in the combustion zone The pyrolysis and tar cracking reactions were not included in the developed model The reaction scheme used was the same as that proposed by Wang and Kinoshita [52] The reaction rates were all considered to have an Arrhenius-type temperature dependence and to be proportional to the difference between the actual reactant/product ratio and the corresponding equilibrium ratio The values for the activation energies in the rate equations were taken as reported by Wang and Kinoshita [52] However, the frequency factor values in this model are not used exactly as reported by Wang and Kinoshita [52] In fact a multiplication factor, i.e “Char Reactivity Factor” (C), that represents the relative T.K Patra, P.N Sheth / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 583–593 reactivity of different char types is incorporated in the model A set of seven first-order ordinary differential equations was obtained by applying mass and energy balances to the system Shell mass and energy balance was applied to the system of cylindrical gasifier with uniform cross-sectional area with negligible radial variation Two more equations (empirical equation for pressure drop and velocity variation equation based on differentiation of ideal gas law equation) were added in the model The nine ordinary differential model equations were solved using the ODE45 function in MATLAB The model predicts the output gas composition for a particular set of input parameters The gas composition predicted by the model was in reasonable agreement with the experimental results apart from over-prediction of the CH4 concentration The model produced reasonable agreement with the experimental results of Chee [53] and Senelwa [54] for all components except CH4 It is reported that the model could be improved with more data on the initial gas concentrations at the top of the reduction region, the relationship between the amount of pyrolysis products produced and temperature, and the variation of the char reactivity factor along the length of the gasifier bed Jayah et al [25] proposed a kinetic model which consists of two sub-models, namely, the flaming pyrolysis and gasification zones The flaming pyrolysis zone sub-model is used to determine the maximum temperature and the product concentration of gas leaving that zone The concepts of equilibrium in chemical reactions with mass and energy balance principles are used in the model development The concentrations and temperatures calculated by the flaming pyrolysis zone sub-model are used as inputs to the gasification zone sub-model The gasification zone submodel represents a single-particle one-dimensional model along the vertical axis of the gasifier This sub-model includes a description of the physical and chemical processes, flow equations, transport phenomena and conservation principles Jayah et al [25] also carried out an experimental study to validate the proposed model The model was calibrated using the experimentally determined gas compositions The gas compositions predicted by the gasification zone sub-model are within 75.8% of the measured values The gasification zone sub-model predicts the gasification temperature as well with reasonable accuracy They have also performed the computer simulations to investigate the effects of various operating parameters on conversion efficiency It was concluded that moisture content and heat loss have greater effects on reactor temperature and hence on the conversion efficiency It was found that the design with smaller throat angle increases the conversion efficiency provided the gasification zone length is extended From the above study it can be concluded that the length of the gasification zone is an important design parameter for downdraft gasifiers The optimum gasification zone length has to be selected for maximum output for a given range of operating parameters Another parameter studied is the temperature of the inlet air It was reported that the high inlet air temperatures are improving the gasifier performance but not to the extent that it can compensate the heating cost involved Tinaut et al [55] developed a one-dimensional steady-state model for the gasification process in a fixed-bed downdraft biomass gasifier The model takes into account almost all the phenomena that occur during the gasification process such as moisture evaporation and biomass devolatilization; heterogeneous reactions of the char with water vapor, carbon dioxide, hydrogen and oxygen; combustion of the volatile matter; homogeneous reactions such as water–gas shift reaction and reforming reactions of methane and tars The model is developed by incorporating mass and heat transfer along the bed, heat transfer between solid–gas, solid-walls and gas-walls, heat transfer by radiation in the solid phase, variation of the bed void fraction throughout the length of the gasifier, variation of the transversal 589 section of the gasifier (geometry), variation of the biomass particles diameter, and pressure losses in the bed The gaseous phase includes the species H2O, H2, CO2, CO, CH4, C6H6.2O0.2, O2 and N2 and the solid phase includes biomass (CnHmOp), vegetal char and ash The different mass and energy interchanges between the gaseous phase, the solid phase and the reactor wall are considered in the model development Tinaut et al [55] applied the shell balance approach to develop the differential equations of conservation of species, energy, and pressure losses in the bed along the reactor length The equations of energy conservation in each phase consider the heat transfer by convection between the phases and the gasifier wall, by conduction in the axial direction and by radiation The pressure losses along the bed are described by the equations proposed by Ergun The source terms of the conservation equations such as convection between the gaseous and solid phases, and between each of these phases and the gasifier wall are calculated using the equations reported by Di Blasi [40,56] To account for the energy losses, the equations proposed by Hobbs et al [47,57] have been adapted The correlations for the Nusselt and Sherwood numbers for mass and energy transfer in a packed bed reported by Wakao and Kaguei [58] are integrated in the model The model equations are solved iteratively considering temperature profile as an iteration variable The model has been validated with biomasses of different size and varying air superficial velocity They have found a reasonable agreement between the experimental and calculated results Sharma [59] developed a 1-dimensional steady state kinetic model to predict the performance of a downdraft biomass gasifier The packed bed of the biomass gasifier was assumed to be porous in nature Hence, the fluid flow rate increases in the direction of flow due to the shrinkage of solid particles constituting the bed The thermo-chemical processes were described by five separate zones, i.e preheating zone, drying, pyrolysis, combustion and reduction In the developed model, biomass drying has been described via thermal equilibrium, where mass transfer determines the rate of moisture removal from wet biomass particles The flow of air and biomass consumption in the gasifier was related by the phenomena of fluid flow, heat transfer, and thermo chemical processes In the drying and preheating zones, shrinkage in particle size has not been considered But in pyrolysis, oxidation and reduction zones, as different chemical reactions occur which leads to reduction in particle size, hence particle shrinkage is incorporated in the modeling equations Moving porous bed of suction gasifier was modeled as one-dimensional (1-D) with finite control volumes (CVs) These modules were solved using the tridiagonal matrix algorithm (TDMA) A steady state kinetic model for reduction reactions as described by Sharma [60,61] is used The kinetic model predicts the un-reacted char and final gas composition Kinetic modeling approach for the reduction zone constitutes an efficient algorithm allowing rapid convergence with adequate fidelity A constant value of 1000 for the char reactivity factor (CRF) as recommended by Giltrap et al [51] is included in order to account for the active sites present on char surface A 20 kWe open top downdraft biomass gasifier developed in Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, was chosen The experimental data of Sharma [61], generated on the same configuration, have been used for validation or testing of various modules and overall gasifier model The fluid flow module, mass transfer model for biomass drying and the equilibrium based oxidation model all were validated and found to be robust and adequate for the prediction of product composition Finally, the gasifier model was validated against the experimental data with good agreement Gordillo and Belghit [62] developed a numerical model of a solar downdraft gasifier of biomass char (biochar) with steam based on the systems kinetics The model simulates the gasifying process of biochar The pyrolysis and cracking reactions were not 590 T.K Patra, P.N Sheth / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 583–593 considered The model uses the reactions kinetics proposed by Wang and Kinoshita [52] Simone et al [63] proposed a mathematical model, based on the literature kinetic, mass transfer and heat transfer sub-models The gasifier is represented with a 1D domain The model is for the reduction zone of the gasifier The model treats the gas and the solid phase separately, which is similar to that followed by authors Shin and Choi [64], Blasi [40] and Tinaut et al [55] The two phases are correlated by mass and energy fluxes The two phases exchange heat via radiation and conduction The gasifier is divided into several small cells of thickness dz Each cell incorporates all the chemical and physical phenomena along with source terms Biomass drying is represented with an Arrhenius-type relationship In this work biomass devolatilization is represented with a global devolatilization reaction generating gas, tar and char according to the assigned coefficient for the macro-products distribution [40] Tar and its decomposition into CO, CO2, and CH4 are represented as in Blasi [40] Char is assumed to be composed of pure carbon Model equations were solved using the software gPROMS (Process System Enterprise) The domain is meshed with a variable-length grid with a total number of intervals of 460 The system of differential equation is solved with a first-order backward finite difference method To simplify the simulation execution, heat and mass transfer coefficients are imposed constant on different sections of the gasifier To validate the model, the syngas composition and the temperature profiles calculated by the model were compared to the experimental values The discrepancy between the model and experimental results was minimized by adjusting the parameter a and thus the char reactivity The model satisfactorily represents the gasifier behavior and can be used for evaluating the effect of the operating parameters In particular, the modeling approach is able to catch whether stable operating conditions can be reached or not Blasi [65] proposed a mathematical model for gasification of wood pellets in an open-core downdraft gasifier, with dual air entry The authors have carried out a parametric analysis on the influences of the quantity and position of secondary air on the temperature profile and the conversion of both tar and char for a pilot-scale reactor developed by Barrio and coworkers [66–68] The data reported by these authors are also validated with the experimental data The conservation equations for the solid and the gas phase are written for a one-dimensional, unsteady packed bed The assumptions of the model were no spatial variation of temperature within the particle, uniform size and (spherical) shape of the particles and constant bed porosity The main processes modeled include: (1) moisture evaporation, (2) finiterate kinetics of wood pyrolysis, (3) primary tar cracking, (4) gasification of steam, carbon dioxide and hydrogen, (5) combustion of char, (6) combustion of volatile species and refractory tar, (7) steam reforming of methane and refractory tar, (8) finite-rate water–gas shift, (9) heat and mass transfer across the bed due to convection and diffusion, (10) absence of thermal equilibrium (different solid and gas temperatures), (11) solid and gas-phase heat transfer with the reactor walls, (12) radiative heat transfer through the porous bed, and (13) variable solid and gas flow rates A one-step global reaction is considered for wood devolatilization, where the fractions of gas, primary tar and char produced are included The solution of the model equations is carried out using operator splitting procedure and finite-differences approximations The entire solution process was split into three segments, the first one corresponds to chemical reaction processes, the subsequent steps were heat exchange (between phases and with the reactor wall) and transport phenomena For each time step, in the first two stages, the ordinary differential equations were solved by the firstorder implicit Euler method In the third step the transport equations are solved using a semi-implicit procedure The model is experimentally validated using the measurements reported by Barrio et al [66–68] The predicted temperatures are in good quantitative agreement with the measured ones, although the latter miss the maximum values There is also agreement between the predictions and the measurements for the changes in the shape of the temperature profile from the case of no secondary air injection to the case of the forced, center-stabilized front configuration It is observed that the actual temperature values predicted along the char bed are highly dependent on the wall heat losses However, it has been found that only a very small portion of the bed (approximately 0.01 m thick) is affected by the bottom heat losses The comparison between predicted and measured composition of the producer gas shows a good agreement except for the higher predictions in the yields of methane 3.3 CFD models Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) play an important role in the modeling of both fluidized-bed gasifier and fixed-bed downdraft gasifier A CFD model implicates a solution of conservation of mass, momentum of species, energy flow, hydro-dynamics and turbulence over a defined region Solutions of such a sophisticated approach can be achieved with commercial software such as ANSYS, Fluent, Phoenics and CFD2000 CFD appears to be a costeffective option to explore the various configurations and operating conditions at any scale to identify the optimal configuration depending on the project specification Fig exposes the several sub-models that can be incorporated within the CFD model CFD modeling involves advanced numerical methods for accounting solid phase description, gas phase coupling and also focuses on the mixing of the solid and gas phase The turbulent mixing may be modeled by the application of several equations such as Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS), Large-eddy simulation (LES) and Reynolds-averaged Navier– Stokes (RANS) equations Furthermore, complex parameters such as drag force, porosity of the biomass and turbulence attenuation are mostly taken into consideration The flow phase is modeled using either the Two-fluid model or the Discrete particle model Moreover, the heterogeneous chemistry of biomass gasification including devolatilization, char combustion and gas phase chemistry also required to be modeled simultaneously considering the heat, mass and momentum change at each phase Comprehensive CFD simulations for biomass gasification are scarce, mainly due to lack of broad computational resources and the anisotropic nature of biomass However, some simplified CFD models had been established to simulate the gasification behavior by Fletcher et al [69], Yu et al [70] and Janajreh et al [71] The CFD models reveal promising results that indeed are beneficial for further investigation on hydrodynamic inside the gasifier However, modeling of tar is quite challenging even in CFD modeling There are very less number of articles on the modeling of GAS PHASE CHEMISTRY Turbulent mixing Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS) Heterogeneous chemistry Heat mass and Biomass devolatilization Char combustion Large-eddy simulation (LES) Reynolds-averaged NavierStokes (RANS) momentum exchanges Gas phase chemistry Primary tar decomposition Secondary tar formation Fig Modeling scheme of biomass gasification by the CFD approach T.K Patra, P.N Sheth / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 583–593 downdraft biomass gasification by the CFD approach A few of them are discussed below Rogel and Aguillon [72] formulated a hybrid “1-Dþ 2-D” numerical model to simulate the gasification of pine wood pellets in a stratified downdraft gasifier The model incorporates reactions for drying, primary pyrolysis of biomass, secondary tar cracking, combustion, gasification and particle shrinkage The particle model for the stratified gasifier is based on intraparticle mass and energy balances and is written in spherical coordinates for a one-dimensional unsteady system However, the gas phase model incorporates mass, energy and momentum balances for two-dimensional unsteady system in cylindrical polar coordinates PHOENICS, a commercially available CFD code, was used to solve the model numerically As the bed permeability was very high, it was assumed that the pressure inside the reactor remains constant The pressure drop model was based on modified Ergun equation All transport equations were solved numerically and finite rate kinetics was used for all reactions For the transport coefficients and chemical kinetics, correlations available in the literature were used A finite volume has been adopted to simulate the gasification process The model predictions were reported to be in good agreement with the experimental data in terms of syngas composition, gas temperature profile, biomass temperature profile and biomass particle shrinkage 3.4 ANNs model Artificial neural networks (ANNs) modeling may be considered as a computational paradigm in which a dense distribution of simple processing element is supplied to provide a representation of complex process including nonlinear and discrete systems ANN is a standard modeling tool consisting of multilayer perceptron (MLP) paradigm [33] MLP further consists of an input layer, a hidden layer and an output layer of neurons The neurons in the input layer, consisting of inputs and weights, simply forward the signals to the hidden neurons However, each neuron in the hidden and output layers has a threshold parameter known as bias ANN models are mostly characterized as nonmechanistic, non-equilibrium and non-analytical model However, it can produce numerical results that can be used to predict the composition of product gas from the gasifier The neural network simulation of downdraft gasifier requires an extensive set of database, which consists of a large amount of experimental downdraft biomass gasification data Thus, collected data is used as input in artificial neural network modeling The next step involves the training of the network and its validation that can be successfully achieved with the help of Statistical Neural Networks – SNN (Statsofts) software Because of its non-mechanistic, non-equilibrium and nonanalytical behavior, ANNs have many limitations in terms of dynamic modeling, despite its accuracy in composition prediction The performance of ANNs solely depends on its training and, in addition, training requires a large set of experimental data to calibrate and evaluate the constant parameters of the neural network ANN is widely used for signal processing, function approximation and simulation and recognition of patterns However, the use of ANN for biomass gasification is rare ANN is a useful tool especially when the primary aim is to optimize the process parameters and output of a complex system It does not require any information on the mathematical description of the process, the only input required is the inlet data sets Therefore ANNs are best suited for simulation and scaling-up of a process Thus, ANNs modeling may not be the viable option for a new technology such as biomass gasification as the number of experimental data sets is limited Even any kind of open literature describing the ANNs modeling for downdraft biomass gasification was not found However, MaurÃcio Bezerra et al [73] proposed an artificial neural 591 network model for circulating fluidized-bed gasifier and described the methods, results and validation in reference [33] 3.5 ASPEN Plus models ASPEN Plus is a chemical process optimization software, which was developed at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) It uses unit operation blocks, such as reactors, heaters, pumps, etc These blocks are joined using material and energy streams to create a flow sheet for the process The simulation calculations are performed using the in-built physical properties database The program uses a sequential modular (SM) approach, i.e solves the process scheme module by module, calculating the outlet stream properties using the inlet stream properties for each block This simulation package has been used for modeling coal and biomass power generation systems in many research projects Nonconventional fuels, e.g biomass, municipal solid waste (MSW), and specific coals, can be used by ASPEN Plus by incorporating a user-defined Fortran code User models can be created in Excel or written using Fortran and can be fully integrated into the ASPEN Plus flow sheet To model a gasifier using ASPEN Plus, the overall process must be broken down into a number of sub-processes For example a model may include the following zones: drying and pyrolysis, partial oxidation, and gasification Each zone may be represented by a reactor/separator The mass and energy transfer across these zones can be incorporated in such a way that all unit operations’ combination represent the entire biomass gasifier Many researchers have developed gasification models for coal and biomass using Aspen Plus De Kam et al [74] studied the potential of co‐products of the dry grind ethanol process and Corn Stover to generate combined heat and power (CHP) using Aspen Plus Mansaray et al [75–77] developed and analyzed a model for gasification of rice husks using a fluidized-bed gasifier Ersoz et al [78] developed a model by integrating fuel cell with coal or biomass gasification and simulated for the generation of electricity Aspen Plus contains built‐in models for common (conventional) downstream equipment and processes such as cyclone separators, heaters, and gas turbines, but it lacks a gasification model Validation of the model predictions with the experimental data is essential, because the downstream processing of syngas is largely dependent on the final syngas composition Since Aspen Plus database lacks the properties of the biomass, gasification models developed by many authors (Nikoo and Mahinpey [79], Sharma [60]; Shen et al [80]; De Kam et al [74]) incorporated an Ryield reactor, which decomposed the biomass into its individual components before feeding them into the gasification reactor (RGibbs) for further reactions to take place Ramzan et al [81] developed a steady state computer model for hybrid biomass gasifier using commercial simulation software ASPEN Plus The model used gasification of three different biomass feedstocks, i.e food waste (FW), municipal solid waste (MSW) and poultry waste (PW) The gasification process has been modeled in three stages In the first stage moisture content of the fuel is reduced before feeding to the reactor In second stage biomass is decomposed into volatile components and char The yield distribution for this stage has been specified by using a FORTRAN statement in calculator block The third stage models the partial oxidation and gasification reactions by minimizing Gibbs free energy The Peng–Robinson equation of state with Boston–Mathias alpha function (PR–BM) has been used to estimate all physical properties of the conventional components in the gasification process For the estimation of the enthalpy and density for both biomass and ash, which are non-conventional components, HCOALGEN and DCOALIGT models were used Four ASPEN Plus blocks have been used to simulate the gasifier The “RStoic” block has been used 592 T.K Patra, P.N Sheth / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 583–593 to model the drying of the biomass whereas the drying operation is controlled by writing the FORTRAN statement in the calculator block The RGibbs model is used to simulate the gasification of biomass The RGibbs models chemical equilibrium by minimizing Gibbs free energy Before feeding the biomass into the RGibbs block, it was fed to the RYield reactor, which decomposes biomass into its elements (C, H, O, N, S, etc.) This is based on the ultimate analysis of the biomass compound The simulationed model was validated with the experimental data obtained by the authors from gasification of three wastes in a lab-scale hybrid gasifier They have observed that the model results were in good agreement with the experimental results for food waste and municipal solid waste However, there is considerable difference between the experimental and simulation results for poultry waste The authors predict that the deviation may be due to the specific composition of poultry waste Kuo et al [82] developed an Aspen Plus-based model to evaluate the gasification potentials of raw bamboo, torrefied bamboo at 250 1C (TB250), and torrefied bamboo at 300 1C (TB300) in a downdraft fixed-bed gasifier using thermodynamic analysis The stream classes were used to define the structure of simulation streams The MCINCPSD stream class was used since biomass and ash properties are not available in the standard Aspen Plus component database In this study, the Peng–Robinson equation of state was utilized to estimate the physical properties The enthalpies of nonconventional components such as biomass and ash were calculated by the HCOALGEN model, which includes a number of empirical correlations for heat of combustion, heat of formation, and heat capacity For the calculation of the density of biomass the DCOALIGT model was used The authors have used the Gibbs energy minimization approach in the gasification rector, i.e the RGibbs reactor, to predict the equilibrium composition of the produced gas The output compositions from water–gas shift reaction at various operating conditions like steam/CO ratios and reaction temperatures were compared with the experimental data of Chen et al [83] It was reported that the predictions from the RGibbs reactor in Aspen Plus closely matches with the results of Chen et al [83] The developed model of gasification was also validated with the experimental data of Jayah et al [25] Conclusions Modeling of biomass gasifiers is one of the important areas of research that needs more attention In order to study complex processes like gasification, without relying on the experimental method of verification, which is time consuming and expensive, modeling and simulation studies may prove to be helpful It has been found that most of the modeling studies focus on thermodynamic equilibrium modeling because it is simple and easy to develop However, equilibrium modeling provides the maximum yield achievable under equilibrium conditions which are not the real conditions inside a gasifier Hence, the results produced are less reliable and we should focus on more accurate modeling techniques like kinetic modeling A very few researchers have developed kinetic models for downdraft gasifier; some of them have developed only for reduction zone of the gasifier The complete transport and kinetic model including the particle model for all zones for the whole gasification process is yet to be developed There is a need to develop both gasification bed model as well as a model for individual particles in the bed ANN and ASPEN Plus models are used to study the effect of inlet parameters, which need a large number of experimental data input The models are optimization tools to achieve the desired product composition However they not correlate with the actual operating conditions CFD models are also one of the tools to develop 2D and 3D models with better accuracy but it requires lot of kinetic and design data from the literature Acknowledgment The authors acknowledge the financial assistance received from Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, New Delhi, for carrying out the present work under the fast-track scheme for young scientists (Grant no SB/FTP/ETA-213/2012) References [1] Mathur N Load Generation Balance Report 2014–15 Central Electricity Authority, Ministry of Power, Government of India; 2014 [2] Authority CE Progress report of village electrification; 2014 [3] Coal MO Import of coal Government of India; 2014 [4] Buragohain B, Mahanta P, Moholkar VS Biomass gasification for decentralized power generation: the Indian perspective Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:73–92 [5] Basu P, Cen K, Jestin L Boilers and burner New York: Springer & Verlag; 2000 [6] Basu P Combustion and gasification in fluidized beds Boca Raton, USA: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis; 2006 [7] Puig-Arnavat M, Bruno JC, Coronas A Review and analysis of biomass gasification models Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:2841–51 [8] Ahmed TY, Ahmad MM, Yusup S, Inayat A, Khan Z Mathematical and computational approaches for design of biomass gasification for hydrogen production: a review Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:2304–15 [9] Baruah D, Baruah DC Modeling of biomass gasification: a review Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;39:806–15 [10] Salaices E Catalytic steam gasification of biomass surrogates: a thermodynamic and kinetic approach Canada: The University of Western Ontario; 2010 [11] Huber GW, Iborra S, Corma A Synthesis of transportation fuels from biomass: chemistry, catalysts, and engineering Chem Rev 2006;106:4044–98 [12] Dhepe PL, Fukuoka A Cellulose conversion under heterogeneous catalysis ChemSusChem 2008;1:969–75 [13] Klimantos P, Koukouzas N, Katsiadakis A, Kakaras E Air-blown biomass gasification combined cycles (BGCC): system analysis and economic assessment Energy 2009;34:708–14 [14] Chaiwat W, Hasegawa I, Mae K Examination of the low-temperature region in a downdraft gasifier for the pyrolysis product analysis of biomass air gasification Ind Eng Chem Res 2009;48:8934–43 [15] Sheth PN, Babu BV Experimental studies on producer gas generation from wood waste in a downdraft biomass gasifier Bioresour Technol 2009;100:3127–33 [16] Gordillo G, Annamalai K, Carlin N Adiabatic fixed-bed gasification of coal, dairy biomass, and feedlot biomass using an air–steam mixture as an oxidizing agent Renew Energy 2009;34:2789–97 [17] Khan AA, de Jong W, Jansens PJ, Spliethoff H Biomass combustion in fluidized bed boilers: potential problems and remedies Fuel Process Technol 2009;90:21–50 [18] Warnecke R Gasification of biomass: comparison of fixed bed and fluidized bed gasifier Biomass Bioenergy 2000;18:489–97 [19] Demirbas A Trace element concentrations in ashes from various types of lichen biomass species Energy Sources 2004;26:499–506 [20] McKendry P Energy production from biomass (part 3): gasification technologies Bioresour Technol 2002;83:55–63 [21] Basu P Biomass gasification and pyrolysis: practical design and theory Burlington, Massachusetts: Elsevier; 2010 [22] Chern S-M, Walawender WP, Fan LT Equilibrium modeling of a downdraft gasifier i – overall gasifier Chem Eng Commun 1991;108:243–65 [23] Zainal ZA, Ali R, Lean CH, Seetharamu KN Prediction of performance of a downdraft gasifier using equilibrium modeling for different biomass materials Energy Convers Manag 2001;42:1499–515 [24] Melgar A, Pérez JF, Laget H, Horillo A Thermochemical equilibrium modelling of a gasifying process Energy Convers Manag 2007;48:59–67 [25] Jayah TH, Aye L, Fuller RJ, Stewart DF Computer simulation of a downdraft wood gasifier for tea drying Biomass Bioenergy 2003;25:459–69 [26] Jarungthammachote S, Dutta A Thermodynamic equilibrium model and second law analysis of a downdraft waste gasifier Energy 2007;32:1660–9 [27] Altafini CR, Wander PR, Barreto RM Prediction of the working parameters of a wood waste gasifier through an equilibrium model Energy Convers Manag 2003;44:2763–77 [28] Vaezi MP-F M, Moghiman M, Charmchi M Modeling biomass gasification: a new approach to utilize renewable sources of energy Boston, Massachusetts, USA: ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition; 2008 [29] Sharma AK Equilibrium and kinetic modeling of char reduction reactions in a downdraft biomass gasifier: a comparison Sol Energy 2008;82:918–28 [30] Ratnadhariya JK, Channiwala SA Three zone equilibrium and kinetic free modeling of biomass gasifier – a novel approach Renew Energy 2009;34:1050–8 T.K Patra, P.N Sheth / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 583–593 [31] Barman NS, Ghosh S, De S Gasification of biomass in a fixed bed downdraft gasifier – a realistic model including tar Bioresour Technol 2012;107:505–11 [32] Ptasinski KJ, Prins MJ, Pierik A Exergetic evaluation of biomass gasification Energy 2007;32:568–74 [33] Dogru M, Howarth CR, Akay G, Keskinler B, Malik AA Gasification of hazelnut shells in a downdraft gasifier Energy 2002;27:415–27 [34] Pedroso DT, Aiello RC, Conti L, Mascia S Biomass gasification on a new really tar free downdraft gasifier Rev Cienc Exatas UNITAU 2005;11:59–62 [35] Silva VB, Rouboa A Using a two-stage equilibrium model to simulate oxygen air enriched gasification of pine biomass residues Fuel Process Technol 2013;109:111–7 [36] Balu E, Chung JN System characteristics and performance evaluation of a trailer-scale downdraft gasifier with different feedstock Bioresour Technol 2012;108:264–73 [37] Koroneos CLS Equilibrium modeling for a dοwndraft biomass gasifier for cotton stalks biomass in comparison with experimental data J Chem Eng Mater Sci 2011;2:61–8 [38] Azzone E, Morini M, Pinelli M Development of an equilibrium model for the simulation of thermochemical gasification and application to agricultural residues Renew Energy 2012;46:248–54 [39] Bhavanam A, Sastry RC Modelling of solid waste gasification process for synthesis gas production J Sci Ind Res 2013;72:611–6 [40] Blasi CD Dynamic behaviour of stratified downdraft gasifiers Chem Eng Sci 2000;55:2931–44 [41] Di Blasi C Influences of physical properties on biomass devolatilization characteristics Fuel 1997;76:957–64 [42] Di Blasi C Modeling and simulation of combustion processes of charring and non-charring solid fuels Prog Energy Combust Sci 1993;19:71–104 [43] Liden AG, Berruti F, Scott DS A kinetic model for the production of liquids from the flash pyrolysis of biomass Chem Eng Commun 1988;65:207–21 [44] Boroson ML, Howard JB, Longwell JP, Peters WA Product yields and kinetics from the vapor phase cracking of wood pyrolysis tars AlChE J 1989;35:120–8 [45] Bryden KM, Ragland KW Numerical modeling of a deep, fixed bed combustor Energy Fuels 1996;10:269–75 [46] Goldman J, Xieu, D, Oko, A, Milne, R, Essenhigh, RH A comparison of predictions and experiment in the gasification of anthracite in air and oxygen-enriched/steam mixtures In: Proceedings of the 20th International symposium on combustion Pittsburgh: The Combustion Institute; 1984 p 1365 [47] Hobbs ML, Radulovic PT, Smoot LD Combustion and gasification of coals in fixed-beds Prog Energy Combust Sci 1993;19:505–86 [48] Gupta AS, Thodos G Direct analogy between mass and heat transfer to beds of spheres AlChE J 1963;9:751–4 [49] Cho YS, Joseph B Heterogeneous model for moving-bed coal gasification reactors Ind Eng Chem Process Des Dev 1981;20:314–8 [50] Radulovic PT, Ghani MU, Smoot LD An improved model for fixed bed coal combustion and gasification Fuel 1995;74:582–94 [51] Giltrap DL, McKibbin R, Barnes GRG A steady state model of gas-char reactions in a downdraft biomass gasifier Sol Energy 2003;74:85–91 [52] Wang Y, Kinoshita CM Kinetic model of biomass gasification Sol Energy 1993;51:19–25 [53] Chee CS The air gasification of wood chips in a downdraft gasifier Manhattan, KS 66506, United States: Kansas State University; 1987 [54] Senelwa K Air gasification of woody biomass from short rotation forests New York: Massey University; 1997 [55] Tinaut FV, Melgar A, Pérez JF, Horrillo A Effect of biomass particle size and air superficial velocity on the gasification process in a downdraft fixed bed gasifier An experimental and modelling study Fuel Process Technol 2008;89:1076–89 [56] Di Blasi C Modeling wood gasification in a countercurrent fixed-bed reactor AlChE J 2004;50:2306–19 [57] Hobbs ML, Radulovic PT, Smoot LD Modeling fixed-bed coal gasifiers AlChE J 1992;38:681–702 [58] Wakao N, Kaguei S Heat and mass transfer in packed beds New York: Gordon and Breach Science; 1982 [59] Sharma AK Modeling and simulation of a downdraft biomass gasifier Model development and validation Energy Convers Manag 2011;52:1386–96 593 [60] Sharma AK Equilibrium modeling of global reduction reactions for a downdraft (biomass) gasifier Energy Convers Manag 2008;49:832–42 [61] Sharma AK Experimental investigations on a 20 kWe, solid biomass gasification system Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:421–8 [62] Gordillo ED, Belghit A A downdraft high temperature steam-only solar gasifier of biomass char: a modelling study Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:2034–43 [63] Simone M, Nicolella C, Tognotti L Numerical and experimental investigation of downdraft gasification of woody residues Bioresour Technol 2013;133:92–101 [64] Shin D, Choi S The combustion of simulated waste particles in a fixed bed Combust Flame 2000;121:167–80 [65] Di Blasi C, Branca C Modeling a stratified downdraft wood gasifier with primary and secondary air entry Fuel 2013;104:847–60 [66] Barrio M Experimental investigation of small-scale gasification of woody biomass Trondheim, Norway: The Norwegian University of Science and Technology; 2002 [67] Barrio M, Hustad J, Fossum M A small‐scale stratified downdraft gasifier coupled to a gas engine for combined heat and power production Prog Thermochem Biomass Convers 2001:426–40 [68] Barrio M, Fossum, M, Hustad, JE Operational characteristics of a small-scale stratified downdraft gasifier In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on technologies and combustion for a clean environment Porto, Portugal; 2001 p 1269–76 [69] Fletcher DF, Haynes BS, Christo FC, Joseph SD A CFD based combustion model of an entrained flow biomass gasifier Appl Math Model 2000;24:165–82 [70] Yu L, Lu J, Zhang X, Zhang S Numerical simulation of the bubbling fluidized bed coal gasification by the kinetic theory of granular flow (KTGF) Fuel 2007;86:722–34 [71] Janajreh I, Al Shrah M Numerical and experimental investigation of downdraft gasification of wood chips Energy Convers Manag 2013;65:783–92 [72] Rogel A, Aguillón J The 2D Eulerian approach of entrained flow and temperature in a biomass stratified downdraft gasifier Am J Appl Sci 2006;3:2068–75 [73] MaurÃcio Bezerra JdS, Leonardo CN, Amaro Jr GB, Cristina PB Neural network based modeling and operational optimization of biomass gasification processes In: Yun Y, editor Gasification for practical applications Intech Open; 2012 p 297–312 [74] De Kam MJ, Morey RV, Tiffany DG Integrating biomass to produce heat and power at ethanol plants Appl Eng Agric 2008;25:227–44 [75] Mansaray K, Al-Taweel A, Ghaly A, Hamdullahpur F, Ugursal V Mathematical modeling of a fluidized bed rice husk gasifier: part I – model development Energy Sources 2000;22:83–98 [76] Mansaray K, Ghaly A, Al-Taweel A, Hamdullahpur F, Ugursal V Mathematical modeling of a fluidized bed rice husk gasifier: part II – model sensitivity Energy Sources 2000;22:167–85 [77] Mansaray K, Ghaly A, Al-Taweel A, Ugursal V, Hamdullahpur F Mathematical modeling of a fluidized bed rice husk gasifier: part III – model verification Energy Sources 2000;22:281–96 [78] Ersoz A, Ozdogan S, Caglayan E, Olgun H Simulation of biomass and/or coal gasification systems integrated with fuel cells J Fuel Cell Sci Technol 2006;3:422–7 [79] Nikoo MB, Mahinpey N Simulation of biomass gasification in fluidized bed reactor using Aspen Plus Biomass Bioenergy 2008;32:1245–54 [80] Shen L, Gao Y, Xiao J Simulation of hydrogen production from biomass gasification in interconnected fluidized beds Biomass Bioenergy 2008;32:120–7 [81] Ramzan N, Ashraf A, Naveed S, Malik A Simulation of hybrid biomass gasification using Aspen plus: a comparative performance analysis for food, municipal solid and poultry waste Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:3962–9 [82] Kuo P-C, Wu W, Chen W-H Gasification performances of raw and torrefied biomass in a downdraft fixed bed gasifier using thermodynamic analysis Fuel 2014;117(Part B):1231–41 [83] Chen W-H, Lin M-R, Jiang TL, Chen M-H Modeling and simulation of hydrogen generation from high-temperature and low-temperature water gas shift reactions Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008;33:6644–56