CFD simulation of entrained-flow coal gasification: Coal particle density/sizefraction effects

• Published in: Powder technology Vol. 203; no. 1; pp. 98 - 108
• Main Authors: Slezak, Andrew, Kuhlman, John M., Shadle, Lawrence J., Spenik, James, Shi, Shaoping
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier B.V 25.10.2010
• Subjects: CFD; Coal; Coal gasification; Coal size/density fractions; Computational fluid dynamics; Computer simulation; Density; Devolatilization; Discrete Phase Method; DPM; Entrained-flow reactor; Gas composition; Gasification; Mathematical models; Particle–wall interactions; Simulation; CFD; DPM; Discrete Phase Method; Coal gasification; Entrained-flow reactor; Particle–wall interactions; Coal size/density fractions
• ISSN: 0032-5910; 1873-328X
• DOI: 10.1016/j.powtec.2010.03.029

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulation of commercial-scale two-stage upflow and single-stage downflow entrained-flow gasifiers was conducted to study effects of simulating both the coal particle density and size variations. A previously-developed gasification CFD model was modified to account for coal particle density and size distributions as produced from a typical rod mill. Postprocessing tools were developed for analysis of particle–wall impact properties. For the two-stage upflow gasifier, three different simulations are presented: two (Case 1 and Case 2) used the same devolatilization and char conversion models from the literature, while Case 3 used a different devolatilization model. The Case 1 and Case 3 solutions used average properties of a Pittsburgh #8 seam coal ( d = 108 μm, SG = 1.373), while Case 2 was obtained by injecting and tracking all of the series of 28 different coal particle density and size mass fractions obtained by colleagues at PSU as a part of the current work, for this same coal. Simulations using the two devolatilization models (Case 1 and Case 3) were generally in reasonable agreement. Differences were observed between the single-density solution and the density/size partitioned solution (Case 1 and Case 2). The density/size partitioned solution predicted nominally 10% less CO and over 5% more H 2 by volume in the product gas stream. Particle residence times and trajectories differed between these two solutions for the larger density/size fractions. Fixed carbon conversion was 4.3% higher for the partitioned solution. Particle–wall impact velocities did not vary greatly. Grid independence studies for the two-stage upflow gasifier geometry showed that the grid used in the comparison studies was adequate for predicting exit gas composition and wall impact velocities. Validation studies using experimental data for the Pittsburgh #8 coal from the SRI International pressurized coal flow reactor (PCFR) at 30 atmospheres indicated adequate agreement for gasification and combustion cases, but poor agreement for a pyrolysis case. Simulation of a single-stage downflow gasifier yielded an exit gas composition that was in reasonable agreement with published data. Entrained-flow gasifiers are simulated via CFD, including coal particle density/size variations. The two-stage gasifier density/size partitioned solution predicted 10% less exit CO and 5% more H 2 than a single-density solution. Particle residence times differed for the larger density/size fractions. Fixed carbon conversion was 4.3% higher. Simulation of a single-stage gasifier yielded exit gas composition in reasonable agreement with published data. [Display omitted]