IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v400y2025ics030626192501342x.html

Spatial comprehensive comparative analysis of updraft and downdraft fixed bed gasification reactors by computational fluid dynamics approach with industrial data validation

Author

Listed:
  • Kuttin, Kannie Winston
  • Kuttin, Anidrah Winston
  • Salem, Ahmed M.
  • Wang, Yajun
  • Ding, Lu

Abstract

Energy and chemical production through small to medium scale biomass thermochemical conversion plants has propel fixed bed gasification process to the forefront of research and development. The updraft and downdraft fixed-bed gasification reactors have similar operational characteristics but are distinct in performance output regarding syngas quality, tar production, and efficiencies. Emissions, solid residues, and conversion efficiency also vary, making their comparisons essential for evaluating sustainability and environmental impact depending on the gasifying agent used. Additionally, comparing reactor designs helps understand which configuration suits which industrial conditions and the scaling needs of specific gasification processes under different operational conditions. A comprehensive biomass conversion computational fluid dynamics model with different gasifying medium - air, steam (H2O(g)), and carbon dioxide (CO2) is studied to comparatively assess their effect on gas composition, lower heating value (LHV), tar yield, carbon conversion efficiency (CCE), and cold gas efficiency (CGE) in industrial updraft and downdraft gasifiers. The validity of the developed models was established by contrasting with two sets of industrial data obtained from air gasification, with a root mean square error of 1.025 and 1.321 for updraft and downdraft, respectively. Increasing the equivalence ratio (0.18–0.34), steam-fuel ratio (0.4–1.2), and CO2 to fuel ratio (0.18–0.9) enhanced gas yield and tar cracking but reduced the gas quality in both configurations. The updraft recorded the highest LHV of 6.81, 8.23, 7.48 MJ/Nm3, and the lowest tar contents of 1.81, 1.03, and 1.61 g/Nm3 were predicted by downdraft for air, steam, and CO2, respectively. The highest CCE of 97.3 % was recorded by updraft during the steam gasification process, while downdraft recorded the highest CCE of 92.4 and 86.24 % in air and CO2 gasification processes, respectively. Finally, the updraft recorded the highest CGE of 83.5 and 72.5 % for steam and CO2 gasification, while the downdraft recorded the highest CGE of 71.1 % for air gasification. The study will distinctively aid the understanding of these reactor configurations under different operational conditions and which design suits which industrial conditions and scaling needs of specific gasification processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Kuttin, Kannie Winston & Kuttin, Anidrah Winston & Salem, Ahmed M. & Wang, Yajun & Ding, Lu, 2025. "Spatial comprehensive comparative analysis of updraft and downdraft fixed bed gasification reactors by computational fluid dynamics approach with industrial data validation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 400(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:400:y:2025:i:c:s030626192501342x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2025.126612
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192501342X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.apenergy.2025.126612?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:400:y:2025:i:c:s030626192501342x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405891/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.