Energies: A Holistic Review On Biomass Gasification Modified Equilibrium Models

energies
Review
A Holistic Review on Biomass Gasification Modified
Equilibrium Models
Sérgio Ferreira 1 , Eliseu Monteiro 2,3, * , Paulo Brito 2 and Cândida Vilarinho 1
1 CT2M—Centre for Mechanical and Materials Technologies, Mechanical Engineering Department of Minho
University, 4804-533 Guimarães, Portugal; sergio.c.m.ferreira@gmail.com (S.F.);
candida@dem.uminho.pt (C.V.)
2 VALORIZA-Research Center for Endogenous Resource Valorisation, Polytechnic Institute of Portalegre,
7300-555 Portalegre, Portugal; pbrito@ipportalegre.pt
3 CIENER-LAETA/Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal
* Correspondence: eliseu@ipportalegre.pt or elmmonteiro@portugalmail.pt; Tel.: +351-254-300-200

Received: 2 December 2018; Accepted: 26 December 2018; Published: 3 January 2019
Abstract: Biomass gasification is realized as a settled process to produce energy in a sustainable

form, between all the biomass-based energy generation routes. Consequently, there are a renewed
interest in biomass gasification promoting the research of different mathematical models to enlighten
and comprehend gasification process complexities. This review is focused on the thermodynamic
equilibrium models, which is the class of models that seems to be more developed. It is verified that
the review articles available in the literature do not address non-stoichiometric methods, as well as
an ambiguous categorization of stoichiometric and non-stoichiometric methods. Therefore, the main
purpose of this article is to review the non-stoichiometric equilibrium models and categorize them,
and review the different stoichiometric equilibrium model’s categorization available in the literature.
The modeling procedures adopted for the different modeling categories are compared. Conclusion
can be drawn that almost all equilibrium models are modified by the inclusion of empirical correction
factors that improves the model prediction capabilities but with loss of generality.
Keywords: biomass gasification; equilibrium models; stoichiometric model; non-stoichiometric model
1. Introduction
Gasification occupies a preponderant position from both economic and efficiency perspectives [1].
It is considered an important route to convert biomass and waste materials into useful gas products
that can be converted into energy by several technological options—boilers, engines, turbines and fuel
cells—or used as raw material to produce value-added fuels, hydrogen gas or chemicals [2,3].
Some technological problems remain unresolved in gasification for a robust market penetration [4].
The main challenge is related with the optimization and understanding of the reactor behavior, which is
the lowest efficiency component of a gasification plant [5]. Its design and operation encompass the
comprehensive knowledge of the gasification process and how the design, biomass, and the operating
parameters influence the overall performance [6].
Another challenge is the development of gas cleaning systems in an efficient and cost-effective
way for downstream application of biomass gasification technology for power, biofuels and chemicals
production [7,8]. Gas cleaning must be applied to prevent erosion, corrosion and environmental
problems in downstream application [7]. Tars are mostly heavy hydrocarbons resulting from a biomass
gasification process that can block engine valves or cause fouling of a turbine leading to higher
maintenance costs and lower performance. In addition, tars interfere with the synthesis of fuels
and chemicals [8,9].
Energies 2019, 12, 160; doi:10.3390/en12010160 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2019, 12, 160 2 of 31
The development and implementation of mathematical models is essential to understand and

predict the process behavior and to analyze effects of different variables on the process performance.
These numerical models have also the advantage of avoiding the high experimenting costs and
allow us to study different scenarios with different levels of complexity, avoiding time consuming and
costly procedures [10].
It is not surprising that different types of models have been developed over the years,
from complex three-dimensional models, to the simplest zero-dimensional models. Models have been
published using different classifications, designations and categories. The most general classification of
the gasification models is: thermodynamic equilibrium, kinetic, computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
and artificial neural networks (ANN) [6]. Although there are variations on the modeling approaches,
one can conclude from the literature that the above classification is well accepted by the scientific
community [11–14].
Mathematical modeling is usually founded on the laws of mass, energy and momentum
conservation. Fluid dynamics and chemical reactions are taken into consideration in more complex
models. The simplest models consider mass and energy balances throughout all the reactor to predict
the composition of the produced gas, not considering particular processes and chemical reactions.
They consist of global mass and heat balances of the entire reactor and are named equilibrium
models. For equilibrium modeling, one may use stoichiometric or non-stoichiometric methods [12–14].
The mathematical model used in the stoichiometric method includes a set of chemical reactions for
which the equilibrium constants are defined. Contrarily, in the non-stoichiometric method, there is no
need of knowing the reaction mechanism to resolve the problem. The equilibrium condition is attained
by minimization of Gibbs free energy. This method needs only as input, the elemental composition of
the feedstock. Therefore, this method is mostly appropriate for biomasses, which the chemical formula
is not evident but can be obtained from ultimate analysis [6].
Kinetic models are typically used to describe kinetic mechanisms of the thermal pyrolysis
and gasification. In these models the various chemical reactions and transfer phenomena between
phases are considered [15–17]. The kinetic models are able to predict the produced gas composition,
temperature and the overall reactor efficiency. The kinetic models are more appropriate and precise at
relatively low operating temperatures due to required long residence time for complete conversion [18].
The kinetic models are a powerful and more accurate tool in the investigation of the gasifier behavior,
but they also need more computational resources [19].
A CFD model offers the study and analysis of fluid flow, heat transfer, mass transfer, chemical
reaction and related phenomena systems solving a set of mathematical equations that describe
these processes and using numerical methods in computer-based simulations [20]. In a gasification
scenario, the CFD model usually includes various sub-models related to the biomass particle such
as vaporization, pyrolysis, secondary pyrolysis, and char oxidation [6,21]. Other advances have
been achieved like the fragmentation of fuels during gasification and combustion [22]. This refined
approach is generally accomplished using commercial software, which have been practiced by several
authors [23–27]. In order to explore the several geometries and operating conditions of a reactor
CFD is seen as an economical option to investigate the ideal configuration considering the project
specifications. In the CFD model the fluid mechanics is treated in detail, and this is the crucial
distinction when CFD is compared with the other kind of models [11].
ANN models use a pure mathematical modeling approach that correlates input and output data
to create a mathematical prediction model. An ANN model imitates the working of the human brain
to process information fast and efficiently through a system of neural networks given to the model
some human characteristics. The use of ANN models for biomass gasification are very limited [28],
being the signal processing and function approximation its main applications [14]. Input data sets are
the only inlet required in ANN. No mathematical description of the process is necessary, so they are
more appropriated for scaling-up and simulation of a process. Consequently, it can be considered that
Energies 2019, 12, 160 3 of 31
ANN are not a feasible option for biomass gasification due to the restricted number of experimental
data available [14].
From the above exposition, the selection of the most appropriate model to a given application
depends on the goals defined and the experimental data available. Sophisticated models are more
useful, because they allow obtaining more information on the process. However, this option is
dependent upon the availability of reliable input data. Otherwise, simpler models may be more
appropriate for certain applications as long as their limitations are known. In certain cases, such as
preliminary studies, constrained equilibrium models are sufficient.
This review is focused on the modified equilibrium models specially in the non-stoichiometric
method where the review literature is inexistent. A problem that arises from these modified equilibrium
models is that they are receiving several different designations that are needed to be clarified.
The following subsections depict the opportunity and a justification for this review.
1.1. Existing Reviews

There are various relevant reviews on modeling of biomass gasification, mostly recently [11–15,22,
29]. The majority of this literature is focus on all categories of models [11–14]. Other available reviews
are oriented towards fixed [15] or fluidized beds [11,15,22]. As far as thermodynamic equilibrium
modeling is concerned, the literature is very scarce, being the recent review of Villetta et al. [29] with
a focus in the stoichiometric method the sole example. Table 1 summarizes the existing reviews on
biomass gasification models and their objectives.
Table 1. Summary of existing reviews on biomass gasification models.
Authors Review Objectives

The objective of this article is to review the modeling of fluidized bed
Modeling of biomass gasification of biomass and wastes.
Gómez-Barea and
gasification in The work emphasizes the prediction of the performance of a fluidized
Leckner (2010) [11]
fluidized bed bed biomass gasification in terms of gas composition, carbon
conversion and gasification efficiency.
The objective of this article is to review gasification process modelling
Review and analysis of
Puig-Arnavat et al. in order to underline the role of gasification models.
biomass gasification
(2010) [12] This review purposes to compare and analyze various biomass
models
gasification models available in the literature.
The objective of this article is to review and compare some biomass
Baruah and Baruah Modeling of biomass gasification models available in the literature.
(2014) [13] gasification: A review A comparative study of the developed models is performed with
emphasis on their applicability and limitations.
Advances in The objective of this article is to review the fluidized bed
Loha et al. mathematical modeling gasification models.
(2014) [22] of fluidized bed Advantages and disadvantages of the modeling approaches and major
gasification results obtained are discussed.
Biomass gasification The objective of this article is to review the current state-of-the- art of
Patra and Sheth models for downdraft modeling of biomass gasification in fixed beds.
(2015) [14] gasifier: A A review of the gasification process is offered as departing point for the
state-of-the-art review description of the gasification models.
The objective of this article is to present a general overview of
Modelling approaches
gasification models, highlighting those based on the
to biomass gasification:
Villetta et al. stoichiometric method.
A review with
(2017) [29] The aim is to discuss the effect of biomass moisture content,
emphasis on the
equivalence ratio, pressure variations and oxygen enrichment on the
stoichiometric method
quality of the produced gas.
Gómez-Barea and Leckner [11] review the biomass fluidized bed gasification modeling. Bubbling
and circulating fluidized beds modeling are discussed with focus on comprehensive fluidization
models. The work emphasizes the prediction of the bubbling fluidized bed gasification models in
terms of gas composition, solid conversion and gasification efficiency. It is also reviewed the main
Energies 2019, 12, 160 4 of 31
CFD tools applied to biomass gasification in fluidized beds. The equilibrium models are categorized
as black-box or zero-dimension models. The designation black-box model comes from the fact that
the processes inside the reactor are not determined. In the black-box models the authors includes the
simple mass and heat balances; the equilibrium models; pseudo-equilibrium models, that are modified
equilibrium models supplemented by empirical correlations; zone models, that divide the gasifier
into black-box regions; empirical or fitting-data models, that use empirical correlations obtained from
fitting experimental data in a specific reactor.
From these different equilibrium model types, it is possible to verify the great variety of
equilibrium models that have been developed. The first type of models consists of overall mass
(species) and heat balances over the entire gasifier supported by assumptions to determine the material
distribution in the reactor. This type of models does not include the equilibrium relationships and hence
are out of the scope of the present review. Equilibrium models and equilibrium models enhanced by
empirical correlations obtained from experimental data, classified by the authors as pseudo-equilibrium
models, will be the main focus of the present review. However, the designation pseudo-equilibrium
models should rather fall into the modified equilibrium model’s category in order to avoid possible
misunderstandings with the thermodynamic pseudo-equilibrium process. In the so-called zone models,
the reactor is divided into black-box zones where different gasification phases are considered and
different models can be used. This type of models is still an equilibrium model; therefore, it should
also fall in the modified equilibrium model category. Finally, other researchers simply use empirical
correlations to improve the model predictions of specific gasifiers. These models are classified by
Gómez-Barea and Leckner [11] as empirical or fitting-data models. This class of models is similar to
the pseudo-equilibrium models only differ in the amount of data considered. Therefore, it should also
be included into the category of modified equilibrium models.
Puig-Arnavat et al. [12] divided the models into thermodynamic equilibrium, kinetic rate,
and ANN models. Regarding the thermodynamic equilibrium models, they identified two classic
methods - stoichiometric and non-stoichiometric. All the equilibrium models departing from these
two classical approaches are refereed as modified and corrected equilibrium models. Equilibrium
models are founded on common assumptions suitable for some types of reactors for which equilibrium
models have better predictive capabilities. Owing to these assumptions, equilibrium models have
wide divergence under specific conditions. Common drawbacks at relatively low temperatures are the
overestimation of hydrogen and carbon monoxide yields and the underestimation of carbon dioxide,
methane, tars and char. For these reasons, numerous researchers have developed modified equilibrium
models or used the quasi-equilibrium temperature approach. Besides the excellent description of the
equilibrium models, the mathematical formulation is not shown and the intensive development of
equilibrium models in the literature are not classified.
Baruah and Baruah [13] categorized the approaches for gasification modeling into thermodynamic
equilibrium, kinetic and ANN. They reviewed the biomass gasification modeling approaches
classifying the thermodynamic equilibrium models as thermodynamic models, modified
thermodynamic models or thermodynamic models incorporating empirical parameters. Equilibrium
models are additionally categorized as stoichiometric and non-stoichiometric models. Besides the
effort to categorize the recent equilibrium modeling works, the mathematical formulation is not shown.
Loha et al. [22] investigated different modeling approaches classified as follows: equilibrium
models, rate based or kinetic models and fluid dynamics. Regarding the equilibrium models they
are subcategorized into stoichiometric and non-stoichiometric equilibrium models. The equilibrium
models including different improvements towards better agreement against experimental data are
referred as modified equilibrium models. Mathematical formulations for fluidized bed gasification
was discussed, as well as their merits and demerits. A detailed review of different models used by
different researchers and the main results obtained are presented, whereas a special focus is given to
CFD models.
Energies 2019, 12, 160 5 of 31
Patra and Sheth [14] discuss different modeling approaches for downdraft gasifiers. The models
were divided into equilibrium, combined transport and kinetic, CFD, ANN and ASPEN Plus
models. Regarding the equilibrium models they are also further subcategorized as stoichiometric
and non-stoichiometric models. Although, the review is oriented to the downdraft gasifiers a general
mathematical formulation of the equilibrium model is given. This approach is independent of the
gasifier geometry; hence it can be applied to other reactors. When reviewing the equilibrium models,
they implicitly recognize the existence of another category of equilibrium models that are referred as
modified models. However, the formulation of these modified models is not explicitly shown and a
formal categorization of the equilibrium models is also missing.
Recently, Villetta et al. [29] reviewed the gasification models highlighting those based on the
stoichiometric method. They considered stoichiometric models as an evaluation of the equilibrium
constants for an independent set of reactions, which may also be associated with Gibbs free energy.
Non-stoichiometric modeling approach is presented as a developed based on the direct minimization
of the Gibbs free energy of reaction, therefore it is also referred as “Gibbs free energy minimization
approach”. Detailed mathematical formulation for the stoichiometric equilibrium model is presented
and several developed models of this category are described. However, the non-stoichiometric model
description is not on the scope of their review.
1.2. Motivation and Objective of the Review

The aim of this work is to review the biomass gasification modified equilibrium models with
emphasis on the non-stoichiometric method and on the categorization of both equilibrium modeling
approaches. Comparisons are made of the modeling procedures for each model category.
The inclusion of the equilibrium modeling approaches categorization is crucial and is motivated
by the several examples found in the scientific literature showing different and somewhat hermetic
designations of the developed model that needs clarification. For example, Kangas et al. [30] perform
a categorization of the equilibrium models as shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Thermodynamic modeling structures applied in biomass gasification. Adapted from [30].
Model Designation Features
- Global thermodynamic equilibrium.

Thermodynamic equilibrium - Overestimate CO and H2 .
- Underestimate CH4 , CO2 , light hydrocarbons and tar.
- Pre-processing for modeling tar, carbon conversion, among others.

Modified equilibrium models - The water gas shift reaction is considered in equilibrium.
- Post-processing with correlations and enthalpy calculations.
- Quasi-equilibrium temperature approach.

- It is applied lower temperature in equilibrium to improve CH4 ,
Quasi-temperature model tar and char predictions.
- Necessity of pre- and post-processing.
- Local equilibrium is considered.

Constrained free energy method - Prediction of CH4 , tar and char production.
- Chemical reactions and enthalpy effects are modeled simultaneously.
Kangas et al. [30] categorize the equilibrium models into four categories: equilibrium, modified
equilibrium, quasi-temperature and constrained free energy. From the description of the models, it is
possible to determine that the first category (thermodynamic equilibrium) is in the reality the pure
Energies 2019, 12, 160 6 of 31
equilibrium approach being the other three categories all modified equilibrium models. The modified
equilibrium models are defined as an extended thermodynamic equilibrium model by dividing
the model in two parts. One part of the gasified biomass bypasses the equilibrium reactor and is
converted into tar, char and light hydrocarbons. The other part of the biomass is modeled using
thermodynamic equilibrium.
In the quasi-temperature model approach, the reaction temperature is lowered to estimate
the formation of light hydrocarbons, tars and char. The constrained free energy method is an
upgrading to Gibbs free energy method by introducing additional immaterial constraints. As the
additional constraints are related to physical entities without material content such as extent of reaction,
electrochemical potential and surface area or volume, they have been designated as immaterial [31].
The distinct advantage of this method is settled in the calculation of constrained chemical reactions,
state properties and enthalpic effects simultaneous and interdependently.
Vakalis et al. [32] presented a multi-stage and two-phase thermodynamic gasification model.
This model was designated as multi-box model. The basic idea of the multi-box model is to improve
the black-box thermodynamic model (or single stage model) by developing multiple transitional boxes
that compute two phase (solid-gas) equilibrium. Biagini et al. [33] developed a so-called bi-equilibrium
model for biomass gasification in a downdraft reactor. According to the authors this multizonal model
is based on non-stoichiometric equilibrium modeling features. Lim and Lee [34] presented a so-called
quasi-equilibrium thermodynamic model for biomass gasification. This designation of the model
was advanced solely based on the introduction of empirical factors preventing the model to reach
the equilibrium.
From the previous paragraphs it is possible to verify that there are different approaches with
several designations and classifications for the thermodynamic models. Apparently, some entropy
can be generated with so many designations and classifications. The main purpose of this paper is to
review the modified thermodynamic equilibrium models used in biomass gasification and elucidate
about the designations, there complexity and the different assumptions.
2. Gasification Process
Gasification is a thermochemical conversion process at high temperatures involving partial
oxidation of the fuel components [6,35]. From the gasification process a fuel gas is obtained
(synthesis gas or syngas), which composition depends on various factors such as the type of biomass,
reactor design and operational conditions (temperature, pressure and gasifying agent) [36].
The produced gas is a mixture of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane, hydrogen,
water vapor, nitrogen and light hydrocarbons, such as propane and ethane, and heavy hydrocarbons,
such as tars [35,36]. Small amounts of hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrogen sulfide (H2 S) can also be
found in the produced gas [37]. Gasification takes place in four phases: drying, pyrolysis, oxidation
and reduction that can be described as follows [38,39]:
• Drying—where moisture is transformed into steam at temperatures around 100–200 ◦ C. At these
temperatures no chemical reaction takes place; the biomass is not decomposed. For a produced
gas with high calorific value, the vast majority of gasification systems use biomass with moisture
content in-between 10 to 20%;
• Pyrolysis—is the thermal decomposition (devolatilization) of the dry biomass in the absence
of oxygen at temperatures in-between 150–700 ◦ C releasing the volatiles components and a
residue containing char and ash. The volatiles produced are a mixture comprising mostly carbon
monoxide, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, light hydrocarbons, tar (liquid fraction) and water vapor;
• Oxidation—various oxidation chemical reactions take place in a gasification scenario releasing the
heat needed for the endothermic reactions. The reaction between the char and oxygen, forming
carbon dioxide. The hydrogen in the biomass is oxidized to generate water. The oxygen is present
in sub-stoichiometric amounts; partial oxidation of carbon might occur, resulting in the production
of carbon monoxide;
Energies 2019, 12, 160 7 of 31
• Reduction—various chemical reactions mainly endothermic occur without the presence of oxygen
due to its consumption in the oxidation reactions. The main products of the reduction reactions
are hydrogen, carbon monoxide and methane.
Although these steps are often described and modeled in series as depicted in Figure 1, in a real
gasification scenario
Energies 2019, there
12, x FOR PEERisREVIEW
no clear boundary between them and they often occur simultaneously.
7 of 31
Biomass
Drying
Pyrolysis
Char Liquids Gases
Heterogeneous Homogeneous
reactions reactions
Tar cracking and volatile

CO, H2, CH4, H2O, CO2, C,
reforming producing CO, H2,
and Ash
CH4, H2O and CO2
Figure
Figure 1. Possible
1. Possible routes
routes for gasification.
for gasification. Adapted
Adapted fromfrom
[6]. [6].
In aThe
biomass gasification
following scenario,
list shows therelevant
the most biomasschemical
is primary dried and
reactions that then
occuritin
experiences thermal
a gasification process:
degradation in the pyrolysis step. Pyrolysis products can react between themselves, as well as with the
Carbon Reactions
gasifying agent, to form the ultimate gasification products. The char produced is a product containing
Boudouard:
unconverted carbon, some hydrocarbons and ash [37]. While the quantity of char largely depends on
the reactor and operational conditions,Cthe+ CO ↔ 2CO
amount of + 172
ash MJ⁄kmol
depends on the biomass used. (1)
The following list shows the most relevant chemical reactions that occur in a gasification process:
Water-gas or steam
Carbon Reactions
Boudouard: C + H O ↔ CO + H + 131 MJ⁄kmol (2)
Hydrogasification C + CO 2 ↔ 2CO + 172 MJ/kmol (1)
Water-gas or steam C + 2H ↔ CH − 74.8 MJ⁄kmol (3)

C + H2 O ↔ CO + H2 + 131 MJ/kmol (2)
C + 0.5O → CH − 111 MJ⁄kmol (4)
Hydrogasification
Oxidation Reactions C + 2H2 ↔ CH4 − 74.8 MJ/kmol (3)
C + O→→
C + 0.5O CHCO −−111 MJ⁄kmol
394MJ/kmol (4)(5)
2 4
CO + 0.5O → CO − 284 MJ⁄kmol (6)
Oxidation Reactions
CH
C++O
2O
2 →↔CO
CO2 −+394 O − 803 MJ⁄kmol
2H MJ/kmol (5)(7)
H 0.5O
CO + + 0.5O →H
2 → CO O 284
2− − 242 MJ⁄kmol
MJ/kmol (6)(8)
Shift Reaction CH4 + 2O2 ↔ CO2 + 2H2 O − 803 MJ/kmol (7)
CO + H O ↔ CO + H − 41.2 MJ⁄kmol (9)
Methanation Reactions
2CO + 2H → CH + CO − 247 MJ⁄kmol (10)
Energies 2019, 12, 160 8 of 31
H2 + 0.5O2 → H2 O − 242 MJ/kmol (8)
Shift Reaction
CO + H2 O ↔ CO2 + H2 − 41.2 MJ/kmol (9)
Methanation Reactions
2CO + 2H2 → CH4 + CO2 − 247 MJ/kmol (10)
CO + 3H2 ↔ CH4 + H2 O − 206 MJ/kmol (11)
CO2 + 4H2 → CH4 + 2H2 O − 165 MJ/kmol (12)
Steam Reforming Reactions
CH4 + 0.5O2 ↔ CO + 2H2 − 36 MJ/kmol (13)
CH4 + H2 O → CO + 3H2 + 206 MJ/kmol (14)
As is possible to verify, the gasification process is globally endothermic being the required heat
obtained by two possible ways. When the heat required is produced outside the reactor, gasification
is called allothermal (or indirect). When the heat is produced inside the reactor due to exothermic
reactions, gasification is called autothermal (or direct) [40].
3. Gasification Equilibrium Models

At chemical equilibrium conditions, a reacting system is at its most stable composition, a condition
achieved maximizing the entropy and minimizing the Gibbs free energy. As we have seen previously,
there are several approaches to model the gasification processes, being equilibrium modeling one of
them. There are two general approaches for equilibrium modeling: stoichiometric equilibrium model
(based on the equilibrium constants of gasification reactions) and non-stoichiometric equilibrium
model (based on the minimization of the Gibbs free energy) [12–14,22,29].
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 [6,12,29].
Smith and Missen [41] shown that these approaches are essentially equivalent, and that is corroborated
by others authors that considered both approaches conceptually similar [42,43]. The stoichiometric
approach might also employ free energy data to determine the equilibrium constants of a predefined
set of reactions [12,44].
The main equilibrium models available in the literature considers several simplifying assumptions
that are comprehensively resumed by Villetta et al. [29]:
• Steady state;
• Reactions reach the equilibrium state (infinite residence time);
• Homogeneous mixing with uniform pressure and temperature;
• Kinetic and potential energies are neglected;
• Perfect gas behavior of the gas phase;
• Pyrolysis is considered a single step reaction producing gas, tar and char;
• Gasifying medium is enough to convert all carbon of the biomass;
• The gasifier operates at constant pressure and temperature;
• The reactor is considered adiabatic;
• The produced gas does not contain oxygen;
• Nitrogen is considered as inert;
• Solely major species compose the produced gas (CO, H2 , CO2 , CH4 , N2 and H2 O);
• Tar is not modeled or modeled in the gas phase;
Energies 2019, 12, 160 9 of 31
• Ashes are not considered in energy balances.
Due to the above assumptions, pure equilibrium models yield large divergences under certain
conditions. Characteristic drawbacks at relatively low temperatures are the overestimation of hydrogen
and carbon monoxide yields and the underestimation of carbon dioxide, methane, char and tar [45].
When developing a gasification model, the first step is the definition of a system of equations
representing the gasification process. The number of equations is defined as a function of the number
of unknowns. In the side of the reactants the unknown is only the oxidant, while in the products side
there are only unknowns [46].
In the following subsections, different approaches and conditions for stoichiometric and
non-stoichiometric equilibrium will be presented concerning the definition of the system of equations,
which generally are all developed based on a global gasification reaction.
3.1. Stoichiometric Modeling

As mentioned before, in the stoichiometric method, the algorithm that predicts the gas
composition is subjected to chemical equilibrium among the different species. To discuss this matter,
the gasification process of a mole of biomass in m moles of air can be represented by the following
global gasification reaction:
CHx Oy Nz + wH2 O + m(O2 + 3.76N2 ) → n1 H2 + n2 CO + n3 H2 O + n4 CO2 + n5 CH4 + n6 N2 (15)
where n1 to n6 are the stoichiometric coefficients. CHx Oy Nz represents the biomass feed material and
x, y, and z represent numbers of atoms of hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen per number of atoms of
carbon present in the biomass and w, is molar moisture amount in the biomass. All these quantities can
be obtained from the ultimate analysis. It is possible to find several modeling studies in the literature
where the global gasification reaction includes other terms as will be seen in the next section.
The material balance equations for C, H, O and N are presented below:
C : n2 + n4 + n5 = 1 (16)
H : 2n1 + 2n3 + 4n5 = x + 2w (17)
O : n2 + n3 + 2n4 = y + w + 2m (18)
N : 2n6 = z + 7.52m (19)
The next step in the model formulation is the equilibrium constants definition. In this step special
care must be taking in order to select independent chemical reactions [6,47]. From the computational
point of view, the independence concept is relevant. If there is a non-independent group of reactions
the model will be computing repeated information. This happens when a reactions group can be
written as a combination of at least two of the others. The most important gasification reactions to
determine independent combinations are the Boudouard reaction (Equation (1)), the endothermic
water-gas (Equation (2)), the exothermic methane formation (Equation (3)), the water-gas shift reaction
(Equation (9)) and methane reforming reaction (Equation (11)). There are ten possible combinations,
eight combinations are independent and two dependents, specifically the combinations of Equations
(1), (2) and (9) and Equations (2), (3) and (11). Two independent equilibrium reactions are sufficient
to model the gasification process, for example Equations (3) and (9) (methanation and water gas
reactions); the equilibrium constants for those gasification reactions are:
PCH4
K1 = (20)
( PH2 )2
Energies 2019, 12, 160 10 of 31
PCO2 PH2
K2 = (21)
PcO PH2 O
These two sets of equations (mass balance and equilibrium constants) can be solved
simultaneously to obtain the composition of produced gas at steady state. Resolving the equations
system (16)–(21) we find six unknowns (n1 through n6 ), allowing to obtain the composition and yield
of the produced gas for a given equivalence ratio.
The following step is the energy balance given by Equation (22) from which the gasification
temperature can be obtained considering that the process is adiabatic:
h i h i
∑ ni T
h0f ,i + ∆H298
i,reactants
= ∑ ni h0f ,i + ∆H298
T
i,products
(22)
i i
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 31

Thus, and considering the biomass reaction with air, Equations (15) and (22) can be expressed as:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ℎ, + 𝑤 ℎ+, w(h+
h f ,biomass f ,Hℎ2O
+ h+ vap𝑚
) +ℎmh +2 3,76
, f ,O 𝑚 ℎ f,,N2 =
+ 3.76mh =𝑛 n1 hℎf ,H +
, 2 + 𝑛2 ℎf ,CO
n h
,
++n𝑛3 hℎf ,H, 2 O ++
(23)
(23)
0
𝑛 ℎ , f ,CO+
0 0 ∆T
2 𝑛 ℎ f ,,CH4 + 𝑛 ℎ , 2 + ∆𝑇 𝑛 𝑐 ,2 + 𝑛 𝑐 , + 𝑛 𝑐2 , + 𝑛 𝑐 2,
n 4 h + n 5 h + n 6 h f ,N + ( n 1 c p,H + n 2 c p,CO + n 3 c p,H O + n 4 c p,CO + n 5+ 𝑛 𝑐4 ,+ n6+
c p,CH c p,N2 )
𝑛 𝑐 ,
Since h0f ,O , h0f ,N and h0f ,H are zero at ambient temperature, Equation (23) reduces to:
2 2 2
Since ℎ , , ℎ , and ℎ , are zero at ambient temperature, Equation (23) reduces to:
0 h0f ,H O=+ 𝑛hvap 0 ++n3𝑛h0fℎ,H2 O ++n𝑛4 hℎ0f ,CO2 + 0
ℎ ,
h+ 𝑤 ℎ , +w
f ,biomass +(ℎ 2 ℎ ), =+n𝑛
2hℎf ,CO
, , , + n𝑛5 hℎf ,CH +
, 4+ (24)
(24)
n6∆𝑇 0
h f ,N𝑛 + ∆T +n1𝑛c p,H
𝑐 ,2 ++n2𝑛c p,CO
𝑐 , ++ n3𝑛c p,H𝑐 2, O ++n𝑛 𝑐 , 2 ++n𝑛5 c𝑐p,CH
4 c p,CO + n6 c p,N2
2 𝑐 , , 4
ℎh0, ,, ℎh and 𝑐 represent the biomass enthalpy of formation for the different chemical species,
f ,i vap and c p,i, represent the biomass enthalpy of formation for the different chemical species,
the
the enthalpyofof
enthalpy vaporization of water, and and
the specific heat, respectively. ∆𝑇 = 𝑇 ∆T = T − 𝑇
vaporization of water, the specific heat, respectively. gasi f ication −
refers to the temperature difference between the gasification temperature and the
Tambient refers to the temperature difference between the gasification temperature and the biomassbiomass feed
temperature.
feed temperature.
The systemofofequations
The system equations is general
is general solved
solved usingusing the iterative
the iterative Newton-Raphson
Newton-Raphson method,
method, although
although other possibilities are available. The flowchart of a stoichiometric equilibrium
other possibilities are available. The flowchart of a stoichiometric equilibrium model is shown model is
shown in
in Figure 2. Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Figure General flowchart
2. General flowchart of
of aa stoichiometric
stoichiometric model.
model.
3.2. Non-Stoichiometric Modeling

The non-stoichiometric equilibrium modeling method involves the minimization of the Gibbs
free energy of the system [6,12]. This approach is termed non-stoichiometric due to the absence of
any specific chemical reaction, other than the assumed global gasification reaction. Therefore, there
is only one input required, the elemental composition, obtainable by ultimate analysis. For this
reason, non-stoichiometric models are particularly suitable for cases in which all the possible
reactions that can occur in the system are not fully known as is the case of gasification. As these
Energies 2019, 12, 160 11 of 31
3.2. Non-Stoichiometric Modeling

The non-stoichiometric equilibrium modeling method involves the minimization of the Gibbs
free energy of the system [6,12]. This approach is termed non-stoichiometric due to the absence of
any specific chemical reaction, other than the assumed global gasification reaction. Therefore, there is
only one input required, the elemental composition, obtainable by ultimate analysis. For this reason,
non-stoichiometric models are particularly suitable for cases in which all the possible reactions that
can occur in the system are not fully known as is the case of gasification. As these methods are based
on atom balance of reactants, particular cases like biomass, with unknown molecular formula can also
be handled.
The Gibbs free energy, Gtotal , of the gasification product involving N species (i = 1, . . . , N) is
given by:
N N ni
Gtotal = ∑i=1 ni ∆G f i + ∑i=1 ni RT ln
0
(25)
∑ ni
∆G0f i is the standard Gibs free energy of formation of species i, at the normal pressure.
Equation (25) must be solved for the ni unknown values to minimize Gtotal , keeping in mind that it is
subject to the overall mass balance of the individual elements. For each element j, we can write:
N
∑i=1 ai,j ni = A j , j = 1, 2, 3, . . . , k (26)
Aj is defined as the total number of atoms of the jth element reaction mixture, ai,j is the number of
atoms of the jt,h element in a mole of the it,h species.
Notwithstanding existing several possibilities to minimize the Gibbs free energy, the Lagrange
multipliers yield satisfactory results [44,48], hence consider here. Other alternatives will be discussed
in the next section.
The Lagrangian function (L) is formed through the Lagrange multipliers λj = λ1 , . . . , λk , and can
be defined as:
K N
L = Gtotal − ∑ j=1 λi (∑i=1 aij ni − Ai ) (27)
Dividing Equation (27) by RT and setting the partial derivatives equal to zero, we find the
extreme point.
∂L
=0 (28)
∂ni
Finally, replacing the value of Gtotal from Equation (25) in Equation (27) and taking its partial
derivatives the Gibbs free energy can be expressed as follows:

∂L
∆G0f ,i N

ni

1 K N
= + ∑i=1 ln + ∑ j=1 λi (∑i=1 aij ni ) = 0 (29)
∂ni RT ntotal RT
Equation (29) can be formed in terms of a matrix with i rows and can be solved simultaneously by
some iteration technique.
As in the stoichiometric equilibrium models, several approaches/modifications can be found to
non-stoichiometric equilibrium models. These approaches and modifications will be comprehensively
described in the next section. The algorithm shown in the Figure 3 requires the assignment of a process
temperature. Therefore, in the first iteration, an initial guess for the temperature is established and
used to estimate the gas composition.
by some iteration technique.
As in the stoichiometric equilibrium models, several approaches/modifications can be found to
non-stoichiometric equilibrium models. These approaches and modifications will be
comprehensively described in the next section. The algorithm shown in the Figure 3 requires the
assignment of a process temperature. Therefore, in the first iteration, an initial guess for the
Energies 2019, 12, 160 12 of 31
temperature is established and used to estimate the gas composition.
Figure
Figure3.3.General
Generalflowchart
flowchartof
ofaanon-stoichiometric
non-stoichiometricmodel.
model.
4.4.Modified
ModifiedEquilibrium
Equilibrium Models
Models
Thermodynamicequilibrium
Thermodynamic equilibriummodels
modelsare
areoften
oftenassumed
assumedto tobe
be aa guideline,
guideline, especially
especially for
for high
high
temperatures (more than 800 ◦ C), being useful for several engineering applications predicting the
temperatures (more than 800 °C), being useful for several engineering applications predicting the
maximumconversion
maximum conversionobtained
obtainedforfor a given
a given reaction
reaction condition.
condition. However,
However, equilibrium
equilibrium conditions
conditions may
maybenot be reached in practice at low temperatures (less than 800 ◦
not reached in practice at low temperatures (less than 800 °C).C).Several
Severalauthors
authorsreport
report that
that
thermodynamic results deviate from experimental data due to the presence of non-equilibrium factors
in the reactor.
It is frequently pointed out the underestimation of CH4 and CO2 and the overestimation of CO
and H2 in the gas produced [30,45]. It is also reported that during biomass gasification also tar, char,
ammonia and light hydrocarbons can be formed [49–51]. Those deviates take us into the discussion
of the different approaches of the equilibrium models that tends towards the minimization of those
limitations. The most pertinent equilibrium models are described in the next subsections respecting
the chronological order of appearance.
4.1. Stoichiometric Method

Table 3 shows the most relevant equilibrium models in a chronological order in order to
demonstrate the evolution and the trend of the modeling approaches. The list is not exhaustive
but long enough to draw conclusions on techniques that are being used.
Energies 2019, 12, 160 13 of 31
Table 3. Stoichiometric equilibrium models.
Author(s) (Year) Model’s Designation Model Features

Global gasification reaction:
CH1.44 O0.66 + wH2 O + mO2 + 3.76mN2 = n1 H2 + n2 CO + n3 CO2 + n4 H2 O + n5 CH4 + n6 N2
Zainal et al. Equilibrium model based
Equilibrium is calculated by two independent reactions (3) and (9), three partial mass balances for C, H and O and one heat
(2001) [46] on equilibrium constants
balance.
The gasification temperature is fixed. Oxygen content and the produced gas composition are the unknowns.
Mountouris et al. Equilibrium model based CHx Oy + wH2 O + mO2 + 3.76mN2 = n1 H2 + n2 CO + n3 CO2 + n4 H2 O + n5 CH4 + n6 N2 + n7 C
(2006) [52] on equilibrium constants Equilibrium is calculated using three independent reactions (2), (9) and (14), three partial mass balances (C, H and O) and by a heat
balance. This model allows soot formation, as a solid carbon by-product (C) and exergy calculations for the process optimization.
Global biomass formula: CH1.4 O0.6
Equilibrium is calculated by three independent reactions (1), (2), and (3), mass balances and heat balance.
The model special feature is the use of the carbon boundary temperature (the temperature achieved when the exact quantity of
oxygen is supplied and complete gasification is achieved). The quasi-equilibrium temperature approach was first introduced by
Prins et al.
Quasi-equilibrium model Gumz [54], through which the equilibria of the reactions defined in the model are evaluated at a temperature lower than the
(2007) [53]
process temperature.
It can be concluded that the gasification efficiency is remarkable affected when the gasification reactions (9) and (10) are kinetically
limited and do not contribute enough to the carbon conversion. The equilibrium model thus indicates the maximum efficiency
that can be achieved.
Jarungthammachote Thermodynamic CHx Oy Nz Sk + wH2 O + m(O2 + 3.76N2 ) = n1 H2 + n2 CO + n3 CO2 + n4 H2 O + n5 CH4 + (z/2 + 3.76m) N2
and Dutta equilibrium model based Equilibrium is calculated using two independent reactions (3) and (9), three partial mass balances (C, H and O) and a heat balance.
(2007) [42] on equilibrium constants The modification done to improve the model’s performance is the multiplication of equilibrium constants by coefficients.
11.28 and 0.91 are the coefficients used for the methanation and water-gas shift reactions, respectively.
CHx Oy Nz Sk + wH2 O + m(O2 + 3.76N2 ) = n1 H2 + n2 CO + n3 CO2 + n4 H2 O + n5 CH4 + n6 N2 + n7 O2 + n8 SO2
Melgar et al. Thermochemical
Two independent reactions (3) and (9), five partial mass balances (C, H, O, N, and S) and a heat balance calculate equilibrium.
(2007) [55] equilibrium model
The equilibrium constants are calculated from the Gibbs free energy.
This model introduces the sulfur in the biomass global formula and the corresponding formation of SO2 on the products side.
Energies 2019, 12, 160 14 of 31
Table 3. Cont.

CHx Oy Nz Sk + wH2 O + m(O2 + 3.76N2 ) = n1 H2 + n2 CO + n3 CO2 + n4 H2 O + n5 CH4 + n6 N2 + n7 C + n8 SO2
Equilibrium is calculated by five partial mass balances (C, H, O, N and S), five reduction reactions (1), (2), (3), (9) and (14), and two
Equilibrium model of approximations:
Sharma (2008) [56]
global reduction reactions
- Water vapor to carbon dioxide formation ratio (λ = 1) of Wang and Kinoshita [57]: n4 H2 O = λn3 CO2 + w
- Hydrogen to carbon monoxide formation ratio (γ = 1): n1 H2 = γn2 CO
The equilibrium constants are calculated from the Gibbs free energy.
Thermodynamic Global gasification reaction:
Huang and equilibrium model and CHx Oy Nz Sk + wH2 O(l ) + mO2 + 3.76mN2 = n1 H2 + n2 CO + n3 CO2 + n4 H2 O + n5 CH4 + (z/2 + g) N2 + n6 C + kH2 S
Ramaswamy modified model based on Equilibrium is calculated by three partial mass balances (C, H and O), and three independent reactions (2), (9) and (14).
(2009) [58] experimental The equilibrium model is modified by adjusting the equilibrium constants of the reactions (9) and (14) based on experimental data.
compositions The coefficient factors were determined by fixing the fraction of CO and CH4 in the syngas from average experimental data values.
nCx Hy Oz + wH2 O + heat = n1 H2 + n2 CO + n3 CO2 + n4 CH4 + n5 C + n6 Tar
Equilibrium is calculated by four partial mass balances (C, H, O and N), the independent reactions (3), and the following
Abuadala et al. approximations for char and tar:
None
(2010) [59] - The un-reacted char is 5% of the biomass carbon content as proposed by Fryda et al. [60].
- Tar is modeled as benzene (C6 H6 ) and its yield is presumed to obey the following empirical relation: Tar = 35.98
exp(−0.0029T) proposed by Corella et al. [61].
The carbon boundary point (CBP) divided the model into two parts:
- The first part of the model is focus on the heterogeneous equilibrium used to determine the equilibrium composition below
and at the CBP.
- The second part of the model is focus in the homogeneous equilibrium. Supplementary addition of oxygen above the CBP
leads to the decrease of the heating value and the increase of the sensible heat of the produced gas.
Stoichiometric chemical
Karamarkovic and
equilibrium model and Equilibrium is calculated by four partial mass balances (C, H, O and N), by three independent reactions (1), (2), and (3) for the first
Karamarkovic
modified equilibrium part of the model and the reactions (9) and (11) for the second part of the model.
(2010) [62]
models Unknowns of the first part of the model are: temperature, amount of gasifying agent, amount and composition of produced gas.
Unconverted carbon is defined only for the first part of the model. Unconverted carbon quantity is equal to zero, when
gasification occurs at the CBP. Heterogeneous thermodynamic equilibrium of the produced gas and a given amount of
unconverted carbon are calculated in the first part of the model. To achieve a better agreement with the experimental data,
the reactions (9) and (11) are multiplied by 0.63 and 420, respectively. The artificial temperature differences for these reactions are
164 K and –226 K (referred by Prins et al. [53] as quasi-equilibrium temperatures).
Energies 2019, 12, 160 15 of 31
Table 3. Cont.
The three main stages in which this model is divided are:

- pyrolysis of volatiles in biomass
- solid–gas reactions between biomass char and gasifying agents
- gas-phase reactions between the gaseous species in the free board of the gasifier.
Stage 1: pyrolysis
Equilibrium is calculated by three mass balances (C, H, and O) and the following empirical equations derived on the basis of
Ngo et al. Quasi-equilibrium experimental data: φCO/CO2 = 4.70 × 103 × exp(−7.16 × 103 /Tp ) ; φCH4 /H2 = 2.30 × 10−3 × exp(−5.40 × 103 /Tp )
(2011) [63] three-stage model Stage 2: char–gas reactions
Equilibrium is calculated by three independent reactions (1), (2), and a secondary char-steam reaction C + 2H2 O = CO2 + 2H2
The ratio of steam involved in the char–gas equilibrium reactions (β) is estimated from experimental data:
β = 51.4 × exp(7.54 × 103 /TG )
Stage 3: gas-phase reactions
Only the water–gas shift reaction is considered (Equation ((9)) being the equilibrium constant corrected by a non-equilibrium
factor (κ)
κ = −3.2 × 10−3 × z5 − 7.8 × 10−3 × z4 + 2.3 × 10−3 × z3 + 7.4 × 10−2 × z2 + 3.0 × 10−1 × z + 4.0 × 10−1 ; z = ( TG − 1070)/62
Biomass chemical formula was defined as CHxOyNz. All products leaving the gasifier were considered in the gas phase (H2 , CO,
CH4 , CO2 , H2 O and N2 ). Preheated air and steam were used as gasifying agents. A pure thermodynamic equilibrium model was
used following the procedure described by Zainal et al. [46] or Jarungthammachote and Dutta [42] along with the following
modifications:
Modified thermodynamic
Puig-Arnavat et al. - Addition of a pyrolysis step to predict the formation of gas, char, and volatiles using semi-empirical correlations;
equilibrium model based
(2012) [64] - Heat losses (estimated as a percentage of biomass energy input) was considered in the pyrolysis and gasification steps;
on equilibrium constants
- Tar and char leaving the gasifier were considered as a percentage of tar and char produced in the pyrolysis step;
- Particles leaving the gasifier are set by the user as mg/m3 in the produced gas;
- The amount of CH4 produced is fixed.

CHx Oy + wH2 O(liq) + vH2 O(vap) + m(O2 + 3.76N2 ) = (1 − α)C(s) + n1 H2 + n2 CO + n3 CO2 + n4 H2 O + n5 CH4 + 3.76mN2
Equilibrium is calculated by three partial mass balances (C, H, and O) by two independent reactions ((3) and (9)) and a
heat balance.
Azzone et al. To consider that not all the carbon participates in the equilibrium reactions, a carbon fraction participating factor (α) was
Equilibrium model
(2012) [65] introduced representing the carbon that participates in the equilibrium reactions, while the remaining carbon by-passes the
reaction zone. The molar amount of carbon that by-passes the chemical equilibrium is equal to (1 – α) = (1 − δ), being the
parameter δ a function
ofER defined as follows:
− ER
δ = 0.32 + 0.82 1 − e 0.229
Energies 2019, 12, 160 16 of 31
Table 3. Cont.

CHx Oy Nz + wH2 O + vH2 O + m(O2 + 3.76N2 ) = n1 H2 + n2 CO + n3 CO2 + n4 H2 O + n5 CH4 + (z/2 + 3.76m) N2 + ntar CH p Oq
Barman et al. Realistic Equilibrium is calculated by three partial mass balances (C, H, and O), by three independent reactions (3), (9) and (11) and a heat
(2012) [66] equilibrium model balance.
Tar is modeled with the chemical formula CH1.003 O0.33 and its yield is assumed to be 4.5% (mass percentage).
The Equilibrium model is modified by adjusting the equilibrium constant of the methane reaction that is multiplied by 3.5.
CHx Oy Nz + wH2 O + m(O2 + 3.76N2 ) = n1 H2 + n2 CO + n3 CO2 + n4 H2 O + n5 CH4 + (z/2 + 3.76m) N2 + nchar Char
Equilibrium is calculated by three partial mass balances (C, H, and O), by five independent reactions (1)–(3), (9) and (11) and a
heat balance.
The equilibrium model is called two-stage due to the division in two stages:
Silva and Rouboa Two-stage
- The first stage of the model (heterogeneous equilibrium) is used to determine the equilibrium composition below and at
the CBP.
- The second stage of the model (homogeneous equilibrium) where all the compositions are in the gaseous state without any
unconverted solid carbon.
This model is considered a modified equilibrium model because the methodology proposed by Jarungthammachote and
Dutta [42] to correct the equilibrium constants by means of multiplicative factors was applied.
CHx Oy Nz + wH2 O + m(O2 + 3.76N2 ) = n1 H2 + n2 CO + n3 CO2 + n4 H2 O + n5 CH4 + n6 C + (z/2 + 3.76m) N2 + ∆HR0
∆HR0 is the heat of the reaction at the standard temperature and pressure, i.e., 25 ◦ C and 1 bar.
Equilibrium is calculated by three partial mass balances (C, H, and O), by two independent reactions (3) and (9) and a heat balance.
Quasi-equilibrium
Lim and Lee The unconverted carbon is obtained by a correlation 1 − fc based on experimental data of steam fluidized bed gasification.
thermodynamic model
The carbon conversion factor fc used was: f c = 0.901 + 0.439 1 − e− ER+0.003T

(2014) [34]
with empirical equations
The model is modified by including multiplicative factors to correct the equilibrium constants of the reactions (3) and (9) obtained
based on 43 experimental data sets for fluidized bed gasifiers as a function of the equivalence ratio:
f (3) = 38.75 − 30.70ER
f (9) = 0.0836e2.882ER
Energies 2019, 12, 160 17 of 31
Table 3. Cont.

CHx Oy Nz Sk + wH2 O + ASiO2 + m(O2 + λN2 ) =
n1 H2 + n2 CO + n3 CO2 + n4 H2 O + n5 CH4 + (z/2 + mλ) N2 + n6 SO2 + n7 C + ASiO2
Equilibrium is calculated by three partial mass balances (C, H, and O), by five independent reactions (1)–(3), (9) and (11) and a
heat balance.
In the present work unconverted carbon is not considered.
The pure equilibrium model is modified given rise to three models:
Mendiburu et al. Equilibrium models and
(2014) [68] quasi-equilibrium model - by adjusting the equilibrium constants of the methane and water-gas shift reactions using experimental results.
h i
α = max − 1.639
104
T 2 + 0.3518T − 128.7 , 1 ; β = 2.8 − 0.372λ
- by using correlations for the CO/CO2 and CO/H2 ratios of Ratnadhariya and Channiwala [69];
CO/CO2 = 2.18e−450.893/T ; CO/H2 = 0.92e−110.11/T
- by substitution of the equilibrium constants of the water-gas shift and methane reforming reactions for Arrhenius
4276 26830
type relations. Kwgs = e( T −3.961) ; Kmr = 1.198 × 1013 e− T

CHa Ob Nc Sd + wH2 O + m(O2 + λN2 ) = n1 H2 + n2 CO + n3 CO2 + n4 H2 O + n5 CH4 + n6 N2 + n7 C + n8 C6 H6
Tar is modeled as benzene (C6 H6 ) and its yield is supposed to obey the following empirical relation: Tar = 35.98 exp(−0.0029T) as
in Abuadala et al. [59].
Costa et al. Thermo-chemical
Equilibrium is calculated by three partial mass balances (C, H, and O), by three independent reactions (1), (3) and (9) and a
heat balance.
The equilibrium model is modified by multiplying the equilibrium constant of the three independent reactions (1), (3) and (9) by
0.58, 11.9 and 0.02, respectively. An optimization objective function is used to minimize the error between the numerical results of
the syngas composition and the experimental measurements.
CHx Oy Nz + mH2 O(l ) + nO2 O2 + 3.76nO2 N2 + sH2 O( g) =
n1 H2 + n2 CO + n3 CO2 + n4 H2 O + n5 CH4 + n6 N2 + (1 − α)C + ntar C6 H6
Tar is modeled as benzene (C6 H6 ) and its yield is supposed to obey the following empirical relation: Tar = 35.98 exp(−0.00298T) as
in Abuadala et al. [59]
Rupesh et al. Stoichiometric α is a carbon conversion
(2015) [71] quasi-steady-state model factor expressed as a function of equivalence ratio (ER) and temperature (T):
α = 0.901 + 0.439 × 1 − e(− ER+0.0003T ) as in Lim and Lee [34].
Equilibrium is calculated by four partial mass balances (C, H, O and N) and by two independent reactions (3) and (9).
The equilibrium model is modified by multiplying the equilibrium constant of the independent reactions (3) and (9) by coefficients
as function of ER, 0.12e3.2 ER and 41–50ER, respectively. These correction coefficients are obtained by minimizing the RMS error
between the numerical results of the syngas composition and the experimental measurements.
Energies 2019, 12, 160 18 of 31
Table 3. Cont.

CHh Oo Nn + wH2 O + a(O2 + 3.76N2 ) = n1 H2 + n2 CO + n3 CO2 + n4 H2 O + n5 CH4 + n6 N2 + ntar TAR + nchar CH AR
Gagliano et al.
Robust numerical model Equilibrium is calculated by three partial mass balances (C, H, and O), by two independent reactions (3) and (9) and a heat balance.
(2016) [72]
Tar is modeled as C6 H6.2 O0.2 as in Adams [73] and the thermochemical properties assumed to be the same as benzene.
The tar and char yields are fixed at 4.5% and 10.5% (mass percentage), respectively.
CHh Oo + wH2 O + m(O2 + 3.76N2 ) = n1 H2 + n2 CO + n3 CO2 + n4 H2 O + n5 CH4 + 3.76mN2 + ntar TAR + (1 − φ)C(s)
Tar is assumed to be benzene
(C6 H6 ) and φ is the carbon fraction factor equal to:
− ER
φ = 0.32 + 0.82 1 − e 0.229 0.21 < ER < 0.40
Equilibrium is calculated by three partial mass balances (C, H, and O), by two independent reactions (3) and (9), one heat balance
and an equivalence correlation function of biomass oxygen content given by:
Aydin et al. semi-empirical m
ER = h o
(2017) [74] equilibrium model 1+ 4 − 2
The equilibrium constants of the water-gas shift and methanation reactions are multiplied by coefficients obtained by fitting the
model with experimental data within the temperature range of 973–1390 K and the ER range of 0.21–0.5 in order to increase the
accuracy of the results:
0.6639( ER)
−2
CF, methane = −778.4( ER) + 774.6e (Teq /Tgas ) + 666.6
4.32( ER)
( Teq /Tgas )−2
CF, water− gas shi f t = 3.194( ER) + 0.02912.6e − 0.6354
Energies 2019, 12, 160 19 of 31
Only the main aspects of the models are shown, such as the global gasification reaction,
the equilibrium conditions, and other specific features such as the treatment of the tar, char and
ash. From Table 3 it is possible to inquire that many efforts were applied since the work of Zainal
et al. [46] with the objective of approximate the simulated syngas composition to the experimental
measured syngas composition. It is also possible to conclude that the pure equilibrium models were
abandoned being all modified in some sort of features.
The predicting capabilities of the models were not directly included in Table 3 in order to keep
it with reasonable dimensions. Nevertheless, the predicting capabilities of the different models are
indicated by the products of the global gasification reaction as well as the temperature needed for the
heat balance. There are different approaches to modify the pure equilibrium models in order to improve
their prediction capabilities. The most common is the use of correction factors that are multiplied by
equilibrium constants for the reactions (most common: methane formation, homogeneous water-gas
reaction, and methane reforming) used in modeling of syngas composition. The simplest correction
factors are calculated in an empirical manner (attempt and error) on different researches regarding
modeling of syngas composition for a specific reactor type, which does not allow the general use for
other type of gasifiers. Although the modifications increase the accuracy of the model predictions,
the lack of a correlation with the gasification conditions makes these models less reliable. The more
sophisticated correction factors use computer algorithms for the error minimization and are generally
more complex than a simple constant. In this regard, these correction factors may assume different
forms since a simple constant [42,62,66,67,70] to a more or less complex functions of equivalence
ratio [34,65,71,74], gasification temperature [63,74] and equilibrium temperature [68,74].
Other approaches have been made such as the use of the carbon boundary temperature [53,62,67].
The carbon boundary temperature (or carbon boundary point, as is also known) is the temperature
obtained when exactly enough gasifying agent is supplied to attain complete gasification.
This approach is also considered as a two-stage model being the first stage below the carbon
boundary temperature, where only heterogeneous reactions occurs, and a second stage, where only
homogeneous reactions take place. The main advantage of using the carbon boundary point is the fact
it represents the optimal conditions for gasification considering both the energy and exergy efficiencies
as was demonstrated by Desrosiers [75], Double and Bridgwater [76] and Prins et al. [77]. Energy and
exergy in the syngas have a pronounced maximum at the carbon boundary point. That is the reason
why the gasification parameters at the carbon boundary point are considered the ideal conditions for a
gasifier to operate [77].
Approaches that are more sophisticated are also being implemented such as the three-stage model
of Ngo et al. [63]. The idea of dividing the model into three stages is based on the fact of pyrolysis
is the most significant step of biomass gasification, since it remarkably influences the final produced
gas composition [78,79]. Therefore, a detailed knowledge of devolatilization is crucial for an accurate
prediction of the model.
The mathematical modeling of the gasification departs from a proposed global reaction. On the
reactants side the biomass is usually represented by a molecule comprising C, H, O and N [34,42,59,62,
66,67,71,72]. Some authors consider also sulfur (S) in the biomass molecule [55,56,58,68,71], and others
neglected the nitrogen content in the biomass molecule [46,52,53,65,74]. Biomass moisture is usually
represented by a specific term in the global gasification equation. The main gasifying agents used
in the modeling works are air, air and steam [64–66,71], just steam [63], oxygen and steam [54] and
oxygen enriched air [67].
Considering the side of the products, the principal species presented in syngas are H2 , CH4 ,
CO, CO2 , H2 O, and N2 . These six gases leaving the gasifier are considered by few authors [37,41].
In addition, the unconverted carbon (C) is included by several authors [34,52,56,58,62,65,69–71,74].
Instead, some authors consider tars [59,66], others char [63,67], tar and char [72] and ashes [68].
Other gases can also be found, such as H2 S [58], SO2 [55,56,68] as resulting products of the inclusion of
the sulfur in the biomass molecule.
Energies 2019, 12, 160 20 of 31
The particular case of the ashes comprising chemical compounds such as SiO2 , CaO, Al2O3 , MgO,
KO2 , among others [47], are neglected in the major part of the modeling studies. The ash present in the
biomass is considered as inert in the modeling studies or chemically represented solely as SiO2 [68],
due to its higher content in many biomass ashes [47].
Tar is an unwanted product of biomass gasification due to the various problems of slugging and
fouling in the downstream equipment [79]. Although there are hundreds of species in a tar sample it is
commonly treated by the single major component benzene (C6 H6 ) [80,81]. This is the case of model
studies [59,70,71,73], but other possibilities are also being used such as a tar molecule of CH1.003 O0.33
implemented by Barman et al. [66], or a tar molecule of C6 H6.2 O0.2 implemented by Gagliano et al. [72].
Various correlations for tar yield are implemented assuming different forms since a simple mass
percentage [72] to complex temperature functions [59,70,71].
In a real biomass gasification scenario, the carbon conversion is not possible to completely
accomplish so the presence of char can be seen at the end of the process. At this moment is pertinent
to remember that char is a mixture of unconverted organic fraction, mainly comprising carbon and
ash [11]. This biomass gasification product has been considered into two forms in numerous modeling
studies, mainly as unconverted carbon (C) in [34,52,56,58,59,65,68–71,74] and as char in [67,72].
However, this last two modeling works further simplifies the char considering to be only carbon with
the same thermochemical properties as graphite as suggested by Di Blasi [82]. Various correlations for
the carbon conversion were developed. These correlations may assume the form of a simple percentage
of biomass carbon content [59,72] or functions of equivalence ratio [34,65,74] and temperature [71].
4.2. Non-Stoichiometric Method

Table 4 shows the most relevant non-stoichiometric equilibrium models following a chronological
order in order to demonstrate the evolution and the trends of the modeling approaches. The list is not
exhaustive but long enough to draw conclusions on techniques that are being used. Only the main
aspects of the models are shown, such as the global gasification reaction, the equilibrium conditions,
and other specific features such as the treatment of the carbon conversion efficiency, gasification
efficiency and heat losses.
From Table 4 it is possible to conclude that all the non-stoichiometric models of the gasification
process are developed based on a proposed global gasification reaction, although not always provided.
As in the stoichiometric equilibrium models, the biomass is generally represented by a molecule
containing C, H, O and N [18,30–32,83,84], some authors did not consider N in the biomass
molecule [85], and others consider also S [85–87]. Other elements such as chlorine (Cl) can be found
when considering wastes or algae as feedstock [49,88,89]. Biomass moisture is usually represented
by a specific term in the global gasification equation. The main gasifying agent used in the modeling
works are the air [18,30–33,83–86,90,91], a mixture of air and steam [30,82,86,92], just steam [93] and
oxygen and steam [30,49].
Contrarily to the stoichiometric method there is no need for an independent set of chemical
reactions in the non-stoichiometric method. Therefore, the number of species considered on the side
of the products can be much larger. Vakalis et al. [32] considered 860 chemical species, Li et al. [90]
considered 44 species and Materazzi et al. [49] considered 43 species. Nevertheless, some authors
consider only the main species on the syngas (CO, H2 , CH4 , CO2 , N2 ) as in [18] or considering
unconverted carbon as in [84,86,88] or tar in [30,84,85].
There are also different approaches to modify the non-stoichiometric equilibrium models in order
to obtain more accurate results. Because there is no chemical reaction set, the constraints are applied
to specific product species instead of chemical reactions. Global constraints are introduced such as
carbon conversion efficiency, gasification efficiency and heat losses.
Energies 2019, 12, 160 21 of 31
Table 4. Non-stoichiometric equilibrium models.
Author(s) (Year) Model Designation Model Features

The model contains equations of the:
- atomic balance for C, H, O, N and S;
Equilibrium model
- total number of moles;
Altafini et al. based on
- variation of the Gibbs free energy of formation of the species;
(2003) [18] minimization of the
Gibbs free energy - energy balance assuming a heat loss of 1% of the HHV of the feedstock.
The Gibbs free energy minimization is reached by the Lagrange multipliers method and the non-linear equation system is solved by the
Newton–Raphson method.
Equilibrium is calculated by the minimization of Gibbs free energy using the Lagrange multipliers, mass balances, and energy conservation
equation. 42 gaseous and two solid species involving C, H, O, N and S are considered. The model is modified to consider non-equilibrium
effects of pyrolysis products like carbon and methane. An availability function is applied to each element, leading to a modified element
Non-stoichiometric
amount vector affecting the gas, and assuming complete conversion for all elements other than carbon and hydrogen: b = (βc nc , βH nH , nO ,
equilibrium model
nN , nS ). The fraction of carbon converted into gaseous species is: βC,1 = 0.25 + 0.75e(-ER/0.23) . A fraction of the carbon leaves the system
Li et al. (2004) [90] based on direct
without achieving equilibrium and is produced during the pyrolysis stage. That fraction entering the gas phase exists as methane.
minimization of Gibbs
Experimental mass balance calculations suggest that this fraction can be approximated by: βc,2 = 0.11(1 − ER). The availability of carbon
free energy
(overall fraction of carbon entering chemical equilibrium) is: β = βc,1 − βc,2. The availability of hydrogen at equilibrium (one mole of
methane comprehends four moles of hydrogen atoms) is: βH = 1 − (4βC,2 nC /nH ). It is assumed that the reaction system is controlled by
non-equilibrium factors and is composed by a mainstream in chemical equilibrium and a bypass zone.
The model considers that the produced gas is composed by six main components (H2, CO, CO2 , CH4 , N2 and H2 O).
Equilibrium modeling Equilibrium is calculated by the minimization of the Gibbs free energy using the Lagrange multipliers and an energy balance assuming a heat
Jarungthammachote of gasification: Gibbs loss of 1% of the HHV of the feedstock as in Altafini et al. [18]. The model is modified introducing the carbon conversion effect in the model:
and Dutta free energy - spout-fluid bed (60%)
(2008) [91] minimization - central jet spouted bed (55.5–65.1%)
approach - circular split spouted bed (56.8–65.3%)
Equilibrium is calculated by the minimization of the Gibbs free energy using the Lagrange multipliers and an energy balance. The non-linear
system is solved using the Newton–Raphson method as in Altafini et al. [18].
The equilibrium model was modified to consider the residual char formed and the methane concentration.
To calibrate the model, the measured concentration of hydrocarbons (CH4 and C2 H4 ) and the amount of char collected were considered
through:
Baratieri et al. Thermodynamic
(2010) [85] equilibrium model - a correlation between ER and the carbon conversion efficiency (η c ): 1 − η c = 14.826 × (ER + 3.954)
- the experimental gas composition to evaluate the methane and ethylene contents; then the moles of carbon and hydrogen converted
into CH4 and C2 H4 are estimated;
- the correction of the initial composition considering η c and subtracting the moles of C and H from the previous step. The initial input
vector of the model is then: Ninput = [ηc nC − n1 , n H − n2 , nO ].
Energies 2019, 12, 160 22 of 31
Table 4. Cont.
Global gasification reaction

CHx H OxO Nx N + x H2 O H2 O = n H2 H2 + nCO CO + nCO2 CO2 + n H2 O H2 O + nCH4 CH4 + n N2 N2
Equilibrium is calculated by the minimization of Gibbs free energy, four mass balances (C, H, O and N), two equilibrium reactions (9) and
(14), and an energy balance. Two steps were used to model the gasification process. In the first step, RDF is decomposed to produce a
carbonaceous residue and a primary gas represented by:
CHx H OxO Nx N SxS = nCO CO + x4H − x2S nCH4 CH4 + x2N N2 + xs H2 S + 1 − x4H − x N + x2S C

In the second step, the produced gas composition of the first step is modified by the water shift (9) and steam reforming (14) reactions. In this
Gibbs free energy model an unreacted solid carbonaceous residue is formed and considered insensitive to process operating conditions. Consequently,
Barba et al. two parameters (δ and γ) are defined as function of gasifying medium/feedstock ratio and reaction temperature:
gradient method
(2011) [88] Steam:
model
CHx H OxO Nx N SxS + γH2 O → ( xO − δ + γ)CO + x4H − x2S + γ2 CH4 + 2δ CO2 + xs H2 S + x2N N2 + 1 − x4H − x N + x2S − 3γ

2 − xO + 2 C
δ
Air:
CHx H OxO Nx N SxS + γH2 O + w(O2 + 3.76N2 ) → ( xO − δ + γ)CO + x4H − x2S + γ2 − w2 CH4 + 2δ + w2 CO2 + xs H2 S + x2N + 3.76w N2 +

1 − x4H − x N + x2S − 3γ
2 − xO + 2 C + wH2 O.
δ
Where
3
δCO ↔ 2δ C + 2δ CO2 ; 2 γC + γH2 O → γCO + γ2 CH4
Equilibrium is calculated minimizing the Gibbs free energy using the Lagrange multipliers method and subjecting mass balance to
Semi-equilibrium
constraints and an energy balance.
Buragohain et al. non-stoichiometric
To modify the model, the extent of carbon conversion was considered. The designation semi-equilibrium comes from the carbon conversion
(2012) [83] thermodynamic
being taken as an independent parameter; four levels of carbon conversion (70, 80, 90, 100%) were considered.
model
FACTSAGE software was used to carried out simulations.
This equilibrium model follows the overall framework of single-stage equilibrium models. The system considers 43 different species.
The ashes are inert but considered as part of thermal capacity in the reactor. Heat losses (Qloss) in the respective gasification phase is
estimated to be 10% of the HHV of the feedstock supplied in the conversion phase. The thermodynamic equilibrium model of a two-stage
process is formulated as follows:
H2 Omoisture → H2 O(V )
q
CHm O p Nq Sr Cls → pCO + m4 CH4 + 1 − m4 − p C + 2 N2 + rS + 2s Cl2

Materazzi et al. Thermodynamic The char (solid carbon) is further converted in a steam–oxygen environment according to:
(2013) [49] equilibrium model αC + O2 → 2(α − 1)CO + (2 − α)CO2 ; 1 ≤ α ≤ 2
C + βH2 Osteam → (2 − β)CO + ( β − 1)CO2 + βH2 ; 1 ≤ β ≤ 2
The model uses the correlations given by Matsui et al. [92] and Linjewile et al. [94] with splitting factors 1.3 and 1.2 for the temperature range
of 700–800 ◦ C.
A solid carbonaceous residue constitutes the unreacted solid from the first stage. The equilibrium is calculated, including the preliminary
conversion process, by the minimization of the objective function, mass and energy balances for the two sequential stages. The solver applies
the generalized reduced gradient method to solve the nonlinear system.
Energies 2019, 12, 160 23 of 31
Table 4. Cont.
Equilibrium for steam gasification is calculated minimizing the Gibbs free energy. The gases are treated as real gases using the
Redlich–Kwong equation of state. The mixture properties are computed based on the Amagat’s law. Minimization is performed in each
iterative loop till the convergence of the mixture compressibility factor is achieved using the simulating annealing algorithm. This model is
Sreejith et al. Gibbs free energy
proposed in order to arrive at the optimum values for the reactor working parameters of temperature and pressure.
(2013) [93] minimization model
Global gasification reaction: Cx Hy Oz + aH2 O + heat → bCO + dCO2 + eH2 + fCH4 + g H2 O
The constraints are elemental balances of C, H, and O as obtained from the global gasification chemical reaction and the non-negativity
constraint
A chemical system with 14 species in the gaseous phase (H2 , CO, CH4 , C2 H2 , C2 H4 , C2 H6 , C3 H8 , C6 H6 , C10 H8 , NH3 , O2 , N2 , H2 O, SO2 ),
water in liquid phase (H2 O) and char and ash (C and SiO2 ) in the solid phases is considered. Equilibrium is calculated by the minimization of
the Gibbs free energy via the Lagrange multipliers. The following constraints were considered:
Constraint Expression (mol/kg dry biomass)
C in char 71.664 + 0.012906 × (T/K)
C in tar 3.0
Super-equilibrium N in ammonia 0.042
Kangas et al. C in hydrocarbons 17.642 − 0.009545 × (T/K)
with the constrained
(2014) [30] H in hydrocarbons 50.376 − 0.02732 × (T/K)
Gibbs energy method
C in unsaturated and aromatic
3.9261 − 0.00208 × (T/K)
hydrocarbons
CH4 7.074 − 0.003 × (T/K)
C2 H2 0.06454 − 0.00004 × (T/K)
C2 H4 2.987 − 0.002 × (T/K)
C2 H6 1.196 − 0.001 × (T/K)
C3 H8 0.150921 − 0.000155 × (T/K)
C6 H6 0.27
Six methods for modeling of global or local equilibrium were implemented:
- The reference case is a pure thermodynamic equilibrium.
- Super-equilibrium 1: is study by introducing separated constraints for carbon conversion, tar and ammonia.
- Super-equilibrium 2: an additional constraint for the amount of hydrogen in volatile hydrocarbons.
- Super-equilibrium 3: replaces the hydrogen constraint by a CH4 constraint.
- Super-equilibrium 4: defines the amount of carbon bound to light hydrocarbons (C2 H2 and C2 H4 ) and benzene (C6 H6 ).
- Super-equilibrium 5: is a fully constrained system in which empirical models are used to define the hydrocarbons amounts.
Energies 2019, 12, 160 24 of 31
Table 4. Cont.
Global gasification reaction

Cxc Hx H OxO Nx N SxS + x H2 O H2 O + x Ash SiO2 + n air (O2 + λN2 ) =
nUC C + n H2 H2 + nCO CO + nCO2 CO2 + n H2 O H2 O + nCH4 CH4 + ( x N /2 + λn air ) N2 + x Ash SiO2 + n H2 S H2 S
Thermochemical
Equilibrium is calculated by the minimization of Gibbs free energy using the Lagrange multipliers, three mass balances (C, H and O) and a
equilibrium modeling:
heat balance. Four models were developed:
Mendiburu et al. Constrained and
M1—Pure non-stoichiometric equilibrium model
(2014) [86] unconstrained
M2—non-stoichiometric constrained equilibrium model - methane content was constrained by the following empirical correlation:
non-stoichiometric
PCH4 = 6.6799 + 8.6328X1 − 7.4106X2 − 3.1582X3 + 1.5183X1 X2 − 8.9410X1 X3 + 5.5317X2 X3 where the variables X1 , X2 and X3 are the
models
hydrogen to moisture content in the biomass, the normalized equivalence ratio and normalized gasification temperature, respectively.
M3—kinetic constraint that determines the apparent gasification rate was considered.
M4—implements simultaneously the two aforementioned constraints.
CHx Oy Nz + wH2 O + mO2 + 3.76mN2 = nC C + n H2 H2 + nCO CO + nCO2 CO2 + n H2 O H2 O + nCH4 CH4 + n N2 N2 + nO2 O2
Modified equilibrium Equilibrium is calculated by the minimization of Gibbs free energy using the Lagrange multipliers, three elemental mass balances (C, H and
Ghassemi and
model based on Gibbs O) and a heat balance. The equilibrium model is modified by introducing carbon conversion and tar formation constraints. The carbon
Markadeh
free energy conversion expression ofAzzone et
(2014) [84]
minimization al. [65] is implemented:
− ER
δ = 1 − nc = 0.32 + 0.82 1 − e 0.229
Tar is modeled with the chemical formula CH1.003 O0.33 and its yield is assumed to be 4.5% (mass percentage) as in Barman et al. [66]
The model comprises two parts:
- an unconstrained equilibrium, where the Gibbs free energy minimization method is used directly.
Yakaboylu et al. Constrained
- a constrained equilibrium, where constraints are introduced into the minimization algorithm to achieve a better prediction.
The constraints included are the carbon and hydrogen gasification efficiencies and constrained amounts for specific compounds.
A distinctive aspect of the model is the consideration of real gases using the Peng−Robinson equation of state.
The multi-box approach is used due to the separation of the reactor into various processes, instead of using a conventional single-stage (also
known as black-box) model approach.
- the model was developed as a zero-dimensional model,
Multi-stage - the heat losses of the gasifier were neglected,
Vakalis et al. thermodynamic - perfect mixing is assumed,
(2016) [32] model: Multi-box - the solid phase is represented by graphite,
approach - the catalytic effects of minerals and metals present in ashes are neglected,
- the equilibrium is reached,
- the model uses the Curran et al. [95] mechanism, which includes 860 chemical species and 3600 reactions including tar compounds.
Energies 2019, 12, 160 25 of 31
Table 4. Cont.
The naming bi-equilibrium model finds explanation in the bypass of the oxidation zone of some pyrolysis products usually underestimated
in equilibrium models. The model is developed considering the multi-phase nature of the gasification process:
- Drying model converts the wet biomass into dry biomass: Biomasswet => Biomassdry + Moisture
- Devolatilization model transforms the dry biomass into volatiles and char: Biomassdry => Volatiles + Char
Biagini et al. - Gasification model 1: consider a repartition factor k1 to split the volatiles in two streams. k1 represents the stream that bypass the
Bi-equilibrium model oxidation zone. The complementary stream (1 − k1 ) is added to the streams of converted char, moisture and air and then exposed to
(2016) [33]
equilibrium at high temperature.
- Gasification model 2: volatiles, converted char and moisture streams were merged and the result was split in two streams being k2 the
repartition factor. k2 stream enters the equilibrium reactor at low temperature. The complementary stream (1 − k2 ) is mixed with the air
stream and enters the equilibrium reactor at high temperature.
The reactor heat losses were assumed to be 5% of the biomass thermal energy. The ash properties were assumed from SiO2 .
CHa Ob Nc Sd + wH2 O(l ) + sH2 O( g) eO2 + 3.76eN2 ↔ (1 − α)C(s) + n H2 H2 + nCO CO + nCO2 CO2 + nCH4 CH4 + nO2 O2 + n N2 N2
Gambarotta et Non-stoichiometric + n H2 O H2 O + n NO NO + n NO2 NO2 + n NH3 NH3 + n HCN HCN + n H2 S H2 S + nSO2 SO2 + nSO3 SO3 + nCOS COS
al. (2018) [87] equilibrium model Equilibrium is calculated minimizing the Gibbs free energy, five mass balances (C, H, O, N and S) and an energy balance. α is the factor that
takes into account the carbon not participating in the gasification. This factor is a function of the air-to-fuel ratio proposed by Azzone et al.
[65] and firstly introduced by Li et al. [79]. Tar production is neglected.
Energies 2019, 12, 160 26 of 31
To define the amounts of constrained species, a model is needed. Generally, different methods
can be used to define the constraints, which can be methods based on values obtained by direct
measurement, or by multi-faceted mechanistic models. Constant values are generally prescribed
for unconverted carbon [83,86,91] and tar production [35,84]. More complex functions of ER were
implemented in [84,85,90,96] for the unconverted carbon or carbon conversion efficiency. Particularly,
Kangas et al. [30] applied temperature dependent constraints for char and various hydrocarbons
including methane also applied by Mendiburu et al. [86].
Another substantial difference for the stoichiometric equilibrium models, where the reactor
is generally considered adiabatic; in the non-stoichiometric equilibrium models, thermal losses are
considered in the heat balances. This heat loss is usually considered as a fixed percentage of the thermal
power entering with the biomass. 1% were considered by Altafini et al. [18] and Jarungthammachote
and Dutta [91], while Biagini et al. [37] considered 5% and Materazi et al. [49] 10%.
The assumption of ideal gas behavior for gas mixtures and the associated computation of cold
gas efficiencies and heating values are not realistic. Therefore, a more realistic model based on the real
gas concept was presented by Sreejith et al. [93] and Yakaboylu et al. [89].
In the optimization procedures found in the literature relating to equilibrium modeling, it is
gathered that a method for obtaining the global minima is inevitable for the performance analysis
of the system. However, relatively few effective methods are available to treat the form most often
encountered in the non-stoichiometric equilibrium modeling, the nonlinear constrained optimization
problem. The solution of a constrained optimization problem can often be found by using the so-called
Lagrangian method. A suitable method, which is generally used for the minimization of the Gibbs free
energy, is the Lagrange multipliers subject to equality constraints provided by the mass (or elemental)
balances [85,90,91] and inequality constraints provided by the non-negativity condition [86,88,93].
For these reasons, also different optimization methods have been applied for the Gibbs free energy
minimization. The most used is the Lagrange multipliers method with satisfactory results and the
generalized reduced gradient method in [49,88], based on the use of the constraints to eliminate
variables hence considered a more robust optimization method [96]. Other advanced optimization
methods have been applied like the simulating annealing in [93]. Simulating annealing is a general,
iterative algorithm for finding a global minimum for a continuous function. It is also a popular
probabilistic Monte Carlo algorithm for any optimization problem [97]. This technique is independent
of the initial conditions and solutions are close to the global minimum. From this procedure, a set of
non-linear equations is created that must be solved by an iteration technique. The Newton–Raphson
method is generally used for this purpose.
5. Conclusions
A holistic review on biomass gasification modified equilibrium models is made with special
emphasis on the non-stoichiometric method. The non-stoichiometric method minimizes the Gibbs free
energy of the system based on mass balance of individual elements and non-negativity constraints. It is
also considered a differential chemical equilibrium approach. Essentially, almost all non-stoichiometric
equilibrium models are modified. There are different approaches to modify the non-stoichiometric
equilibrium models in order to obtain more accurate results. Because there is no chemical reaction
set, the constraints are applied to specific product species instead of chemical reactions as in the
stoichiometric method. Global constraints are introduced such as carbon conversion efficiency and
heat losses. Generally, different methods can be used to define the constraints. Constant values are
usually prescribed for unconverted carbon and tar production. More complex functions of the ER or
temperature were implemented for the carbon conversion efficiency. The non-stoichiometric method
requires an optimization procedure for the minimization of the Gibbs free energy that can be classified
as a nonlinear constrained optimization problem. The most used method is the Lagrange multipliers
subject to equality constraints provided by the mass balances and inequality constraints provided
by the non-negativity condition of species. However, other methods are being applied such as the
Energies 2019, 12, 160 27 of 31
generalized reduced gradient method or the advanced optimization method simulated annealing
considered to be more robust.
The stoichiometric approach is conceptually easiest to understand and it is based on the
simultaneous calculation of equilibrium constants for a given set of chemical reactions. It is also
considered an algebraic chemical equilibrium approach. Basically, almost all stoichiometric equilibrium
models are modified in order to obtain more accurate results than a pure equilibrium model. The most
common modification is the use of correction factors that are multiplied by equilibrium constants
for the reactions of methane formation, homogeneous water-gas reaction, and methane reforming.
The more sophisticated correction factors use computer algorithms for the error minimization and are
generally more complex than a simple constant assuming functions of equivalence ratio, gasification
temperature or equilibrium temperature.
Generally, the modified equilibrium models have a major drawback that is the use of empirical
correction factors or correlations that are reactor dependent, which improves the model prediction
but with loss of generality. Nevertheless, equilibrium models continue to be important in predicting
the thermodynamic limits of the chemical reactions describing the gasification process and extremely
relevant for prediction of produced gas compositions in relation to variations in the operating
conditions, providing an irreplaceable instrument for process design and development purposes
before attempting experimental investigations.
Effort is still required in order to improve the accuracy of the equilibrium models. The most recent
approaches to equilibrium modeling are considering the multi-phase nature of the gasification process.
Therefore, considering the kinetic modeling features (reaction kinetics and reactor hydrodynamics),
especially in pyrolysis phase will remarkable improve the accuracy of the model. Regarding the
stoichiometric method further developments can be made by considering more gasification chemical
reactions than the necessary to the number of unknowns. This will result in an overdetermined
nonlinear equation system that can be solved by the gradient method. This will approximate the
stoichiometric method to the non-stoichiometric method features.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.F. and E.M.; methodology, S.F. and E.M.; investigation, S.F.;
writing—original draft preparation, S.F.; writing—review and editing, E.M., P.B. and C.V.; supervision, E.M., P.B.
and C.V.
Funding: This research was funded by FUNDATION FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (FCT), grant number
SFRH/BD/91894/2012.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Faaij, A.P.C. Bio-energy in Europe: Changing technology choices. Energy Policy 2006, 34, 322–342. [CrossRef]
2. Maniatis, K. Progress in biomass gasification: An overview. In Progress in Thermochemical Biomass Conversion;
Editor Bridgwater, A.V., Ed.; Blackwell Science: London, UK, 2001; pp. 1–31. ISBN 9780632055333.
3. Bartocci, P.; Zampilli, M.; Bidini, G.; Fantozzi, F. Hydrogen-rich gas production through steam gasification of
charcoal pellet. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2018, 132, 817–823. [CrossRef]
4. Kirkels, A.; Verbong, G. Biomass Gasification: Still promising? A 30-year global overview. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 471–481. [CrossRef]
5. Ahmad, A.A.; Zawawi, N.A.; Kasim, F.H.; Inayat, A.; Khasri, A. Assessing the gasification performance
of biomass: A review on biomass gasification process conditions, optimization and economic evaluation.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 53, 1333–1347. [CrossRef]
6. Basu, P. Biomass Gasification and Pyrolysis: Practical Design and Theory, 2nd ed.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2013;
ISBN 978-970-12-3964885.
7. Paethanom, A.; Bartocci, P.; D’Alessandro, B.; D’Amico, M.; Testarmata, F.; Moriconi, N.; Slopiecka, K.;
Yoshikawa, K.; Fantozzi, F. A low-cost pyrogas cleaning system for power generation: Scaling up from lab to
pilot. Appl. Energy 2013, 111, 1080–1088. [CrossRef]
Energies 2019, 12, 160 28 of 31
8. Molino, A.; Larocca, V.; Chianese, S.; Musmarra, D. Biofuels production by biomass gasification: A review.
Energies 2018, 11, 811. [CrossRef]
9. Chang, K.-H.; Lou, K.-R.; Ko, C.-H. Potential of bioenergy production from biomass wastes of rice paddies
and forest sectors in Taiwan. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 206, 460–476. [CrossRef]
10. Couto, N.; Silva, V.; Monteiro, E.; Brito, P.; Rouboa, A. Modeling of fluidized bed gasification: Assessment of
zero-dimensional and CFD approaches. J. Therm. Sci. 2015, 24, 378–385. [CrossRef]
11. Gómez-Barea, A.; Leckner, B. Modeling of biomass gasification in fluidized bed. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci.
2010, 36, 444–509. [CrossRef]
12. Puig-Arnavat, M.; Bruno, J.C.; Coronas, A. Review and analysis of biomass gasification models.
13. Baruah, D.; Baruah, D.C. Modeling of biomass gasification: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014,
39, 806–815. [CrossRef]
14. Patra, T.K.; Sheth, P.N. Biomass gasification models for downdraft gasifier: A state-of-the-art review.
15. Fantozzi, F.; Frassoldati, A.; Bartocci, P.; Cinti, G.; Quagliarini, F.; Bidini, G.; Ranzi, E.M. An experimental
and kinetic modeling study of glycerol pyrolysis. Appl. Energy 2016, 184, 68–76. [CrossRef]
16. Mahinpey, N.; Gomez, A. Review of gasification fundamentals and new findings: Reactors, feedstock,
and kinetic studies. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2016, 148, 14–31. [CrossRef]
17. Karmakar, M.K.; Datta, A.B. Generation of hydrogen rich gas through fluidized bed gasification of biomass.
Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 1907–1913. [CrossRef]
18. Altafini, C.R.; Wander, P.R.; Barreto, R.M. Prediction of the working parameters of a wood waste gasifier
through an equilibrium model. Energy Convers. Manag. 2003, 44, 2763–2777. [CrossRef]
19. Sharma, A.K. Equilibrium and kinetic modelling of char reduction reactions in a downdraft biomass gasifier:
A comparison. Sol. Energy 2008, 52, 918–928. [CrossRef]
20. Versteeg, H.K.; Malalasekera, W. An Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics, 2nd ed.; Prentice Hall:
London, UK, 2007; ISBN 978-970-13-127498-3.
21. Di Blasi, C. Modeling chemical and physical processes of wood and biomass pyrolysis. Prog. Energy
Combust. Sci. 2008, 34, 47–90. [CrossRef]
22. Loha, C.; Gu, S.; De Wilde, J.; Mahanta, P.; Chatterjee, K. Advanced in mathematical modeling of fluidized
bed gasification. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 40, 688–715. [CrossRef]
23. Gerber, S.; Behrendt, F.; Oevermann, M. An Eulerian modeling approach of wood gasification in a bubbling
fluidized bed reactor using char as bed material. Fuel 2010, 89, 2903–2917. [CrossRef]
24. Couto, N.; Silva, V.; Monteiro, E.; Brito, P.S.D.; Rouboa, A. Experimental and numerical analysis of coffee
husks biomass gasification in a fluidized bed reactor. Energy Procedia 2013, 36, 591–595. [CrossRef]
25. Couto, N.; Monteiro, E.; Silva, V.; Rouboa, A. Hydrogen-rich gas from gasification of Portuguese municipal
solid wastes. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2016, 41, 10619–10630. [CrossRef]
26. Ismail, T.M.; Abd El-Salam, M.; Monteiro, E.; Rouboa, A. Fluid Dynamics Model on Fluidized Bed Gasifier
Using Agro-Industrial Biomass as Fuel. Waste Manag. 2018, 73, 476–486. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Monteiro, E.; Ismail, T.M.; Ramos, A.; Abd El-Salam, M.; Brito, P.; Rouboa, A. Experimental and modeling
studies of Portuguese peach stone gasification on an autothermal bubbling fluidized bed pilot plant. Energy
2018, 142, 862–877. [CrossRef]
28. Sikarwar, V.S.; Zhao, M.; Clough, P.; Yao, J.; Zhong, X.; Memon, M.Z.; Shah, N.; Anthony, E.J.; Fennell, P.S.
An overview of advances in biomass gasification. Energy Environ. Sci. 2016, 9, 2939–2977. [CrossRef]
29. La Villetta, M.; Costa, M.; Massarotti, N. Modelling approaches to biomass gasification: A review with
emphasis on the stoichiometric method. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 74, 71–88. [CrossRef]
30. Kangas, P.; Hannula, I.; Koukkari, P.; Hupa, M. Modelling super-equilibrium in biomass gasification with
the constrained Gibbs energy method. Fuel 2014, 129, 631–653. [CrossRef]
31. Pajarre, R.; Koukkari, P.; Kangas, P. Constrained and extended free energy minimisation for modelling of
processes and materials. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2016, 146, 244–258. [CrossRef]
32. Vakalis, S.; Patuzzi, F.; Baratieri, M. Thermodynamic modeling of small scale biomass gasifiers: Development
and assessment of the “Multi-Box” approach. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 206, 173–179. [CrossRef]
33. Biagini, E.; Barontini, F.; Tognotti, L. Development of a bi-equilibrium model for biomass gasification in a
downdraft bed reactor. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 201, 156–165. [CrossRef]
Energies 2019, 12, 160 29 of 31
34. Lim, Y.-I.; Lee, U.-D. Quasi-equilibrium thermodynamic model with empirical equations for air–steam
biomass gasification in fluidized-beds. Fuel Process. Technol. 2014, 128, 199–210. [CrossRef]
35. Higman, C.; Burgt, M. Gasification; Elsevier Science: New York, NY, USA, 2003; ISBN 0-7506-7707-7704.
36. Couto, N.; Rouboa, A.; Silva, V.; Monteiro, E.; Bouziane, K. Influence of the biomass gasification processes
on the final composition of syngas. Energy Procedia 2013, 36, 596–606. [CrossRef]
37. Molino, A.; Chianese, S.; Musmarra, D. Biomass gasification technology: The state of the art overview.
J. Energy Chem. 2016, 25, 10–25. [CrossRef]
38. Demirbaş, A. Hydrogen Production from Biomass by the Gasification Process. Energy Sources 2002, 24, 59–68.
[CrossRef]
39. Salem, A.M.; Paul, M.C. An integrated kinetic model for downdraft gasifier based on a novel approach that
optimises the reduction zone of gasifier. Biomass Bioenergy 2018, 109, 172–181. [CrossRef]
40. Milhé, M.; Steene, L.; Haube, M.; Commandré, J.-M.; Fassinou, W.-F.; Flamant, G. Autothermal and
allothermal pyrolysis in a continuous fixed bed reactor. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2013, 103, 102–111. [CrossRef]
41. Smith, R.W.; Missen, W.R. Chemical Reaction Equilibrium Analysis: Theory and Algorithms; Wiley Interscience:
New York, NY, USA, 1983; ISBN 978-0471093473.
42. Jarungthammachote, S.; Dutta, A. Thermodynamic equilibrium model and second law analysis of a
downdraft waste gasifier. Energy 2007, 32, 1660–1669. [CrossRef]
43. Rodrigues, R.; Secchi, A.R.; Marcilio, N.R.; Godinho, M. Modeling of biomass gasification applied to a
combined gasifier-combustor unit: Equilibrium and kinetic approaches. Comput. Aided Chem. Eng. 2009,
27, 657–662. [CrossRef]
44. Lan, C.; Lyu, Q.; Qie, Y.; Jiang, M.; Liu, X.; Zhang, S. Thermodynamic and kinetic behaviors of coal gasification.
Thermochim. Acta 2018, 666, 174–180. [CrossRef]
45. Puig Arnavat, M. Performance Modelling and Validation of Biomass Gasifiers for Trigeneration Plants. Ph.D.
Thesis, Universitat Rovira I Virgili, Tarragona, Spain, 2011.
46. Zainal, Z.A.; Ali, R.; Lean, C.H.; Seetharamu, K.N. Prediction of performance of a downdraft gasifier
using equilibrium modeling for different biomass materials. Energy Convers. Manag. 2001, 42, 1499–1515.
[CrossRef]
47. Souza-Santos, M.L. Solid Fuels Combustion and Gasification, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2010;
ISBN 9781420047493.
48. Talebi, G.; Goethem, M.W.M. Synthesis Gas from Waste Plasma Gasification for Fueling Lime Kiln.
Chem. Eng. Trans. 2014, 37, 619–624. [CrossRef]
49. Materazzi, M.; Lettieri, P.; Mazzei, L.; Taylor, R.; Chapman, C. Thermodynamic modelling and evaluation of
a two-stage thermal process for waste gasification. Fuel 2013, 108, 356–369. [CrossRef]
50. Hernández, J.J.; Ballesteros, R.; Aranda, G. Characterisation of tars from biomass gasification: Effect of the
operating conditions. Energy 2013, 50, 333–342. [CrossRef]
51. Nguyen, H.; Berguerand, N.; Thunman, H. Applicability of a kinetic model for catalytic conversion of tar
and light hydrocarbons using process-activated ilmenite. Fuel 2018, 231, 8–17. [CrossRef]
52. Mountouris, A.; Voutsas, E.; Tassios, D. Solid waste plasma gasification: Equilibrium model development
and exergy analysis. Energy Convers. Manag. 2006, 47, 1723–1737. [CrossRef]
53. Prins, M.J.; Ptasinski, K.J.; Janssen, G. From coal to biomass gasification: Comparison of thermodynamic
efficiency. Energy 2007, 32, 1248–1259. [CrossRef]
54. Gumz, W. Gas Producers and Blast Furnaces: Theory and Methods of Calculation; John Wiley & Sons: New York,
NY, USA, 1950.
55. Melgar, A.; Pérez, J.F.; Laget, H.; Horillo, A. Thermochemical equilibrium modelling of a gasifying process.
Energy Convers. Manag. 2007, 48, 59–67. [CrossRef]
56. Sharma, S.; Sheth, P.N. Air-steam biomass gasification: Experiments, modeling and simulation.
57. Wang, Y.; Kinoshita, C.M. Kinetic model of biomass gasification. Sol. Energy 1993, 51, 19–25. [CrossRef]
58. Huang, H.-J.; Ramaswamy, S. Modeling Biomass Gasification Using Thermodynamic Equilibrium Approach.
Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2009, 154, 193–204. [CrossRef]
59. Abuadala, A.; Dincer, I.; Naterer, G.F. Exergy analysis of hydrogen production from biomass gasification.
Int. J. Hydrogen. Energy 2010, 35, 4981–4990. [CrossRef]
Energies 2019, 12, 160 30 of 31
60. Fryda, L.; Panopoulos, K.D.; Karl, J.; Kakaras, E. Exergetic analysis of solid oxide fuel cell and biomass
gasification integration with heat pipes. Energy 2008, 33, 292–299. [CrossRef]
61. Sadaka, S.; Ghaly, A.E.; Sabbah, M.A. Two phase biomass air—Steam gasification model for fluidized bed
reactors: Part I—Model development. Biomass Bioenergy 2002, 22, 439–462. [CrossRef]
62. Karamarkovic, R.; Karamarkovic, V. Energy and exergy analysis of biomass gasification at different
temperatures. Energy 2010, 35, 537–549. [CrossRef]
63. Ngo, S.I.; Nguyen, B.; Lim, Y.-I.; Song, B.-H.; Lee, U.-D.; Choi, Y.-T.; Song, J.-H. Performance evaluation for
dual circulating fluidized-bed steam gasifier of biomass using quasi-equilibrium three-stage gasification
model. Appl. Energy 2011, 88, 5208–5220. [CrossRef]
64. Puig-Arnavat, M.; Bruno, J.C.; Coronas, A. Modified Thermodynamic Equilibrium Model for Biomass
Gasification: A Study of the Influence of Operating Conditions. Energy Fuels 2012, 26, 1385–1394. [CrossRef]
65. 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, 248–254.
[CrossRef]
66. Barman, N.S.; Ghosh, S.; Sudipta, D. Gasification of biomass in a fixed bed downdraft gasifier—A realistic
model including tar. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 107, 505–511. [CrossRef]
67. Silva, V.; Rouboa, A. Using a two-stage equilibrium model to simulate oxygen air enriched gasification of
pine biomass residues. Fuel Process. Technol. 2013, 109, 111–117. [CrossRef]
68. Mendiburu, A.Z.; Carvalho, J.A.; Coronado, C.J.R. Thermochemical equilibrium modeling of biomass
downdraft gasifier: Stoichiometric models. Energy 2014, 66, 189–201. [CrossRef]
69. Ratnadhariya, J.K.; Channiwala, S.A. Experimental studies on molar distribution of CO/CO2 and CO/H2
along the length of downdraft wood gasifier. Energy Convers. Manag. 2010, 51, 452–458. [CrossRef]
70. Costa, M.; La Villetta, M.; Massarotti, N. Optimal tuning of a thermo-chemical equilibrium model for
downdraft biomass gasifiers. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2015, 43, 439–444. [CrossRef]
71. Rupesh, S.; Muraleedharan, C.; Arun, P. A comparative study on gaseous fuel generation capability of
biomass materials by thermo-chemical gasification using stoichiometric quasi-steady-state model. Int. J.
Energy Environ. Eng. 2015, 6, 375–384. [CrossRef]
72. Gagliano, A.; Nocera, F.; Patania, F.; Brun, O.M.; Castaldo, D.G. A robust numerical model for characterizing
the syngas composition in a downdraft gasification process. C. R. Chim. 2016, 19, 441–449. [CrossRef]
73. Adams, T.N. A simple fuel bed model for predicting particulate emissions from a wood-waste boiler.
Combust. Flame 1980, 39, 225–239. [CrossRef]
74. Aydin, E.S.; Yucel, O.; Sadikoglu, H. Development of a semi-empirical equilibrium model for downdraft
gasification systems. Energy 2017, 130, 86–98. [CrossRef]
75. Desrosiers, R. Thermodynamics of gas-char reactions. In A Survey of Biomass Gasification; Reed, T.B., Ed.;
Solar Energy Research Institute: Golden, CO, USA, 1979.
76. Double, J.M.; Bridgwater, A.V. Sensitivity of theoretical gasifier performance to system parameters. In Energy
from Biomass, 3rd E.C. Conference, Venice, Italy, 25–29 March; Coombs, J., Hall, D.O., Eds.; Elsevier: London,
UK, 1985; pp. 915–919.
77. Prins, M.J.; Ptasinski, K.J.; Janssen, F.J.J.G. Thermodynamics of gas-char reactions first and second law
analysis. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2003, 58, 1003–1011. [CrossRef]
78. Wurzenberger, J.C.; Wallner, S.; Raupenstrauch, H.; Khinast, J.G. Thermal conversion of biomass:
Comprehensive reactor and particle modeling. AICHE J. 2002, 48, 2398–2411. [CrossRef]
79. Zhang, L.; Xu, C.; Champagne, P. Overview of recent advances in thermo-chemical conversion of biomass.
80. Jablonski, W.; Gaston, K.R.; Nimlos, M.R.; Carpenter, D.L.; Feik, C.J.; Phillips, S.D. Pilot scale gasification of
corn stover, switchgrass, wheat straw, and wood: 2. Identification of global chemistry using multivariate
curve resolution techniques. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2009, 48, 10691–10701. [CrossRef]
81. Park, H.J.; Park, S.H.; Sohn, J.M.; Park, J.; Jeon, J.-K.; Kim, S.-S.; Park, Y.-K. Steam reforming of biomass
gasification tar using benzene as a model compound over various Ni supported metal oxide catalysts.
Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 101–103. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
82. Di Blasi, C. Dynamic behaviour of stratified downdraft gasifiers. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2000, 55, 2931–2944.
[CrossRef]
Energies 2019, 12, 160 31 of 31
83. Buragohain, B.; Mahanta, P.; Moholkar, V.S. Performance correlations for biomass gasifiers using
semi-equilibrium non-stoichiometric thermodynamic models. Int. J. Energy Res. 2012, 36, 590–618. [CrossRef]
84. Ghassemi, H.; Shahsavan-Markadeh, R. Effects of various operational parameters on biomass gasification
process: A modified equilibrium model. Energy Convers. Manag. 2014, 79, 18–24. [CrossRef]
85. Baratieri, M.; Pieratti, E.; Nordgreen, T.; Grigiante, M. Biomass Gasification with Dolomite as Catalyst in
a Small Fluidized Bed Experimental and Modelling Analysis. Waste Biomass Valorization 2010, 1, 283–291.
[CrossRef]
86. Mendiburu, A.Z.; Carvalho, J.A.; Zanzi, R.; Coronado, C.R.; Silveira, J.L. Thermochemical equilibrium
modeling of a biomass downdraft gasifier: Constrained and unconstrained non-stoichiometric models.
Energy 2014, 71, 624–637. [CrossRef]
87. Gambarotta, A.; Morini, M.; Zubani, A. A non-stoichiometric equilibrium model for the simulation of the
biomass gasification process. Appl. Energy 2018, 227, 119–127. [CrossRef]
88. Barba, D.; Prisciandaro, M.; Salladini, A.; Celso, M.G. The Gibbs Free Energy Gradient Method for RDF
gasification modeling. Fuel 2011, 90, 1402–1407. [CrossRef]
89. Yakaboylu, O.; Harinck, J.; Smit, K.G.; Jong, W. Testing the constrained equilibrium method for the modeling
of supercritical water gasification of biomass. Fuel Process. Technol. 2015, 138, 74–85. [CrossRef]
90. Li, X.T.; Grace, J.R.; Lim, C.J.; Watkinson, A.P.; Chen, H.P.; Kim, J.R. Biomass gasification in a circulating
fluidized bed. Biomass Bioenergy 2004, 26, 171–193. [CrossRef]
91. Jarungthammachote, S.; Dutta, A. Equilibrium modeling of gasification: Gibbs free energy minimization
approach and its application to spouted bed and spout-fluid bed gasifiers. Energy Convers. Manag. 2008,
49, 1345–1356. [CrossRef]
92. Matsui, I.; Kunii, D.; Furusawa, T. Study of fluidized bed steam gasification of char by thermogravimetrically
obtained kinetics. J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 1985, 18, 105–113. [CrossRef]
93. Sreejith, C.C.; Arun, P.; Muraleedharan, C. Thermochemical Analysis of Biomass Gasification by Gibbs free
energy minimization model—Part: I (optimization of pressure and temperature). Int. J. Green Energy 2013,
10, 231–256. [CrossRef]
94. Linjewile, T.M.; Agarwal, P.K. The product CO/CO2 ratio from petroleum coke spheres in fluidized bed
combustion. Fuel 1995, 74, 5–11. [CrossRef]
95. Curran, H.J.; Gaffuri, P.; Pitz, W.J.; Westbrook, C.K. A comprehensive modeling study of iso-octane oxidation.
Combust. Flame 2002, 129, 253–280. [CrossRef]
96. Himmelblau, D.M. Applied Nonlinear Programming; McGraw-Hill Book Company: New York, NY, USA, 1972;
ISBN 978-0070289215.
97. Kalivas, J.H. Adaptation of Simulated Annealing to Chemical Optimization Problems; Elsevier Science B.V.:
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1995; ISBN 9780080544748.
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Energies: A Holistic Review On Biomass Gasification Modified Equilibrium Models

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energies: A Holistic Review On Biomass Gasification Modified Equilibrium Models

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energies: A Holistic Review On Biomass Gasification Modified Equilibrium Models

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

energies

Abstract: Biomass gasification is realized as a settled process to produce energy in a sustainable

Keywords: biomass gasification; equilibrium models; stoichiometric model; non-stoichiometric model

Energies 2019, 12, 160; doi:10.3390/en12010160 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

The development and implementation of mathematical models is essential to understand and

1.1. Existing Reviews

Table 1. Summary of existing reviews on biomass gasification models.

Authors Review Objectives

1.2. Motivation and Objective of the Review

Model Designation Features

- Global thermodynamic equilibrium.

- Pre-processing for modeling tar, carbon conversion, among others.

- Quasi-equilibrium temperature approach.

- Local equilibrium is considered.

Char Liquids Gases

Tar cracking and volatile

Water-gas or steam C + 2H ↔ CH − 74.8 MJ⁄kmol (3)

H2 + 0.5O2 → H2 O − 242 MJ/kmol (8)

2CO + 2H2 → CH4 + CO2 − 247 MJ/kmol (10)

CO + 3H2 ↔ CH4 + H2 O − 206 MJ/kmol (11)

CO2 + 4H2 → CH4 + 2H2 O − 165 MJ/kmol (12)

Steam Reforming Reactions

CH4 + 0.5O2 ↔ CO + 2H2 − 36 MJ/kmol (13)

CH4 + H2 O → CO + 3H2 + 206 MJ/kmol (14)

3. Gasification Equilibrium Models

• Ashes are not considered in energy balances.

3.1. Stoichiometric Modeling

CHx Oy Nz + wH2 O + m(O2 + 3.76N2 ) → n1 H2 + n2 CO + n3 H2 O + n4 CO2 + n5 CH4 + n6 N2 (15)

H : 2n1 + 2n3 + 4n5 = x + 2w (17)

N : 2n6 = z + 7.52m (19)

Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 31

3.2. Non-Stoichiometric Modeling

3.2. Non-Stoichiometric Modeling

4.1. Stoichiometric Method

Table 3. Stoichiometric equilibrium models.

Author(s) (Year) Model’s Designation Model Features

Global gasification reaction:

The three main stages in which this model is divided are:

Global gasification reaction:

Global gasification reaction:

Global gasification reaction:

Global gasification reaction:

Global gasification reaction:

4.2. Non-Stoichiometric Method

Table 4. Non-stoichiometric equilibrium models.

Author(s) (Year) Model Designation Model Features

Global gasification reaction

Global gasification reaction

You might also like