Evaluation of Coal Devolatilization Concept: Lectric Power Research Institute

Evaluation of Coal Devolatilization Concept EPRI
lywords: EPRI AF-608

oal Gasification Project RP523-1
Two-Stage Entrained Gasification Final Report
Coal Devolatilization December 1977
Pilot Plant Data
LECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an

agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States
Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees,
makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability
or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any
information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents
that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference
herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by
trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not
necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or
favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The
views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily
state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency
thereof.
D IS C L A IM E R
Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image

products. Images are produced from the best available
original document.
Evaluation of Coal Devolatilization Concept
AF-608
Research Project 523-1
Final Report, December 1977
Prepared by
Research & Development Division

The Babcock & Wilson Company
Alliance Ohio 44601
and
Fossil Power Generation Division
The Babcock & Wilcox Company
Barberton, Ohio 44203
Principal Investigators
R. K. Bhada
R. H. Boll
A. J. Kubasco
W. L. Sage
Prepared for
Electric Power Research Institute
3412 Hillview Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94304
EPRI Project Manager

Dr. Mike Gluckman
LEGAL NOTICE
This report was prepared by Babcock & Wilcox as an account of work sponsored
by the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. (EPRI). Neither EPRI, members
of EPRI, Babcock & Wilcox, nor any person acting on behalf of either: (a) makes
any warranty or representation, express or implied, with respect to the accu
racy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this report,
or that the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in
this report may not infringe privately owned rights; or (b) assumes any liabili
ties with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting from the use of, any
information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report.
ABSTRACT
The objective of this test program was to evaluate the concept of increasing make
gas heating value from an air-blown entrained gasifier by feeding some or all of
the coal to a devolatilizer vessel downstream of the gasifier. It was further
required that the increase in heating value should be accomplished without the
production of tar or soot.
A pilot plant was constructed consisting of a one foot diameter gasifier and an
eighteen inch I.D. by eight feet high devolatilizer. A total of 43 test runs
were conducted using an Eastern bituminous coal as well as a Western sub-bituminous
coal. Three modes of operation were employed; all coal fed to the gasifier, all
coal fed to the devolatilizer, and a 50-50 split between the two.
Analysis of the pilot plant data yielded the following general results:
• The highest heating value gases were generated when all of the coal was
fed to the gasifier.
• Unacceptably large tar quantities were generated when half or all of the
coal was fed to the devolatilizer.
• Tar content of the make gas was negligibly small when all of the coal
was fed to the gasifier.
Data analysis also showed that heat losses were considerably higher than those
anticipated at the inception of this program. A detailed analysis of the pilot
apparatus has shown that without modification there appears to be no way to
operate so as to significantly lower heat losses.
It is recommended that the pilot gasifier be redesigned with the aid of the thermal
model. This step, together with the addition of an externally fired air heater
to the facility will reduce heat losses to those representative of a commercial
installation.
iii
Blank Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1. INTRODUCTION---------------------------------------- 1-1
2. PILOT PLANT----------------------------------------- 2-1
2.1 Coal Preparation Facilities -------------------- 2-2

2.2 Coal Feed System------------------------------- 2-2
2.2.1 Coal Screening Tank--------------------- 2-2
2.2.2 Coal Feed Tank and Lines---------------- 2-3
2.2.3 Measurement and Control of Coal Flow ---- 2-5
2.3 Gasifier--------------------------------------- 2-6
2.3.1 Initial Design and Modifications -------- 2-6
2.3.2 Present Design-------------------------- 2-7
2.4 Crossover Duct--------------------------------- 2-12
2.5 Devolatilizer---------------------------------- 2-12
2.6 Char Collection and Recycle System----- 2-15
2.7 Secondary Combustion Furnace ------------------- 2-18
2.8 Control Panel---------------------------------- 2-19
2.9 Coal------------------------------------------- 2-20
3. TEST APPARATUS AND PROCEDURES----------------------- 3-1
3.1 Test Procedure----- --------------------------- 3-1

3.1.1 Method of Start-up---------------------- 3-1
3.1.2 Gasification Testing -------------------- 3-1
3.2 Gas Analysis - Apparatus and Procedure--------- 3-2
3.2.1 Cyclone Outlet Gas Sampling Apparatus --- 3-2
3.2.2 Gasifier Outlet Gas Sampling Apparatus -- 3-2
3.2.3 Oxygen Analysis at Secondary Combustion
Furnace--------------------------------- 3-3
3.3 Gas Sampling Procedure------------------------- 3-3
3.4 Solids Loading Apparatus and Procedure --------- 3-4
3.4.1 Gasifier Outlet Solids Loading ----------- 3-4
3.4.2 Solids Loading at Exit of Cyclones ------ 3-5
3.5 Solids Loading Procedure ----------------------- 3-5
3.6 Solids Sample at East Cyclone------------------ 3-6
3.7 Solids Analysis-------------------------------- 3-6
3.8 Tar Formation Determination -------------------- 3-6
3.9 Process Measurements and Locations ------------- 3-8
3.10 Gas Analyzer - Gas Chromatograph--------------- 3-10
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION------------------------------- 4-1
v
CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
4.1 Precision of Measurements ----------------------- 4-1

4.1.1 Make-Gas Heating Value ------------------- 4-1
4.1.2 Air-Fuel Ratio--------------------------- 4-1
4.2 Effect of Natural Gas Firing Prior to Testing ----- 4-4
4.2.1 - Test Procedure--------------------------- 4-4
4.2.2 Hypothetical Temperature Distribution in
Gasifier Wall---------------------------- 4-5
4.2.3 Statistical Correlation Including "Time
of Day"---------------------------------- 4-6
4.3 Effect of Natural Gas Firing DuringTesting ------- 4-8
4.4 Material Balance -------------------------------- 4-9
4.4.1 Basis for Material Balance --------------- 4-9
4.4.2 Effect of Amount od Hydrocarbons on
Heating Value ---------------------------- 4-12
4.4.3 Check of Heating Value and Particulate
Loading---------------------------------- 4-13
4.4.4 Comparison of Data with Theory----------- 4-17
4.4.5 Carbon Balance at Cyclone Exit----------- 4-17
4.4.6 Carbon Balance at Secondary Combustion
Furnace---------------------------------- 4-21
4.4.7 Carbon Balance as a Function of Air-Fuel
Ratio------------------------------------ 4-21
4.5 Energy Balance---------------------------------- 4-24
4.5.1 Devolatilizer Outlet Temperature Versus
Air-Fuel Ratio --------------------------- 4-24
4.5.2 Energy Balance Boundaries ---------------- 4-24
4.5.3 Energy-Balance Assumptions --------------- 4-26
4.5.4 Summary of Steady-State Heat Loss
Calculations ----------------------------- 4-27
4.5.5 Effects of Assumptions------------------- 4-29
4.5.6 Overall Heat Balance--------------------- 4-31
4.5.7 T3 and T2 Study-------------------------- 4-34
4.5.8 Summary of Effects of Steady-State and
Transient Heat Losses-------------------- 4-36
4.6 Tar Formation----------------------------------- 4-37
4.6.1 TGA Analysis of Captured Particulate ----- 4-37
4.6.2 Air-Fuel Ratio and Temperature Effect ---- 4-38
4.6.3 Residence Time--------------------------- 4-39
4.7 Statistical Aanlysis ---------------------------- 4-41
4.7.1 Heating Value as a Function of Heat
Loss and Air-Fuel Ratio------------------ 4-41
4.7.2 Discussion of Various Statistical Analysis 4-43
4.7.3 Projections for Reduced Heat Loss-------- 4-46
vi
Section Page
5. THERMAL ANALYSIS OF PILOT APPARATUS -------------------- 5-1

5.1 Description of Thermal Analysis Models ---------- 5-1
5.1.1 Equipment Components for Thermal Analysis - 5-1
5.1.2 Model Assumptions ------------------------ 5-10
5.1.3 Determination of Internal Axial
Temperature Profile ---------------------- 5-12
5.1.4 Determination of Refractory Temperatures — 5-13
5.2 Verification of Computer Program ---------------- 5-14
5.2.1 Preliminary Checks ----------------------- 5-14
5.2.2 Verification Against Pilot Plant Data ---- 5-14
5.3 Predictions of Thermal AnalysisModel ------------ 5-17
5.3.1 Achieving Steady-State ------------------- 5-17
5.3.2 Deliberate Unsteady-State Operations
to Minimize Heat Losses------------------ 5-19
5.3.3 Design Change---------------------------- 5-22
5.4 Summary of Conclusions from Thermal Analysis
of Pilot Apparatus ------------------------------ 5-24
6. CONCLUSIONS------------------------------------------- 6-1
7. RECOMMENDATIONS--------------------------------------- 7-1
Appendices Page
A. Test Data------------ A-l

B. Energy Balance Data---------------------------------- B-l
C. Material Balance Data-------------------------------- . C-l
D. Diffusion Based Model -------------------------------- D-l
E. Summary of Material and Energy Balances for
Determining the Temperature and Composition of the
Internal Fluid in the Thermal Model ------------------ E-l
F. Material and Chemical Species Properties and
Heat Transfer Coefficients --------------------------- F-l
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
2.1 Pilot Plant------------------------------------------ 2-1

2.2 Lower Portion of Coal Screening Tank------------------ 2-2
2.3 Coal Feed Tank--------------------------------------- 2-3
vii
Figure Page
2.4 Lower Portion of Coal Feed Tank---------------------- 2-4
2.5 Fluidizing Section and Coal Lines-------------------- 2-4
2.6 Coal Feed Tank Load Cell Readout and Recorder -------- 2-5
2.7 Gasifier - Initial Design ---------------------------- 2-6
2.8 Gasifier - Final Configuration ----------------------- 2-7
2.9 Gasifier--------------------------------------------- 2-8
2.10 Gasifier Burners and Combustion Zone----------------- 2-9
2.11 North Burner Piping ---------------------------------- 2-10
2.12 Burner Injection Lines ------------------------------- 2-10
2.13 Slag Quench Tank------------------------------------- 2-11
2.14 Vertical Coal Nozzle Arrangement at
Bottom of Gasifier----------------------------------- 2-11
2.15 Crossover Duct--------------------------------------- 2-12
2.16 Devolatilizer Sectional View ------------------------- 2-13
2.17 Devolatilizer---------------------------------------- 2-13
2.18 Top of Devolatilizer--------------------------------- 2-14
2.19 Char Collection and Recycle-------------------------- 2-15
2.20 Cyclone Separators ----------------------------------- 2-16
2.21 Cyclone Design--------------------------------------- 2-17
2.22 Char Recycle Apparatus on Bottom of East Cyclone ----- 2-18
2.23 Main Control Panel----------------------------------- 2-19
3.1 Cyclone Outlet Gas Sampling System ------------------- 3-2
3.2 Gasifier Outlet Gas Sampling System ------------------ 3-3
3.3 Gasifier Outlet Solids Sampling System --------------- 3-4
3.4 Cyclone Outlet Solids Sampling System ---------------- 3-5
3.5 Soxlet Extraction Column for Tar Extraction ---------- 3-7
3.6 Location of Process Measurements --------------------- 3-8
4.1 Make-Gas Heating Value Versus Percent Theoretical
Air-------------------------------------------------- 4-2
4.2 Gas Temperature Data for Firing Natural Gas Only ----- 4-4
4.3 Possible Temperature Profiles in Gasifier Wall ------- 4-5
4.4 Effect of "Time of Day"------------------------------ 4-7
4.5 Effect of Natural Gas Fired in Gasifier-------------- 4-8
4.6 Effect of Natural Gas Fired in Gasifier-------------- 4-9
4.7 Gasification Stoichiometry --------------------------- 4-10
viii
Figure Page
4.8 Effect of Amount of Hydrocarbons on Stoichiometric

Heating Value --------------------------------------- 4-12
4.9 Computation of Gas Heating Value-------------------- 4-13
4.10 Comparison of Code 7Data with Theory---------------- 4-14
4.11 Dry Ice Condensation Tests------------------------ 4-15
4.12 Ice Bath Collection Test---------------------------- 4-15
4.13 Back-Up Filter Tests -------------------------------- 4-17
4.14 Comparison of Code 1 and 2 Data with Theory---------- 4-18
4.15 Comparison of Code 3 data with Theory---------------- 4-18
4.16 Comparison of Code 4, 5, 6 Data with Theory--------- 4-19
4.17 Comparison of Code 7 Data with Theory---------------- 4-19
4.18 Carbon Balance at Point B, Eastern Coal------------- 4-20
4.19 Carbon Balance at Point B, Western Coal------------- 4-20
4.20 Carbon Balance at Point C, Eastern Coal------------- 4-22
4.21 Carbon Balance at Point C, Western Coal------------- 4-22
4.22 Effect of Theoretical Air on Carbon Balance,
Eastern Coal---------------------------------------- 4-23
4.23 Effect of Theoretical Air on Carbon Balance,
Western Coal---------------------------------------- 4-23
4.24 Effect of Air-Fuel Ratio on Measured Devolatilizer
Outlet Temperature ---------------------------------- 4-25
4.25 Energy Balance Boundaries --------------------------- 4-25
4.26 Summary of Steady-State Heat Loss Calculations ------ 4-27
4.27 Separator Outlet Temperature as a Function
of "Time of Day" ------------------------------------ 4-34
4.28 Thermogravimetric Analysis (TGA) of Particulate
from Cyclone Outlet--------------------------------- 4-38
4.29 Effect of Air-Fuel Ratio on Tar Formation----------- 4-39
4.30 Tar Formation as a Function of Measured
Devolatilizer Inlet Temperature --------------------- 4-40
4.31 Tar Formation as a Function of Measured
Devolatilizer Outlet Temperature --------------------- 4-40
4.32 Test Data Plotted as a Function of Heat Loss,
Air-Fuel Ratio, and Heating Value -------------------- 4-42
4.33 Statistical Analysis "E" , Heat Loss Effect---------- 4-47
4.34 Statistical Analysis "E", Air-Fuel Ratio Effect ----- 4-47
ix
Figure Page
4.35 Statistical Analysis "B", Heat Loss Effect------- 4-48

4.36 Statistical Analysis ”B", Air-Fuel Ratio Effect ------ 4-48
4.37 Projections for Reduced Heat Loss---------------- 4-49
5.1 Equipment Components for Thermal Analysis ------------ 5-3
5.2 Combustor------------------------------------------ 5-3
5.3 Radial and Axial Thermal Elements in Gasifier
Bottom Wall------------------------------------------ 5-4
5.4 Radial and Axial Thermal Elements in Top of Gasifier — 5-5
5.5 Axial Elements in Top and Bottom of Crossover Duct --- 5-6
5.6 Illustrating "Squaring" of Crossover Duct ------------ 5-6
5.7 Radial and Axial Thermal Elements in Top of
Devolatilizer ---------------------------------------- 5-7
5.8 Radial and Thermal Elements in Bottom of
Devolatilizer ---------------------------------------- 5-8
5.9 Comparison of Observed Temperatures versus Predicted
Temperatures 5-16
6563924
5.10 Effect of Low Cyclone Efficiency on Predicted
Temperatures ----------------------------------------- 5-16
5.11 Heat Losses During Coal Firing at Test 33 Conditions — 5-17
5.12 Heat Losses During Coal Firing at Test 38 Conditions — 5-17
5.13 Refractory and Gas Temperatures after 24 Hours on
Natural Gas Firing----------------------------------- 5-21
5.14 Gas Temperatures for Coal Firing at Test 38
Conditions------------------------------------------- 5-21
5.15 Heat Losses During Coal Firing at Test 38
Conditions------------------------------------------- 5-21
5.16 Heat Losses During Coal Firing at Test 38
Conditions------------------------------------------- 5-21
5.17 Design Change------------------------------------ 5-22
5.18 Gas and Refractory Temperatures for "Redesigned"
Gasifier--------------------------------------------- 5-2 3
5.19 Gas Temperatures for "Redesigned" Gasifier for Coal
Firing----------------------------------------------- 5-23
5.20 Heat Losses During Coal Firing for "Redesigned"
Gasifier at Test38 Conditions------------------------ 5-23
x
TABLES
Table Page
2.1 Coal Analysis---------------------------------------- 2-20

3.1 Gas Analysis by Chromatograph------------------------ 3-9
4.1 Estimated Precision of Measurement of Make-Gas
Composition------------------------------------------ 4-3
4.2 Precision of Measurements --------------------------- 4-3
4.3 Statistical Correlation of Data: Air-Fuel Ratio,
Group, and "Time of Day" ----------------------------- 4-7
4.4 Material Balance Parameters -------------------------- 4-11
4.5 Gas Analyses - Comparison ofARC and Gollob

Analytical Service ----------------------------------- 4-16
4.6 Carbon Balance Study --------------------------------- 4-30
4.7 Nc Study--------------------------------------------- 4-30
4.8 Heat Loss Study-------------------------------------- 4-32
4.9 Overall Heat Balance (TV) --------------------------- 4-33
4.10 Tg and Tg Study Nc = 0.90 and 0.95 (Average
Difference Between Calculated and Measured Temperatures 4-35
4.11 Summary of Effects of Steady-State and Transient
Heat Losses ------------------------------------------ 4-36
4.12 Summary of Statistical Analysis Including
Heat Losses------------------------------------------ 4-44
5.1 Heat Losses Calculated byMaterial and Energy
Balance Versus Heat Losses Predicted by Computer
Program---------------------------------------------- 5-15
xi
Blank Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TEST OBJECTIVE
The objective of this test program was to evaluate a concept for increasing
the make-gas heating value leaving an air blown gasifier. Briefly, this con
cept involves feeding the coal to a devolatilizer vessel downstream of the
gasifier rather than to the gasifier itself; the volatile matter in the coal
will be driven off by the hot make gas coming from the gasifier leaving behind
char which will be recycled to the gasifier. This could permit the gasifier to
operate at a high local air-fuel ratio whereas the overall value is much lower.
Thus, higher make-gas heating values might be achievable provided that the
gasifier will operate on char. This increase in heating value must, however,
be accomplished without the production of tars or soot.
SUMMARY OF WORK
A pilot plant was constructed consisting of a one-foot diameter gasifier fol

lowed by a devolatilizer (8 foot long by 1-1/2 foot inside diameter) and cyclone
separator; a secondary combustion furnace was used to burn the make gas and also
to supply preheated air to the pilot plant. The cost of the construction phase
of this test program was assumed by The Babcock & Wilcox Company.
Initially the gasifier was designed for minimizing heat losses by surrounding
the gasification zone by a natural gas fired furnace. However, after a short
period of testing the refractory supporting the silicon carbide liner, which
separates the gasification zone from the gas fired furnace, washed out allowing
the liners to slip down, breaking the seals between the two areas. In addition
the silicon carbide liners had cracked from either thermal or mechanical shock.
This necessitated surrounding the gasifier with castable refractory and this
resulted in excessive heat losses. A total of 43 tests were run. Of these 32
were selected for analysis since some of the others employed steam addition, or
oxygen enrichment, or were obviously erroneous. The tests were carried out
using two kinds of coal: an Eastern high volatile bituminous coal which was a
caking coal and a Western sub-bituminous non-caking coal.
xiii
Three modes of operation were employed: all coal to the gasifier, all coal
to the devolatilizer, and a 50-50 split between the two. Overall air-fuel
ratios ranged from 30% to 60% of stoichiometric air.
Because high heat losses were incurred during this test program, a thermal
analysis of the pilot apparatus was undertaken to determine:
• What heat losses might be achieved at steady-state, and

how long might it take to achieve steady state?
• What changes to the apparatus might be necessary to shorten

thermal equilibrating times or reduce heat losses?
In order to answer these questions a detailed thermal model of the pilot

apparatus was developed and programmed for a high-speed computer.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Analysis of the data yielded the following results for comparison of operation
with all coal fed to the gasifier to all or some coal fed to the devolatilizer,
under conditions of the same air-to-fuel ratio:
• The highest heating values were observed when all of the coal was
fed to the gasifier.
• Unacceptably large tar quantities were generated when half or all

of the coal was fed to the devolatilizer.
• Tar content of the make-gas tended to be negligible or low

when all the coal was fed to the gasifier.
However, the data analyses also showed that heat losses were generally high—
much higher than had been anticipated at the inception of this program. This
was due to a combination of transient heating of the mass of refractory that
had been substituted for the unsuccessful annular-fired design of the gasifier,
too much heat loss due to recycling cold char, and excessive uncompensated
combustor heat loss.
Within the range of substoichiometric air-to-fuel ratios studied utilizing this

particular test apparatus, heat losses were related to the air-to-fuel ratio;
the higher air-to-fuel ratios tended to produce higher internal temperatures
which resulted in higher heat losses. This made it difficult to separate the
independent effects of air-to-fuel ratio and heat loss. Consequently, statis
tical projections to reasonable levels of heat loss assuming virtually 100%
carbon utilization could give only a broad range, 100-150 Btu/dscf (dry standard
xiv
cubic feet) for Western coal, all fed to the gasifier. However, the upper end
of that range, if it would turn out to be actually attainable, would be quite
encouraging.
A detailed thermal analysis of the pilot apparatus has shown that with the
present design there appears to be no way to operate so as to significantly
lower heat losses. However, by certain modifications and a change in operating
procedure, a pilot apparatus of this scale can be made to produce heat losses
fully comparable to the low losses expected in large commercial installations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The next step should be a redesign, aided by the thermal model, of the pilot
gasifier and the adding of an externally fired air heater to the facility in
order to reduce heat losses to those representative of a commercial installa
tion.
Upon completion of the necessary modifications, additional tests, using the

gasification scheme only, should be conducted to achieve a definite answer to
the question, "Can heat content be increased simply by reducing heat losses?"
The development of a mathematical model of suspension gasification based upon

rate control by other than gas-phase diffusion (e.g., chemical kinetics)
would make a significant contribution to continued development of this type
gasification.
xv
Section 1
INTRODUCTION
In an effort to achieve national energy independence and to find suitable

substitutes for those fuels, notably natural gas and oil, whose supplies
are rapidly diminishing, government, private institutions, and industry
have been sponsoring research programs directed toward this goal. Fortu
nately the United States is blessed with abundant reserves of coal which,
if properly processed, can provide the bulk of the nation's energy require
ments for many years to come.
A number of approaches have been proposed and are currently being studied
for the conversion of coal into a fuel which could be directly substituted
for natural gas or oil without major equipment modifications. The approach
that we will focus on in this report is coal gasification, in particular
air blown suspension gasification. Briefly, the concept involves the com
bustion of coal with a deficiency of air to produce a make gas containing
large amounts of carbon monoxide and hydrogen along with some hydrocarbon
gases. The probable application of this type of gasifier would be in conjunc
tion with a combined cycle.
One of the potential drawbacks to air blown suspension gasification is the

relatively low heating value of the make gas, typically 80-100 Btu/dscf. Any
proposed use for this type of gasification would benefit from an increase in
make-gas heating value above and beyond that normally produced. Thus, the
Electric Power Research Institute has sponsored this work to investigate a
concept whereby the make-gas heating value produced by an air blown gasifier
is increased through the use of a devolatilizer.
In the devolatilizer concept, some or all of the coal is injected into a

vessel, the devolatilizer, following the gasifier. Here the coal is con
tacted with the hot make gases coming from the gasifier, releasing the
1-1
volatile matter and leaving behind a solid residue, high in carbon content,
called char. The char is separated from the gas by cyclone separators
following the devolatilizer and recycled back to the gasifier. Thus, the
gasifier is fired on recycled char instead of coal. By injecting the coal
into a devolatilizer downstream of the gasifier, one can utilize "low level"
heat in the make gas (which is, by then, too cold to accomplish gasification
of char) to devolatilize the coal and preheat the char. This relieves part
of the heat load on the gasifier and, at the same time, permits the gasifier
to operate at a higher local air-to-fuel ratio — say, 50% — whereas the over
all value is 42%. Thus, desirably high make-gas heating value may be achieved
provided that the gasifier will operate on char and that the coal volatiles
can still be reformed at the lower temperatures characteristic of the devol
atilizer without leaving undesirable tars and soot in the make gas.
The object of this contract was to evaluate experimentally the devolatilizer

concept on a small-scale pilot plant. This report documents all of the results
obtained during the test program. A transient thermal analysis of the
gasifier-devolatilizer was also done, and its results are also discussed.
Section 2
PILOT PLANT
The major components of the test facility are shown schematically in Fig
ure 2.1. They consist of the following:
1. Pulverized coal storage tank
2. Coal feed tank
3. Coal screening tank
4. Gasifier
5. Devolatilizer
6. Char collection and recycle system
7. Secondary combustion furnace.
A detailed description of the above components and ancillary facilities

will be covered in this section.
A A
FIGURE 2.1 PILOT PLANT
2-1
2.1 COAL PREPARATION FACILITIES
The raw coal purchased for these tests arrived by truck and was stored in our
coal storage yard under cover. Size of the raw coal was approximately 1" x 0"
and was pulverized to the required fineness by a small (one ton/hour) hammer
mill pulverizer located in the boiler room. It was then pneumatically trans
ported about 300 feet to the coal storage tank at the gasifier-devolatilizer
test facility. This tank had a capacity of about 3,000 pounds. From here it
was fed to the coal screening tank below by gravity.
2.2 COAL FEED SYSTEM
2.2.1 Coal Screening Tank
Early in the test program our intention was to utilize two coal feed tanks
which would permit continuous feeding of coal to the system. However,
during the initial shakedown phase maintaining a steady coal feed was a
major problem. The problem was caused by small pieces of coal which were
getting through the pulverizer and classifier causing pluggage of the small
coal feed lines and valves. This
was solved by installing a
1/8-inch mesh screen in the
bottom of the south coal feed
tank and using this tank as a
final screen for the pulverized
coal. In actual operation the
coal screening tank would be
filled with pulverized coal from
the storage tank above. The
coal screening tank would then
be pressurized, causing the coal
to be forced through the screen
and into the coal feed tank.
Figure 2.2 shows a photograph of
the lower portion of the coal
screening tank.
FIGURE 2.2 LOWER PORTION OF COAL

SCREENING TANK
2-2
2.2.2 Coal Feed Tank and Lines
The coal feed tank was used to feed the pulverized coal to various points in
the system, see Figures 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5. The two coal feed lines emanated
from the fluidized section at the very bottom of the tank. This fluidized
section consisted of a 12—inch long piece of 5-inch pipe which was fitted with
a perforated fluidizing plate through which fluidizing air was admitted at a
rate sufficient to cause fluidization of the coal.
FILL CONNECTION
-6-1/32" HOLES FOR

FLUIDIZING AIR
1/4"
SECTION A-A
1/2" PIPE NIPPLE~2" LONG
1/4" THICK
3/8" STAINLESS PLASTIC DISC
STEEL TUBING
COAL + AIR
TRANSPORT |~ FLUIDIZING AIR

AIR |
SEE DETAIL A
A DETAIL A
FIGURE 2.3 COAL FEED TANK
2-3
FIGURE 2.4 LOWER PORTION OF COAL FEED TANK FIGURE 2.5 FLUIDIZING SECTION AND COAL LINE
The coal was fed in dense phase for a short distance at which point air was
added for dilute phase transport. The feed rate and the coal flow split be
tween each line was controlled by a combination of feed tank pressure and
quantity of transport air.
2.2.3 Measurement and Control of Coal Flow
The north coal feed tank was supported from a load cell which allowed the
total weight of the tank to be continuously recorded on a chart recorder.
Figure 2.6. This was used as the primary determination of coal feed rate.
In order to obtain an instantaneous qualitative indication of coal feed a
pressure differential was measured across the length of each coal feed line.
FIGURE 2.6 COAL FEED TANK LOAD CELL READOUT AND RECORDER
2-5
2.3 GASIFIER
2.3.1 Initial Design and Modifications
In the initial design of the gasifier

(Figure 2.7), the gasification chamber
was enclosed by a silicon carbide tube
the outside of which was heated by a
natural gas fired annular furnace. The
purpose of this design was to control
the heat losses from the gasifier. After
about six hours of operation, during the
initial shakedown period, the refrac
tory in the gasifier combustion zone, 1/4" CARBON STEEL
OUTER SHELL
which supported the silicon carbide
B&W K-23 FIRE BRICK
liner, had washed out allowing the liner 4-1/2" THK
to slip down about 4 inches. This broke

the gas seals around the ends of the NATURAL GAS
BURNERS
liner which separated the annular fired

1" KAOWOOL BLANKET
furnace from the gasifier. In addition, INSULATION
the two silicon carbide liners had

1" THICK SILICON
cracked, due either to thermal or mechan CARBIDE LINER
ical shock. B&W K-3000 FIRE BRICK

4-1/2" THK
To provide a quick fix and continue the B&W KAOCAST

CASTABLE
test program, the following modifica REFRACTORY
tions were made:

SLAG QUENCH
TANK
1. The volume occupied by the
annular furnace was filled
with refractory. FIGURE 2.7 GASIFIER-INITIAL DESIGN
2. A water-cooled support ring

was installed for the purpose
of supporting the silicon
carbide liner.
3. The castable refractory in the

gasifier combustion zone was
replaced by a high-alumina
firebrick backed up by a water
jacket.
2-6
2.3,2 Present Design
The present design of the gasifier incorporating the above modifications

(shown in Figures 2.8 and 2.9) was used to obtain all the data. The gasifier
can be considered to consist of three sections: (1) an upper section which
provides the volume necessary for the reactions to take place, (2) the central
section or combustion zone where the coal, char, and air are introduced
through two burners, and (3) the lower portion which consists of a slag guench
tank.
3'-4"
CROSSOVER
DUCT
B&W CAOCAST ■B&W K - 28

CASTABLE FIRE BRICK
REFRACTORY
24'' DIA.
© UPPER SECTION 1/4" CARBON STEEL

OUTER SHELL
B&W K - 23 FIRE BRICK

4-1/2" THK
MIXTURE OF B&W KAOTAB
B&W K - 3000 FIRE BRICK
CS CASTABLE REFRACTORY
4-1/2" THK
AND CRUSHED B&W K - 28
FIRE BRICK 4-1/2" THK 1" KAOWOOL BLANKET
INSULATION
1" THICK SILICON

CARBIDE LINER
-1/2" DIA___
WATER COOLED B&W SR - 90 HIGH

SUPPORT RING ALUMINA FIRE BRICK
4-1/2" THICK
WATER JACKET
© COMBUSTION ZONE
FUEL AND RECYCLE CHAR
B&W KAOTAB CS CASTABLE

COMBUSTION AIR REFRACTORY
© SLAG QUENCH TANK

WATER LEVEL IN
SLAG TAP QUENCH TANK
OBSERVATION
PORT
WATER COOLED GASIFIER
(VERTICAL COAL) NOZZLE
(USED IN SPECIAL TESTS ONLY)
PNEUMATICALLY OPERATED COAL
SLAG TAP ROD OUT SYSTEM
FIGURE 2.8 GASIFIER - FINAL CONFIGURATION
2-7
FIGURE 2.9 GASIFIER
The combustion zone is where the coal, air and recycled char are initially re
acted to begin the gasification reactions. Two burners were used and were
directed to fire tangentially to a 6-inch diameter circle in the combustion
zone. The combustion zone was formed by high-alumina firebrick backed up by
a water jacket. Figure 2.10 gives construction details of the burners and
combustion zone. A photograph. Figure 2.11, of the outside of the north
burner shows the location of the coal, air, and recycle char lines. Figure 2.12
shows a disassembled burner and the relative positions of the various injection
nozzles. The natural gas supply line was used for two purposes: (1) to supply
initial preheat to get the gasifier up to temperature quickly, and (2) during
the majority of the gasification tests some amount of natural gas was fired to
maintain reducing conditions in the event of char recycle interruptions.
2-8
to
HIGH ENERGY
NATURAL GAS
IGNITOR
SECTION B-B
FIGURE 2.10 GASIFIER BURNERS AND COMBUSTION ZONE

FIGURE 2.11 NORTH BURNER PIPING
FIGURE 2.12 BURNER INJECTION LINES
2-10
The lower portion of the gasifier
consisted of a water-filled slag
quench tank. Its purpose was to
rapidly cool the molten slag such
that it shattered into small pieces
making it easier to handle. Three
other pieces of apparatus were
affixed to and passed up through
the slag tank: (1) slag tap
observation port, (2) slag tap rod-
out mechanism, and (3) water-cooled
vertical coal injection nozzle.
These can be seen in Figure 2.13.
The vertical coal nozzle was used
on selected tests to inject coal up
into and through the hot combustion
gases formed by the combustion of
the air and recycled char. Fig
ure 2.14 shows the relative loca
tion of this nozzle.
FIGURE 2.13 SLAG QUENCH TANK
The upper part of the gasifier

consisted of two silicon carbide
tubes, each 12 inches in diameter
by 4 feet long. These tubes were
supported by a water-cooled support
ring rather than supporting them
from the combustion zone refractory
as was done in the initial design.
The silicon carbide tubes were
surrounded by three layers of solid
WATER COOLED
refractory and one layer of a light NOZZLE
Kaowool blanket insulation.
COAL
FIGURE 2.14 VERTICAL COAL NOZZLE

ARRANGEMENT AT BOTTOM
OF GASIFIER
2-11
2.4 CROSSOVER DUCT
The crossover duct, Figure 2.15, served only to convey the hot make gas from
the gasifier over to the devolatilizer. This duct initially had an internal
diameter of 21 inches but was bricked up with insulating firebrick to within
5 inches of the top. This was done to increase the velocity in this duct and
thus minimize the char hide-out.
SECTION A-A
FIGURE 2.15 CROSSOVER DUCT
2.5 DEVOLATILIZER
The hot make gas from the gasifier was conveyed via the crossover duct into
the top of the devolatilizer, design details of which are shown in Figures 2.16
and 2.17. The devolatilization chamber is 18 inches in diameter by about
8 feet long with approximately 5-1/2 inches of refractory on the walls.
2-12
■VENT
COAL U
B&W KAOCAST 4'

CASTABLE--
18" DIA.
29-1/2"
DIA. 4'
FIGURE 2.17 DEVOLATILIZER
FIGURE 2.16 DEVOLATILIZER SECTIONAL VIEW
2-13
At the very bottom of the devolatilizer was located a water jacketed elbow
which directed the gases from the devolatilizer into the cyclones. The water
jacketing was used to reduce the temperature of the carbon steel elbow
thereby preventing its deterioration.
Figure 2.18 shows a detail of the top portion of the devolatilizer and its
coal feed system. The gas flow area at the top was reduced down to an 8-inch
diameter to increase the velocity in the area where the coal was injected.
This was done to minimize drifting of the coal toward the walls and subsequent
char buildup.
VENT AIR
COAL + AIR
----- 2" PIPE SECTION x 12" LONG

COAL-AIR
SEPARATION CYCLONE —
SUPERHEATED STEAM
— RECYCLE MAKE GAS LINE
ASPIRATOR
COOLING STEAM
COOLING STEAM
3/4" TUBE
FIGURE 2.18 TOP OF DEVOLATILIZER
2-14
The coal injection system was designed to minimize the amount of transport air
injected with the coal. This was achieved by bringing the coal-air mixture
into a small cyclone which separated the two: the transport air was vented
through a pressure relief-check valve to the atmosphere while the coal settled
to the bottom. The coal was aspirated from the bottom of the cyclone by a
superheated steam-operated aspirator and injected through a water-cooled nozzle
into the devolatilizer. A make-gas line taken from the top of the devolatilizer
enters near the bottom of the cyclone such that make gas, rather than transport
air, will be preferentially aspirated.
2.6 CHAR COLLECTION AND RECYCLE SYSTEM
Char collection and recycle were effected by using two 10-inch diameter high-
efficiency cyclones in conjunction with high-pressure air aspirators as shown
in Figures 2.19 and 2.20. A detailed drawing of one of the cyclones is shown
in Figure 2.21.
t
po
WEST
MAKE
t GAS
CYCLONE
-c EAST
'V
CYCLONE
6
VACUUM GAGE
EJECTOR
AIR
l_
r—rVACUUM GAGE
EJECTOR AIR
FIGURE 2.19 CHAR COLLECTION AND RECYCLE
2-15
The solid material collected by each cyclone settled to the bottom where it
was reinjected back into the gasifier by an air aspirator, see Figure 2.22.
It was necessary to install a 1/4-inch mesh screen at the bottom of the east
cyclone to prevent the aspirator from being plugged by large pieces of slag
and char. A ball valve was installed just above the screen so that a solids
sample could be taken.
As an aid to indicating the relative condition of steadiness of flow or pluggage

in the char recycle lines, a pressure differential was measured across the
length of the char return line. A vacuum gauge was installed on the upstream
side of the air aspirator to indicate pluggage in the bottom of the cyclone.
FIGURE 2.20 CYCLONE SEPARATORS
2-16
OUTLET
3-15/16" INLET
17-1/4'
1/4" <(> SCREEN
BALL
VALVE
3/4" S.S. TUBING ^ SLIDE VALVE
TO GASIFIER COMPRESSED AIR
FIGURE 2.21 CYCLONE DESIGN
2-17
FIGURE 2.22 CHAR RECYCLE APPARATUS ON BOTTOM OF EAST CYCLONE
2.7 SECONDARY COMBUSTION FURNACE
The make gas from the gasifier-devolatilizer system was directed into an exist
ing secondary combustion furnace; this furnace was used for combustion of the
make gas and any entrained carbon particles coming from the gasifier. The
forced draft fan and air heater on the secondary combustion furnace served
as a source of preheated air for the gasifier. Provision was also made to
burn supplemental natural gas to help control air preheat temperature.
2-18
2.8 CONTROL PANEL
The main control panel for the pilot plant is shown in Figure 2.23. Most of
the operations of the pilot plant were controlled and monitored from this
panel. All pressure and pressure differential measurements in the system
were made using manometers. The majority of the temperatures were measured
with chromel-alumel thermocouples and recorded on a Speedomax recorder. Tem
perature measurements at the gasifier outlet, the devolatilizer inlet, the
middle of devolatilizer, and the devolatilizer outlet were measured using
platinum thermocouples because of the high temperature involved. These four
temperatures were read out on a Leeds & Northrup Millitemp meter as shown
in Figure 2.6.
FIGURE 2.23 MAIN CONTROL PANEL
2-19
2.9 COAL
Two coals were used during the test period:
1. Pittsburgh No. 8 coal, classed as a high volatile

bituminous B coal. This was a caking coal.
2. Western Coal from Belle Ayr mine, Campbell County,

Wyoming, classed as a sub-bituminous B coal. This
was a non-caking coal.
The analysis of these coals is shown in Table 2.1.
TABLE 2.1 COAL ANALYSIS
PITTSBURGH NO. 8 COAL WESTERN COAL

ANALYSIS ANALYSIS
MOISTURE, % 1.5 15
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS (DRY), %

VOLATILE MATTER 40.6 41.1
FIXED CARBON 48.9 51.1
ASH 10.5 7.8
BTU PER LB. (DRY) 13,100 11830
ULTIMATE ANALYSIS (DRY), %

CARBON 72.7 69.4
HYDROGEN 5.1 4.7
NITROGEN 1.0 0.9
ASH 10.5 7.8
SULFUR 3.2 0.4
OXYGEN (BY DIFF.) 7.5 16.8
SIZING
% THROUGH #50 MESH 99.6 99.7
#100 MESH 96.7 94.8
#140 MESH 91.8
#200 MESH 84.9 81.3
#270 MESH 72.5
#325 MESH 67.9
2-20
Section 3
TEST APPARATUS AND PROCEDURES
3.1 TEST PROCEDURE
3.1.1 Method of Start-Up
At the start of each testing period the gasifier was fired on natural gas at
about 115% theoretical air for about two hours to bring the gasifier up to
gasification temperature quickly. Gasification tests were started at the
end of this time; i.e., when the gasifier outlet temperature reached about
2000-2200°F.
3.1.2 Gasification Testing
After start-up with coal, operating parameters were changed to those required
for the first test. Steady state was assumed when the following measurements
remained relatively constant over a period of about one-half hour:
1. Gas temperatures in the gasifier and devolatilizer.
2. Oxygen analysis of the flue gas leaving the secondary

combustion furnace.
At this point the taking of data was initiated which included the following:
1. Panel board data
2. Gas samples and gas analysis
3. Solids loadings
4. Sample of material collected by east cyclone.
The collection of the above data required about one-half hour to one hour,
after which time operating conditions were changed in preparation for the
next test.
3-1
3.2 GAS SAMPLING APPARATUS
3.2.1 Cyclone Outlet Gas Sampling Apparatus
A schematic diagram of the cyclone outlet gas sampling apparatus is shown in

Figure 3.1. The make gas was tapped off the top of the 6-inch makegas line,
and particulate material was filtered out with a glass wool filter. A conden
sate trap served to remove water from the gas sample at this point. This was
followed by a tubing pump which pumped the gas sample into and through the gas
sampling bottle. The gas sampling bottle consisted of a 300 cc glass bottle
with stopcocks at each end.
TRAP
FIGURE 3.1 CYCLONE OUTLET GAS SAMPLING SYSTEM
3.2.2 Gasifier Outlet Gas Sampling Apparatus
Figure 3.2 shows a schematic diagram of the gasifier outlet gas sampling
apparatus. A water-cooled stainless steel probe was required at this loca
tion because of the high temperature involved. After leaving the probe the
make-gas sample was directed to a combination condensate-particulate trap
to remove water vapor and particulate material. From here the gas went to
the sampling bottle. A gas pump was not required at this location since the
system pressure was sufficient to force the gas sample through the apparatus.
3-2
TO SOLIDS
SAMPLING SYSTEM
1/2" STAINLESS
STEEL TUBING
POLYFLOW TUBING
GAS
SAMPLING
BOTTLE
FIGURE 3.2 GASIFIER OUTLET GAS SAMPLING SYSTEM
3.2.3 Oxygen Analysis at Secondary Combustion Furnace
An oxygen analysis of the flue gas leaving the secondary combustion furnace
was obtained using a Bailey Meter Company Oxygen and Combustibles Analyzer.
This was a continuous analysis and was recorded on a time chart. The probe
used to obtain the gas sample was a fixed probe, hence no traverses were
made. This analysis was used to calculate the carbon balance designated
"C". This will be discussed later.
3.3 GAS SAMPLING PROCEDURE
Prior to starting any gas sampling the gas sampling bottles were purged
and filled with helium under a slight positive pressure. Helium was used
since it was also the carrier gas for the gas chromatograph.
The gas sampling procedure at the above locations was essentially the same
and was accomplished as follows:
1. Gas flow was started through the sampling system without

the gas sample bottle connected. The system was allowed
to purge for about 2-5 minutes.
3-3
2. After this purge period the gas sample bottle was con
nected via surgical tubing to the sampling apparatus;
both stopcocks were still closed at this time.
3. The inlet valve was opened first and then the outlet
valve. The make gas was allowed to flow into and through
the sample bottle for a period of 5-10 minutes.
4. After this sampling period the stopcocks were closed;

outlet first, inlet second.
5. The gas samples were then taken to our lab and analyzed
on a Beckman GC-4 gas chromatograph.
3.4 SOLIDS LOADING APPARATUS
3.4.1 Gasifier Outlet Solids Loading
A solids loading was taken at the gasifier outlet using the apparatus shown
in Figure 3.3. The pressure at this point was again sufficient to force a
make-gas sample through the system without the need for a pump. An iso
kinetic sampling rate was maintained by adjusting the flow control valve.
3/8" POLY FLOW TUBING
1/2" STAINLESS
STEEL TUBING VENTURI METER
3" x 12" FIBERGLASS -Cj]----- ► TO EXHAUST
SAMPLING FILTER
|OOQ| \
FLOW CONTROL
VALVE
WATER COOLED
SAMPLING PROBE. GAS METER
AP MANOMETER
-CROSSOVER DUCT
FIGURE 3.3 GASIFIER OUTLET SOLIDS SAMPLING SYSTEM
3-4
3.4.2 Solids Loading at Exit of Cyclones
A solids loading was taken at the exit of the cyclones using the apparatus
shown in Figure 3.4. Because of low static pressure at this point, it was
necessary to aspirate the make-gas sample through the sampling apparatus.
An isokinetic sampling rate was maintained by adjusting the aspirating rate
MAKE GAS FROM

EXIT OF CYCLONES
1/2" STAINLESS STEEL PROBE
HIGH PRESS.
FIGURE 3.4 CYCLONE OUTLET SOLIDS SAMPLING SYSTEM
3.5 SOLIDS LOADING PROCEDURE
The fiberglass filters used for filtering the solid material out of the
make gas were first dried in a drying oven and then immediately weighed to
obtain an initial weight. A filter was then secured in the filter holder
and the apparatus checked for leaks.
Immediately after initiating the sampling procedure the necessary adjust

ments were made to obtain an isokinetic sampling rate. Sampling time was in
the order of 10-15 minutes, whereupon approximately 10 cubic feet of make gas
had been sampled. The filter bag was removed from the filter holder immedi
ately after sampling was complete and then weighed to obtain a final weight.
3-5
3.6 SOLIDS SAMPLE AT EAST CYCLONE
A ball valve was located at the very bottom of the first cyclone just ahead
of the air ejector and was used to obtain a solids sample at this point. The
procedure used to obtain a sample was to secure a fiberglass bag at the exit
of the ball valve. The valve was then opened permitting gas and solids to
enter the bag. The gas flowed through the bag leaving solids behind.
3.7 SOLIDS ANALYSIS
The material collected in a solids loading sample was subjected to a number

of analyses:
• Proximate Analysis
• Ultimate Analysis
• Toluene Extraction - for tar determination, as

described in Section 3.8.
/
• Thermogravimetric Analysis - see Section 4.6.1.
The results of the first three analyses are presented in Appendix A under
the specific test for which they were run.
The solids sample obtained from the first cyclone was subjected to the
following analyses, results of which are given under specific test data in
Appendix A:
• Proximate Analysis
• Ultimate Analysis
• Toluene Extraction
• Screen Sizing.
3.8 TAR FORMATION DETERMINATION
Determination of the amount of tars produced by the system was accomplished

by toluene extraction of the solid material collected in the fiberglass bag
during a solids loading sampling. The toluene extraction procedure was carried
out in a Soxlet extraction column and the material which was extracted was
defined as tars.
3-6
A Soxlet extraction column is shown in Figure 3.5. A small amount of toluene
(100 ml) is placed in a heated flask. The toluene distills off and is con
densed in the upper portion of the apparatus by a water-cooled condenser. The
condensed toluene then runs down into a porous ceramic cup in which the mater
ial to be extracted is contained. The toluene with the extracted material
flows through the porous cup and back into the heated flask to complete the
cycle.
FIGURE 3.5 SOXLET EXTRACTION COLUMN FOR TAR EXTRACTION
The gas temperature was about 800°F at the point where the solids loading was
conducted and measurements indicate that the fiberglass filter reached a tem
perature of 300-400°F within 2 minutes from the start of sampling. This may
mean that tars which vaporize below a temperature of 300-400°F may have passed
through the filter and were therefore not accounted for. This will be dis
cussed further in a subsequent section.
3-7
3.9 PROCESS MEASUREMENTS AND LOCATIONS
The relative locations of previously described gas analysis and solids or

particulate loadings are indicated in Figure 3.6. In addition to these
measurements other process measurements were made:
• Air and gas temperature
• Air flows by orifice
• Natural gas flows by orifice.
The relative positions of these measurements are shown in Figure 3.6.
GASIFIER OUTLET
FIGURE 3.6 LOCATION OF PROCESS MEASUREMENTS
3-8
3.10 GAS ANALYZER - GAS CHROMATOGRAPH
A Beckman GC-4 gas chromatograph was used to analyze the gas samples. The
chromatograph was equipped with a thermal conductivity detector, dual flow
controller, temperature programmer, gas sampling valve system and a switching
valve arrangement for column switching. A 13-foot x 1/8-inch Teflon column
with Poropak QS packing (Waters Associates, Inc.) and a 8-foot x 1/8-inch
stainless steel column with molecular sieve packing (Analabs, Inc. 5A Type,
80/90 mesh) was used to separate the gases. Helium was used as the carrier
gas.
The data readout system consisted of an electronic integrator with a teletype

printout. In addition, a Beckman Recorder was used for a visual display of
data. Calibration curves were prepared for each gas by running known con
centrations of the gas through the chromatograph. These standards were pre
pared using the partial pressure technique for gases.
The arrangement and selection of the gas detection columns were chosen based
on the following criteria:
1. Short turnaround time for gas analysis
2. Ability to detect all gases of interest.
These criteria were met, but gas concentrations below 3000 ppm were not de
tectable. Table 3.1 presents a list of the chemical species which the
chromatograph was able to detect.
TABLE 3.1 GAS ANALYSIS BY CHROMATOGRAPH
CHEMICAL SPECIES
PARAFFIN SERIES OLEFIN SERIES OTHER GASES

METHANE ETHYLENE HYDROGEN
ETHANE PROPYLENE OXYGEN
PROPANE CARBON DIOXIDE
CARBON MONOXIDE
NITROGEN
SULFUR DIOXIDE
HYDROGEN SULFIDE
CARBONYL SULFIDE
ACETYLENE
3-9
Section 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The data obtained during this test program are presented in computer output
form in Appendix A. A total of 43 tests were run during the period of
October 1975 to April 1976. Of these 43 tests, the data from 32 tests were
chosen for analysis because they could be grouped into only four categories
of equipment configurations. The eleven omitted tests involved some oxygen
enrichment, some employed steam addition, and some test results were obviously
erroneous.
Details of the energy and material balances are presented in Appendices B

and C, respectively. Appendix D contains a detailed description of a very
simple mathematical model that assumes rate control by gas-phase diffusion.
4.1 PRECISION OF MEASUREMENTS
A rather large scatter is evident when make gas heating value is plotted
versus percent theoretical air, as in Figure 4.1. Since some of this scatter
might be attributed to the precision of measurement, a study was conducted to
estimate this for the relevant variables.
4.1.1 Make-Gas Heating Value
Table 4.1 summarizes the precision of measuring make-gas composition. Values

of standard deviation were estimated for the concentration of all the gaseous
species. The corresponding contributions of each species to total heating
value were combined to produce an estimated standard deviation for that
quantity using the rule of weighted variances.
4.1.2 Air-Fuel Ratio
It is conventional and convenient to express the air-fuel ratio as "Percent

Theoretical Air," or the ratio (expressed in percentage) of the actual air
flow rate to that which would be required in order to burn the fuel to its
4-1
theoretical combustion products of CC>2, H20, S02, and N2, with zero 02> CO,
and H2- Thus coal flow rate, air flow rate, and coal composition could enter
into the precision of measuring "Percent Theoretical Air."
Table 4.2 summarizes the results of this particular study. The precision to
which the various air flows and coal flow could be determined were estimated
based on our judgement of the precision of determination of the manometer
differentials, rotameter float position, chart pen position, and time incre
ment.
EASTERN COAL
£ CODE 1 ALL COAL TO GASIFIER
■ CODE 2 50-50 SPLIT
120
^CODE 3 ALL COAL TO DEVOLATILIZER
WESTERN COAL
no QCODE 4 ALL COAL TO GASIFIER
□ CODE 5 50-50 SPLIT
<>CODE 6 ALL COAL TO DEVOLATILIZER
100
QCODE 7 ALL COAL TO GASIFIER
VERTICAL COAL NOZZLE
cP
Wb
i 80
< O
2I
o
<
O
<
2
30 -
35 40 45 50 60
PERCENT THEORETICAL AIR
FIGURE 4.1 MAKE GAS HEATING VALUE VERSUS PERCENT THEORETICAL AIR
4-2
The variation in the composition of the two coals was estimated based on two
complete analyses for each coal. The estimated standard deviation for the
Western coal is larger because of the greater uncertainty as to its moisture
content; this difference is carried through to the precision of measurement
for the air-fuel ratio.
TABLE 4.1 ESTIMATED PRECISION OF MEASUREMENT

OF MAKE GAS COMPOSITION
EST a, % H, BTU/SCF (oH)2

H2 .20 325 14225
o2+a .23 0
co2 .23 0
C2H4 (.1) 1614 26009
c2h2 (.1) 1499 22470
C2H6 (.1) 1792 32112
h2s (.1) 647 4186
n2 .21 0
ch4 (.1) 1013 10261
CO .26 322 18009
106,314
a = [2>H,2]1/2 3.26
BTU
DSCF
TABLE 4.2 PRECISION OF MEASUREMENTS
ESTIMATED STD. DEV.
MEASUREMENT ENGR. UNITS %
AIR FLOWS
GASIFIER COMBUSTION AIR 10 LB/HR 1.1*
COAL TRANSPORT AIR 4 LB/HR 0.4*
CHAR EJECTION AIR 3 LB/HR 0.3*
COAL FLOW (AS FIRED) 6 LB/HR 2.1
COAL COMPOSITION ASH,

MOISTURE & HEATING VALUE 0.8/2.2**
AIR TO FUEL RATIO*** 2.6/3.3**
NOTES: *AS % OF TOTAL AIR FLOW

**EASTERN COAL/WESTERN COAL; THE DIFFERENCE IS
DUE TO MOISTURE
##*AS % OF RATIO, i.e., 40% THEORETICAL AIR WOULD BE
40 ± 40 (.049) OR 40 ± 2.0% FOR THE ONE-STANDARD-
DEVIATION BAND
4-3
4.2 EFFECT OF NATURAL GAS FIRING PRIOR TO TESTING
4.2.1 Test Procedure
As preliminary tests have shown (Figure 4.2), the gasifier has a rather long
thermal time constant — roughly two hours or more. Therefore, to get it up
to gasification temperature quickly, each day's testing was started by firing
natural gas at about 115% theoretical air for about two hours. Gasification
tests were started at the end of this time; i.e., when the gasifier outlet
temperature reached about 2000-2200°F.
Although coal flow to the system was started at this time the natural gas was
not completely shut off. In fact during the majority of these tests, about
8 to 51 Ib/hr of natural gas was fired in the gasifier at the same time as
the coal. This was done to insure that a reducing atmosphere would be pres
ent in the event of possible coal or char recycle interruptions. If not for
the natural gas, the interruptions would suddenly cause the gas composition
to become oxidizing, which might precipitate an explosion or cause very large
excursions in temperature.
3000
2800
2600
2400
2200
° 2000
w
CE
£
a.
5 '600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
NATURAL GAS FIRING TIME, HOURS
FIGURE 4.2 GAS TEMPERATURE DATA FOR FIRING

NATURAL GAS ONLY
4-4
4.2.2 Hypothetical Temperature Distri
bution in Gasifier Wall
As a result of this method of startup,

it is conceivable that the gasifier
heat losses could vary systematically
during the balance of the day. They
might even go through a maximum. How
this might happen is illustrated in
Figure 4.3, which shows hypothetical
temperature distributions in the
A. AT 0 = 2 HRS CH4 FIRING
gasifier wall. For example. Fig
ure 4.3A shows a steep gradient with a
high inner-wall temperature immediately
on completion of preheating. In Fig
ure 4.3B, after an hour of gasification,
the gradient has decreased substantially
and, with it, the inner-wall temperature,
0 = 6 HRS
However, the vessel wall is still not 0=4 HRS
0 = 3 HRS
up to steady-state temperature in its
entirety. So, at successively longer RADIUS
times, the inner-wall temperature rises B. AT LATER TIMES, GASIFYING
again, although the lower gradient is

maintained (consistent with the slower
heating due to gasification compared 2000 F
with combustion). Figure 4.3C shows <
the resulting inner-wall temperature
as a function of time. Heat losses 1500F
from the gasification reactions would,

of course, follow a complementary path, 0, HRS
peaking at some intermediate time. C- 'inside vs time
Accordingly, time after startup of the FIGURE 4.3 POSSIBLE TEMPERATURE

PROFILES IN GASIFIER WALL
gasifier ("Time of Day") was included
as one of the initial correlating vari
ables to be considered in statistical
analysis.
4-5
4.2.3 Statistical Correlation Including "Time of Day
A non-linear regression analysis was made using make-gas heating value as the
dependent variable and "Time of Day," air-fuel ratio, expressed as a fraction
of the amount of air that is theoretically required to burn the fuel (coal
and natural gas included) completely to CO^ and HÔ and operating mode as
independent variables. Operating mode was broken down into seven cases, coded
as follows:
Code No. Description
1 Eastern Coal, all to gasifier, horizontal burners

2 Eastern Coal, 50-50 split
3 Eastern Coal, all to devolatilizer
4 Western Coal, all to gasifier, horizontal burners
5 Western Coal, 50-50 split
6 Wester Coal, all to devolatilizer
7 Western Coal, all to gasifier, vertical upward
nozzle
The functional dependencies on "Time of Day" and air-fuel ratio were

required to be the same for all seven cases, but the parameter expressing
the mean heating value was allowed to seek a different value for each case.
Results are summarized in Table 4.3. The relative importance of any param
eter in the correlation is measured by the "F to remove" value. This value
is a ratio of the value of that parameter to the random error associated
with the data points about the curve. Thus, if the value contributed by a
particular parameter is less than twice the random error about the curve,
the parameter can be regarded as relatively unimportant. Therefore, we
used a value of 2 as an approximate cut-off point; parameters with an
"F to remove" value much less than 2 can be considered unimportant. Based
on this criteria the parameters containing the time function (coefficients
K3, K^, K^) are relatively unimportant and hence the coefficients can be
considered equal to zero for practical purposes.
A plot of the data points based on the above correlation is shown in Fig
ure 4.4. On the vertical axis is plotted make-gas heating value with mode
of coal injection and air-fuel ratio taken into account. On the horizontal
axis is plotted the elapsed time as measured from the beginning of natural
4-6
gas firing up until the time the data for that particular test was taken
("Time of Day"). Time was measured from the beginning of natural gas firing
for preheat purposes because this time would also contribute to the gasifier
inner wall temperature. As confirmed in this plot, no significant correl
ation exists as far as the time function is concerned.
TABLE 4.3 STATISTICAL CORRELATION OF DATA: AIR-FUEL

RATIO, GROUP, AND "TIME OF DAY"
7
H = co + £ Cn Xn + K-|A + K2A2 + K3« + K402 +K503
A = AIR-TO-FUEL RATIO
H = HEATING VALUE, BTU/DSCF
C0 = CONSTANT
cn = COEFFICIENT EXPRESSING RELATIVE POSITION OF
n-th DATA GROUP
Xn = "DUMMY" VARIABLE HAVING VALUE OF UNITY FOR
n-th GROUP AND ZERO FOR ALL OTHERS
K'S = COEFFICIENTS AS ABOVE
S = TIME OF DAY MEASURED FROM MORNING LITE-OFF
COEFFICIENT F TO REMOVE SENSIBLE VALUE
Ki 1.77 -1.589
k2 0.676 0.0103
K3 0.418 0
k4 0.674 0
K5 1.014 0
CONCLUDE: NO CONSISTENT TREND WITH TIME OF DAY
EASTERN COAL

WESTERN COAL
OCODE 4 ALL COAL TO GASIFIER

o
I
□a
Do*
3 4 5 6
FIRING TIME PRIOR TO TEST, HOURS
FIGURE 4.4 EFFECT OF TIME OF DAY
4-7
4.3 EFFECT OF NATURAL GAS FIRING DURING TESTING
Natural gas was fired in the gasifier during the majority of these tests because
of possible interruptions of char recycle. If not for the natural gas, these
interruptions would suddenly cause the gas composition to become oxidizing, which
might precipitate an explosion or cause very large excursions in temperatures.
Only during the code 7 tests were we confident enough of char recycle to shut
off the natural gas. Oddly enough it was during these tests that the highest
Btu contents were obtained. So we asked the question, "Could it be possible
that the firing of natural gas into the gasifier tended to produce lower Btu
values?" To answer this question, two statistical analyses were made. The
first is depicted in Figure 4.5 where we have fit the data to an equation of
the general form indicated. This general form, quadratic in air-fuel ratio
and linear in the amount of natural gas fired, was fitted to the data without
regard to the effect of code. Plotted against the amount of natural gas
fired is heating value less the effect of air-fuel ratio. From this, it
indeed appears that there is a trend for the Btu content to.go down as the
amount of natural gas increases. However, upon closer examination, there is
also a trend as far as code is concerned in that different codes tend to
have different amounts of natural gas, e.g., code 1 employed 8-12 Ib/hr
natural gas, and codes 2, 5, and 6 employed 27 Ib/hr natural gas.
O
o
o
o
o
u ■10 ■b-
O
B
^Dd
m -20
EASTERN COAL
f '3° • CODE 1 ALL COAL TO GASIFIER O

3 ■ CODE 2 SO-50 SPLIT
O
X •CODE 3 ALL COAL TO DEVOLATILIZER
-40
50
WESTERN COAL
¥
□ CODE 5 50-50 SPLIT ♦
OCODE 6 ALL COAL TO DEVOLATILIZER 51
C0 + K, A + K2 A2 + K3 (NAT. GAS)
5 10 15 20 25
NATURAL GAS FIRED IN GASIFIER LBS/HR
FIGURE 4.5 EFFECT OF NATURAL GAS FIRED IN GASIFIER
4-8
Therefore, the correlation was done again. This time, each^code was allowed
to "float" (so to speak) through the addition of the terms C X^. In
other words the same functional dependencies with respect to air-fuel ratio
and amount of natural gas are forced upon each code, but each code is allowed
to "seek its own level." Figure 4.6 presents this analysis showing a plot
of heating value less the effect of air-fuel ratio and code as a function of
the amount of natural gas fired. This analysis indicates that there is no
correlation. In other words, although admitting inherent differences among
the codes due to equipment arrangement or coal fired, natural gas firing
had no effect on the heating value.
EASTERN COAL

WESTERN COAL

o
t/y □ CODE 5 50 - 50 SPLIT
Q +20
3 <>CODE 6 ALL COAL TO DEVOLATILIZER
t—
CO OCODE 7 ALL COAL TO GASIFIER
<CM O
* O
|0
IO
o
o
H = C0 + K-j A + K2 A^ + K3 (NAT. GAS) + I CnXn
-20
5 10 15 20 25
NATURAL GAS FIRED IN GASIFIER LBS/HR
FIGURE 4.6 EFFECT OF NATURAL GAS FIRED IN GASIFIER
4.4 MATERIAL BALANCE
4.4.1 Basis for Material Balance
Figure 4.7 shows the basis for the material balances that were made. The
general gasification stoichiometry can be explained as follows. We assume
that into the process goes one pound atom of carbon in the form of coal along
4-9
with some amount of air to give a value of air-fuel ratio. A, defined as moles
of air fed per mole of air theoretically required to burn the coal all the way
to CO^, HÔ, and SO^- The gas produced in the process consists of some quantity
of carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and an amount of hydrocarbon gas with an aver
age formula of The value of 3 will range up to 0.10. Also coming out of
the process is a certain amount of dust, 3 , defined as the fraction of inlet
P
carbon which escapes from the process as char with an average formula CH^. Thus,
the process of Figure 4.7 will give a gas with a heating value which is a
function of the A, g^, and 3^ — or approximately just of the air-fuel ratio
and the 3 , since, over the range of values encountered, 3 has only a slight
P 9
effect upon heating value.
1 #ATOM CARBON MCO
COAL MH2
GAS
0g CHX
PROCESS ETC.
PP CHy
AIR DUST
ETC.
60% REU HUM.
A = MOLS AIR/MOL AIR THEORETICAL

HEATING VALUE, H = f (A, 0p. 0g) = f (A, /3p)
FIGURE 4.7 GASIFICATION STOICHIOMETRY
Table 4.4 shows the various values of 3 , x, 3 , y, and the amount of methane
9 P
fired that were observed in the tests under consideration. For the material
balance calculations, the value of 3 was taken to be 0.06. This choice was
9
made so as to favor code 7 data a little more than the rest. However, the
next figure will show that the value of 3 is not very important, anyhow.
9
From Table 4.4 it is obvious that the x value runs at about 2.5, except for
codes 4 and 5 where it is equal to 4.0 (indicating that methane was the major
hydrocarbon produced). As a typical value for all material balance calcula
tions, we have chosen a value of 2.5.
4-10
TABLE 4.4 MATERIAL BALANCE PARAMETERS
PERCENT iS'n.g.
CODE TEST X V ASH IN #CH4 FIRED
*
NO. NO. (MEASURED) DUST #C0AL (WET)
1 0 - _ _ 13.08 .06
2 0 - i _ - 13.08 .06
3 0 - .032 - 13.08 .045
4 0 - .033 - 13.08 .046
1 5 0 - .122 - 13.08 .052
6 0 - .020 - 13.08 .032
20 .0553 2.5 .119 .110 9.7 .083
21 0475 2 29 096 - 11.5 .06
22 0 0506 - 13.08 .077
9 0366 2 33 _ _ 32.8 .15

10 .0714 2 40 .148 .142 6.7 .144
2 11 .0923 2.50 094 - 13.08 .163
13 .0649 2.40 .114 .446 2.6 .126
14 .0486 2.29 .129 .386 13.4 .154
16 .0588 2.50 .096 - 34.6 .17
3 7 .0417 3.57 _ _ 13.08 .417

8 .0556 3.33 - - 13.08 .28
27 .0192 4.0 .127 _ 24.7 .122

32 .0062 4.0 .162 - 24.7 .049
24 .0053 4.0 .0919 _ 19.9 .119

28 .0117 4.0 .086 - 24.7 .111
5 29 .0128 4.0 .085 .405 26.2 .115
35 .0204 4.0 .180 - 26.6 .08
26 .0194 2.67 .104 _ 20.6 .114

6 31 .0409 2.67 .118 .576 19.4 .101
36 .0470 2.91 .066 - 21.8 .12
33 .1446 2.60 .125 _ 25.5 .050

34 .1255 2.64 .150 - 26.7 0
38 .0443 2.50 .051 - 27.05 0
39 .0705 2.86 .088 .208 29.0 0
40 .0541 2.00 .144 - 27.05 0
42 .0412 2.50 .104 - 27.05 0
43 .0886 2.25 .096 .220 27.0 0
The value for 3 , Table 4.4, varied so much that we felt we couldn't pick an
P
average, so we retained the individual values for each run. The value of
y, the hydrogen-to-carbon ratio in the char, was chosen as a typical value of
0.22, again favoring the code 7 data.
The last column in Table 4.4 represents the methane fired in the gasifier
in terms of pounds of methane per pound of coal fired. The individual values
were used in calculating the air-fuel ratio; that is, the amount of methane
fired was counted as part of the fuel in calculating air-fuel ratio.
4-11
4.4.2 Effect of Amount of Hydrocarbons on Heating Value
As we have already noted, within the range, 0-0.10, the value of 8 is

g
relatively unimportant as far as heating value is concerned. This is shown
in Figure 4.8 where the calculated heating value of the make gas is plotted
against air-fuel ratio. This plot assumes 100% carbon utilization, i.e., no
carbon loss from system. A fictitious hydrocarbon, CH2 has been assumed
and its amount, 8 , has been varied from 0 to 0.10. As will be seen there is
P
only a small effect. Thus, a value of 0.05 or 0.06 could represent the entire
range. It is interesting to note that, at a given air-fuel ratio, the more
hydrocarbon in the gas, the lower the resulting Btu value. The reason for this
is that the formation of hydrocarbons from CC>2 and hydrogen is exothermic, as
is demonstrated by the heating value formulas of Figure 4.9.
0g, FRACTION OF
CARBON AS CH9r;
o 100
WESTERN COAL
NO DUST, (3 =0
0.10-A
THEORETICAL AIR
FIGURE 4.8 EFFECT OF AMOUNT OF HYDROCARBONS ON

STOICHIOMETRIC HEATING VALUE
4-12
121,675 Mco + 122,891 Mh2 + 284,287 Mh2s + (240200 + 20160X) MCHx
387 (2 M-MH20)
MOLS
Mco + mco2 + MCHx " 12 # DRY COAL
25
= [290,600 - 2(121,675) -(122,891)]/387 (2 M-M^q)
= -106,364/387 (I M-M^q)
FIGURE 4.9 COMPUTATION OF GAS HEATING VALUE
4.4.3 Check of Heating Value and Particulate Loading
Figure 4.10 is a plot of heating value against air-fuel ratio with lines of
constant percentage of carbon appearing as char. Put another way, these are
lines of constant carbon utilization. The data from the code 7 tests has
been plotted on this graph, and beside each data point is the "actual"
amount of char in the gas as measured by sampling the gas. It will be noted
that the percentage of carbon dictated by stoichiometry (i.e., by the position
of the point with respect to the 3^ graph) and that actually measured do not
generally agree. For example, the point located at about 45% theoretical
air lies on a 15% carbon line; however, only 6% was actually measured by
sampling. This kind of discrepancy is also evident for all of the other
data. The implication is, of course, either that we measured the heating
value of the gas wrong or that we measured too little char in the gas.
We made several checks in an effort to verify the heating value data. The
first of these is summarized in Figure 4.11. We attempted to condense out
in a flask all of the low boiling hydrocarbons in the sample stream. As
indicated, most of the condensed liquid appeared to be water as determined
by distillation tests with little, if any, tars or oils. This implies that
we did not miss low-boiling hydrocarbons in our gas analysis because there
were none. Figure 4.12 summarizes the results of a second test of this
nature. A solid residue was condensed out in this case, and infrared
analysis showed it to be naphthalene. The quantity, however, was very small
and would account for only about 0.5 Btu in heating value. A check was also
made on the ability of our gas chromatograph to detect gaseous species
4-13
present in significant quantities (>3000 ppm). This was done by sending
duplicate samples out to another lab for analysis (Gollob Analytical
Service). The results of these analyses agreed closely with our own. Table 4.5.
In neither case did the outside lab find significant quantities of hydro
carbons which we did not detect.
( ) MEASURED %C AS ASH FREE DUST
O CODE 7 ALL COAL (WESTERN) TO

___________ GASIFIER COAL NOZZLE
WESTERN COAL
6% OF C AS CH2 5 (GAS)
ASH-FREE DUST AS CHn
% OF CARBON AS
ASH-FREE DUST
% THEORETICAL AIR
FIGURE 4.10 COMPARISON OF CODE 7 DATA WITH THEORY
4-14
SOLIDS ALL COAL BEING FED TO VERTICAL
DATE VOLUME GAS CAUGHT IN MATERIAL GASIFIER NOZZLE
TIME SAMPLED GLASS BAG CONDENSED
5/14/76
14.35 FT3 10.249. Zl.Olg. A DISTILLATION TEST ON THIS LIQUID SHOWED THAT
0949
ALL OF IT DISTILLED OFF AT 100°C INDICATING THAT
IT WAS WATER. VERY LITTLE TARS, OILS, OR OTHER
5/14/76
17.18 FT3 28.06g. 25.54g. MATERIAL WAS EVIDENT IN EITHER SAMPLE.
1035
MAKE GAS FROM

EXIT OF CYCLONES
| -800F
L=
6" MAKE GAS LINE HIGH PRESS. AIR
SAMPLING PROBE
VENTURI METER
ASPIRATOR
EXHAUST
3" x 12" FIBERGLASS
SAMPLING FILTER---- GAS METER
<300F
DRY ICE
IMPINGER WITH AP MANOMETER
INTALOX SADDLES
FIGURE 4.11 DRY ICE CONDENSATION TESTS
HEATING VALVE ICE BATH RESIDUE

VOLUME SOLIDS SOLID RESIDUE SOLIDS FROM SOLIDS FROM OF RESIDUE AS % OF SOLIDS
GAS CAUGHT IN COLLECTED BY GLASS BAG ICE BATH (ASSUME CAUGHT IN BAG
TEST SAMPLED GLASS BAG ICE BATH =/HR =/HR NAPHTHALENE) FILTER
43 18.1 FT3 18.08g 0.27 grams* 34.06 0.51 BTU 1.5%

0.54------
SCf
•IDENTIFIED BY IR AS PRIMARLY NAPHTHALENE
MAKE GAS FROM

EXIT OF CYCLONES
I ~800F

/SAMPLING PROBE
VENTURI METER
ASPIRATOR
EXHAUST
3" x 12" FIBERGLASS
SAMPLING FILTER'"'' GAS METER
<300 F
FLASK FILLED
WITH ICE AP MANOMETER
FIGURE 4.12 ICE BATH COLLECTION TEST
4-15
TABLE 4.5 GAS ANALYSES - COMPARISON OF ARC AND GOLLOB ANALYTICAL SERVICE
DEVOLATILIZER* DEVOLATILIZER** DEVOLATILIZER* DEVOLATILIZER**

OUTLET OUTLET OUTLET OUTLET
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION TEST 29 TEST 29 TEST 30 TEST 30
GOLLOB ARC GOLLOB ARC
ANALYTICAL ANALYTICAL
SERVICE SERVICE
NITROGEN (N2) BALANCE (65.7) 65.1 BALANCE (62.0) 60.1
OXYGEN + ARGON (02 + Ar) 0.132 0.9 0.582 0.9
CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) 15.0 15.1 19.4 18.0
CARBON DIOXIDE (C02) 8.7 8.4 7.7 9.5
HYDROGEN (H2) 9.7 10.2 9.6 11.3
HELIUM (He) 0.015 id 0.057 (it
CARBONYL SULFIDE (COS) 0.026 0 0.023 0.3
SULFUR DIOXIDE <S02) - 0 - 0.3
METHANE (CH4) 0.49 0.3 0.41 0.3
ACETYLENE (C2H2) - 0 - 0.3
ETHYLENE (C2H4) - 0 - 0.3
ETHANE (C2H6) 0.14 0 0.17 0.3
PROPENE (CjHg) - 0 - 0.3
PROPANE (C3H8) 0.018 0 N.D. 0.3
BENZENE (CgHgl 0.013 (2) 0.0090 (2)
TOLUENE (C7Hg) 0.0085 (2) 0.0045 (2)
ORGANICS <C4-Cg MIXTURE) 0.058 (2) 0.052 (2)
•ALL ANALYSES BY MASS SPECTROMETER EXCEPT CARBON MONOXIDE (GAS CHROMATOGRAPH).

**ALL GAS CHROMATOGRAPH.
(1) CHROMATOGRAPH CARRIER GAS

(2) NOT MEASURED
In the area of particulate measurement, we ran two checks on the effectiveness

of the fiberglass sampling bag. The experimental setup and results of these
checks are shown in Figure 4.13. It will be noted that less than 2% of the
material got through the fiberglass fiber.
From the results of these checks, we concluded that:
1. The measured heating values are substantially correct.
2. The missing particulate was probably flowing around

the sampling tube in the make-gas line.
4-16
= sohl'ds based ~ ^hTr05 caught
FIBERGLASS FILTER BACK-UP FILTER % OF SOLIDS GETTING
TEST = BAG CATCH, GMS CATCH, GMS ON BAG FILTER BY BACK-UP FILTER THRU BAG FILTER
11 4.65 0.07 15.88 0.24 1.5%
12 5.23 0.03 14.17 0.08 0.60%
MAKE GAS FROM

EXIT OF CYCLONES
JL=
SAMPLING PROBE
VENTURI METER
ASPIRATOR
BACK-UP
FILTER
3" x 12" FIBERGLASS EXHAUST
SAMPLING FILTER—" GAS METER
_\P MANOMETER
FIGURE 4.13 BACK-UP FILTER TESTS
4.4.4 Comparison of Data with Theory
Figures 4.14 through 4.17 present all 32 runs on H-A type plots, grouped
according to code. As previously noted in connection with code 7 data, the
measured amounts of particulates are far below what they must be if the
heating values and air-fuel ratio are correct (which we believe they are).
These plots can be used to read off the correct 3^ values.
4.4.5 Carbon Balance at Cyclone Exit
The information from the previous four figures can be presented in another
form as shown in Figures 4.18 and 4.19. Here we have plotted stoichiometri-
cally required amounts of particulate versus that found by measurement at
point B, the exit of the cyclones. Theoretically, the points should fall on
a 45-degree line; however, as seen for the Eastern coal, the points are
scattered above such a line with a few points below. The data for the
Western coal are somewhat better in that there is a fairly good empirical
correlation. Still, it is far from a 45-degree line.
4-17
EASTERN COAL
EASTERN COAL
Pg = 0.06
y = 0.22
♦ CODE 3 ALL COAL TO
= MEASURED % DEVOLATILIZER
PARTICULATE
(11.4)
3 90
81-
(9.6)B
(11.9)
45 £ 50 5!
% THEORETICAL AIR % THEORETICAL AIR
FIGURE 4.14 COMPARISON OF CODE 1 & 2 DATA WITH THEORY FIGURE 4.15 COMPARISON OF CODE 3 DATA WITH THEORY
WESTERN COAL
WESTERN COAL
y = 0.22
O CODE 4 ALL COAL TO GASIFIER Pg = 0.06
□ CODE 5 50 - 50 SPLIT
OCODE 6 ALL COAL TO DEVOLATILIZER y = 0.22
( )= MEASURED % PARTICULATES O CODE 7 ALL COAL TO GASIFIER
( )= MEASURED % PARTICULATES
0(8.8)
0(15) '
. 0(14.4)
H, BTU/
3 100
(12.7)
(16.2)
% THEORETICAL AIR % THEORETICAL AIR
FIGURE 4.16 COMPARISON OF CODE 4, 5, 6 DATA WITH THEORY FIGURE 4.17 COMPARISON OF CODE 7 DATA WITH THEORY
POINT B POINT C
] SEC. I
DEVOL
p-*" COMB.
CARBON IN COAL AS
EASTERN COAL
• CODE 1 ALL COAL TO GASIFIER

O 10
oz-
POINT B POINT C WESTERN COAL

I SEC. 1
DEVOL OCODE 4 ALL COAL TO GASIFIER
p “ COMB.
OCODE 6 ALL COAL TO DEVOLATILIZER
O CODE 7 ALL COAL TO GASIFIER
-10 1—^
A ^
PERCENT CARBON IN COAL AS PARTICULATES PERCENT CARBON IN COAL AS PARTICULATES
-AS MEASURED AT POINT B- -AS MEASURED AT POINT B-
FIGURE 4.18 CARBON BALANCE AT POINT B - EASTERN COAL FIGURE 4.19 CARBON BALANCE AT POINT B - WESTERN COAL
4.4.6 Carbon Balance at Secondary Combustion Furnace
A second kind of carbon balance was made at point C, the exit of the secon
dary combustion furnace. For this balance we took the percent carbon as
particulates which we found experimentally at point B and corrected it for
the additional carbon found at point C. This new carbon balance is shown
in Figures 4.20 and 4.21 for the Eastern and Western coals, respectively.
For the Eastern coal, the data points are still widely scattered. For the
Western coal. Figure 4.21, the correlation is better but all the carbon is
still not accounted for.
4.4.7 Carbon Balance as a Function of Air-Fuel Ratio
Perhaps a more revealing way of presenting the carbon balances is that repre
sented by Figures 4.22 and 4.23. Percent carbon accounted for at points B and
C is plotted against air-fuel ratio. The open points represent the carbon
balance at point B, and the solid points represent the carbon balance at
point C.
Looking first at the data for Eastern coal. Figure 4.22, it is evident that in
the majority of the tests more carbon was found at point C than at point B.
However, sometimes when the points are close together the reverse is true.
In any event, there is a definite tendency to miss carbon at points B and C
at the lower air-fuel ratios. This implies more and more carbon was lost
from the system as the air-fuel ratio decreased.
There are three possibilities that might account for our inability to account
for all of the carbon:
1. Deposition of carbon within the system.
2. The carbon actually went through the secondary combustion

furnace but did not burn completely. (There is some
evidence that the solids slugged through the system which
may account for its not all being burned.)
3. The oxygen analyzer at point C may have been inaccurate or

subject to flow stratification causing a higher than actual
oxygen reading. (If this were the case, however, one
wouldn't expect a trend with air-fuel ratio.)
4-21
CO
111
I-
<
3 30
< I
- S
EASTERN COAL < o
o
o =
S O 10 • CODE 1 ALL COAL TO GASIFIER
5 20
■ CODE 2 50 - 50 SPLIT
z
zz-
o
CD >-
CQ
< I
o
POINT B POINT C UJ
DEVOL £
10 20 30
PERCENT CARBON IN COAL AS PARTICULATES PERCENT CARBON IN COAL AS PARTICULATES
-AS CORRECTED FOR CARBON AT POINT C- -AS CORRECTED FOR CARBON AT POINT C-
FIGURE 4.20 CARBON BALANCE AT POINT C FIGURE 4.21 CARBON BALANCE AT POINT C - WESTERN COAL
121%
.1
/O
o
LEAST SQUARES FIT
O 90 % CARBON = 1.45 A + 16.2
LU A (C BALANCE)
£
O 80
<
< 70 V
s i
o PERCENT OF INPUT CARBON

£ 60 ACCOUNTED FOR AT POINTS
EASTERN COAL
AT
POINT ! 0CODE 1 ALL C0AL T0 GAS,FIER # POINT
B □ CODE 2 50 -50 SPLIT
C
30 40 50 60 70
FIGURE 4.22 EFFECT OF THEORETICAL AIR ON CARBON BALANCE
no
LEAST SQUARES FIT
% CARBON = 1.29 A + %
<C BALANCE)
100
PERCENT OF INPUT CARBON

ACCOUNTED FOR AT POINTS
WESTERN COAL
8 80
o OCODE 4 ALL COAL TO GASIFIER #
AT AT
□ CODE 5 50 -50 SPLIT ■
POINT POINT
B OCODE 6 ALL COAL TO DEVOLATILIZER^ C
< O CODE 7 ALL COAL TO GASIFIER •
H
UJ B C
SEC.
Jr
c
COMB.
Y
C.
y
40 50
FIGURE 4.23 EFFECT OF THEORETICAL AIR ON CARBON BALANCE
4-23
In any event, the solid points in Figure 4.22, carbon balance at point C,
indicate that at about 58% theoretical air we should be able to get 100%
carbon utilization in this apparatus.
The data for western coal. Figure 4.23, are a little more consistent in
that the point-C balance always indicates more carbon accounted for than
the point-B balance. As for the Eastern coal data, the same trend is
evident as far as a decrease in carbon accounted for at lower air-fuel ratios.
A least-squares fit through the point-C data indicates that 100% carbon
utilization might be achieved in this apparatus at an air-fuel ratio of about
43%.
4.5 ENERGY BALANCE
4.5.1 Devolatilizer Outlet Temperature Versus Air-Fuel Ratio
The curves shown in Figure 4.24 represent the measured devolatilizer outlet
temperature as a function of air-fuel ratio. One curve (the upper one) applies
where no coal was fed to the devolatilizer. The other applies where some coal
was fed to the devolatilizer. Considering for a moment that the devolatilizer
outlet temperature is virtually the same as the process outlet temperature
(to a first approximation), then at a given air-fuel ratio, the devolatilizer
outlet temperature should be unaffected by the point of coal injection. How
ever, this expectation is not borne out by the data. This strongly suggests
that the thermocouple at the devolatilizer outlet was getting fouled by tars
and, therefore, reading low when coal was fed to the devolatilizer. True,
there are other factors that might affect this situation, but they are best
analyzed via energy balance.
4.5.2 Energy Balance Boundaries
Figure 4.25 shows the gasifier process and boundaries that were used to make
the various energy balances. Three pieces of equipment are involved:
1. Gasifier
2. Devolatilizer
3. Cyclone Separators.
4-24
ALL COAL TO GASIFIER
(NONE TO DEVOLATILIZER)
EASTERN COAL

SOME OR ALL COAL TO ■ CODE 2 50 -50 SPLIT
DEVOLATILIZER
WESTERN COAL
Opcode 4 all coal to gasifier
□ code 5 50 - 50 SPLIT
0*CODE 7 ALL COAL TO GASIFIER
___________VERTICAL COAL NOZZLE
AIR - FUEL RATIO
•AIR-FUEL RATIO IS EXPRESSED AS A FRACTION OF THE AMOUNT OF AIR THAT IS

THEORETICALLY REQUIRED TO BURN THE FUEL (NATURAL GAS AND COAL INCLUDED)
COMPLETELY TO C02 AND H20.
FIGURE 4.24 EFFECT OF AIR-FUEL RATIO ON MEASURED DEVOLATILIZER

OUTLET TEMPERATURE
(1 -S)
COAL
S COAL
SEPARATORS
© CHAR & ASH
COMMON POINT FOR ALL BOUNDARIES
FIGURE 4.25 ENERGY BALANCE BOUNDARIES
4-25
Four different energy balances were made and these are described below:
Balance TV This balance is around the whole process and

is useful for calculating the exit temperature,
, leaving the cyclone separators.
Balance III This balance is cut just ahead of the cyclone

separators and is useful for calculating T^,
the temperature at the devolatilizer exit.
Balance II This is just around the gasifier and is used for

calculating the gasifier outlet temperature, T2-
Balance I This balance is around the bottom portion of the

the gasifier. The assumption is made that at the
bottom of the gasifier all of the oxygen is
used for forming CC>2 and H20 with no further
H2 nor CO reactions taking place. This permits
the calculation of the maximum temperature that
might be achieved in the gasifier.
4.5.3 Energy-Balance Assumptions
A number of assumptions were made for simplicity:
1. No chemical reactions occur in the cyclone separators; their

only function is to separate the char from the gas.
2. Separator efficiency was assumed to lie between 80 and

95%, since data was not available to calculate this parameter.
3. The material balance closes. (This may appear to be questionable

since it has been shown that the material balance rarely closed,
often by a wide margin. However, it will be shown later that this
assumption is justifiable.)
4. The make gas contains N2, CC>2, CO, H20, and H2 in water-gas
shift equilibrium (down to 1700°F) plus a small amount of
CH (gas) and CH (solid). All sulfur appears as H„S.
x y 2
Note that the water-gas shift reaction has very little
enthalpy change associated with it.)
5. Steady state. (This assumption was found to be not true

and later abondoned.)
4-26
6. No reaction in the devolatilizer other than devolatiliza
tion; e.g., no char is gasified. (From our gas-composition
data we believe that this is not quite right; no other
assumption is feasible at this point. The result is that
our calculated values of T^ should be a little lower than
reality. In other words, there should be a temperature drop
across the devolatilizer due to actual gasification reactions
which we are neglecting for analysis purposes.)
7. At all the oxygen reacts with char to form only CO^ and HÔ;
no CO, H , H S, or CH are formed.
2. 2. X
4.5.4 Summary of Steady-State Heat-Loss Calculations
Figure 4.26 presents a summary of heat-loss calculations. As indicated in

this figure, all the heat losses were broken up and assigned to the three
major pieces of equipment: (1) gasifier, (2) devolatilizer, and (3) cyclone
separators.
'""devolatilizer. q7^
733 kcal/mol 02 ^
^(CALCULATED) I
5066
5066 kcal/mol
kcal/mol 02
02 16173 kcal/mol On | byt,ykcal/mo1 u2 I
1 MEASURED
MEASURED TO TO I (ccT.MATFni (ESTIMATED) ,
| WATER JACKET
WATER JACKET ' (ESTIMATED) |
I (TEST =34) I I
GASIFIER. Qg | SEPARATOR, Qs
SEPARATOR.
J
FIGURE 4.26 SUMMARY OF STEADY-STATE HEAT-LOSS CALCULATIONS
4-27
A brief description of these heat losses and their method of calculation
follows:
Gasifier Water Jacket - This heat loss was calculated from

measured water flow rates and inlet and outlet temperatures.
Water-Cooled Support Ring - This heat loss was calculated using

measured water flow rates and inlet and outlet temperatures.
(Note: This support ring was removed just prior to Test 39
and was not reinstalled.)
Gasifier Surface - The outside surface temperature of the

gasifier was measured at various times and at various positions
along its length. The heat loss was estimated using an average
overall temperature and an estimated convection coefficient to
the surrounding air.
Crossover Pipe - Heat loss was calculated using measured surface

temperatures taken during a couple of tests and an estimated
convection coefficient to the surrounding air.
Devolatilizer Surface - Heat loss was calculated using measured

surface temperatures and an estimated heat transfer coefficient
of the surrounding air.
Water-Cooled Elbow at Devolatilizer Exit - The heat loss at this

point presented a problem because neither water flow nor tempera
ture was measured. We estimated the heat transfer coefficient
from the gas to the metal wall via the Colburn equation and
assumed the metal temperature to be 212°F. Actually, the Colburn
equation should underestimate the heat transfer coefficient
1) because the equation applies for fully developed flow,
whereas the elbow represents an entrance condition; 2) because
the elbow is curved, whereas the Colburn equation presumes a
straight pipe; and 3) because the particulate should tend to
raise the coefficient over and above that for a clean gas. On
the other hand, as a result of the low surface temperature of
the elbow, considerable buildup of sticky tars and char might
occur, and these could decrease the heat transfer coefficient
by as much as an order of magnitude. Thus, the calculated value
of the heat transfer coefficient (60 Btu/hr-ft -°F) is quite
uncertain. The possible effect of this uncertainty will be
discussed later.
4-28
Cyclone Separators - A heat loss by convection and radiation was
estimated from an estimated surface temperature. The surface
temperature estimate was based on a measured inlet gas tem
perature and the fact that the cyclones were not hot enough
to give off visible radiation. This put an upper limit on
the temperatures.
4.5.5 Effects of Assumptions
4.5.5.1 Carbon Balance Study. One of the assumptions made in the energy balance
calculations was that the material balance closes, i.e., all the input carbon is
accounted for at the exit of the system. However, this was rarely the observed
case; and we would like to discuss here the effect of this assumption.
Two runs (runs 40 and 43) were selected that display a relatively large carbon
imbalance. To estimate the effect of the imbalance, the air-fuel ratio was
"corrected" so as to make the carbon into the system equal to the carbon out.
This had the effect of raising the air-fuel ratio as indicated in Table 4.6.
For example, the actual air-fuel ratio for run 43 was 0.321 while the "cor
rected" value for run 43.1 was 0.397. We then computed the energy balances
using these "corrected" values of A, and the results are as shown in Table 4.6.
(In all cases, temperatures, T^, were forced to equal the measured values by
adding additional heat losses. We'll discuss the reason for doing this later.)
Comparing the T^ values of Table 4.6, we note that the "corrected" values are a
little over 100°F higher than the uncorrected. The T^ temperature (into the
devolatilizer) went up about 200°F in both cases. We can conclude from this
that, in spite of the fact that the material balances didn't always close, the
calculated temperatures are fairly accurate.
4.5.5.2 Cyclone Efficiency Study. Table 4.7 presents the results of a study
to determine the effect of the assumed value of cyclone efficiency upon the
results of the energy balance. We've taken run 43 and varied the cyclone
efficiency from 80 to 90 to 95%, holding everything else constant. Here
again the system outlet temperature, T^, has been forced to equal the mea
sured outlet temperature by the addition of heat losses. The effect of going
from 80 to 90% and 90 to 95% cyclone efficiency is about 100°F for T^ and
about 150°F for T^, the devolatilizer outlet and inlet temperatures, respec
tively. Since we feel that the actual cyclone efficiency was probably some
where in this range, we conclude that the actual value used is not of crucial
importance in making the energy balances.
4-29
oe-fr
SS31NOISN3WIO (30IA30
310NIS V SV HSHIBOOI NBXVl S3IH3S Nl S3N013AO
Hioa) aoiOBiioo aivioonavd do AONBioidda nvaaAO = ait
An3All03<JS3d SS31
'i3iino aoivdVdss bnoidad onv i3i±no aaznuvioAao * ‘t -NOiSNBwio ‘ivoo oaaid-sv do ^ aad bnvhibw do b>i
*i3imo yauisvo '131100 aoisnawoo ‘laniMi aoisnawoo “ Z *1 '0 sv oassaadXB aiva oaad (bnvhibw) svo ivhoivn - ONtl
SldiaiSSris SS31NOISN3WIO S Z AlBlVWIXOHddV SI X dO 301VA
3HI W31SAS 0NIAV31 WVBdiS Nl 'XH0 'SNOaHVOOHOAH
doso/ma 'svo 3hi jo boiva dniivbh obiviooivo = ^6h SV 0NIHV3ddV NO8HV0 lOdNI IVIOI 3H1 dO NOllOVHd ■ ‘8
do Ai3Aii03dS3a 'laiino aoivavaas aiv SV 03d zo low BVS10W 6>l
_ ^ 'S3l33dS IVOOIAIONI do S31VH MOId HVIOOBIOW = rf
3noioao qnv laiino aaziiuvioAaa 'laiino aaidisvo
'laiino aoisoawoo iv saaoivaadwai oaivinoiVD ■z1 dOSO/Oia 'SVO 3XVW 3HI dO 301VA 0NI1V3H 03a0SV3W - “h
aiv sv 03d z0 10W '(11X3 ssaiNoiSNBwia 'aaidisvo 01 oad ivoo do Nouovad = s
‘10A30 iv Moai3 oaiaxovr aaivM woaa ssoi ivbh
saaoiONi) saoivavdas bnoidad woad ssoi ivbh ivioi - *0 SS31NOISN3WIO 'IVOO Nl lOdNI NOSHVO
woiv asd Noaavo swoiv sv oassaadxa lodioo avno - ds
aiv sv oad zo
iow bji/iwi 'yazmiviOABo woad ssoi ivaw ivioi = Eo SS31N0ISN3WI0 '0ZH ONV 200 01 A13131dWOO
(030010NI SVO IVHOIVN ONV IVOO) IBOd 3H1 NH08 01
aiv sv oaaiooBa AiivouaaoBHi si ivhi aiv do inoowv
03d zo iow 6>i/ik»i 'aaidisvo woad ssoi ivbh ivioi Ho 3HI do NOllOVHd V SV 03SS3HdX3 OI1VH 130d-aiV = V
ioawAS IoawAS
BH01V1DN3W0N
erzL V£*£ 9291 L(HSVrf) 8012 V£V£ LLLZ eve l(HSVrf)
PZ’9l 611 192 l(bVHDjf) MavHOrf,
9frZ 961 SG'Z 6fl
960Z 6UZ ZLVt Jo 'll 26££ 6E92 iiee 8112 Jo *ll
£‘91 Sl‘8£ 8061 Z(HSVrf) roe 9l8e saoe 2‘8E Z(HSVrf)
t‘8L fr0‘6 2S'fr 2(bVHDrf) 61‘£ 66 68'E VO'6 Z(HVHOrt)
IZZl 69ta 2L91 Jo *zl frS9L WVL 1V9L 69V t Jo*Zl
£91 9l‘8£ 10'6L E(HSVrt) toe 9L'8E E(HSVri)
S8’0£ 2'8e
L‘8L t'O'G 2Sfr E(UVHOrf) 61E 686 06'E V0‘6 £(bVH3rt)
91ZI 9i£l 2in Jo «1 20VL 812 L 82V t 9tet Jo^l
Z8’£ 28 £ 28 *£ ►(HSVrf, toe 28E f(HSVrt)
6oe 28'E
V06 V06‘ V06‘ fr,avH0rt> 81E' 686' 88E' 06' VlHVHO,,)
josa *,h dOSQ ^
9‘Z.OL 9'10L 9'10l I’lOl 6'00L VSOl 9101
ma ma
000L 000 L 000 L Jo *,'l 016 016 000L 000 L Jo '"i
NU81S3AA NH31S3M NH31S3M IVOO Nb31S3AA Nb31S3M Nb31S3AA Nb31S3M IVOO
(oui e zO |0“J •
009'6L 009*61 009*61 ieo>l »TD 009*61 009*61 009*61 009*61 |BO>( "0
z0 IOOI „ zn ioui
006*6 006*6 006*6 no OOO'Zl 008* U 008*01 006*6 '•O
z0 |ooi R Z0 IOUI B
00i'6l 00£'6L 00i*6l |B3>| "0 OOE'ZZ OOO'ZZ oos'oz 00Z*6L |B0)| »0
S6‘ 06‘ 08 06‘ 06' 06' 06' 3U
0 0 0 */# 'O'Nj) 0 0 0 0 */*
90' 90‘ 90’ #/# e0 90’ 90' 90' 90' #/*
9ZI £‘P£ est 0(HSVrf, L12 eve 8'12 eve OiHSWrf)
Bill V18 29’£ O(HVHOry) IV£ 6*8 OG'E Vf8 O(bVHOrf)
dOSQ ,ujh dosa .uit,
6'80l 6*80 L 6 801 2‘LOL 2101 6801 6801
ma ma
L i l s t L L L s
Z£‘ 2£' 2£‘ d!) If SE' If 2E‘ d0
Uf L2£‘ L2£' V 10fr‘ 12E 16E‘ tze‘ V
£fr £t £fr ON NHb tov OV t'EV ev ‘ON NHb
Aams u L V 318V1 Aams 30Nvnva nosuvo snavi
4.5.5.3 Heat Loss Study. One of the largest uncertainties in the energy
balance calculations was the heat loss in the water-cooled elbow (which is
considered as part of the separator heat loss). Therefore, a study was made
to determine the magnitude of the effect of these uncertainties. Table 4.8
presents the results of this study. The heat loss from the cyclone separators,
Q", was cut in half (a change of about 10,000 kcal/mol O^) in going from
run 42 to 42A and from 28 to 28A. This is probably a little more of a change
than the uncertainty in the loss from the water-cooled elbow. It will be
seen that the effect of T^, the separator outlet temperature, is in the
order of 200°F between runs 42 and 42A. In the case of runs 26 and 26A, the
outlet temperature, T^, was forced to be equal to the measured temperature
of 840°F. This required the overall heat loss to be the same and hence the
reduction in heat loss in the separator was distributed as additional heat
loss in the gasifier and devolatilizer. The effect on T^ is about 200°F
and on about 100°F. Thus, the uncertainty in separator heat loss is
significant, but not decisive, in its effect upon calculated temperatures.
4.5.6 Overall Heat Balance
Table 4.9 summarizes the results of overall heat balances (IV). For each run,
we used as input to the calculation the fraction of unconsumed carbon (6 )
P
as previously obtained for the material-balance calculations, the air-to-fuel
ratio, and the estimated steady-state heat losses. The resulting values of
T^ were calculated for each run and compared with the corresponding measured
values. The entries in the column labeled AT^ in Table 4.9 represent measured
differences, arranged according to code. It will be noted that the differences,
AT4, are far larger than could possibly be explained by the various approxima
tions we have had to make in the calculations.
The third column in Table 4.9, labeled Q', represents the amount of addi
tional heat loss that would have to be present in the process in order to
explain the T^ differences. The rates in the fourth column, dT/d0, represent
the average rate of change of refractory temperature required to provide this
heat loss if transient heating up of refractory is the cause of the addi
tional heat loss. (In making this calculation, we calculated the total mass
of refractory in the gasifier, crossover pipe, and devolatilizer. We also
estimated the mean temperature of each kind of refractory and its corres
ponding specific heat.)
4-31
TABLE 4.8 HEAT LOSS STUDY
RUN NO. 42 42A 26 26A
A .339 .339 .413 .413
.27 .27 .39 .39

S 1 1 0 0
H BTU 109.3 109.3 62.1 62.1 NOMENCLATURE
m' DSCF
SYMBOL
^CHArIq 6.503 6.503 7.0 7,0
A AIR-FUEL RATIO EXPRESSED AS A FRACTION OF THE
•pashPo 32.5 32.5 21.2 21.2 AMOUNT OF AIR THAT IS THEORETICALLY REQUIRED
TO BURN THE FUEL (COAL AND NATURAL GAS INCLUDED)
Pg *1# .06 .06 .02 .02 COMPLETELY TO C02 AND H20, DIMENSIONLESS.
Pn.G. *'* 0 0 .114 .114 Pp = CHAR OUTPUT EXPRESSED AS ATOMS CARBON PER ATOM
CARBON INPUT IN COAL, DIMENSIONLESS.
.90 S FRACTION OF COAL FED TO GASIFIER, DIMENSIONLESS.

Vc .90 .90 .90
Hm - MEASURED HEATING VALUE OF THE MAKE GAS, BTU/DSCF.
rv- kcal 9500 9500 33,300 38,800
9 mol 02 M * MOLECULAR FLOW RATES OF INDIVIDUAL SPECIES,
kg MOLS/kg MOL 02 FED AS AIR.
rv' kcal 1000 1000 19,500 23,800
d mol 02 p, ' FRACTION OF THE TOTAL INPUT CARBON APPEARING AS
HYDROCARBONS, CHX, IN STREAM LEAVING SYSTEM. THE
n" kcal VALUE OF X IS APPROXIMATELY 2.5, DIMENSIONLESS.
19,600 9,800 19,600 9,800
^ mol 02 NATURAL GAS (METHANE) FEED RATE EXPRESSED AS
Pn.G. =
COAL WESTERN WESTERN EASTERN EASTERN kg OF METHANE PER kg OF AS-FIRED COAL, DIMENSION
LESS.
1524 ^C OVERALL EFFICIENCY OF PARTICULATE COLLECTOR (BOTH

t4. °f 1790 840 840
CYCLONES IN SERIES TAKEN TOGETHER AS A SINGLE
BTU DEVICE), DIMENSIONLESS.
109.9 110.3 67.0 67.0
H94' DSCF
Qg ' TOTAL HEAT LOSS FROM GASIFIER, kcal/kg MOL 02 FED
•fcharU .723 .723 .78 .78 AS AIR.
3.61 3.61 2.35 2.35 Qd = TOTAL HEAT LOSS FROM DEVOLATILIZER, kcal/kg MOL
(fashU 02 FED AS AIR.
Qs ' TOTAL HEAT LOSS FROM CYCLONE SEPARATORS (INCLUDES

T* ‘’F 1836 1939 1216 1032 HEAT LOSS FROM WATER JACKETED ELBOW AT DEVOL.
EXIT), kcal/kg MOL 02 FED AS AIR.
^char's 7.23 7.23 67.0 67.0
T,, T2. CALCULATED TEMPERATURES AT COMBUSTOR OUTLET,
•pash^ 36.1 36.1 7.77 7.77 GASIFIER OUTLET, DEVOLATILIZER OUTLET AND CYCLONE
F3. T4 ' SEPARATOR OUTLET, RESPECTIVELY, °F.
1852 Hg4 = CALCULATED HEATING VALUE OF THE MAKE GAS, BTU/DSCF.

t2. °f 1955 2512 2410
7.23 7.23 6.51 6.51 SUBSCRIPTS

^CHAR^
36.1 36.1 21.2 21.2 0, 1. 2, _ COMBUSTOR INLET, COMBUSTOR OUTLET, GASIFIER OUTLET,
(FASH>2 3, 4 DEVOLATILIZER OUTLET AND CYCLONE SEPARATOR OUTLET,
RESPECTIVELY.
Tl. °F 3109 3226 2841 2841
(FCHAR*! 5.56 5.56 6.05 6.05
(FASH*! 32.5 32.5 21.2 21.2
4-32
TABLE 4.9 OVERALL HEAT BALANCE (IV)
Q' (dT/do) FOR O'

CODE at4, °f kcal/mol O2 oF/HR
1 1412 41,634 114
2 1158 35,695 97
3 1522 49,043 134
4 880 29,123 79
5 1014 33,368 91
6 1162 38,938 106
7 611 21,093 58
AT4 = (t4>CALC. _ ,T4l|V1EAS.
Q' = AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL HEAT LOSS THAT WOULD HAVE

TO BE PRESENT IN THE PROCESS IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN
THE AT4 DIFFERENCES.
dT
— = RATE OF CHANGE OF REFRACTORY TEMPERATURE REQUIRED
d'' TO ACCOUNT FOR O' ASSUMING THAT THE TRANSIENT HEATING
OF THE REFRACTORY IS THE CAUSE OF THE ADDITIONAL
HEAT LOSS.
When all of the coal is fed to the gasifier, the local air-fuel ratio in the
gasifier is equal to the overall process air-to-fuel ratio. But when, as in
codes 3 and 6, all coal is fed to the devolatilizer (at the same overall air-
fuel ratio), the local air-fuel ratio in the gasifier is quite a bit higher
than the overall value. This situation should produce a gasifier temperature
that is higher than the case of all coal to the gasifier (codes 1, 4, and 7).
Interestingly, in Table 4.9 the Q' values are highest for the condition of
high gasifier temperature (codes 3 and 6). This is consistent with the in
ference that transient heat losses are the cause of the T^ discrepancies.
Since, for the majority of the tests, the pilot plant was started up at about
the same time every morning one might expect an unsteady state condition to
reveal itself via a gradual heating up of the unit throughout the day. If
this were the case the system outlet temperature (cyclone separator outlet)
would be affected the most and conceivably would be a function of the "time
of day". Admittedly although each test was run under different conditions
and hence would produce different outlet temperatures a general trend might
be expected to appear. A plot of cyclone outlet temperature T^ as a function
of "Time of Day", Figure 4.27, confirms the fact that the system was not at
steady state, but was slowly heating up throughout the day. The slope of the
least-squares fit through the data is about 60°F/hr. This is consistent with
the required range of 58-134°F when one considers that the rate of rise of
exit gas temperature will probably be less than that of the refractory and
that we have not included the mass of the steel shells and their rate of
temperature rise in estimating the required dT/d0's.
4-33
EASTERN COAL
#CODE 1 ALL COAL TO GASIFIER
+ CODE 3 ALL COAL TO DEVOLATILIZER
WESTERN COAL
1200
u.* VERTICAL COAL NOZZLE_____
1000 4° 03
a a
%
□ ■
800 8
.^6
8o
700
1000 1100 1200 1300 1500
^5
TIME OF DAY. HOURS
FIGURE 4.27 SEPARATOR OUTLET TEMPERATURE AS A FUNCTION

OF "TIME OF DAY"
4.5.7 and Study
Having established that transient heat losses were significant, we repeated

the energy balance calculations, this time forcing the separator outlet tempera
ture, T , to be equal to the measured value, i.e., we assumed that the measured
separator outlet temperature was correct and calculated the required additional
heat losses. These transient heat losses were distributed in the gasifier-
devolatilizer on the basis of the weight-specific heat product. This amounted
to roughly a 50/50 split.
Table 4.10 summarized the results of the T^ (gasifier exit) and T^ (devolatil
izer exit) calculations. The table contains the average values of the
differences, grouped according to code and differentiated according to the
assumed value of separator efficiency, n . In comparing the AT^ values for
code 1 with codes 2 and 3 and code 4 with codes 5 and 6, it will be noted that
the AT3 tends to be higher for the cases where any coal at all is fed to the
devolatilizer. This is consistent with the hypothesis that the measured T^
values are low in this circumstance due to fouling by tars and soot. These
changes are also consistent with the hypothesis of an actual heat loss below
that estimated due to fouling of the water-cooled elbow. If in actuality
the elbow had been fouled with tar deposits, thereby reducing separator heat
losses, temperatures T^ and T^ (cyclone exit) would tend to approach each
4-34
other; in the extreme with no separator heat loss, would equal T^. However,
the calculated value of does not take into account possible fouling (re
duced heat loss). Therefore, tends to be calculated high since it must
maintain a given heat loss across the separator.
TABLE 4.10 GASIFIER AND DEVOLATILIZER EXIT - AVERAGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN

CALCULATED AND MEASURED TEMPERATURES
Vc CODE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
at3 AVG. -22 +100 +84 -74 +117 + 140 -10

.90 (DEVOL. EXIT)
AT2 AVG. -96 +175 +542 -311 +183 +538 -182
(GASIFIER EXFn
AT3 AVG. -86 -15 -32 -180 +13 +31 -110

.95
AT2 AVG. -262 -199 -62 -430 - 139 -17 -332
AT = TCALCULATED - TMEASURED
Comparing the values of AT^ in Table 4.10 — code 1 with codes 2 and 3, code 4
with codes 5 and 6 — reveals that the codes where some coal is fed to the
devolatilizer (codes 2, 3, 5, 6) give higher values of AT^ than do the
corresponding codes where all the coal goes to the gasifier. This is con
sistent with our picture of the devolatilization process; that is, for
purposes of energy balances, we assumed that devolatilization is instantaneous,
and the devolatilizer products are immediately reformed to carbon monoxide
and hydrogen. As a matter of fact, devolatilization takes time, the reforming
may not be completed in the devolatilizer, and both devolatilization and
reforming are endothermic. Thus, failure of these assumptions would have the
same effect as an exothermic reaction within the devolatilizer, tending to
raise T^ with respect to T^. Or, which amounts to the same thing, it would
tend to make the actual value lower than that calculated. However, some of
the AT^ values seem a little too large (in the absolute sense) for this
explanation. Bearing in mind that the AT^ should be negative (because of
the assumption of no reaction in the devolatilizer) the too large values of
AT would be, for n = 0.9, +175, +542, +183, and +538 — or precisely
2 c
those where some coal goes to the devolatilizer. For n = 0.95, these values
c
become -262, -430, and -332, — or just the values for no coal to the devola
tilizer.
4-35
This leads us to conclude (somewhat tenuously, we admit) that n = 0.90 for
c
runs wherein all the coal was fed to the gasifier (codes 1, 4, 7) and n = 0.95
c
when some coal was fed to the devolatilizer (codes 2, 3, 5, 6). With this
choice, all of our a priori predictions are satisfied, and the largest
discrepancy is about 300°F in absolute magnitude.
Thus, an explanation for the low measured values of T^ when feeding coal to
the devolatilizer (Figure 4.25) might be fouling of the thermocouple, or it
might be just that the separator efficiency improves under this condition.
Consequently, one can use the measured values of T^ as characteristic of
devolatilization — although this should be done with some reservations.
4.5.8 Summary of Effects of Steady-State and Transient Heat Losses
Table 4.11 presents a summary of the effects of steady-state and transient

heat losses. The first column enumerates the various codes while the
second, third, and fourth columns list the steady-state heat losses in the
gasifier, devolatilizer, and separators respectively. The total of these
steady-state heat losses, Q, is listed in the fifth column. The total heat
loss, which is the sum of both steady-state and transient, is listed in the
column labeled BOTH Q". It is evident that the transient heat loss is a
major part of the total.
TABLE 4.11 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS OF STEADY STATE AND
TRANSIENT HEAT LOSSES
STEADY STATE
kcal/kg-mol O2 in TRANSIENT
ONLY BOTH
at4°f
CODE Qg Qd Qs Q Q' Q"
1 9242 1036 19606 29,884 41,634 71,477 2358
2 10271 1036 19606 30,913 35,695 66,608 2069
3 9635 1036 19606 30,277 49,043 79,320 2362
4 8999 1036 19606 29,641 29,123 58,764 1996
5 8958 1036 19606 29,600 33,368 62,968 2021
6 9635 1036 19606 30,277 38,938 69,215 2183
7 8283 1036 19606 28,925 21,093 50,018 1756
Q = Qg + Qd + Qs
Q" = Q + Q'
Q' IS DIVIDED 56% TO GASIFIER, 44% TO DEVOLATILIZER
at;, = (t4)calc zero heat loss - measured
Qg = TOTAL HEAT LOSS FROM GASIFIER
Qd = TOTAL HEAT LOSS FROM DEVOLATILIZER
Qs = TOTAL HEAT LOSS FROM CYCLONE SEPARATORS
T4 = CYCLONE SEPARATOR OUTLET TEMPERATURE
4-36
The last column, labeled AT^, is the difference between the adiabatic value
of T^ (i.e., without any heat losses whatever) and the measured values of T .
Obviously, complete elimination of all heat losses could produce very significant
temperature increases (1700-2400°F), and even elimination of only the transient
losses would produce much higher temperatures (roughly 700-1800°F). For
example, in the case of code 1, the transient heat loss amounts to about 4/7 of
the total, and elimination of it would raise the temperature 4/7 of 2358°F,
which is about 1350°F.
4.6 TAR FORMATION
As described previously, "tars" are defined in this report as that material

which is extracted from a particulate-loading sample by a toluene wash. These
tars are condensed at temperatures above the temperature of the particulate
filter, about 400°F. They are removed from the gases that pass through the
particulate probe whose total quantity is measured. Assuming these tars are
uniformly distributed throughout the gas volume, the total quantity captured
in the filter will actually represent their quantity in the gas, even if much
of the particulate escapes the sampling probe (as we believe it often did).
4.6.1 TGA Analysis of Captured Particulate
The data of Figure 4.28 help to establish the possible magnitude of the
error in tar measurement due to missing particulate. The Thermogravimetric
Analysis (TGA) apparatus permits determination of the weight of a sample as
a function of the temperature to which it is exposed. Assuming that con
densation of tars is reversible, then the "dust" sample contained a total
of about 28% tars. This agrees well with the 25.9% extracted by the toluene
wash. Of this total, the curve of Figure 4.28 implies that roughly 2/3
would have condensed at temperatures above 800°F and, therefore, presumably
on the dust particles before they were drawn from the gas stream into the
particulate filter via the dust-sampling probe. The amount of this portion
might be low by as much as a factor of two, if half of the dust in the gas
stream was actually missed due to stratification. The other 1/3 of the total
must have condensed at temperatures between 800°F and 400°F, that is, after
the gas sample was drawn out of the make-gas line. The concentration repre
sented by this amount is, presumably, accurate because prior to condensation
the tars should have been uniformly distributed through the gas stream.
Thus, the nominal tar concentration of 26% possibly should have been: 26
(1/3) + 2 (26) 2/3 = 43%. In other words, our tar determinations might be
low inasmuch as a factor of 43/26 = 1.67, but probably not more than that.
4-37
HEATING RATE
15°C/MIN OR
27°F/MIN
(C) 0 1000 (C)

I I I I I I I I I I I
(F) 32 400 800 1200 1600 2000 (F)
FURNACE TEMPERATURE
FIGURE 4.28 THERMOGRAVIMETRIC ANALYSIS (TGA) OF PARTICULATE FROM CYCLONE
OUTLET TEST 26 - % TOLUENE EXTRACTED 25.9
4.6.2 Air-Fuel Ratio and Temperature Effect
The effects of air-fuel ratio and devolatilizer temperature are interrelated.

With this in mind. Figure 4.29 shows the effect of air-fuel ratio on tar forma
tion. Two curves are shown, one for all coal fed to the gasifier (points with
an asterisk) and the other for some coal or all the coal fed to the devolatil
izer. When all the coal is fed to the gasifier, relatively little tar is
produced above an air-fuel ratio of 40%. Below this point, tar production
rises dramatically. On the other hand, if any amount of coal is fed to the
devolatilizer, relatively large amounts of tar are produced regardless of the
air-fuel ratio.
Tar formation is plotted versus devolatilizer inlet temperature, T^, and

devolatilizer outlet temperature, T^, in Figures 4.30 and 4.31 respectively.
Again, the points corresponding to all the coal fed to the gasifier are
denoted by an asterisk. As in the previous figure, the data seems to fall
into two groups: (1) with all coal to the gasifier, tar production is low
until the devolatilizer inlet temperature drops below 1700°F, and (2) when
any amount of coal is fed to the devolatilizer, tar production is high
regardless of temperature.
4-38
o
-NO COAL TO DEVOLATILIZER
SOME COAL TO DEVOLATILIZER
cc 6
I o
w
CD
_l
CC
o
U-
C/3 4
o
CC EASTERN COAL
<
I-
0icODE 1 ALL COAL TO GASIFIER
WESTERN COAL
Opcode 4 all coal to gasifier
□ code 5 50-50 SPLIT

* OPCODE 7 ALL COAL TO GASIFIER
M VERTICAL COAL NOZZLE
40 45 50
AIR - FUEL RATIO
FIGURE 4.29 EFFECT OF AIR-FUEL RATIO ON TAR FORMATION
4.6.3 Residence Time
Residence times are shown along each data point in Figure 4.30. These were
calculated from the point of coal injection to the devolatilizer outlet. For
the codes 2 and 5, 50-50 split, the residence time was calculated as though
all the coal was fed to the devolatilizer.
It will be noted that all of the longer residence times fall on the "no coal-to-
devolatilizer" curve and all of the shorter on the "some-coal-to-devolatilizer”
curve. This is due primarily to the fact that air flows to the gasifier were
4-39
EASTERN COAL
•*CODE 1 ALL COAL TO GASIFIER

♦ CODE 3 ALL COAL TO DEVOLATILIZER
WESTERN COAL
CfcoDE 4 ALL COAL TO GASIFIER

.RESIDENCE
O1-6 TIME, SEC.
NO COAL TO DEVOLATILIZER
2.1
1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200
MEASURED DEVOLATILIZER INLET TEMPERATURE, °F
FIGURE 4.30 TAR FORMATION AS A FUNCTION OF MEASURED DEVOLATILIZER INLET

TEMPERATURE
EASTERN COAL
#*CODE 1 ALL COAL TO GASIFIER

WESTERN COAL

O'cODE 7 ALL COAL TO GASIFIER
______________ VERTICAL COAL NOZZLE
900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

MEASURED DEVOLATILIZER OUTLET TEMPERATURE, °F
FIGURE 4.31 TAR FORMATION AS A FUNCTION OF MEASURED DEVOLATILIZER OUTLET

TEMPERATURE
4-40
held constant. Thus, it is not possible to say with certainty whether the higher
tars in the devolatilizer case were due to the equipment configuration or to the
short residence times. However, the fact that the two curves intersect — giving
the same tar production for the same devolatilization inlet temperature with
different residence times and different conditions — does seem to suggest that
tar production is a more complicated phenomenon than can be described in terms
of these three variables alone.
4.7 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
4.7.1 Heating Value as a Function of Heat Loss and Air-Fuel Ratio
It seems obvious from stoichiometric considerations, etc., that air-to-fuel

ratio (expressed as a fraction of the amount of air that is theoretically
required to burn the fuel [coal and natural gas included] completely to CO^
and HÔ, dimensionless) must be an important variable controlling make-gas
heating value. It is not so obvious whether or not heat losses should have
a similarly important effect, since the energy they represent might, in effect,
simply come out of the sensible heat of the make gas. However, in spite of
this limitation, our modeling study does suggest that heat losses may be impor
tant. Thus, it is of interest to investigate the question empirically.
Before we attempt to do this, however, we think it important to point out

that, in our experiments, the "independent" variables heat loss and air-to-
fuel ratio are interrelated (in the statistical sense). This situation is
illustrated in Figure 4.32 where heat loss is plotted against air-fuel ratio
for all 32 runs that were analyzed. It will be noticed that the points fall
in a curved line that rises, at first steep, then more slowly with increasing
air-fuel ratio. (In all probability, this is due to the fact that temperatures
tend to rise with rising air-fuel ratio, leading to greater transient heat
loss in the refractory of the gasifier.) Thus, one must be very careful of
his interpretation of statistical analysis. That is, if the points were to
lie along a precise curve in the heat loss-air fuel ratio domain, it would
become impossible to say whether variations in heating value were due to heat
loss or air-fuel ratio. Fortunately, this is not quite the case, so some
inferences can perhaps be drawn, if tenuously.
4-41
90,000 r-
HEAT LOSS AS A PERCENT OF THE
HEATING VALUE OF THE FUEL FEED
80,000
70,000
v>
to
O
H1
2 60,000
I
EASTERN COAL
50,000
WESTERN COAL
117(9 'Q109
40,000
40 45 50 60
AIR - FUEL RATIO*
*AIR - FUEL RATIO IS EXPRESSED AS A FRACTION OF THE AMOUNT OF AIR THAT IS
THEORETICALLY REQUIRED TO BURN THE FUEL (NATURAL GAS AND COAL INCLUDED)
COMPLETELY TO CO, AND H,0.
FIGURE 4.32 TEST DATA PLOTTED AS A FUNCTION OF HEAT LOSS, AIR-FUEL RATIO,
AND HEATING VALUE
Also shown in Figure 4.32 are values of heating value of the make gas. These
permit a few inferences, as follows:
1. The three points for code 6 data, showing heating values of

62, 75, and 78 Btu/dscf, suggest a tilt of the make gas heating
value surface that is downward as heat loss increases. In other
words, a strong effect of heat loss is revealed.
4-42
2. The one point for code 2 data at 99 Btu/dscf, when compared
with the rest of the code 2 data at 78, 84, 84, 77 Btu/dscf,
could include either a heat loss effect or an air-to-fuel
ratio effect, since it is displaced in both directions from
the rest.
3. The six points for code 7 data generally suggest a moderate

heat loss effect, since they lie at about the same air-fuel
ratio value but tend to lower values at higher heat loss
values. Thus, the data points themselves add a little empirical
evidence to the theory, suggesting that heat loss has an effect
on the heating value of the make gas.
4.7.2 Discussion of Various Statistical Analysis
This point was explored further via statistical analysis. However, due to
an inherent correlation in the independent variables, and the consequent
possibility of misleading results, a special effort was made to explain
different kinds of correlating functions. The following terms were used in
conjunction with this statistical analysis:
H = Heating Value, Btu/DSCF
C = Constant
o
C = Coefficient expressing relative position of n-th data group,
n
= "Dummy" variable having a value of unity for the n-th group
and zero for all others.
K's = Coefficients of air-fuel ratio and heat loss terms.
Q = Total heat loss, kcal/kg mol 0^ fed as air.
o = standard error of prediction.
The results are summarized in Table 4.12. The same general system was
used in all five cases, but certain terms were dropped to give the different
kinds of functions. For example, the summation £ cnxn terms were omitted
in cases A, C, and E to treat all of the data as if they belonged to the
same population; cases B and D retain these terms so as to admit an influence
of operating mode. The value of 0 at the bottom of the table is the standard
error of prediction that results in each case. Large values, of course,
imply a less accurate fit of the data.
4-43
TABLE 4.12 SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INCLUDING HEAT LOSSES
CASE A B C D E
Co 130.6 184.0 184.5 -1357.8 +179.2

Cl — -76.1 — 1530.6 —
C2 — -71.5 — 1534.6 —
c3 — -105.9 — 1512.2
C4 — -69.3 — 1529.9 - .
C5 — -71.5 — 1531.9 —
Cg — -86.0 — 1523.4 —
C7 — -55.8 — 1536.1 —
K1 -1.03 -.61 +.79 -.45 +.49

k2 — — -.0090 +.0010 -.0071
K3 -.000041 -.000030 -.0021 -.0013 -.0018
k4 — — +3.8x1 O'9 +2.3x10'9 +3.3x10'9
a 13.3 5.9 5.9 4.5 4.9
GENERAL EQUATION:
H=C0+K1A+K2A2+K3Q+K4Q2+j; cnxn
1
The following conclusions are drawn from Table 4.12:
Case A
Simple linear fits were allowed for the effects of air-fuel

ratio and heat loss. This amounts to fitting a single plane
through the data points in heating value, air-fuel ratio, heat
loss space. In this analysis the various codes were not per
mitted to "float"; all the data was lumped into one group.
The statistical fit was not too good in that it produced a
standard deviation of 13.3 Btu/dscf, compared with about half
this value in the other four cases.
Case B
In this analysis the simplicity of the previous fit with

respect to air-fuel ratio and heat loss was retained, but
the various codes were permitted to "float". This produced
a much better fit giving a standard deviation of 5.9 Btu/dscf.
The constants, C^ through C^, are indicative of the relative
heating values of the data in the various codes. For codes 1,
4-44
2, 4, and 5, the C values are about the same. Code 3 data (all
coal to the devolatilizer. Eastern coal) is much lower, indi
cating that these data points were tending to fall below the
correlation. In addition, code 6 also tended to fall a little
below, and code 7 data was significantly higher than the
others — about 20 Btu/dscf higher.
Case C
Here the "float" of the individual codes was eliminated, but

we allowed more complicated functions to represent the effects
of air-fuel ratio and heat loss. For this case the same degree
of fit is obtained as in Case B, the standard deviation being
5.9 Btu/dscf.
Case D
This was the most complicated case in that the codes were
permitted to "float" and the complicated functions were
retained to represent the effects of air-fuel ratio and
heat loss. This was the best fit as judged by the standard
deviation of 4.5 Btu/dscf. Note that C^, the constant for
code 3, is still significantly below the typical values of
the other cases; and again the heating values for code 7
data are significantly above the average.
Case E
The "float" was eliminated but the complicated functions were

retained to represent the air-fuel ratio and heat loss effect.
However, the Code 3 data was eliminated from this case as it
always seemed to be lower than all the other data. The standard
deviation is 4.9 Btu/dscf, indicating a fairly good fit.
As far as picking the best case is concerned, Case E is our first preference
as it is not overly complex yet it fits the data fairly well. Our second
choice is Case B because it represents the "other extreme" in that it allows
the various codes to "float", yet it is simple with respect to the air-fuel
ratio and heat loss effects. This case also produces a good fit of the data
Figures 4.33 through 4.36 present the two statistical analyses, E and B,
in graphical form showing the effects of heat loss and air-fuel ratio. In
Figure 4.33 the effect of air-fuel ratio has been subtracted out from the
4-45
heating value and the result plotted against heat loss. Figure 4.34 shows
the same plot with respect to air-fuel ratio and Figures 4.35 and 4.36 show
this same study for analysis B. It will be noted that in analysis E the
heat loss effect is steep while the air-fuel ratio is flat. Just the
opposite trends are present in the B analysis.
4.7.3 Projections for Reduced Heat Loss

The majority of the data was unfortunately obtained under conditions of
high heat loss. This is evident from Figure 4.32 wherein most of the data
displays heat losses in excess of 25% of the heating value of the fuel. The
question we would like to answer is: What would be the heating value if the
heat losses were reduced? Figure 4.37 attempts to answer this question.
Extrapolation according to the two statistical analyses, B and E, have been
superimposed on the plot of code 7 data. For the B analysis, there is very
little effect of heat loss, hence only one curve. It will be noted that
this correlation predicts a heating value of about 98 Btu/dscf at 50%
theoretical air and 100% carbon utilization. In the E analysis, heat loss
is a major factor; consequently, three curves are shown for different
heat losses. By eliminating the transient heat losses and some of the
steady-state losses, the total loss might be brought down to that of the
middle curve, 20,000 kcal/kgmol O^. Note that Case E predicts that, at this
reduced loss, a heating value of about 150 Btu/dscf might be possible at
100% carbon utilization, at an air-fuel ratio of 35%. What is possible in
actual practice probably lies somewhere between these two cases. Unfortu
nately, with the present state of knowledge, the extrapolation cannot be made
any more precise than this.
EASTERN COAL
#CODE 1 ALL COAL TO GASIFIER
-70
WESTERN COAL
u. QCODE 4 ALL COAL TO GASIFIER

8 -80 □ CODE 5 50-50 SPLIT
Q
3 OCODE 6 ALL COAL TO DEVOLATILIZER
h“
CO QCODE 7 ALL COAL TO GASIFIER
-90
CM VERTICAL COAL NOZZLE
<
^CM
l
<_ -100
-110
-120 . H = C0 + KÂ + K2A‘£ + K3Q + K4(Q)2

(DATA FOR CODE 3 ELIMINATED)
______ I__________I__________ I I
40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000
HEAT LOSS kcal
kg'mol 02
FIGURE 4.33 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 'E', HEAT LOSS EFFECT
EASTERN COAL
♦ CODE 1 ALL COAL TO GASIFIER
WESTERN COAL
____________ VERTICAL COAL NOZZLE
+20
O
67.6
-10 - H = C0 + K-jA + K2A2 + K3Q + K4(Q)2
(DATA FOR CODE 3 ELIMINATED)
I -20 ------ L J____ |____ |____ I____ |____ L

25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
AIR - FUEL RATIO
FIGURE 4.34 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 'E', AIR-FUEL RATIO EFFECT
4-47
EASTERN COAL

• CODE 3 ALL COAL TO DEVOLATILIZER
WESTERN COAL

+20 OCODE 6 ALL COAL TO DEVOLATILIZER

+10
£
xc
oc 0
♦--
<_
sT -10
I -20 7
H = C0 + K,A + K2Q + I] CnXn
_________I_________ |_________ |_________ |_

40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000
HEAT LOSS k‘=al
kg mol O')
FIGURE 4.35 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 'B', HEAT LOSS EFFECT
EASTERN COAL

• CODE 3 ALL COAL TO DEVOLATILIZER
WESTERN COAL

_____________ VERTICAL COAL NOZZLE
O _
7
H = C0 + K,A + K2Q + X CnXn
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
AIR - FUEL RATIO
FIGURE 4.36 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 'B', AIR-FUEL RATIO EFFECT
4-48
CASE 'E', Q = 10,000
kg mol O2
CASE ■£', Q = 20,000

kg mol O'
CASE 'E', 30,000

kg mol O
100X (1 - j3p) = % CARBON

o 130 UTILIZATION
0 = j3p, FRACTION OF CARBON AS

)5 \ ASH-FREE DUST
CASE 'B',
FOR ALL HEAT LOSSES
CODE 7 DATA
.(WESTERN COAL)
% THEORETICAL AIR
FIGURE 4.37 PROJECTIONS FOR REDUCED HEAT LOSS
4-49
Section 5
THERMAL ANALYSIS OF PILOT APPARATUS
Analysis of the data via material and energy balance has shown that unexpectedly
large heat losses were encountered. These were due primarily to the transient
heating of the large mass of refractory in the gasifier and, presumably, the
crossover pipe and devolatilizer as well. Obviously, if the apparatus were run
for a long enough period of time under constant operating conditions, transient
heat losses could be completely avoided. However, it seems possible that
steady-state heat losses might, then, increase to fairly large values. Conse
quently, it was decided to direct an analytical study toward answering the
following questions:
• What heat losses might be achieved at steady-state, and how

long might it take to achieve steady-state?
• What changes might be made in the apparatus to shorten thermal
equilibrating times or reduce heat losses?
To answer these questions, a thermal model of the pilot apparatus was developed
and programmed for a computer. Because of the complex geometry of the apparatus
(various thicknesses and types of refractory, various internal dimensions, time
varying internal boundary condition due to the gasification reaction), this
program was necessarily fairly complex. The purpose of this section is to
summarize the thermal model and its use in answering the above two questions.
5.1 DESCRIPTION OF THERMAL ANALYSIS MODELS
5.1.1 Equipment Components for Thermal Analysis
Figure 5.1 shows how the pilot apparatus was broken down into components for
the purposes of thermal analysis. The eight major components were:
1. Combustor
2. Bottom of gasifier
3. Top of gasifier
5-1
4. Bottom of crossover duct
5. Top of crossover duct
6. Top of devolatilizer
7. Bottom of devolatilizer
8. Cyclone separators
Figures 5.2 through 5.8 show the detail of how each of the components of
Figure 5.1 were further broken down into subcomponents for the purpose of
thermal analysis. For example, the gasifier (Figure 5.3) was broken down into
four axial sections, and each axial section was broken down into 17 radial
sections. The radial sections were chosen for convenience in representing
the five different kinds of refractory present. Provision was also made for
thermal fouling of the inside surface of the carbide liner by char. The
outermost steel shell was assumed to have infinite thermal conductivity. As
is obvious from Figures 5.3, 5.5, 5.7, and 5.8, the number of radial segments
varied from component to component according to the particular construction of
each. In such cases as the top of the gasifier, the crossover duct, and the
top of the devolatilizer, the geometry adopted for modeling purposes was
slightly different from the actual. This was necessary because the actual
geometry is three-dimensional and we wished to maintain the simplicity of a
two-dimensional model. Consequently, the circular top of the gasifier was
ignored, this component being considered to be simply a circular pipe without
ends. The radial wall thickness was maintained the same as the actual apparatus;
the density of the refractory was adjusted to maintain the same total mass of
refractory as in the actual apparatus. The same kind of adjustment was made
for the top of the devolatilizer.
In considering the top of the gasifier and devolatilizer to be circular pipes

without ends, the lengths of the components were not increased so as to main
tain the same internal surface area. Also the heat transfer coefficients on
the outside were not adjusted so as to maintain the same product of heat
transfer coefficient times outside area as in the actual apparatus. However,
the errors introduced by neglecting these adjustments are very minor. Calcu
lations show that the additional heat loss, if the areas and heat transfer
coefficients had been properly adjusted, would have accounted for only a 2%
increase for each of these components. The effect on the overall heat loss
would have been an insignificant 0.1%.
5-2
CROSSOVER
TOP
DEVOLATILIZER TOP
TOP OF GASIFIER
V////////////////ZA
CROSSOVER
1 BOTTOM
DEVOLATILIZER
GASIFIER (BOTTOM)
COMBUSTOR
CYCLONES
FIGURE 5.1 EQUIPMENT COMPONENTS FOR THERMAL ANALYSIS
^WATER COOLED
SUPPORT RING
-B&W KAOWOOL BLANKET
‘ THE HEAT LOSS FROM THE COMBUSTION ZONE WAS TO THE WATER-COOLED SUPPORT
RING AND THE WATER JACKET. THIS HEAT LOSS WAS CALCULATED USING INLET AND
OUTLET WATER TEMPERATURES TOGETHER WITH FLOW RATES.
FIGURE 5.2 COMBUSTOR COMPONENTS FOR THERMAL ANALYSIS
5-3
------- 1/4" CARBON STEEL
OUTER SHELL
B&W K - 23 FIREBRICK
4-1/2" THK
MIXTURE OF B&W KAOTAB
B&W K - 3000 FIREBRICK
CS CASTABLE REFRACTORY
4- 1&2" THK
AND CRUSHED B&W K-28 -
FIREBRICK 4- 1/2" THK KAOWOOL BLANKET
INSULATION
— 1" THICK SILICON

CARBIDE LINER
- 1/2" DIA.~
'12" DIA.
AXIAL ELEMENTS
1" SILICON CARBIDE LINER
4-1/2" KAOTAB-CS CASTABLE 1" KAOWOOL BLANKET

AND CRUSHED K-28 FIREBRICK
1/4" CARBON STEEL
HOT GAS AMBIENT AIR

@ 80° F
INSIDE 17 NODES
WALL
OUTSIDE WALL
4-1/2 K - 3000 FIREBRICK

CHAR FOULING
(ASSUMED 1/16" THICK)
4-1/2" K - 23 FIREBRICK
LIMIT OF MASS ASSIGNED TO NODE
RADIAL ELEMENTS
FIGURE 5.3 RADIAL AND AXIAL THERMAL ELEMENTS IN GASIFIER BOTTOM WALL
USED IN THERMAL ANALYSIS
5-4
43 - 1/2"
- 24"-
B&W KAOCAST
CASTABLE
REFRACTORY
AXIAL ELEMENTS
9 - 3/4"
KAOCAST CASTABLE CARBON STEEL SHELL
HEAT FLOW AMBIENT AIR

@> 80°F
HOT GAS
5 NODES EQUALLY SPACED

CONVECTION AND RADIATION
COEFFICIENT TO INSIDE WALL OUTSIDE
WALL
INSIDE
WALL
CONVECTION AND RADIATION
CHAR FOULING COEFFICIENT TO AMBIENT
RADIAL ELEMENTS
FIGURE 5.4 RADIAL AND AXIAL THERMAL ELEMENTS IN TOP OF GASIFIER USED IN
THERMAL ANALYSIS
5-5
7' - 4"-^
TOP OF CROSSOVER
B&W FIREBRICK
BOTTOM OF CROSSOVER
CROSSOVER DUCT
FIGURE 5.5 AXIAL ELEMENTS IN TOP AND BOTTOM OF CROSSOVER DUCT USED IN
THERMAL ANALYSIS
B&W KAOCAST
CASTABLE
20" DIA.
TOP
BOTTOM,
29-1/2"-
DIA.
B&W K-28
FIRE BRICK CARBON t
STEEL
PRESENT CROSSOVER DUCT "SQUARED" CROSSOVER DUCT
NOTE: CERTAIN DIMENSIONS HELD,

ALL CONDUCTIVITIES HELD,
ALL DENSITIES AND HEAT
TRANSFER COEFS. ADJUSTED.
FIGURE 5.6 ILLUSTRATING "SQUARING" OF CROSSOVER DUCT
5-6
-29 - 1/2"-
B&W KAOCAST
-CAST ABLE
Ifil © REFRACTORY
M ©
b
CM
IBi ©
illl ®
AXIAL ELEMENTS
10-3/4"- -1/4"
CARBON STEEL SHELL
AMBIENT AIR
@ 80°F
HOT GAS
5 NODES EQUALLY SPACED

CONVECTION AND RADIATION 1 NODE IN CARBON STEEL
COEFFICIENT TO INSIDE WALL OUTSIDE
WALL
■CONVECTION AND RADIATION

CHAR FOULING COEFFICIENT TO AMBIENT
RADIAL ELEMENTS
FIGURE 5.7 RADIAL AND AXIAL THERMAL ELEMENTS IN TOP OF DEVOLATILIZER USED
IN THERMAL ANALYSIS
5-7
29 - 1/2"
B&W KAOCAST
CASTABLE
REFRACTORY
AXIAL ELEMENTS
5-3/4"
KAOCAST CASTABLE CARBON STEEL SHELL
HEAT FLOW
AMBIENT AIR
@ 80° F
HOT GAS
CONVECTION AND RADIATION NODES EQUALLY SPACED

COEFFICIENT TO INSIDE WALL
OUTSIDE
WALL
INSIDE
WALL
CHAR FOULING CONVECTION AND RADIATION

(ASSUMED 1/16" THICK) COEFFICIENT TO AMBIENT
RADIAL ELEMENTS
FIGURE 5.8 RADIAL AND AXIAL THERMAL ELEMENTS IN BOTTOM OF DEVOLATILIZER

USED IN THERMAL ANALYSIS
5-8
For the crossover duct, the adjustment was more difficult because all of the
shape is three-dimensional, not just a small fraction of it. Nevertheless, we
thought it appropriate not to invoke the complexity of a three-dimensional
model (later justified by results) and so made the simplifications as indi
cated in Figure 5.6. In particular we:
1. Maintained the height of the flow duct (5 inches) and the thick
ness of the castable refractory (4-3/4 inches) the same in the
simplified model as in the actual apparatus.
2. Chose the width of the simplified model (12-1/2 inches) so that the
flow area was the same as in the actual apparatus.
3. For the bottom of the duct, estimated the average distance
between the heated surface and the mass of refractory, and ad
justed the thickness of fire brick in the model to give the
same value (9-5/8 inches).
4. Used the same values for thermal conductivities in the model
as in the actual apparatus.
5. Adjusted the densities of the various refractory pieces and
metal pieces to give the same mass as in the actual apparatus.
6. Adjusted the heat transfer coefficients on the external and
internal surfaces so as to give the same coefficient-area
product as in the actual apparatus. Used the actual flow and
the hydraulic radius of the actual apparatus for computing the
internal convection coefficient.
7. Used the actual geometry of the duct in computing the external
convection coefficient.
Thus, the main approximation made in "squaring" this round duct was in
estimating the mean distance between heated surface and mass of refractory
in the bottom of the duct. This was actually done by drawing several vectors
to represent approximately the heat flow paths, measuring their length, and
averaging the result. We estimated that the error made in choosing this mean
length would be less than 20%.. The actual material properties used in the
computations are listed in Appendix E together with the adjusted values where
they apply. Adjustment factors for heat transfer coefficient are shown on the
various figures where they apply.
In this fashion, the actual apparatus was transformed into a virtual or

"model" apparatus consisting of a combustor of known heat loss, five sections
of tubular refractory duct (without ends) comprising the gasifier, crossover
duct, and devolatilizer, and the cyclone separators (including the water-cooled
elbow at the bottom of the devolatilizer). The transient thermal analysis of
5-9
the refractory pieces was accomplished by writing the customary difference
equations governing transient conduction in cylindrical geometry.
5.1.2 Model Assumptions
The thermal model has five general aspects, and we shall divide the discussion
of assumptions accordingly. These aspects are:
1. The state of the internal fluid (temperature and composition)

that is transferring heat to the internal walls of the apparatus
2. The description of the heat transfer from the internal fluid to
the internal walls
3. The description of a heat transfer within the refractory walls
of the equipment
4. The description of the external heat transfer from external
surfaces of the apparatus to the ambient atmosphere
5. The process operating conditions
When methane was fired for the purpose of preheating, it was assumed that the
excess air was 15%. The heat loss in the combustor was calculated from
experimental measurements, and it was assumed that combustion was completed
in the combustor. Thereafter, the combustion gas simply cooled as it passed
through the apparatus. The temperature was determined by the firing conditions
and the heat losses to the walls up to any given point.
To determine the state of the internal fluid when firing coal, we assumed that:
1. In the combustor air and char react according to:
AIR + CHAR ->- C02 + H20 + RESIDUAL CHAR
Coal is then added which immediately devolatilizes to form

additional char and gas which equilibrates with CC>2 and H20
from air combustion, giving a gas containing char, N2, C02,
CO, H20, H2 and ash.2 3
2. In the gasifier, some of the char is gasified to form CO and
H2. The total amount of char gasified is determined by material
balance using experimental data. Axially, the amount gasified
is linearly distributed with respect to gasifier length. The
amounts of CO, C02, H2 and H20 are dependent upon the temperature
of the reacting mixture according to the water gas shift equilibrium.
3. No char is gasified in the crossover pipe or devolatilizer.
5-10
4. When part of the coal is fed to the devolatilizer, only de
volatilization takes place; no gasification reactions occur.
The resulting gas equilibrates via water gas shift down to a
temperature of 1700°F.
5. Cyclone separator efficiency is 90%.
6. Heat loss from the water-cooled elbow at the bottom of the
devolatilizer together with the cyclone heat loss was taken
to be 19,606 kcal/kg mol fed as air, based on previous
estimates.
7. Char recycle temperature was taken to be 500°K (440°F). (This
requires an additional heat loss that is not otherwise considered
in the model.)
Thus, the gas composition was determined from the air-fuel ratio and the
temperature, and the temperature, in turn, was determined from heat losses
including heat losses to the refractory walls. We have ignored the fact that
hydrocarbons would actually be produced upon devolatilization, because the
enthalpy change between the hydrocarbons and an equilibrium CO^, CO, HÔ,
mixture is insignificant. The detail of the energy and material balance
calculations based upon these assumptions is given in Appendix E.
The heat transferred to the internal walls of the gasifier, crossover duct,
and devolatilizer consists of radiative and convective components. In the
case of coal firing, the radiative heat transfer coefficient was computed
with the assumption that the gas emissivity is unity. This is justified by
the high particulate loading. In the case of gas firing, the gas emissivity
was calculated from the C02 and H20 concentrations together with the emissivity
correlation presented in Weibelt (see Appendix F). In both cases, the con
vection coefficient was calculated from a Dittus-Boelter equation modified
for entrance effect according to Feild, et al (see Appendix F). In this,
mean gas viscosity was calculated at temperature from individual gas viscosities
weighted according to the product of mol fraction and the square root of
molecular weight according to Janka and Nalhatra. Mean thermal conductivity
was calculated from individual conductivities using the product of mol fraction
and the cube root of molecular weight as a weighting factor. Specific heat
was calculated from individual molar specific heats weighted according to
mol fraction. In the case of coal firing, the particulate loading in the gas
was ignored in calculating viscosity and thermal conductivity but not in cal
culating heat capacity and mass flow rate. (Density per se was not used in
calculating the Reynolds Number of the flow; mass flow rate was used instead.)
5-11
Thus, in effect, the gas density and the gas specific heat included the effect
of ash and char particles. This was done in an attempt to allow for the fact
that particulate loading tends to increase the heat transfer coefficient as
reported by Depew and Kramer (Appendix F).
5.1.3 Determination of Internal Axial Temperature Profile
The basic problem addressed by a thermal model is one of two-dimensional tran

sient conduction in the refractory of the gasifier, crossover duct, and the
devolatilizer. Its computer solution is achieved by finite differences in both
the space and time variables. As part of the solution, one requires, for each
instant of time, a heat flux to the inside of the thick walled refractory
cylinders. This, in turn, requires the axial temperature profile for both the
inside refractory surface and the fluid. The surface temperature profile was
approximated by using that of the previous timed increment. The fluid tempera
ture, however, is a driving force for all other temperature changes, and cannot
be approximated in this fashion. Instead, it was calculated for each time in
crement by energy and material balances as follows:
1. Given the fluid temperature at the entrance to an axial increment,

that at the exit was estimated to be 100°K lower, as a starting
point.
2. Using the estimated exit temperature, the fluid composition was
calculated by energy and material balances (Appendix E). The
amount of gasification along the total length of the gasifier,
top and bottom, was linearly distributed according to the
axial position.
3. The average gas temperature and composition for the increment
was calculated by arithmetically averaging the known values at
the beginning of the increment and the calculated values
at the end of the increment.4 5 6
4. The heat loss through the wall was calculated from these
properties using the wall temperature from the previous
increment.
5. From the heat loss to the wall and the known flow rate of the
internal fluid and its composition, the fluid temperature at
the apex of the increment was calculated. This value was com
pared with the initial estimate and, if they agreed within
0.01°K, the calculation proceeded to the next increment.
6. If agreement was not achieved, the second estimated temperature
was taken 100°K lower than the first and the procedure repeated
starting with step 2. For the third and successive trials, the
new estimate was found by linear interpolation between the last
two.
5-12
In this fashion, the internal temperature distribution and the internal heat
flux were calculated throughout the axial length of the apparatus for one time
increment. This was followed by conduction calculations to determine the change
in radial temperature distribution during the time increment.
5.1.4 Determination of Refractory Temperatures
The partial differential equations describing transient heat conduction through

the refractories were written in the form of difference equations. A typical
equation describing the time rate of temperature change at an internal wall
node is:
where
k = conductivity
R = radius
Ar = incremental radius
T = temperature
q = heat flux density to wall
0^ = heat capacity of refractory material
p = density of refractory material
AT
— = rate of change of temperature
Ao
1, 2 = subscripts denote node, as in Figure 5.3
The very simple Euler's Method was used to calculate the temperature of a node
at the next time increment. This algorithm is:
m — m i
dT
____ AG
(Time + A9) ~ (Time) d0
Thus, account was taken of conductive heat transport in a radial direction,

but that in the axial direction was ignored. The justification for this is
simply that the gradients in the radial direction are much steeper than those
in the axial direction, making the additional precision to be gained by con
sidering axial conduction of questionable value compared with the additional
complexity.
5-13
To avoid stability problems and ensure a reasonable accuracy, the temperature
changes for each time increment were computed twice. The first computation
served to determine the maximum temperature change anywhere in the apparatus.
In the second computation, the length of the time increment was adjusted to:
where the dimensions of temperature are degrees Kelvin and time is in hours.
This algorithm for setting the time increment was arrived at purely empirically
based upon experience.
5.2 VERIFICATION OF COMPUTER PROGRAM
5.2.1 Preliminary Checks
The accuracy of each subroutine was verified by manual computation for at least
one set of input parameters. In addition, computer-produced temperature distri
butions for the bottom of the crossover duct were checked against the Gurney-
Lurie chart for a slab as taken from McAdams book on heat transfer. ^ Con
sidering that the Gurney-Lurie chart assumes constant thermal properties,
whereas we were calculating using properties that vary with temperature, the
results were close enough to convince us of the general accuracy and validity
of the program.
The stability of the computer program was checked by reducing the time incre
ments by one-half and then verifying that the calculated temperature at any
point was the same or nearly the same as for the full-time increments. The
results of this check indicate the calculated temperatures were within 0.1°K,
thus veryifying the stability of the computer program.
5.2.2 Verification Against Pilot Plant Data
The computer program was tested by comparing its predicted gasifier outlet,
crossover duct outlet, and the devolatilizer outlet temperatures against those
produced on the day of tests 33, 34, 35, and 36. It was assumed that all
points in the apparatus started at room temperature. The firing conditions
used as input to the program were adjusted so as to be identical with those
actually used on the day of these tests. The resulting temperatures are com
pared with experimentally observed temperatures in Figure 5.9. It will be
5-14
noted that all the predicted temperatures are within 100°K (180°F) for tests
33, 34, and 35. In test 36, differences are as much as 200°K (360°F). For
this test, all coal was fired to the devolatilizer. This larger discrepancy
might be due to one or both of two factors:
1. The higher outlet temperatures, especially out of the gasifier

and crossover duct, may have been missed by the thermocouples
due to conduction losses.
2. A cyclone efficiency of 90% was assumed throughout. However,
it would not be unreasonable to expect it to be much higher in
the case of firing all coal to the devolatilizer. If so, our
use of too low a value of cyclone efficiency may account for
our overpredicting the temperatures.
TABLE 5.1 HEAT LOSSES CALCULATED BY MATERIAL AND ENERGY BALANCE VERSUS
HEAT LOSSES PREDICTED BY COMPUTER MODEL
TRANSIENT HEAT
EXTERNAL SURFACE HEAT LOSSES LOSS TOTAL HEAT LOSS
DEVOLATILIZER CYCLONES OVERALL

INCLUDES INCLUDES CHAR RECYCLE HEAT
TEST NO. COMBUSTOR GASIFIER CROSSOVER WATER JACKET GASIFIER DEVOL GASIFIER DEVOL CYCLONES LINE LOSS
33* 9164 0 297 19606 279 12752 9443 13049 19606 5091 47189
33*‘ 9164 0 1036 19606 14262 11206 23426 12242 19606 0 55274
34* 10371 0 734 19606 1412 6351 11783 7085 19606 5549 44023
34** 10371 0 1036 19606 7874 6186 18245 7222 19606 0 45073
35* 8829 80 1484 19606 5191 7819 14100 9303 19606 8760 51769
35** 8829 0 1036 19606 16598 13041 25427 14077 19606 0 59110
36* 9875 635 3041 19606 10129 9051 20640 12093 19606 4951 57291
36** 9875 0 1036 19606 20120 15808 29995 16844 19606 0 66445
•PREDICTED BY THE MODEL kca|

“MATERIAL AND ENERGY BALANCE CALCULATIONS UNITS.------------------
kg mol ©2
Table 5.1 compares the heat losses predicted by the model with those calculated
by material and energy balance using the experimental data. These apply to the
same four runs of Figure 5.9. The difference between the overall heat loss
predicted by the model and that calculated by the material energy balance is
consistent with the differences in predicted and observed outlet temperatures
with one exception. This is the overall loss for test 35, where the two figures
should agree quite closely. We have tried to find the explanation for this
anomaly; no doubt, it is due to an error in transcription in some data input,
but we have been unable to find it. In any event, it seems clear that the
overall losses in general agree between computed and calculated. In studying
the detail of Table 5.1, the reader will notice the following:1 2
1. Among the "external surface heat losses", the computed and ex
perimental values are either identical or else only very slightly
different.
2. The computer model consistently estimates lower heat losses in
the gasifier. This is largely compensated by a finite heat loss
in the char recycle line compared with zero heat loss in this
line according to the "experiments." The reason for this is
5-15
that, in analyzing the experimental data, we assumed no heat
loss in the char stream recycle line. In the present computer
model, on the other hand, we assumed a char recycle temperature
(which is probably the more reasonable approach). Thus, the
experimentally determined "transient" heat loss should probably
have been lower. If it had been, the sums of the transient and
devolatilizer heat losses for experimental and model predictions
would have been much closer. On the other hand, the distribution
between these two pieces of equipment wouldn't have been quite
right. In this connection, it should be remembered that the
"experimental" transient losses were arbitrarily assigned between
devolatilizer and gasifier. Consequently, the model predictions
are probably more accurate.
5.2.3 Effect of Cyclone Efficiency on Predicted Temperatures
The cyclone efficiency of 90% assumed and used to calculate the predicted
temperatures in Figure 5.9 was arrived at by trial and error. Initially an
efficiency of 60% was assumed, resulting in predicted temperatures shown in
Figure 5.10, which are much higher them actually observed. Thi$ results from
the fact that a lower cyclone efficiency causes less cold char to be recycled
back to the gasifier thereby allowing temperatures to remain high throughout
the system. The cyclone efficiency was then increased in increments up until
90% efficiency, a value which seemed to predict the observed data reasonably
well.
PREDICTED MEASURED PREDICTED MEASURED A

A GASIFIER OUTLET A A GASIFIER OUTLET ▲
□ CROSSOVER OUTLET □ CROSSOVER OUTLET ■ □
O DEVOL. OUTLET 0 O DEVOL. OUTLET •
ASSUMED A 1/16" THICK CHAR LAYER OVER ASSUMED A 1/16" THICK CHAR LAYER OVER
INTERNAL SURFACES, RESISTANCE = .028 HR M2oK - INTERNAL SURFACES,
RESISTANCE .028 HR-M2^
KCAL
OXYGEN FLOW ‘ 3.12 Kg MOLS 02/HR. OXYGEN FLOW = 3.12 Kg MOLS 02/HR.
CYCLONE EFFICIENCY 90% CYCLONE EFFICIENCY 60% A

Qp, A.0fgG . S SET FOR TEST CONDITIONS .. 0p- A.^n g , S SET FOR
A
TEST CONDITIONS
A
▲
A 6 O
A A ■
O
8 g ■ a 0 t
DATA TEST 36 [
COAL FIRING IDEVOL. ONLY'
A-,433 • S=0 •
•
0'*.122 A=.433
£•=.122
_ DATA TEST 35
I
COAL
s
_ t A-.291
I S=0.5
A=.291 £■=.0796
S-0.5
0-.O796 DATA TEST 34
DATA TEST 34 T COAL FIRING (GASIF. ONLY)
' COAL FIRING A*.314
S=1
A1.314
- £'=0
DATA TEST 33 ♦
♦ DATA TEST 33
COAL FIRING |
COAL FIRING (GASIF. ONLY)
A-.3&8
A-.358
- S=1
0-.OS22
.
TIME. HOURS TIME, HOURS
FIGURE 5.9 COMPARISON OF OBSERVED FIGURE 5.10 EFFECT OF LOW CYCLONE

TEMPERATURES VS PREDICTED EFFICIENCY ON PREDICTED
TEMPERATURES TEMPERATURES
5-16
5.3 PREDICTIONS OF THERMAL ANALYSIS MODEL
5.3.1 Achieving Steady-State
As previously stated, the first objective of the present analysis was to

determine how long it would take for the pilot apparatus to achieve thermal
steady-state and what might be its heat losses under this condition. To
accomplish this, we simulated tests 33 and 38 extended to running times of
36 and 30 hours respectively. The results are shown on Figures 5.11 and 5.12.
SYSTEM PREHEATED ON NATURAL GAS FIRING AT 15% EXCESS
AIR FOR 1.12 HOURS BEFORE SWITCHING TO COAL FIRING
SYSTEM PREHEATED ON NATURAL GAS FIRING AT 15% EXCESS
AIR FOR 1.12 HOURS BEFORE SWITCHING TO COAL FIRING 50.000
50.000
45.000
45.000
40.000
40.000
35.000
35.000
O 30.000
O 30,000
O ai
S' *
25.000 HEAT LOSS FROM COMBUSTOR WATER JACKET 25.000
% JHEAT LOSS FROM COMBUSTOR WATER JACKET

g 20.000 20.000 ■m/h**',)'• p i , r/v-n-f •, ,■ >
HEAT LOSS FROM’ CHAR ACROSS CYCLONES ^ HEAT LOSS FROM CHAR ACROSS CYCLONES /
< //////////////////////////{//.■’/////(.'////////Y/^.
X 15.000
vr
. CYCLONE HEAT loss VS \VVC 15.000 CYCLONE HEAT LOSS .
. ■ ■ wC<
10.000
5,000
3
xxxXXXy
I I 1 1 1
16 20 i i i -i I E- \L\X \K
HOURS 3 12 16 20 24 28
HOURS
FIGURE 5.11 HEAT LOSSES DURING COAL FIGURE 5.12 HEAT LOSSES DURING COAL
FIRING AT TEST 33 CONDITIONS FIRING AT TEST 38 CONDITIONS
CALCULATED VIA MODEL CALCULATED VIA MODEL
Before attempting to interpret these results, let us first clarify the meanings
of the various heat losses in some detail.
The Cyclone Heat Loss represents the heat loss from the gas only (exclusive of
the particulate) as it passes through the cyclone separators. Since this loss
occurs after the major volume of the equipment, it is of no significance to
the gasification reactions. It represents only cooling of the make gas. The
Heat Loss from the Char Across Cyclones represents the heat loss from the char
stream as it traverses the water-cooled elbow following the devolatilizer and
the cyclone separators. This loss might have some significance for the process
were it not for the fact that it is not practical to recycle char that is too
hot. Consequently, one must consider this heat loss to be unavoidable in the
pilot apparatus as well as in full scale. The Heat Loss Across Char Recycle Line
(top of Figure 5.10) is another matter. This represents the heat loss from
the char between the point of exiting from the cyclone separators and entering
5-17
the combustor. Its magnitude is based upon the assumption that the char enters
the combustor at 500°K (440°F). In other words, it is the heat loss in the
char in the pilot apparatus in cooling from about 1000°F to about 440°F. It
would not be present in a full-scale installation, and it could probably be
eliminated by redesigning the elbow and cyclone separators in the pilot
apparatus. Returning to the middle of Figure 5.11, the Heat Loss from the
Combustor Water Jacket is that which is lost in this pilot apparatus to
the water jacket and the water-cooled support for the refractory. This loss
might possibly be reduced by about a third by going to a much more difficult
to design stainless steel air-cooled shell instead of the water-cooled. How
ever, it seems unlikely that it can be reduced below about two-thirds its
present magnitude. The problem is that the fluid dynamic agitation and the
fluxing action of the slag determine the heat flux density from the combustion
zone to a point in the refractory where the slag just solidifies. The thick
ness of the "refractory”, then, adjusts itself to accommodate this heat flux
density; if the solid refractory is too thin, more heat flows out through it
than is supplied from the combustion, and slag is thus frozen until the thick
ness builds up to the point where the conduction through the solid equals the
input from the fluid; conversely, if the solid is too thick, the slag fluxes
the refractory out until the heat flux into and out of the freezing zone balance.
On the other hand, this heat loss could probably be at least partially com
pensated by increasing air preheat. The remaining losses. Gasifier Heat Loss,
Crossover Heat Loss, and Devolatilizer Heat Loss are those that are computed
in the present mathematical model. They represent transient heating up of the
refractory and convective heat losses from the external shells of the various
vessels.
Turning now to the interpretation of the results of Figures 5.11 and 5.12, it
will be noted that even after substantial steady-state is obtained, the signi
ficant heat losses are reduced by only about 10% from their values at the time
the data were taken (at a time of about 2 hours on the abscissa of the plots).
This is due partly to preheating and, actually, overheating the apparatus a
little at the start, and also to the fact that the heat loss across the Char
Recycle Line tends to increase as the apparatus equilibrates because the char
temperature leaving the cyclone separators tends to increase.
Thus, the answer to the first question is that the pilot apparatus must run
for about 24 hours to achieve thermal steady-state, but the significant heat
losses are not substantially different at 24 hours than they were at 2 or 3
5-18
hours when the data were taken. Inasmuch as significant steady-state heat
losses represent about 30% of the heat release capability of the oxygen being
put into the system or, very roughly, 40 - 45% of the actual heat release in
the process, they are probably very significant from the standpoint of limiting
performance. Consequently, we must conclude that this particular pilot apparatus,
operated at steady-state under the conditions of the tests performed in this
series, is not capable of producing data representative of full scale apparatus.
However, this does not mean that this apparatus, if slightly modified, and
operated in a different fashion, might not produce representative data. For
example, if the water-cooled elbow beneath the devolatilizer and the stainless
steel air-cooled cyclones were replaced by air-cooled ceramic parts, the char
recycle temperature could probably be raised from about 440°F to about 1000°F.
This would completely eliminate the Heat Loss Across Char Recycle Line. More
over, although the Heat Loss from Combustor Water Jacket cannot be eliminated,
it might be largely compensated by raising the air preheat temperature. For
example, raising the air preheat temperature from about 800° or 850° to 1050°
or 1100°F would provide an additional heat input equal to about 5000 kcal/kg
mol O^. This compares with 10,000 kcal lost to the combustor water jacket.
Thus, raising the air preheat would compensate for all but about 5,000 kcal of
water jacket loss, which would bring that loss to about 10% of the potential
heat release of the oxygen, or about 7% of the actual heat release in the
apparatus. In other words, by increasing the air preheat one could get the
heat loss to the combustor water jacket down to a value that should be very
comparable with that predicted for commercial practice.
With these modifications to the char recycle system and the air preheat system
in mind, there still remains the question of whether or not the heat losses
to the refractory in the devolatilizer and gasifier might be reduced to values
comparable to that predicted for commercial practice. Inasmuch as the mass of
refractory presents a possibility of overpreheating and operating the apparatus in
an unsteady-state mode, which could drive these heat losses to zero or even below,
we thought it advisable to investigate this question further.
5.3.2 Deliberate Unsteady-State Operations to Minimize Heat Losses

Using Present Apparatus
Two series of computer "experiments" were conducted to investigate the

possibilities inherent in preheating to internal temperatures above the steady-
state temperatures on coal firing. In the first, we maintained the equipment
exactly as it is, and in the second, we assumed the modification that would
enhance the effect.
5-19
Three axial temperature distributions are shown on Figure 5.12. One of them
is the computed temperature distribution for test 38 if there were no heat loss
to the gasifier, crossover duct, and devolatilizer walls. The other two applied
to gas firing at thermal equilibrium, chosen so as to make the refractory in
side surface temperature roughly correspond to the adiabatic fluid temperature
with coal firing. This was achieved by using an air to fuel ratio of 2.4 in
the combustor, and then burning additional gas at the top of the devolatilizer.
Several axial temperature profiles after switching over to coal firing at the
conditions of run 38 are shown on Figure 5.13. It will be noticed that just
after switching over to coal firing, the gas temperature profile is slightly
above the adiabatic profile, implying heat input from the refractory walls
rather than loss. Thereafter, the internal temperature profile drops as heat
losses pull the refractory temperatures down. Figure 5.14 shows what happens
to heat losses during the 2 hour time period immediately after switching over
to coal. As noticed in the temperature profiles (Figure 5.13) the heat losses
to refractory are initially negative. But within a few minutes after switching
over, they become positive and build very quickly to nearly their steady-state
values. Thus, unless data could be obtained within 10 minutes or less after
switching over to coal, there would be no period of substantially zero heat
losses to refractory. Since this is too short a period of time to expect to
stabilize flows and get an accurate reading on the coal flow rate, this partic
ular operation would be impractical.
Figure 5.15 shows similar heat losses, but with preheat to somewhat higher
temperatures. In fact, the preheat was high enough to produce substantial
negative heat losses immediately after switching over to coal. In this case,
substantially zero heat loss is obtained for a period from about 12 minutes
after switching over to a period of about 24 minutes after switching over
(i.e., from 24.2 to 24.4 hours along the abscissa). By stretching one's
concept of "zero heat losses" a little bit, this period might be extended
from, say, 12 minutes after switching over to 36 minutes after switching over,
giving a period of about 24 minutes of substantially zero heat loss to the
refractory. These time periods might be adequate to stabilize flows and get
an accurate reading of coal flow. However, the "window" within which one can
obtain data seems quite small, especially in view of the probable precision of
our calculation. Thus, we feel that this would be a difficult way to operate -
one that would probably result in one run discarded for every one that is
accepted.
5-20
COMPUTER SIMULATION OF UNSTEADY - STATE OPERATION
SYSTEM PREHEATED FOR 24 HOURS WITH NATURAL GAS FIRING AT
KCAL*
CONDITIONS: AT 140% EXCESS AIR WITH AN ADDITIONAL 7500 140% EXCESS AIR WITH AN ADDITIONAL 7500 Kq ÔL Og
KG MOL 02
OF HEAT ADDED AT DEVOLATILIZER INLET OF HEAT ADDED AT THE DEVOLATILIZER INLET
GAS TEMP. 2200 2200
2100 2100
JUST AFTER SWITCHING TO u.

LI COAL FIRING AT 24 HRS.
V3
LU
LLI
2000 2000
D
TEST NO. 38 NO HEAT LOSS
TEST 38 NO HEAT LOSS

I I
REFRACTORY TEMP
1900 1900
1800 1800
1200 __ 1200--
COMBUSTOR GASIFIER DEVOLATILIZER COMBUSTOR GASIFIER DEVOLATILIZER
OUTLET TOP BOTTOM OUTLET TOP BOTTOM OUTLET
OUTLET OUTLET OUTLET
GASIFIER CROSSOVER GASIFIER CROSSOVER
BOTTOM PIPE BOTTOM PIPE
OUTLET OUTLET OUTLET OUTLET
FIGURE 5.13 REFRACTORY AND GAS TEMPERATURES FIGURE 5.14 GAS TEMPERATURES FOR COAL FIRING
AFTER 24 HOURS ON NATURAL GAS FIRING AT TEST 38 CONDITIONS
SYSTEM PREHEATED ON NATURAL GAS AT 126% EXCESS AIR WITH

SYSTEM PREHEATED ON NATURAL GAS FIRING AT 140% EXCESS AIR FOR
AN ADDITIONAL 11500 kg^q}; q2 HEAT ADDED AT
24 HOURS WITH AN ADDITIONAL 7500 kg'moL '62 °F HEAT ADDED
DEVOLATILIZER INLET
AT THE DEVOLATILIZER INLET
HEAT LOSS ACROSS HEAT LOSS ACROSS

CHAR RECYCLE LINE CHAR RECYCLE LINE
DEVOLATILIZER HEAT LOSS DEVOLATILIZER HEAT LOSS
CROSSOVER HEAT LOSS CROSSOVER HEAT LOSS

GASIFIER HEAT LOSS
GASIFIER HEAT LOSS
HEAT LOSS FROM COMBUSTOR

HEAT LOSS FROM COMBUSTOR WATER JACKET
WATER JACKET
20.000
HEAT LOSS FROM CHAR HEAT LOSS FROM CHAR
ACROSS CYCLONES ACROSS CYCLONES
CYCLONE HEAT LOSS

CYCLONE HEAT LOSS
HEAT LOSSES IN THIS AREA
HEAT LOSSES IN THIS AREA ARE NOT IMPORTANT AS
ARE NOT IMPORTANT AS THEY THEY OCCUR AFTER REACTIONS
OCCUR AFTER REACTIONS ARE ARE COMPLETE
COMPLETE
5,000
24 25 26 27
HOURS
FIGURE 5.15 HEAT LOSSES DURING COAL FIRING AT FIGURE 5.16 HEAT LOSSES DURING COAL FIRING AT
TEST 38 CONDITIONS TEST 38 CONDITIONS
•NOTE: THIS ADDITION OF HEAT WAS SIMULATED IN THE COMPUTER PROGRAM BY ADDING TO THE ENTHALPY OF THE GAS
5-21
Inasmuch as the operation implied by Figure 5.15 succeeds to a degree in
promising elimination of refractory heat losses, we thought it would be
beneficial to redesign the gasifier so as to take full advantage of the techni
que of over preheating and obtaining transient data. Fortunately, such kinds
of changes can be made very readily on a computer model.
5.3.3 Design Change (Figure 5.17)

j-*- TO CYCLONES
The light firebrick on the outside
of the vessel (the K-3000 and K-23)
is exactly the same as in the gasi
fier bottom in the present apparatus. 4’/2" OF K-3000 AND
Vk" OF K-23 FIREBRICK
However, we have replaced the present
mixture of castable and broken firebrick
with 4-1/2 inches of all castable 4-1/2" OF
CASTABLE REFRACTORY
refractory (no chunks of broken fire
brick) . This roughly doubles the
mass of material in this area. The COAL
CHAR
AIR
internal diameter has been retained
at 12 inches, the same as the present
gasifier bottom. The length is extended
FIGURE 5.17 DESIGN CHANGE
to 24 feet so as to maintain the volume
of the apparatus the same as the gasifier
plus crossover duct plus devolatilizer of the present pilot plant. Figure 5.17
shows a preheat temperature profile assumed using natural gas firing at an
initial air/fuel ratio of 2.4. Additional gas added into the middle of the
gasifier serves to "flatten" the preheat profile to match the "no heat loss"
profile of coal firing. Figure 5.19 shows various axial temperature profiles
computed for this equipment. It will be noted that just after switching over
to coal (conditions of Test 38) the profile is far above what would be the
gas temperature profile in Test 38 if the refractory walls were adiabatic.
This implies a substantial negative heat loss at the switchover time. There
after, the gas temperature profiles drop until, between 26 and 28 hours
(2 and 3 hours after switching over), the gas temperature profile almost
exactly matches the adiabatic profile.
Figure 5.20 shows the heat losses corresponding to Figures 5.18 through 5.19.
It will be noted that at 26.4 hours, the refractory heat loss is exactly zero.
However, from about 25.3 to about 28.4 hours, the refractory heat loss is
5-22
within 2000 kcal of being zero. This amounts to about 0.8% of the heating value
of the coal fired, or 3% of the actual heat release in the gasifier. Thus, it
would be fair to say that this period of 3 hours would amount to essentially
adiabatic operation. Thus in this case, the "window" in which data can be
taken is quite broad. If data were taken every half hour from hour 25 through
30, one, and probably two, periods could be found wherein thermal balances would
show zero heat loss to refractory.
COMPUTER SIMULATION OF UNSTEADY - STATE OPERATION
SYSTEM PREHEATED FOR 24 HOURS ON NATURAL GAS
SYSTEM PREHEATED FOR 24 HOURS ON NATURAL GAS AT 140% EXCESS AIR

2200
WITH AN ADDITIONAL 1150 OF HEAT ADDED
KG MOL 02
AT MIDPOINT OF GASIFIER
2100 ?
COMBUSTOR GASIFIER GASIFIER

OUTLET BOTTOM TOP
OUTLET OUTLET
FIGURE 5.19 GAS TEMPERATURES FOR "REDESIGNED'

GASIFIER FOR COAL FIRING
SYSTEM PREHEATED ON NATURAL GAS AT 126% EXCESS AIR FOR 24 HOURS

KCAL*
WITH AN ADDITIONAL 11500 KG MOi_ o2 *
MIDPOINT OF ''REDESIGNED" GASIFIER
FIGURE 5.16 GAS AND REFRACTORY TEMPERATURES

FOR "REDESIGNED" GASIFIER
''NOTE: THIS ADDITION OF HEAT WAS SIMULATED IN

THE COMPUTER PROGRAM BY ADDING TO THE
ENTHALPY OF THE GAS.
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
HOURS
FIGURE 5.20 HEAT LOSSES DURING COAL FIRING FOR

"REDESIGNED" GASIFIER AT TEST 38
CONDITIONS
5-23
In other words, by rebuilding the gasifier to the same "scale", but with
different refractory, and by operating in the "high preheat-transient data”
mode, we could completely eliminate heat loss in the refractory. As previously
mentioned, the heat loss across the char recycle line could be completely
eliminated by eliminating the water cooling and using refractory cyclones. By
using more air preheat, the heat loss from the combustor could be compensated
to the extent of bringing it into line with that predicted for full scale
practice. The remaining heat loss from the char would be unavoidable in com
mercial practice, and, so, may not be eliminated. Finally, the remaining heat
loss from the gas and the cyclone separators need not be compensated because
it occurs after the process is complete. Thus, with these equipment modifi
cations and the operation depicted in Figures 5.18 through 5.20, one could
achieve in this small pilot scale, the heat losses that would be exactly
comparable to those predicted in commercial scale.
5.4 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS FROM THERMAL ANALYSIS OF PILOT APPARATUS
1. A mathematical model has been constructed to simulate the transient

thermal behavior of our pilot apparatus. It accurately predicts
the axial temperature distribution inside the gasifier according
to the thermal history and coal-firing conditions.
2. Using this model, we have shown for the gasifier system as it

presently exists that:
a. Although we have confirmed the presence of transient heat

loss in the gasifier, a substantial portion of this heat
loss can be attributed to recycling cold char.
b. There appears to be no way to operate the present apparatus
so as to achieve heat losses that will be comparable to
those predicted for a full scale installation.3
3. By certain equipment modifications and by operating in a

"high preheat-transient data" mode, a pilot apparatus of this
scale (1000 Ib/hr of air) can be made to produce heat losses
fully comparable to the low losses expected in large commercial
installations. The equipment modifications would include:
a. Removal of the water-cooled elbow and stainless steel

cyclone separators and replacing them with air-cooled
ceramic parts so as to produce a recycle char temperature
of about 1000°F.
5-24
b. Redesigning the char transport system so as to reinject the
char at a temperature as close as possible to 1000°F.
c. Adding air preheat up to at least 1050°F so as to compen
sate for roughly 40% of the combustor heat loss.
d. Rebuilding the reaction volume (gasifier plus crossover
duct plus devolatilizer) to employ about 4-1/2 inches of
dense castable refractory enclosed in about 9 inches of
light fire brick.
The operational mode consists of gas firing with high excess air (about 240%
of theoretical) with injection of additional gas at one or more points along
the apparatus. This is contrived so as to produce an additional internal
refractory surface temperature profile that lies somewhat above the adiabatic
gas temperature profile with coal firing. Data are then taken every half hour
for 4 hours after changing over to coal firing. Analysis of these data should
produce one or more half hour periods wherein the heat loss to the refractory
is substantially zero. Under these conditions, the significant heat loss (which
is the uncompensated combustor heat loss) should amount to about 2% of the
heating value of the coal fired.
5-25
Section 6
SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Analysis of the data yielded the following results for comparison of operation
with all coal fed to the gasifier to all or some coal fed to the devolatilizer,
under conditions of the same air-to-fuel ratio:
• The highest heating values were observed when all of the coal
was fed to the gasifier.
• Unacceptably large tar quantities were generated when half or
all of the coal was fed to the devolatilizer.
• Tar content of the make-gas tended to be negligible or low
when all the coal was fed to the gasifier.
However, the data analyses also showed that heat losses were generally high—
much higher than had been anticipated at the inception of this program. This
was due to a combination of transient heating of the mass of refractory that
had been substituted for the unsuccessful annular-fired design of the gasifier,
too much heat loss due to recycling cold char, and excessive uncompensated
combustor heat loss.
Within the range of substoichiometric air-to-fuel ratios studied utilizing this

particular test apparatus, heat losses were related to the air-to-fuel ratio;
the higher air-to-fuel ratios tended to produce higher internal temperatures
which resulted in higher heat losses. This made it difficult to separate
the independent effects of air-to-fuel ratio and heat loss. Consequently,
statistical projections to reasonable levels of heat loss assuming virtually
100% carbon utilization could give only a broad range, 100-150 Btu/dscf for
Western coal, all fed to the gasifier. However, the upper end of that range,
if it would turn out to be actually attainable, would be quite encouraging.
A detailed thermal analysis of the pilot apparatus has shown that with the present
design there appears to be no way to operate so as to significantly lower heat
losses. However, by certain modifications and a change in operating procedure, a
pilot apparatus of this scale can be made to produce heat losses fully comparable
to low losses expected in large commercial installations.
6-1
Section 7
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The next step should be a redesign, aided by the thermal model, of the
pilot gasifier and adding of an externally fired air heater to the facility
in order to reduce heat losses to that representative of a commercial
installation.
2. Upon completion of the necessary modifications, additional tests using the

gasification scheme only, should be conducted to achieve a definite answer
to the question, "Can heat content be increased simply by reducing heat
losses?"
3. The development of a mathematical model of suspension gasification based

upon rate control by other than gas-phase diffusion (e.g., chemical kinetics)
would make a significant contribution to continued development of this type
gasification.
7-1
Appendix A
TEST DATA
A computer program was written for the purpose of consolidating all the perti
nent data on one computer output sheet and also for the calculation of material
balances. A brief description of how the various quantities on this output
sheet were obtained follows:
INPUTS
COAL RATE, LB/HR A total coal flow rate was measured via a load
cell supporting the coal feed tank. A strip
chart recorder was used to record the total
weight of the coal feed tank as a function of
time; from this a coal rate was obtained.
Coal flow split was, for a given tank pressure,
a function of transport air flow rate. A
calibration was made of the system using the
variables of coal feed tank pressure and
transport air flow rate. The resulting curve.
Figure A.l, was then used to determine the
coal feed split.
AIR FLOWS, LB/HR All the flows listed were measured using
machined orifices for which curves were calcu
lated; flow rates taken from these curves were
used as input to the computer program. The
exception to this was the transport air flow
which was measured using a rotameter.
NATURAL GAS FLOW, LB/HR The natural gas flowing to the gasifier was
GASIFIER used to maintain reducing conditions in the
SEC COMB event of char recycle interruptions. This
flow was measured using an orifice; flow rate
obtained from curve was input to computer
program.
A-l
The natural gas to the secondary combustion
furnace was measured with an orifice and flow
rate obtained from a curve.
STEAM FLOW, LB/HR During a few tests team was added to the system
GASIFIER through a lance inserted in the horizontal
DEVOL burners to determine its effect on make-gas
heating value. For the devolatilizer, steam
was added at the coal injection probe. Steam
flow was measured using an orifice; flow rate
was obtained from a curve.
OXYGEN ADDED, LB/HR During a few tests oxygen enrichment of the

gasifier air was tried in an attempt to increase
temperatures. Oxygen addition was made upstream
of the gasifier burners. Flow rate measurement
was made by an orifice; flow rate was obtained
from a curve.
SEC COMB PERCENT The oxygen concentration of the flue gas leaving
TOTAL AIR, % the secondary combustor was measured. The
assumption of complete combustion was used to
convert it to percent total air. This measure
ment was used to calculate the carbon balance
at point "C", the exit of the secondary combus
tion furnace.
TEMPERATURES, °F Temperatures at the gasifier outlet, devolatil

izer inlet, devolatilizer mid-point, and
devolatilizer outlet were measured using platinum
thermocouples. The cyclone separator outlet
and the preheated gasifier combustion air
temperature were measured with chromel-alumel
thermocouples. See Figure 3.6 for locations.
SOLID LOADINGS, LB/HR This is the flow rate of solids passing a

specific point in the system as measured by solids
loading apparatus. Note: A value of 0.00 for a
solids loading indicated NO MEASUREMENT.
A-2
MAKE GAS ANALYSIS, VOLUME % The analysis was given on a volume percent dry
basis, as sampled by our gas sampling apparatus
and analyzed on the Beckman GC-4 Gas Chromato
graph.
COAL FEED
TANK PRESSURE
j 100
< 50
TRANSPORT AIR FLOW SCFM
FIGURE A.l DETERMINATION OF COAL FLOW SPLIT
A-3
MATERIAL BALANCE CALCULATIONS
COAL RATE (WET) The wet coal rate is measured via load cells,
(DRY), LB/HR and the dry coal rate is calculated based on
an average moisture content determined from
moisture measurements.
DRY MAKE GAS RATE, LB/HR This is calculated using the total flow rate
of air and oxygen fed to the gasifier and the
make-gas heating value. This calculation
assumes that there is a direct relationship
between the heating value of the gas and the
amount of coal gasified. A plot of
lbs make gas
lbs air
as a function of make-gas heating value was
made based on the data. Figure A.2.
WESTERN COAL
EASTERN COAL
1.000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
BTU/DSCF
FIGURE A.2 RELATIONSHIP OF DRY MAKE GAS TO HEATING VALUE
A-4
WET MAKE GAS RATE, LB/HR This is calculated as the sum of the DRY MAKE GAS,
the TOTAL WATER FED, and WATER FROM REACTION.
TOTAL WATER FED, LB/HR This is calculated as the sum of the water contained
in the coal, the steam fed to the system, and the
water content of the gasifier combustion air.
Water content of gasifier air was assumed to be
one percent.
WATER FROM REACTION, LB/HR This is based on the difference between the oxygen
input as measured and the oxygen accounted for in
the dry make gas. The difference was attributed
to the formation of water. The oxygen content of
solids leaving the system was neglected.
PERCENT THEO AIR, % This is the total air fed to the system expressed
as a percent of the amount of air required to burn
all the fuel, both coal and natural gas, completely
to CO^ and HÔ.
HEATING VALUE, BTU/DSCF This is the heating value of the make gas calculated
on the basis of the gas analysis.
MEASURED INPUT, LB/HR The total carbon input includes the carbon in the
coal and carbon in the natural gas. The hydrogen
input includes that in the coal and natural gas.
The hydrogen in the water is not included.
The oxygen input to the system is the sum of oxygen

in the coal, air, and any pure oxygen added to enrich
the air. The oxygen in the water is not included.
The nitrogen input includes that in the coal and

air.
OUT AT POINT B, LB/HR The carbon output is based on the amount in the
CARBON make gas and in the solids. An average carbon
HYDROGEN
content of 82.5% (based on the analysis of a
OXYGEN
NITROGEN number of samples) was assumed for the solids.
A-5
The hydrogen out at this point is calculated on
the basis of the hydrogen in the make gas, in
the solids, and that hydrogen contained in
the water formed by reaction. The average
hydrogen content of the solids is assumed to
be 2.9%. Other hydrogen in the form of water
vapor is not included as the water content of
the make gas was not measured.
The quantity of oxygen at this point is based

on that found in the make gas as carbon
dioxide and carbon monoxide plus the amount
contained in the WATER FROM REACTION. Since
the WATER FROM REACTION is based on the dif
ference between oxygen IN and OUT, the oxygen
balance at this point is forced to be equal to
the input.
The amount of nitrogen is that analyzed in

the make gas as free nitrogen.
OUT AS POINT C, LB/HR The amount of carbon at this point, the

CARBON exit of the secondary combustion furnace,
is calculated based on an oxygen analysis
and the assumption of complete combustion.
MISCELLANEOUS CALCULATIONS
TOTAL BTU/HR IN COAL This value represents the total coal feed
rate multiplied by its heating value.
TOTAL BTU/HR IN NAT GAS This value represents the natural gas feed
rate to the gasifier multiplied by its
heating value.
TOTAL BTU/HR IN FUEL The sum of the above two values.
BTU/HR IN MAKE GAS Product of the make gas flow rate and its
heating value.
At 6
HYDROGEN IN GAS, LB/HR This is the amount of hydrogen in the make gas
only; solids are not included.
CARBON IN GAS, LB/HR This represents the quantity of carbon in the

make gas as CO, CO^, CH^, etc.
MAKE GAS MOL WT Calculated based on make-gas composition.
COLD-GAS CONV EFF, % This is equal to the ratio of the BTU/HR IN

MAKE GAS to TOTAL BTU/HR IN FUEL.
MAKE GAS ANALYSIS Make gas analysis expressed on a weight basis.

WEIGHT FRACTION
SOLIDS ANALYSIS* S
This portion presents the results of the analysis that were done on solids
samples taken at either the gasifier outlet, char recycle (from bottom of east
cyclone), and at the cyclone outlet (solids which were entrained in the gas
stream leaving the cyclones). In addition, a screen sizing analysis was occa
sionally done on the char recycle solids; this is presented here along with the
results of the tar determinations.
Abbreviations and terms used are:
Proximate Analysis
V. M. - Volatile Matter
F. C. - Fixed Carbon
Ultimate Analysis
C - Carbon
H - Hydrogen
N - Nitrogen
S - Sulfur
0 - Oxygen
Screen Analysis
% THRU 30 50 100 140 200
The above numbers erfer to the screen mesh number
A-7
TfcST 1
10-22-75 0950 HRS ALL COAL TO GASIFIER PITTSBURG B COAL
Input Calculations
GASIFIER-DEVOLATILIZER
COAL RATE LR/HR TEMPERATURES* F TOTAL BTU/HR IN COAL 2193510.00
TOTAL BTU/HR IN NAT. GAS 259240.00
GASIFIER 170.00 GASIFIER .OUT 1950.00 TOTAL BTU/HR IN FUEL 2452750.00
HE VOL 0.00 DEVOL IN 1750.00 BTU/HR IN MAKE GAS 1045971.15
DEVOL MID 1360.00 HYDROGEN IN GAS LB/HR 6.29
DEVOL OUT 1160.00 CARBON IN GAS LB/HR 102,20
AIR E LOWS LB/HP CYC SEP OUT 900.00 MAKE GAS MOL. WT. 25.59
GASIFIER AIR 790.00 COLD-GAS CONV. EFF. 42.64
GASIFIER AIR 790.00
TRANSPORT AIR 60.40 SOLIDS LOADING LB/HR MAKE GAS ANALYSIS
CHAR EJECT AIR 31.60 GASIFIER OUT 0.00 WEIGHT FRACTION
TOTAL AIR TO GASIFIER 062.00 CYCLONE OUT 0.00
SEC COMB AIR 4473.07 hydrogen .006331
MAKE \ CARBON MONOXIDE .153197
NATURAL GAS LB/HH GASIFIER GAS ANALYSIS cycloneX methane 0.000000
OUTLET VOL PERCENT DRY outlet / ETHANE 0.000000
GASIFIER 11 .on / ETHYLENE 0.000000
SEC COMB 170.00 -0.00 HYDROGEN 0.10 ACETYLENE 0.000000
-0.00 CARBON MONOXIDE 14.00 HYDROGEN SULFIDE 0.000000
-o.no METHANE 0.00 CARBON DIOXIDE .135045
STEAM FLOW LB/HR -0.00 ETHANE 0.00 NITROGEN •609306
A-8
-0.00 ETHYLENE 0.00 OXYGEN+ARGON .01524?

GASIFIER 0.00 -0.00 ACETYLENE 0.00
DEVOL 0.00 -0.00 HYDROGEN SULFIDE 0.00
-0.00 CARBON DIOXIDE 7.90
-0.00 NITROGEN 63.00
OXYGEN ADDED LB/HR -0.00 OX YGEN*ARGON 1.00
0.00
0.00 94.00
SEC COMB PERCENT
TOTAL AIR 117.50 MATERIAL BALANCE
BASED ON MEASURED CARBON HYDROGEN OXYGEN NITROGEN
COAL RATE MEASURED INPUT 129.99 11.29 217.18 667,56
COAL RATE (WET) LB/HR 170.00 (DRY) 167.45 OUT AT POINT B 102.20 10.27 217.10 605.33
DRY MAKE GAS LB/HR 994.11
WET MAKE GAS LB/HR 1041.25 OUT AT POINT C 123.27
TOTAL WATER FED LB/MR 11.37
WATER FROM REACTION LB/HR 35.77
PERCENT THEO. AIR 47,99
HEATING VALUE BTU/DSCF 71.41
SOLIDS ANALYSIS
ItST 2
10-28-75 U40 HRS ALL COAL FLFO TO GASIFIER PITTSBURG ft COAL
Input Calculations
COAL RATF LB/HR temperatures. F TOTAL BTU/HR IN COAL 2322540.00
TOTAL BTU/HR In NAT. GAS 207398.40
GASIFIER 180.00 GASIFIER OUT 2200.00 TOTAL BTU/HR IN FUEL 2529938.40
DEVOL 0.00 OFVOL IN 2050.00 8TU/HR IN MAKE GAS 605249.50
DEVOL OUT 1460.00 CARBON IN GAS LB/HR 89.12
A1P FLOWS LB/HR CYC SEP OUT 1075.00 MAKF GAS MOL. WT. 28.75
GASIFIER AIR 800.00 COLD-GAS CONV. EFF. 23.9?
GAS IFIF R AIR 800.00
TRANSPORT AIR 56.25 SOLIDS LOADING LB/HR MAKF GAS ANALYSIS
TOTAL AIK TO GASIFIER 891.35 CYCLONE OUT 0,00
SEC COMB AIR 4353.45 HYDROGEN .003479
MAKE CARBON MONOXIDE .093512
NATURAL GAS LH/HR GASIFIER GAS ANALYSIS methane 0.000000
OUTLET VOL PERCENT DRY ETHANE 0.000000
GASIFIER 8.80 ethylene 0.000000
SEC COMB JbO.OO -0.00 HYDROGEN 5.00 ACETYLENE 0,000000
9.60 HYDROGFN SULFIDE 0.000000
o
0
carbon monoxide
1
-0.00 METHANE 0.00 CARBON DIOXIDE .186746
STEAM flow lb/hr -0.00 ETHANE 0.00 NITROGEN .701339
-0.00 ETHYLENE 0.00 OXYGEN*ARGON .014924
GASIFIER 0.00 -0.00 acetylene 0.00
DEVOL 0.00 -0.00 hydrogen sulfide 0.00
-0.00 carbon dioxide 12.20
OXYGEN ADDED LB/HR -0.00 oxygen+argon 1.10
0.00
SEC COMB PERCENT

TOTAL AIR 124.00 material BALANCE
BASED ON measured CARBON HYDROGEN OXYGEN NITROGEN

COAL RATE MEASURED INPUT 135.50 n.24 220.09 674,74
DRY MAKE GAS lb/hr 978.29
WET MAKE GAS LB/hr 1028.81 OUT AT POINT C 87.75
TOTAL WATER FED LB/HR 11.61
PERCENT THEO. AIR 47.02
SOLIDS ANALYSIS
TEST 3
11-10-75 1545 HRS ALL COAL TO THE GASIFIER PITTSBURG 8 COAL
Input Calculations
COAL RATE LR/HR TEMPERATURES* F TOTAL RTU/HR in coal 2283831,00
TOTAL BTU/HR IN NAT. GAS 188544,00
GASIFIER 177.00 GASIFIER OUT 2240.00 TOTAL BTU/HR IN f UEL 2472375.00
DEVOL 0.00 DEVOL IN 2080.00 BTU/HR in MAKE GAS 1136738.?7
DEVOL MID 1890.00 HYDROGEN in GAS LB/HR 5.57
AIR FLOWS Lb/HR CYC SEP OUT 1060.00 MAKE GAS MOL. WT. 27.53
GASIFIER AIR 840.00 COLO-GAS CONV. EFF. 45.98
GASIFIER AIR 850.00
transport air 52.40 solids loading lb/hr MAKE GAS ANALYSIS
char eject air 50.00 GASIFIER OUT 48.78 WEIGHT FRACTION
LB/HR GASIFIER GAS ANALYSIS
CYCLONE \ METHANE 0.000000
OUTLET outlet /
VOL PERCENT DRY ETHANE 0.000000
GASIFIER 8.00 ( ETHYLENE 0,000000
i
170.00
o
©
T.10
o
HYDROGEN ACETYLENE
.
0.000000
-0,00 CARBON MONOXIDE 16.70 HYDROGEN SULFIDE 0,000000
STEAM FLOW lb/hr -0.00 ETHANE 0.00 NITROGEN .681389
A -10
-0.00 ETHYLENE 0.00 OXYGEN*ARGON .014165

-0,00 CARBON DIOXIDE 8.10
lb/hr -0.00 OXYGEN+ARGON 1.00
0.00
0,00 99.90
PERCENT
based on measured CARBON hydrogen OXYGEN NITROGEN
COAL RATE MEASURED INPUT 132.75 10,89 234.03 720.81
COAL PATE (WET) LB/HR 177.00 (DRY) 174.35 OUT AT POINT B 121.30 9.16 234.03 735.76
WATER FROM REACTION IB/HR 30.90
SOLIDS ANALYSIS
UST 4
11-I4.-75 1300 HRS ALL COAL FEED TO GASIFIER 8 COAL
Input Calculations
COAL PATE LB/HR TEMPERATURES! F TOTAL BTU/HR IN COAL 2258025.00
TOTAL BTU/HR IN NAT. GAS 1B8544.00
6ASIFJEP 175.00 GASIFIER OUT 2210.00 total btu/hr in fuel 244656R.on
DEVOL 0.00 pevol in 2010.00 BTU/HR IN MAKE GAS 1172326.76
DEVOL MID 1800.00 HYDROGFN IN GAS LB/HR 5.74
AIR FLOWS LB/HR CYC SEP OUT 950.00 MAKF GAS MOL* WT. 27,61
GASIFIER AIR 820.00 COLD-GAS CONV. EFF. 47.9?
GASIFIER AIR 870.00
NATURAL GAS LB/HR GASIFIER GAS ANALYSISCYCLONE \ METHANE 0.000000
OUTLET OUTLET /
GASIFIER 8*00 / ETHYLENE 0.000000
SEC COMB 170.00 -0.00 hydrogen 7.10 ACETYLENE 0,000000
-0.00 CARBON MONOXIDE 16.70 HYDROGFN SULFIDE 0,000000
’
STEAM FLOW LB/HR -0.00 ETHANE 0.00 NITROGEN .679464

IT-
-0.00 ethylene 0.00 OXYGEN+ARGON .016950

OXYGEN ADDED LB/HR -0.00 OXYGEN+ARGON 1.20
0.00
0.00 100.10
SEC COMB PERCENT
BASED ON MEASURED CARBON HYDROGEN OXYGEN NT TpOGEN

COAL RATE (WET) LB/HR 175.00 (DRY) 172.38 OUT AT POINT B 125.03 758.79
SOLIDS ANALYSIS
TtST 5
11-19-75 1100 HRS ALL COAL TO GASIFIER PITTSBURG 8 COAL
Input Calculations
COAL RATE LB/HR TEMPERATURES, f TOTAL BTU/HR IN COAL 2116092.00
DEVOL 0.00 DEVOL IN 2150.00 BTU/HR IN MAKE GAS 1231607.65
DEVOL OUT 1600.00 CARBON IN GAS LB/HP 122.49
AIR FLOWS LB/HR CYC SEP OUT 915.00 MAKF GAS MOL. WT. 27.54
GASIFIER AIR 908.00
TRANSPORT AIR 58.00 solids loading lb/hr MAKF GAS ANALYSIS
CHAP EJECT AIR 66.00 gasifier OUT 0.00 WEIGHT FRACTION
TOTAL AIR TO GASIFIER 103?.00 CYCLONE OUT 19.17
SEC COMB AIR 4P37.33 HYDROGEN .005592
NATURAL GAS LB/HR GASIFIER GAS ANALYSIS methane 0.000000
OUTLET VOL PERCENT DRY ethane 0,000000
SEC COMB 168.00 -0.00 HYDROGEN 7,70 ACETYLENE 0.000000
-0.00 CARBON MONOXIDE 16.10 HYDROGFN SULFIDE 0.000000
STEAM FLOW LB/HR -0.00 ETHANE 0.00 NITROGEN ,683249
A-12
-0.00 ETHYLENE 0.00 OXYGEN+ARGON .021243

DEVOL 0.00 -0.00 hydrogen sulfide 0.00
-0.00 CARBON DIOXIDE 7,90
OXYGEN ADDED LB/HR -o.oo OXYGEN+ARGON 1.50
0.00
0.00 100.40
SEC COMH PERCENT
TOTAL AIR 115.00 material balance

COAL RATE MEASURED INPUT 123.61 10.36 251.54 780.76
COAL RATE (WET) LB/HR 164.00 (DRY) 161.54 OUT AT POINT fi 138.30 11.42 251.54 799.44
WET MAKE GAS LB/HR 1221.71 OUT AT POINT C 128./4
HEATING VALUE BTU/DSCF 76,87
SOLIDS ANALYSIS
TEST 6
11-19-75 1405 HRS ALL COAL TO GASIFIER PITTSBURG 8 COAL USED
Input Calculations
gasifier-devolatilizer
COAL RATE LB/HR temperatures* F TOTAL BTU/HR IN COAL 1*32??*,00
GASIFIER 142.00 GASIFIER OUT 2300,00 TOTAL BTU/HR IN FUEL 1938282.00
OEvOL 0.00 DEVOL IN 2150.00 BTU/HR IN MAKE GAS 979969,24
DEVOL MID 1930.00 HYDROGEN IN GAS LB/HR 4,3?
DEVOL OUT 1600.00 CARBON IN GAS LH/HR 113,18
AIR FLOWS LB/HR CYC SEP OUT 1100.00 MAKF GAS MOL. WT. 28,02
gasifier air 66O.00 COLD-GAS CONV. EFF. 50.56
GASIFIER AIR 650.00
IRANSRORT AIR 58.50 SOLIDS LOADING LB/HR MAKE GAS ANALYSIS
SEC COMA AIR 3889.60 HYDROGEN .003926
NATURAL GAS Lb/HR GASIFIER GAS ANALYSIS METHANE 0.000000
OUTLET VOL fercent DRY ETHANE 0.000000
GASIFIER 4.50 ETHYLENE 0.000000
SEC COMH 158.00 -0.00 HYDROGEN 5.50 ACETYLENE 0.000000
-0.00 CARBUN MONOXIDE 15.00 HYDROGFN SULFIDE 0.000000
STEAM FLOW LB/HR -0.00 ETHANE 0,00 NITROGEN ,689532
A-13
-0.00 ethylene 0.00 OXYGFN+ARGON .015311

GASIFIER 0.00 -Q• 00 acetylene 0.00
OEVOL 0.00 -0.00 hydrogen sulfide 0.00
-0.00 NlTROGFN 69.00
OXYGEN ADDED LB/HR -0.00 OXYGEN*ARGON 1.10
0.00
0.00 99.60
SEC COMB PERCENT

COAL RATE (WET) LB/HR 142,00 (DRY) 139.87 OUT AT POINT B 115.42 6.24 238,20 758.49
WET MAKE GAS LB/HR 1146,51 OUT AT POINT C 127.16
solids analysts
TtST 7
12-10-75 1235 HRS ALL COAL FFFD TO DEVOLATILIZER PITTSBURG * COAL
NITROGEN TO DEVOLATILIZER 11.3 LB/HR
Input talculations
COAL RATE LP/HR TEMPERATURES. F TOTAL RTU/HR IN COAL 15483*0,00
GASIFIER 0.00 GASIFIER OUT 2350.00 TOTAL PTU/HR IN FUEL 2726760.00
DEVOL 120.00 DEVOL IN 1980.00 BTU/HR IN MAKE GAS 661967,85
DEVOL MID 1450.00 HYDROGEN IN GAS LB/HP 5.25
OEVOL OUT 1350.00 CARBON IN GAS LH/HR 77.68
AIR FLOWS lb/hr CYC SEP OUT 1010.00 MAKE GAS MOL. *T. 28.23
GASIFIER AIR 660.00
transport AIR 0.00 SOLIDS LOADING LB/HR MAKE GAS ANALYSIS
char EJECT AIR 76.00 GASIFIER OUT 0,00 WEIGHT FRACTION
NATURAL GAS LB/HR GASIFIER GAS ANALYSIS METHANE .002267
outlet VOL PERCENT DRY ETHANE .001807
SEC COMB 150.00 5.30 HYDROGEN 5.80 acetylene 0.000000
6.60 carbon monoxide 6.60 hydrogen sulfide o.ooonoo
0.00 METHANE • 40 CARBON DIOXIDE .158974
STEAM FLOW LB/HR 0.00 ethane • 15 nitrogen ,753781
0.00 ethylene 0.00 OXYGEN«ARGON .013815
GASIFIER 0.00 0.00 ACETYLENE 0.00
DEVOL 0.00 0.00 HYDROGEN SULFIDE 0.00
10,20 CARBON DIOXIDE 10.20
76.B0 NITROGEN 76.00
OXYGEN ADDED LH/HR 1.00 OXYGEN-* ARGON 1.00
0.00
99.90 100.15
SEC COMB PERCENT
COAL RATE (WET) LB/HR 120,00 (DRY) 118.20 OUT AT POINT B 77.68 13.99 231.12 792.27
DRY MAKE GAS L8/HR 1051.07
SOLIDS ANALYSIS
TEST 7 CHAR RECYCLE — V.M. 9.1* F,C• 66.0% ASH 24 .9*
UST fi
12-1H-75 1350 HRS ALL COAL TO DEVOLATILIZER WITH STEAM TO TOP OF DEVOLAT
Input PITTSBURG ft COAL USED Calculations
GASIFIER-DEVOLATILIZFR
COAL PATE LB/HR TEMPERATURES. F TOTAL BTU/HP IN COAL 2322540.00
TOTAL BTU/HR IN NAT, GAS 1201960.00
DEVOL 180.00 DEVOL IN 1800.00 BTU/HR IN MAKE GAS 726fl5A.75
DEVOL MID -0.00 HYDROGEN IN GAS LB/HP 6,20
DFVOL OUT 1000.00 CARBON IN GAS LB/HR 71.33
AIR FLOWS Lb/HR CYC SEP OUT 050.00 MAKF GAS MOL. WT. 29.95
GASIFIER AIR 031.00
SEC COMP AIP 4733*85 HYDROGEN .004874
make carbon monoxide .063564
NATURAL GAS Lb/HR GASIFIER GAS ANALYSIS methane •001602
OUTLET VOL PERCENT DRY ETHANE .003405
GAS IFIF R FTHYLENE 0.000000
SEC COMB 160.00 -0.00 hydrogen 7.30 acetylene 0,000000
-0.00 carbon monoxide 6.00 HYDROGEN SULFIDE 0.000000
-0.00 methane .30 CARBON DIOXIDE ,138070
STEAM FLOW lb/hr -0.00 ethane ,30 NITROGEN .775856
-15
-0.00 ethylene 0,00 OXYGEN*ARGON .013020

GASIFIER 0.00 -0.00 acetylene ft.00
DEVOL 33.00 -0.00 hydrogen sulfide 0,00
CARBON DIOXIDE 9.40
0
o
1
-0.00 NlTROGFN 03.00
OXYGEN+ARGON 1.00
o
0
o
OXYGEN ADDED lb/ hr
1
0.00
0.00 108.10
SEC COMB PERCENT
BASED ON MEASURED CARBON HYDROGEN OXYGFN NITROGEN

COAL RATE l WET) LB/HR 100.00 (DRY) 177.30 OUT AT POINT B 71.33 17.47 234.0P 019.51
SOLIDS ANALYSIS
UST 9
12-23-75 1405 COAL FEFD SPLIT TO THE GASIFIER AND THE DEVOLATILIZER
InputPITTSPURG 8 C0AL USE0' ADDITION OF 9 POUNDS PfH^HfUR^N? TO DEVOLATILIZER
_______ ions
COAL RATE LH/HR TEMPERATURES* F TOTAL BTU/HR IN COAL 2141898.00
gasifier 83*00 GASIFIER OUT 2120.00 TOTAL BTU/HR IN FUEL 2731098.00
OEVOL 83*00 OEVOL IN 1900.00 BTU/HR IN MAKE GAS 1234840.61
DEVOL MID 1250,00 HYUROGEN IN GAS LB/HR 7.26
DFVOL OUT 1280.00 CARBON IN GAS LB/HP 108.10
AIR FLOWS LH/HR CYC SEP OUT 930.00 MAKE GAS MOL. WT. 27.68
GASIFIFR AIR 830.00
TRANSPORT AIR 30,00 SOLIDS LOADING LB/HR MAKE GAS ANALYSIS
CHAR EJECT AIR 78,00 GASIFIER OUT 0,00 WEIGHT FRACTION
SEC COHB AIR 4428,1? HYDROGEN .008275
NATURAL GAS LB/HR GASIFIER GAS ANALYSIS CYCLONE METHANE .001734
OUTLET VOL PERCENT DRY OUTLET ETHANE •003686
GASIFIFR 25.00 ethylene .001518
SEC COMB 165.00 6.BO HYDROGEN 7.30 ACETYLENE •002818
14.90 CARBON MONOXIDE 14.00 HYDROGFN SULFIDE 0.000000
0.00 METHANE .30 CARBON DIOXIDE .130366
steam Flow LB/HR 0.00 ETHANE .30 NITROGEN .702125
i-16
0.00 ethylene .15 OXYGFN+ARGON .011273

GASIFIER 0.00 0,00 acetylene • 30
DEVOL 0.00 .25 hydrogen sulfide 0.00
8.30 CARBON DIOXIDE 8.20
69.60 nitrogen 69,40
OXYGEN ADDED LB/HR .80 oxygen*argon .80
0.00
100.65 100.75
SEC COMP PERCENT
total air 115.50 MATERIAL BALANCE
BASED ON MEASURED CARBON HYDROGEN OXYGEN NITPOGEN
COAL RATE MEASURED INPUT 137.62 14,59 229.42 708.32
COAL PATE (WET) LB/HR 166.00 (DRY) 163.51 OUT AT POINT B 108.10 12.42 229,42 750.94
DRY MAKE GAS LB/HR 1069,52
WET MAKE GAS LB/HP 1127.82 OUT AT POINT C 129.13
WATER FROM REACTION LB/HR 46,45

solids analysis
TEST 9 CHAR RECYCLE— V.M, 7.7% F.C. 59,5% ASH 32.8%

UST 10
-09-76 1130 HRS 50-50 SPLIT ON COAL FEED TO GAS-DEVOL.
PITTSBURG 8 COAL
Input Calculations
COAL RATE LH/HR TEMPERATURES* F TOTAL BTU/HR IN COAL 2245122.00
OEVOL 87.00 DEVOL IN 1960.00 BTU/HR IN MAKE GAS 1286313.21
DEVOL MID -0,00 HYUROGEN IN GAS LB/HR 8.3?
AIR FLOWS LB/HR CYC SEP OUT 990.00 MAKE GAS MOL. WT, 27.06
GASIFIER AIR 844,
transport air 32. SOLIDS LOADING LB/HR Make gas analysis
char EJECT AIR 72. gasifier out 3.55 WEIGHT FRACTION
TOTAL AIR TO GASIFIER 948.00 CYCLONE OUT 24,82 L
SEC COMB AIR 4750.00 HYDROGEN •006356
MAKE v CARBON MONOXIDE .141749
NATURAL GAS LB/HR GASIFIER GAS ANALYSISCYCLONE\ METHANE .001774
OUTLET outlet /
VOL PERCENT DRY ETHANE •001885
GASIFIER 25.00 / FTHYLENE .003104
SEC COMB 166.00 8.20 HYDROGEN 8.60 ACETYLENE .001441
13.80 CARBON MONOXIDE 13.70 HYDROGEN SULFIDE 0.000000
0.00 methane .30 CARBON DIOXIDE .110690
STEAM FLOW LB/HR 0.00 ETHANE .15 NITROGEN .710812
0.00 ETHYLENE • 30 oxygen*argon .014411
LX-'
gasifier 9.80 0.00 ACETYLENE .15

OEVOL 22.30 0.00 HYDROGEN SULFIDE 0.00
70.70 NITROGEN 68.70
oxygen added Lb/HR 1.10 oxygen*argon 1.00
o
©
o
100.10 100.20
SEC COMB PERCENT
BASED ON MEASURED CARBON HYDROGEN OXYGEN NITPOGEN

COAL RATE (WET) LH/HR 174.00 (DRY) 171.39 OUT AT POINT B 125.96 15.45 232,79 770.58
SOLIDS ANALYSIS
TEST 10 CHAR RECYCLE-- V.M. 6.7% F.C. 71.4% ASH 21.9%
CYCLONE OUT— C 84.1% H 3.0% N 1.0% S 1.5% ASH 6.7% 0 3.7%
TARS 8.39 LB/HR
TfcST 11
01-23-76 1100 HRS 50-50 SPLIT ON COAL FEED TO GAS-DEVOL.
, PITTSBURG 6 COAL
Input Calculations
COAL RATE LB/HR TEMPERATURES* F TOTAL BTU/HR IN COAL 2064480.00
OEVOL 80.00 DEVOL IN 1750,00 BTU/HR IN MAKE GAS 1102701.44
DEVOL MID -0,00 HYDROGEN IN GAS LB/HR 7.75
DEVOL OUT 1200,00 CARBON IN GAS LB/HR 93.69
AIR FLOWS LB/HR CYC SEP OUT 940.00 MAKE GAS MOL. WT. 27.68
GASIFIER AIR 820,00
TO GASIFIER 925.00 CYCLONE OUT 15,88
SEC COMB AIR 4213.12 \ HYDROGEN .005781
MAKE \v CARBON MONOXIDE •110268
NATURAL GAS LB/HR GASIFIER GAS ANALYSISCYCLONE X methane .001734
OUTLET VOL PERCENT DRY
outlet y ethane .003685
GASIFIER 26.00 / ethylene .003035
o.oo METHANE .30 CARBON DIOXIDE .136715
0.00 ETHYLENE .30 OXYGEN«ARGON .015500
A-18
GASIFIER 0.00 0.00 acetylene .15

DEVOL 0.00 0.00 HYDROGEN sulfide 0.00
6.60 carbon dioxide 8.60
OXYGEN ADDED LB/HR 1.00 oxygen«argon 1.10
0.00
100.10 101.05
SEC COMB PERCENT

COAL RATE MEASURED INPUT 134,06 14.54 226.42 699.95
COAL RATE (WET) LB/HR 160,00 (DRY) 157,60 OUT AT POINT B 106.79 15,20 226.42 757.30

SOLIDS ANALYSIS
TEST 11 CHAR RfcCYCLE-- V.M. 6.6% F.C. 58.6% ASH 34.6%

CHAR RECYCLE % THRU 30-96.8% 50-94.3% 100-86.3% 140-77.3% 200-68.3%
TtST 12
01-23-76 1355 COAL TO GASIFIER AND TO DEVOLATILIZER
Input PITTSBURG 8 COAL Calculations
COAL RATE LB/HR TEMPERATURES* F TOTAL RTU/HR IN COAL 1999965.00
GASIFIER 55*00 GASIFIER OUT 2200.00 TOTAL BTU/HR IN FUEL 2612733.00
OEVOL 100.00 OEVOL IN 2000.00 BTU/HR IN MAKE GAS 787437.45
DEVOL MID 1960.00 HYDROGEN IN GAS LB/HR 6,15
DEVOL OUT 1430.00 CARBON IN GAS LB/HP 83.63
AIR FLOWS LR/HR CYC SEP OUT 1060.00 MAKF GAS MOL. WT. 28.01
GASIFIER AIR 820*00
TRANSPORT AIR 34*80 SOLIDS LOADING LB/HR MAKE GAS ANALYSIS
SEC COMB AIR *135.11 hydrogen .005142
MAKE \ carbon monoxide .079983
NATURAL GAS LB/HR GASIFIER GAS ANALYSIScycloneX methane .001714
OUTLET OUTLET
VOL PERCENT DRY / ethane 0.000000
GASIFIER 26.00 / ETHYLENE .002999
11.30 CARBON MONOXIDE 8,00 hydrogen sulfide 0.000000
0.00 methane • 30 CARBON DIOXIDE .163394
steam flow LB/HR 0.00 ETHANE 0.00 nitrogen .732843
0.00 ethylene • 30 oxygenârgon .013926
gasifier 0.00 0.00 ACtTYLENE 0.00
61-'
DEVOL 0.00 0.00 HYDROGEN SULFIDE 0,00

OXYGEN ADDED LB/HR .90 OXYGEN*ARGON 1.00
0.00
99.90 100.50
SEC COMB PERCENT
RASED ON MEASURED CARBON HYDROGEN OXYGEN NITROGEN

COAL RATE (WET) LR/HR 155.00 (DRY) 152.68 OUT AT POINT B 95.31 13.66 226,00 752.01
solids analysis
TEST 12 CHAR RECYCLE— V.M. 6.2* F.C. 59.9% ASH 33.9%

CHAR RECYCLE % THRU 30-98.4% 50-97.0% 100-90.8% 140-79.2% 200-66.6%
CYQLONE OUT— C 85.9% H 3.2% N 0.6% S 1.6% ASH 5.8% 0 2.9%
TARS 5.67 LB/HR
TEST 13
01-23-76 1555 HRS 50-50 SPLIT ON COAL FEED TO GAS-DEVOL.
gasifier-devolatilizfr
COAL RATE LB/HR temperatures* F TOTAL BTU/HP IN COAL 2658018,00
GASIFIER 103.00 gasifier OUT 2230.00 TOTAL BTU/HR IN FUEL 3270786.00
OEVOL MiO 2020.00 HYDROGEN in GAS LB/HR 9.23
GASIFIER AIR 870,00 COLD-GAS CONV. EFF. 44.70
GASIFIER AIR 600.00
transport air 29.70 SOLIDS LOADING LB/HR MAKE GAS analysis
mar eject air 70.00 GASIFIER OUT 0.00 WEIGHT FRACTION
H TO GASIFIER 899.70 CYCLONE OUT 21.26
SEC COMB AIR 4135.11 hydrogen ,007499
MAKE CARBON MONOXIDE ,174272
NATURAL GAS lb/hr GASIFIER GAS ANALYSIS cyclonK methane .001800
OUTLET VOL PERCENT DRY outlet/ ETHANE .001912
GASIFIER 26.00 ethylene ,003149
SEC COMB 157.00 9.50 hydrogen 10.00 acetylene •001462
0.00 METHANE • 30 CARBON DIOXIDE .107233
STEAM FLOW LB/HR 0.00 ETHANE • 15 NITROGEN .689738
0.00 ethylene • 30 OXYGEN+ARGON .013160
gasifier 0.00 0.00 acetylene • 15
A-20

66.50 NITROGEN 65,70
OXYGEN ADDED lb/hr 1.00 OXYGFN+ARGON .90
0,00
100.10 100,60
total air 113.50 material BALANCE

TOTAL WATER FED LB/HR 12,09
WATER FROM REACTION L8/HR 43.31
SOLIDS ANALYSIS
TEST 13 CHAR RECYCLE— V.M. 4,5* F.C. 63.2* ASH 32.3%

CHAR RECYCLE % THRU 30-99.9* 50-99.8% 100-98.7% 140-95.1% 200-89,1%
CYCLONE OUT-- C 88.1* H 3.3% N 1.5% S 1.8% ASH 2.6* 0 2.7*
TARS 4.55 LB/HR
TEST 1*
01-28-76 1150 HRS 50-50 SPLIT ON COAL TO GAS-DEVOL.
COOLING PROBES INSERTED IN CROSSOVER PIPE PITTSBURG 8 COAL
InPuf’AS Calculations
COAL RATE LR/HR TEMPERATURES* F TOTAL BTU/HR IN COAL 2258025.00
DEVOL MID -0.00 HYDROGEN IN GAS LB/HR 7.93
DEVOL OUT 1150,00 CARBON IN GAS LB/HR 107,03
GASIFIER AIR 850.00
TO GASIFIER 953.00 CYCLONE OUT 23.80 L
NATURAL gas LB/HR GASIFIER GAS ANALYSIS CYCLONE METHANE .000884
OUTLET VOL PERCENT DRY outlet ETHANE .001879
gasifier 27.00 ETHYLENE ,001547
SEC COMP 164.00 8.70 HYDROGEN 8.70 ACETYLENE .001437
STEAM FLOW LB/HR 0.00 ethane • 15 NITROGEN .707607
0.00 ethylene .15 OXYGFN*ARGON .015804
> GASIFIER 0.00 0.00 acetylene .15
0.00
TZ-
DEVOL 0.00 0.00 hydrogen sulfide

68.60 nitrogen 68.60
OXYGEN ADDED LB/HR 1,00 OXYGEN*ARGON 1.10
0.00
100.00 100.60
SEC COMB PERCENT
BASED ON MEASURED CARBON HYDROGEN OXYGFN NlTROGFN

COAL RATE MEASURED INPUT 145.57 15.54 234.0? 721.24
COAL RATE (WET) LB/HR 175.00 {DRY) 172,38 OUT AT POINT B 126.67 14.85 234.0? 770.30
WATER FROM REACTION LP/HR 55.98
SOLIDS ANALYSIS
TEST 14 GASIFIER OUT— V.M. 1.4% F.C. 60.2% ASH 38.4%

CHAR RECYCLE— V.M. 6.2% F.C. 59.6% ASH 34.2%
CYCLONE OUT-- C 77.2% H 2.5% S 1.8% N 0.9% ASH 13.4% 0 4.2%
TARS 5.71 LB/HR
TtST 15
02-09-76 1020 HRS 50-50 SPLIT ON COAL FEED TO GAS-DEVOL* OXYGEN ADDED TO
InpulPAS1FIER Calculations
COAL PATE LP/HR TEMPERATURES. F TOTAL RTU/HR IN COAL 2967690.00
GASIFIER 115*00 GASIFIER OUT 2010.00 TOTAL RTU/HR IN FUEL 3592242.00
DEVOL 115*00 DtVOL IN 1790.00 BTU/HR IN MAKE GAS 1380751.79
DFVOL MID 1440.00 HYDROGEN IN GAS LB/HR 8.49
GASIFIER AIR 821.00
1HANSPORT AIR 27*50 solids LOADING LB/HR MAKE GAS ANALYSIS
SEC COMP AIR 4491*38 HYDROGEN .007333
NATURAL GAS LB/HR GASIFIER GAS ANALYSIS
CYCLONE \ METHANE 0.000000
OUTLET > ETHANE 0.000000
GASIFIER 26.50 / FTHYLENE •003111
SEC COMP 155.00 9.60 HYDROGEN 9.90 ACETYLENE 0.000000
16*60 CARBON MONOXIDE 16*60 HYDROGFN SULFIDE 0.000000
0.00 METHANE 0.00 CARBON DIOXIDE •148260
STEAM FLOW LB/HR 0*00 ETHANE 0*00 NITROGEN •653261
>
>-22
0.00 ETHYLENE .30 OXYGEN+ARGON •015887

GASIFIER 0*00 0.00 ACtTYLENE 0.00
9.20 carbon dioxide 9.io
OXYGEN ADDED LB/HR 1.00 OXYGEN*ARGON 1.10
39.00
100.00 100.00
SEC COMP PERCENT
total air 110.00 material balance
Based ON MEASURED CARBON HYDROGEN OXYGEN NITROGEN

COAL RATE MEASURED INPUT 184.58 IB.18 266.62 694.22
COAL RATE (WET) LB/HR 230,00 (DRY) 226.55 OUT AT POINT 8 144.60 14.51 268.62 T14.22
WATER FROM REACTION LP/HR 48.38
PERCENT THEO, AIR 40.31

SOLIDS ANALYSIS
TEST 15 CHAR RECYCLE— V.M. 4.4% F.C. 61,3% ASH 34.3%
TtST 16
02-09-76 1110 HKS 50-S0 SPLIT ON COAL FEED TO GAS-DEVOL.
GAS IFIER-DE VOLATILIZFR
COAL RATE LB/HR temperatures* f TOTAL RTU/HP IN COAL 2415441.60
TOTAL 0TU/HR IN NAT. GAS 61276B.00
GASIFIER 93,60 GASIFIER OUT 2010.00 TOTAL hTU/HR IN FUEL 3028209.60
OEVOL 93,60 DE VOL IN 1810,00 BTU/HR IN MAKE GAS 1)46879.95
OFVOL MID 1500.00 hydrogen in gas lb/hr 8.19
OFVOL OUT 1340,00 CARBON IN GAS LB/HR 99.?7
AIR FLOWS Lh/HP CYC SEP OUT 905.00 MAKF GAS MOL. WT. 27.?6
GASIFIER AIR 840,00
TRANSPORT AIR 29,70 solids loading lb/hr MAKF GAS ANALYSIS
CHAR EJECT AIR 68,00 GASIFIER OUT 94.33 WEIGHT FRACTION
TOTAL AIR TO GASIFIER 937,70 CYCLONE OUT 25.79
SEC COMB AIR 444?,S6 HYDROGEN .006604
NATURAL GAS LB/HR GASIFIER GAS analysis methane .001761
GASIFIER 26.00 ethylene .001541
SEC COMP 145.00 9.30 HYDROGEN 9.00 acetylene .001431
0.00 methane • 30 CAKBON DIOXIDE .138827
0.00 ethylene .15 OXYGEN*ARGON .024324
l
-23
GASIFIER 0.00 0.00 acetylene .IS

DEVOL 0.00 0.00 hydrogen sulfide 0.00
7.80 CARBON DIOXIDE 8,60
OXYGEN ADDED LB/HR 1.00 0XYGEN+AR60N 1.70
0.00
100.10 100,25
SEC COMB PERCENT

coal rate MEASURED INPUT 153.55 15.90 231.38 709.81
COAL RATE (WET) LB/hr 187.20 (DRY) 184.39 OUT AT POINT B 120.55 15.19 231.38 747.64
DRY MAKE GAS LB/HH 1064.03

SOLIDS ANALYSIS
TEST 16 CHAR RECYCLE-- V.M. 4.6% F.C. 60.8% ASH 34,6%
IfcST 17
0£'-09-76 1230 HRS 50-50 COAL FEED SPLIT TO GAS-DEVOL. OXYGEN ADDITION TO
GASIFIER PITTSBURG 8 COAL
Input Calculations
GASIFIER 113.00 GASIFIER OUT 2120,00 TOTAL HTU/HR IN FUEL 3540630.00
gasifier air 625.oo COLD-GAS CONV. EFF. 36.59
GASIFIER AIR 749.00
TRANSPORT AIR 27.50 SOLIDS LOADING LB/HR Make GAS ANALYSIS
SFC COMB AIR 4311.10 HYDROGEN .007120
MAKE CARBON MONOXIDE •162361
natural gas LB/HR GASIFIER GAS ANALYSIS cyclonK methanf .002349
OUTLET VOL PERCENT DRY OUTLET > ETHANE 0.000000
GASIFIER 26.50 fthylene .003083
SEC COMP 145.00 8.70 HYDROGEN 9.70 acetylene 0.000000
A-24
0.00 ETHYLENE .30 OXYGEN*ARGON .020038

gasifier 0.00 0.00 ACETYLENE 0.00
DEVOL 0.00 • 30 HYDROGEN SULFIDE 0.00
OXYGEN ADDED LB/HR .90 0XY6EN+ARG0N 1.40
51.00
99.60 100.00
SEC COMB PERCENT
TOTAL AIR 114.00 material BALANCE
COAL RATE <*ET) LB/HR 226.00 (DRY) 222.61 OUT AT POINT B 137.62 14.34 264.08 653.45
DRY MAKE GAS LP/HR 1025.64
WATER FROM REACTION LB/HR 48.8b
SOLIDS ANALYSIS
TEST 17 CHAR RECYCLE— V.M, 6.9% F.C. 56.1% ASH 37.0%
test 18
02-09-76 1400 HRS 50-50 COAL SPLIT TO 6AS-DEV0L•** STEAM AND OXYGEN ADDITION
TO GASIFIER*«PITTSBURG 0 COAL Calculations
Input
COAL PATE LB/HR temperatures* f TOTAL HTU/HR IN COAL 2838660.00
gasifier 110.00 GASIFIER OUT 2240.00 TOTAL BTU/HR IN FUEL 3463212.00
DEVOL 110.00 DEVOL IN 2000.00 BTU/HR IN HAKE GAS 1218178.33
air flows lb/hr CYC SEP OUT 1110.00 MAKE GAS MOL. WT. 27.33
GASIFIER AIR 696.00
CHAR EJECT AIR 68.00 GASIFIER out 7.91 WEIGHT FRACTION
TOTAL AIR TO GASIFIFR 791.50 CYCLONE OUT 14.52
SEC COMB aIR 4347.41 HYDROGEN .008122
natural gas lb/hr GASIFIER GAS ANALYSIS cycloneX methane .001756
SEC COMP 150.00 10.90 HYDROGEN 11.10 ACETYLENE 0.000000
12.90 CARBON MONOXIDE 14,50 HYDROGEN SULFIDE 0.000000
0.00 methane • 30 CARBON DIOXIDE ,214100
STEAM FLOW LB/HR 0.00 ethane 0.00 NITROGEN •611568
0.00 FTHYLENE • 30 OXYGEN*ARGON .012842
ACETYLENE 0.00
-25
GASIFIER 84.50 0,00

i3.io carbon dioxide 13.30
OXYGEN ADDED LB/HR .90 OXYGEN*ARGON .90
0
1
100.00 100.10
SEC COMB PERCENT
J
WET MAKE GAS LB/hr 1103.05 OUT AT PQINT C 167.50

SOLIDS ANALYSIS
TEST 18 CHAR RECYCLE— V.M. 5.2* F.C. 54,2* ASH 40.3*

TtST 19
02-09-76 1450 HRS ALL COAL TO DEVOL.-OXYGEN AND STEAM ADDED TO GASIFIER
InputPITTSBURe 8 C0*L Calculations
COAL RATt LB/HR TEMPERATURES* F TOTAL RTU/HR IN COAL 1987062.00
GASIFIER 0*00 GASIFIER OUT 2500,00 TOTAL BTU/HR IN FUEL 2623398.00
DEVOL 154.00 OEVOL IN 2230.00 BTU/HR IN MAKE GAS 506575.80
AIR FLOWS Lb/HR CYC SEP OUT 1170.00 MAKE GAS MOL. WT. 29.97
GASIFIER AIR 756.00
TRANSPORT AIR 0.00 SOLIDS LOADING Lb/HR make gas analysis
CHAR EJECT AIR 60.00 gasifier out ,85 WEIGHT FRACTION
TOTAL AIR TO GASIFIER 824.00 CYCLONE out 23.11
SEC COMB AIR 4411.39 HYDROGEN •003136
MAKE V CARBON MONOXIDE •026156
natural GAS LB/HR GASIFIER GAS ANALYSISCYCLONEX METHANE •002669
OUTLET OUTLET /
(jasifiep 27*00 / ETHYLENE .004671
SEC COMB 155.00 0.00 hydrogen 4.70 acetylene •002602
STEAM FLOW LB/HR
o
0.00
o
o
ETHANE NITROGEN .658571
’
0.00 ethylene .50 OXYGEN+ARGON .013011

93-

75.20 NITROGEN 70,50
OXYGEN ADDED LB/HR 2.20 OXYGEN+ARGON 1.00
64.00
99.90 100.00
SEC COMB PERCENT
COAL RATE MEASURED INPUT 130.53 14.49 266.54 6?3.64
COAL RATE (WET) LB/HR 154.00 (DRY) 151.69 OUT AT POINT B 110.92 11.26 266,54 634.27

SOLIDS ANALYSIS
TEST 19 CHAR RECYCLE— V.M. 4.4* F.C. 62.6ft ASH 33.0ft
T£ST 20
02-12-76 1205 half of coal TO HORIZ. gasifier burner and half to top of
GASIFIER PITTSBURG no. 8 coal Calculations
Input
COAL PATE LB/HR TEMPERATURES* F TOTAL PTU/HR IN COAL 1935450.00
gasifier ts.oo gasifier out 2100.00 TOTAL BTU/HR IN FUEL 2230050.00
GASIFIER AIR 815.00 COLD-GAS CONV, EFF. 43.43
GASIFIER AIR 870.00
NATURAL GAS LB/HR GASIFIER GAS ANALYSIS CYCLONEX METHANE .001697
OUTLET vol percent dry outlet / ETHANE .001804
SEC COMB 150,00 7.40 hydrogen 7.10 ACETYLENE .001379
.30 METHANE • 30 CARBON DIOXIDE ,178938
0.00 ETHYLENE • 15 OXYGEN+ARGON .01379?
A-27

70.80 nitrogen 70.20
OXYGEN ADDED LB/HR 1.10 oxygen*argon 1.00
0.00
99.90 100.75
SEC COMB PERCENT

COAL RATE (WET) LB/HR 150.00 (DRY) 147.75 OUT AT POINT P 118.01 11.06 236.8? 758.10
SOLIDS ANALYSIS

CYCLONE OUT-— V.M. 3.2% F.C. 87.1% ASH 9.7*
CYCLONE OUT-- C 86.4% H 0.8% N 0.8% S 1.9% ASH 9.7% 0 0.4%
TARS 0.472 LB/HR
IfcST 21
02-12-76 1240 HRS HALF OF COAL TO HORIZ. GASIFIER BURNER AND HALF TO TOP OF
GASIFIER PITTSBURG NO. 8 COAL Calculations
Input
COAL RATE LB/HR TEMPERATURES. F TOTAL BTU/HR IN COAL 2580600.00
OEVOL 0.00 DEVOL IN 1890.00 BTU/HR IN MAKE GAS 1056686,25
AIR FLOkS LH/HR CYC SEP OUT 1080.00 MAKF GAS MOL. WT, 27.93
GASIFIER AIR 865.00
CHAR EJECT AIR 70.00 GASIFIER OUT 0,00 WEIGHT FRACTION
TOTAL AIR TO GASIFIER 966.00 CYCLONE OUT 18.20 k
4412.17 HYDROGEN .005872
MAKE \ CARBON MONOXIDE •112269
NATURAL GAS LB/HR GASIFIER GAS ANALYSIS CYCLONE \ METHANE .000859
OUTLET VOL PERCENT DRY outlet / ETHANE •001826
150.00 7.00 HYDROGEN 8.20 ACETYLENE .001396
Lb/HR 0,00 ethane .15 NITROGEN .690776
0.00 ETHYLENE .15 OXYGEN*ARGON •013964
A-28
GASIFIER 0.00 0.00 ACETYLENE .15

OEVOL 0.00 0.00 hydrogen sulfide 0.00
LB/HR 1.00 OXYGEN+ARGON 1.00
0.00
100.10 100.80
PERCENT
COAL RATE (WET) LB/HR 200,00 (DRY) 197.00 OUT AT POINT B 121.43 1 1.94 238.89 752.26
SOLIDS ANALYSIS
CYCLONE OUT-—- V.M. 2.6% F.C. 65.9% ASH 11.5%
TARS 0.364 LB/HP
TEST 2?
02-12-76 1340 HRS AIL COAL FEED TO GASIFIER
COAL RATE LH/HR TEMPERATURES* F TOTAL RTU/HR IN COAL 2103189.00
TOTAL BTU/HR IN NAT, GAS 294600,00
GASIFIER 163,00 GASIFIER OUT 2160.00 TOTAL &TU/HP IN FUEL 2397789,00
OEVOL 0,00 DEVOL IN 1910.00 BTU/HR IN MAKE GAS 901170.11
DEVOL MID 1800,00 HYDROGEN IN GAS LB/HR 5.04
AIR FLOWS IH/HR CYC SEP OUT 1080.00 MAKE GAS MOL# WT. 28.16
GASIFIER AIR 840,00
TRANSPORT AIR 68.00 solids loading lb/hr MAKF GAS ANALYSIS
C«AR EJECT AIR 70.00 GASIFIER OUT 24,24 WEIGHT FRACTION
SEC COMB aIR 4331.86 HYDROGEN .004617
NATURAL GAS LB/HR GASIFIER GAS ANALYSIS CYCLONE > METHANE 0.000000
outlet VOL PERCENT DRY outlet / ETHANE 0.000000
GASIFIER 12.50 ' ETHYLENE 0,000000
SEC COMB 150.00 6.30 hydrogen 6.50 acetylene 0.000000
1 1.40 carbon monoxide 12.60 HYDROGEN SULFIDE 0.000000
0.00 methane 0.00 CARBON DIOXIDE .168756
STEAM FLOW LB/HR 0.00 ETHANE 0.00 NITROGEN .686104
> 0.00 ETHYLENE 0.00 OXYGEN*ARGON .015235
.-29
GASIFIER 0.00 0.00 acetylene 0.00

OFVOL 0.00 0.00 hydrogen sulfide 0.00
OXYGEN ADDED LB/HR 1.60 OXYGEN+ARGON 1.10
0,00
99.90 100.00
SEC COMB PERCENT
TOTAL AIR 130.00 MATERIAL balance
BASED ON MEASURED carbon HYDROGEN OXYGFN NITROGEN

COAL PATE (WET) LB/HR 163.00 (DRY) 160,56 OUT AT POINT R 115.27 8.59 238.94 748.36
SOLIDS ANALYSIS
TEST 22 CHAR RECYCLE— V.M. 17.7% F.C. 72.8% ASH 9.5%

TEST 23
02-12-76 1410 HHS ALL COAL FEED TO GASIFIER OXYGEN ADDED
T PITTSBURG 8 COAL
Input Calculations
TOTAL BTU/HR IN NaT. GAS 294600.00
OEVOL MID 1840,00 HYOROGEN IN GAS LB/HR 6.85
OEVOL OUT 1690.00 CARBON IN GAS LB/HR 128.10
GASIFIER AIR 800.00 COLO-GAS CONV. EFF, 44.86
GASIFIER AIR 784.00
TRANSPORT AIR 58.00 SOLIDS LOADING Lb/HR MAKE GAS ANALYSIS
SEC COMB AIR 4139.33 HYOROGEN •006296
make CARBON MONOXIDE •161135
NATURAL GAS LB/HR GASIFIER GAS ANALYSIS METHANE 0,000000
OUTLET VOL PERCENT DRY ethane 0.000000
SEC COMB 150.00 -0.00 HYDROGEN 8.70 ACETYLENE 0,000000
-0.00 CARBON MONOXIDE 15.90 HYDROGEN SULFIDE 0.000000
-0.00 METHANE 0.00 CARBON QIOXIOE .178363
steam flow lb/hr -0.00 ETHANE 0.00 NITROGEN .641500
0£ - '
-0.00 ethylene 0.00 OXYGEN*ARGON ,012704

GASIFIFR 0.00 -0.00 acetylene 0.00
OEVOL 0.00 -0.00 hydrogen SULFIDE 0.00
OXYGEN ADDED LB/HR -0.00 OXYGFN+ARGON .90
51.00
0.00 100.00
SEC COMR PERCENT
COAL RATE MEASURED INPUT 138.99 12*22 275,96 690.34
COAL RATE (WET) LB/HR 181.00 (DRY) 178.29 OUT AT POINT B 134.78 11.38 275.96 697,89
TOTAL WATER FED LP/HR 11,84
SOLIDS ANALYSIS
TtST
02-23-76 1005 HRS 50-50 SPLIT ON COAL FEED TO GAS-OEVOL
Input WESTERN COAL Calculations
COAL RATE LB/hr TEMPERATURES* F TOTAL BTU/HR IN COAL 2202154.50
DEVOL MID 1250.00 HYOROGEN IN GAS LB/HR 9.52
GASIFIER AIR flbO.OO
CHAR EJECT AIR 70.00 gasifier out 52.24 WEIGHT FRACTION
make CARBON MONOXIDE .154772
NATURAL GAS LB/HH GASIFIER GAS ANALYSIS METHANE .000909
GASIFIER 26.00 ethylene 0,000000
0.00 METHANE .15 CARBON DIOXIDE • 106614
STEAM flow lb/hp 0.00 ETHANE 0.00 NITROGEN .713437
> 0.00 ETHYLENE 0.00 OXYGF n*argon .016242
T£-'

OXYGEN ADDED LB/HR .90 OXYGEN*ARGON 1.10
0.00
100.00 100.15
SEC COMH PERCENT
TOTAL AIM 125.50 MATERIAL balance
based on measured CARBON HYDROGEN OXYGFN nitrogen

COAL RATE (WET) LB/HR 219.00 (ORY) 186.15 OUT AT POINT B 126.53 16.41 258,17 822.51
TOTAL water FED lb/hr 42.63

SOLIDS ANALYSIS
TEST 24• CHAR RECYCLE- V.M. 2,9% F.C. 56.7% ASH 40.4%
CYCLONE OUT--- V.M. 28.4% F.C. 51.7% ASH 19.9%
IfcST 25
02-23-76 1055 HHS 25-75 SPLIT ON COAL FLOW TO OAS-OEVOL*
Input.WESTERN COAL Calculations
GASIFIER-DEVOLATIL176 R
COAL HATE LB/HR TEMPERATURESt F TOTAL BTU/HR IN COAL 2694B74.00
TOTAL BTU/HR IN NAT. GAS 61276ft.00
OEVOL MID 1300.00 HYDROGEN IN GAS LB/HR 9.81
AIR FLOWS LB/HR CYC SEP OUT 850.00 MAKF GAS MOL. WT. 26,50
GASIfIER AIR 850.00
TRANSPORT AIR 58.00 solids loading lb/hr MAKE GAS ANALYSIS
CHAP EJECT AIR 72.00 GASIFIER OUT 62.97 WEIGHT FRACTION
MAKE \ CARBON MONOXIDE ,138410
NATURAL GAS LB/HR GASIFIER GAS ANALYSIS cycloneX methane •001811
outlet VOL HERCENT dry outlet / ethane 0.000000
gasifier 26.00 / ethylene 0.000000
SEC COMH 145.00 9.60 HYDROGEN 10.70 acetylene 0.000000
14.20 CARBON MONOXIDE 13.10 hydrogfn sulfide 0,000000
0.00 METHANE • 30 carbon dioxide .11788?
0.00 ETHYLENE 0.00 oxygen«argon ,013245
U> GASIFIER 0.00 0,00 ACETYLENE 0.00
IO DEVOL 0.00 0.00 HYOROGEN SULFIDE 0,00
OXYGEN ADDED Lb/HR .90 oxygenârgon .90
0.00
100.00 100,30
SEC COMB PERCENT

COAL RATE MEASURED INPUT 177.59 17.21 265,63 741.95
COAL RATE (WET) LB/HR 268.00 (DRY) 227.80 OUT AT POINT H 124.49 19.91 265.63 829.32
ORY MAKE GAS LB/HR 1150.91
WET MAKE GAS L0/HR 1286.1/ OUT AT POINT C 159.15
SOLIDS ANALYSIS
TEST 25 CHAR RECYCLE— V.M, 2,2% F.C. 57.0% ASH 40.8%

CYCLONE OUT--- V.M, 27.2% F.C. 48,6% ASH 24.2%
TARS 6.17 LB/HR
rtsi
114*9 HfcS ALL TOAl 10 OfcVOLAl U.IZtR
Input
WESTERN COAL Calculations
haste ilh-de volatilize:*
COAL MAIL I.R/MR Tf.KPfKATUPtS. TOIaI hTU/HR in COAL 23730RH.0O
TOTAL HTU/HR In NAT. GAS 636336.00
CiASTE)l-»» 0,00 OASIfIt K OUT 1660.00 TOTAL RTU/HR JN FUEL 300R43A.0O
(>:VUL ?3b.U0 OtVOL IN 1600.00 HTU/HR IN MAKF GAS 691149.60
f'FVOL NIU l?h0.00 HYuRUhEN IN HAS Ln/HR
OtVOL OUT 1100,00 CAKttON TN GAS l tl/MR 107. AS
hL()wS l.b/nK CYC StP OUT 640,00 MAKF GAS MUL. WT. ?*.?3
OASlFItK AIN 66^.00 CULL-GAS CONV. tFF. ?°.61
OAf If ILK AlW r>4U.U0
IhA-vSKOKT AJ» vui iu<i i oadiNi-. lb/hr MftKF GAS ANAL YS1S
U'i\U J-vlFCT A IK ?0,00 oASlf1E N CUT 10.75 ktlbHT FRACTION
T 01 a I fll* 10 (jASIflEP 936.00 ( YCI.UNK OUT if 3,30
SEC A1K 43^3.1*' HYGHOGth .004747
MoKL CARHOP munOXIMF . 1 1?095
lateral gas l d/HR GnSTE 11 R bAS ANALYSIS MtTHAME ■ 000650
OUTt t T VOL PERCENT ORY ETHANE o.oonooo
Gf S 1FI EH 2 7.00 ETHYLKNt .001466
SEC COM>' 1 M0.00 6.20 HVnKUbfr.N ACE TYLFNF 0.000000
1 0.6(i ( AKHUN MONOAIPE. 11.30 HYDROGEN SOLE IDE 0.000000
0.0 0 ME THANf. CARHOn UIO/IUF • 1 flSSO 3
S T t A E1 KLO^ L n/HR 0.00 ETHANE i' I TROGE.N .681499
0.0 0 F THYLt Nt OXYGEN+ANGON .013817
GAME 1 fc R 0.0 0 0.0 0 ACE-T YL tNE
GE.VUL o. o o 0.0 0 riYhkU'iEN SULEIO
1 1 •40 LARhO.'i UlOXILk
7 0.60 N 1 ThlH-if N
U>Y(-Ef aUUEI’ Ld/HR 1.00 (jayuen + anuon
0.00
10 0.0(1
SEC CGhH PERCENT
TuhU A1R 117.00 material eai.a^cl
gaseu on Kt a SUlFO CARBON HYORUbtE.* OXYGFN NITROGEN

COAL ratl ME ASURE b INPUT LbH.47 lb.16 <?50.ft5 706.49
COAL RATE l*M) l.H/HR 236.00 (DRY) 200.bO out at point h l<?b.b8 10.8? 2b0.85 732.23
OHY M A i't GAS l.H/HR 1674.44
WEI MA-t Gas l.H/HR 1160.50 OUT AT POJoT C 159.06
1UTAL w«TFR Ebb LH/HR 4 4.7b
WATER EROM REACTION LF/Hh 41.29
Pfc'RXF.r 1 THEO. ATE 41,2^

HEATING VALUE UTU/USCE 62.10
SOL. Ti'S ANALYSIS
TEST 2b GASIFIER OUT-- V.M. 4.4* E.C. 36, ASEi 57.4*

CHAP RE'CYCLF — V.M. 1«.F E.C. &b.7» ASh 24.7%
lAWS 6.03 Lb/HR
1 LSI 27
02-23-76 1240 HRS ALL COAL TO GASIFIER
GAS IFIER-DEVOLATILI7ER
COAL RATE LB/HR TEMPERATURES* F TOTAL BTU/HR IN COAL 2192099,00
GASIFIER 210*00 GASIFIER OUT 1930.00 TOTAL BTU/HR IN FUEL 2816651,00
OEVOL 0.00 DEVOL IN 1730.00 BTU/HR IN MAKE GAS 1424736,83
DFVOL MID 1600,00 HYDROGEN IN GAS LB/HR 11.12
AIR FLOWS LB/HR CYC SEP OUT 1010,00 MAKE GAS MOL, WT. 26.72
GASIFIER AIR 835.00
TOTAL AIN TO GASIFIER 931.20 CYCLONE OUT 28.02
MAKE CARBON MONOXIDE •148802
NATURAL GAS LB/HR GASIFIER GAS ANALYSIS CYCLONEX METHANE .002994
OUTLET VOL PERCENT ORYOUTLET/ ETHANE 0.000000
GASIFIER 26.50 FTHYLENE 0.000000
SFC COMM 145,00 12.10 HYDROGEN 12.40 acetylene o.ooonoo
12.60 CARBON HONOXIDE 14.20 HYDROGFN SULFIDE 0.000000
.30 METHANE .50 CARBON DIOXIDE .194311
STEAM FLOW LB/HR 0.00 ETHANE 0.00 nitrogen .632934
0.00 ETHYLENE 0.00 OXYGEN+ARGON .011677
l

-34
DEVOL 0.00 • 30 HYOROGEN SULFIDE 0.00

OXYGEN ADDED LB/HR .70 OXYGEN+ARGON • 80
0.00
100,20 100.10
SEC COMB PERCENT
TOTAL AIR 114.00 MATERIAL balance
BASED ON MEASURED carbon HYDROGEN DXYGFN NITROGEN

COAL RATE MEASURED INPUT 1 40.47 15.33 2*7.17 704.72
COAL RATE (wET) LB/HR 210.00 (ORY) 185,30 OUT AT POINT B 155.22 11.41 247.17 701.05
WATER FROM REACTION LB/HR -4.70
SOLIDS ANALYSIS
TEST 27 GASIFIER OUT— V.M. 2.7% F.C. 63.4% ASH 33,9%
CHAR RECYCLE— V.M. 3.6% F.C. 61.3% ASH 35.1%
CYCLONE OUT—— V.M. 10.2% F.C. 65.1% ASH 24.7%
tars at gasifier outlet o.o lb/hr
TtST 20
02-23-76 1325 HRS 50-50 SPLIT ON COAL FEED TO GAS-DEVOL
InputweSTERN COAL Calculations
GASIFIER-DEVOLATILI7ER
GASIFIER 117,00 GASIFIER OUT 1950.00 TUTAL BTU/HR IN FUEL 2989323.00
OEVOL 117.00 DEVOL IN 1720,00 BTU/HR IN MAKE GAS 1280549.64
DEVOL MID 1420,00 HYDROGEN IN GAS LB/HP 8.68
DEVOL OUT 1270.00 CARBON IN GAS Lb/HR 129.02
GASIFIER AIR 830.00
SEC COHR AIR 4296.11 HYDROGEN .007265
NATURAL GAS LB/HR GASIFIER gas analysis methane ,001761
outlet VOL PERCENT DRY ETHANE 0.000000
0.00 METHANE .30 carbon dioxide .179203
steam flow lb/hr 0.00 ETHANE 0.00 nitrogen .650327
0.00 ETHYLENE 0.00 oxygen*argon .011448
A-35
GASIFIER 0.00 0.00 acetylene 0.00

DEVOL 0.00 0.00 HYOROGEN SULFIDE 0.00
OXYGEN ADDED Lb/HR .90 OXYGEN+ARGON .80
0.00
99.90 100,00
SEC COMH PERCENT

COAL RATE (WET) LB/HR 234.00 (ORY) 198.90 OUT AT POINT B 145.73 10.72 255.21 732.19
solids analysis
TEST 28 GASIFIER OUT V.M. 2.0% F.C. 56.7% ASH 41.3%

CHAR RECYCLE V.M. 6.8% F.C. 61.2% ASH 32.0%
CYCLONE OUT — V.M. 21.7% F.C. 53.6% ASH 24.7%
UST 29
03-01-76 0940 HRS 50-50 SPLIT ON COAL FLOW TO GAS-OfcVUL.
fWESTERN COAL
Irupmit Calculations
COAL RATE LB/HR TEMPERATURES ♦ F TOTAL HTU/HR IN COAL 2363042.50
TOTAL BTU/HR IN NAT. GAS 61276R.00
GASIEIEP 117.50 gasifier OUT 1810.00 TOTAL BTU/HR IN FUEL 2975610.50
OEVOL 117.50 OEVOL IN 1540.00 BTU/HR IN MAKE GAS 135475*.30
GASIFIFR AIR 860,00
transport air 27.50 SOLIDS LOADING LB/HR MAKE GAS ANALYSIS
char ejfct air 72.00 GASIFIER OUT 0.00 WEIGHT FRACTION
AIR TO gasifier 959.50 CYCLONE OUT 20.42
SEC COMB air 4300,49 hydrogen .007625
MAKE CARBON MONOXIDE .15*027
natural gas LB/HR GASIFIER GAS ANALYSIS METHANE .001794
GASIFIER 26,00 FTHYLENE 0.000000
SEC COMH 145,00 -0.00 HYDROGEN 10.20 ACETYLENE 0,000000
-0.00 CARBON MONOXIDE 15.10 HYDROGEN SULFIDE o.ooonoo
-0.00 METHANE .30 CARBON DIOXIDE .138142
STEAM FLOW LB/HR -0.00 ETHANE 0.00 NITROGEN .6*1293
-0.00 ETHYLENE 0.00 OXYGEN+ARGON .013119
l
-36
GASIFIER 0,00 -0.00 ACETYLENE 0.00

DEVOL 0,00 -0.00 HYDROGEN SULFIDE 0.00
OXYGEN ADDED L«/HR -0.00 OxYGfN*ARGON .90
0.00
0.00 100.00
SEC COMR PERCENT
TOTAL AIR 114,00 MATERIAL BALANCE
COAL RATE MEASURED INPUT 156.13 15.*9 256.16 726.22
COAL RATE (WET) LB/HR 235,00 (DRY) 199.75 OUT AT POINT R 137,98 14.71 256.16 772.36
SOLIDS ANALYSIS
TEST 29 CYCLONE OUT— V.M. 25.4* F.C. 46.4* ASH 26.2*
CYCLONE OUT— C 68.1* H 2.3* N 0.6% S 1.9* ASH 26.2* 0 0.9%
TARS 5,11 LB/HR
TtST 30
03-01-76 1035 HRS 50-50 SPLIT ON COAL FLOW TO 6AS-DEV0L•
InputÊ5TERN C0AL 0XYGEN ENRICHMENT T0 gasifier calculations
GASU IER-0EVOLATILIZFR
COAL RATE LB/HR TEMPERATURES* F TOTAL PTU/HR IN COAL 2654652.00
TOTAL BTU/HR IN NaT. GAS 648120.00
gasifier 132.00 GASIFIER OUT 1970.00 TOTAL BTU/HR IN FUEL 3302772.00
DFVOL MID 1290.00 HYDROGEN IN GAS LB/HP 10.11
AIR FLOWS Lb/HR CYC SEP OUT 865.00 MAKF GAS MOL. WT. 26.67
GASIFIFR AIR 830,00 COLD-GAS CONV. EFF. 47.39
gasifier air 600.00
TRANSPORT AIR 28.10 SOLIDS LOADING LB/HR MAKF GAS ANALYSIS
CHAP EJECT AIR 74.00 GASIFIFR OUT 0.00 WEIGHT FRACTION
NATURAL GAS LB/HR GASIFIER GAS ANALYSIS \ METHANE .001800
OUTLET VOL PERCENT DRY / ETHANE 0.000000
GASIFIER 27.50 ' ETHYLENE 0.000000
SEC COMR 122.00 10.70 HYDROGEN 11.30 ACETYLENE 0,000000
STEAM FLOW LB/HR 0.00 ETHANE 0.00 NITROGEN ,630900
0.00 ethylene 0.00 OXYGEN+ARGON .013159
> GASIFIER 0.00 0,00 acetylene 0.00
L£~

OXYGEN ADDED LB/HP .90 OXYGEN+ARGON .80
50.00
100.10 100.10
SEC CUM6 PERCENT
based on measured CARBON HYDROGEN OXYGEN nitrogen

CUAL RATE (WET) LB/HR 264.00 (ORY) 224.40 OUT AT POINT B 166,30 16.63 296.99 714.87
WATER FROM RF ACT I ON LB/HR 50.9V
SOLIDS ANALYSIS
TEST 30 CYCLONE OUT- V.M. 19.7% F.C. 55.2% ASH 25,1%
UST 31
03-01-76 1115 HRS ALL COAL TO THE DEVOLATILIZER
western coal
Input Calculations
coal rate lb/hr temperatures* f TOTAL PTU/HR IN COAL 2785373.50
DFVOL MID 1210,00 HYDROGEN IN GAS LB/HR 7.28
AIR FLOWS LB/HR CYC SEP OUT 020.00 MAKF GAS MOL, WT. 27.44
GASIFIER AIR 640.00
transport air 0.00 solids loading lb/hr MAKE GAS ANALYSIS
CHAR EJECT air 72.00 gasifier OUT 0.00 WEIGHT FRACTION
TOTAL AIR TO GASIFIER 912.00 CYCLONE OUT 29,94
SFC COMB AIR 4269.07 hydrogen .005977
MAKE v CARBON monoxide .126535
NATURAL GAS Lb/HR GASIFIEP GAS ANALYSIS cycloneX methane .001749
SEC COMB 125.00 7-80 HYDROGEN 8.20 acetylene 0.000000
]?.5C CARBON MONOMOE 12.40 HYDROGFN SULFIDE 0.000000
STEAM FLOW LH/HR 0.00 ETHANE 0,00 NITROGEN .695944
l
-38
GASIFIEP 0.00 0.00 acetylene 0.00

DEVOL 0,00 .30 HYDROGEN SULFIDE 0.00
OXYGEN ADDED LB/HR 1.00 OXYGEN+ARGON .90
0.00
99.90 99,90
SEC COMB PERCENT
total air 115.00 material balance
BASED ON MEASURED CARBON HYDROGEN OXYGEN nitrogen

COAL RATE (WET) LB/HR 277,00 (DPY) 235.45 OUT AT POINT H 129.93 15.01 251.14 740.19
SOLIDS ANALYSIS
TEST 31 CYCLONE OUT— C 68. H 3.3% ASH 19.4% O 7.2%
TARS 9.64 LB/HR
TEST 32
03-01-76 1315 HRS ALL COAL TO GASIFIER
GAS IFIER-DE VOLATILI7ER
COAL RATE Lb/HR TEMPERATURES. F TOTAL BTU/HR IN COAL 2956317.00
GASIFIER AIR 850.00
TRANSPORT air 23.40 SOLIDS LOADING LB/HR MAKE GAS ANALYSIS
CHAR EJFCT AIR 72.00 GASIFIER OUT 0.00 WEIGHT FRACTION
SEC COMB AIR 4269.07 HYDROGEN .00R761
natural gas LB/HR GASIFIER GAS ANALYSIS CYCLONESs METHANE .000899
OUTLET VOL PERCENT DRY outlet y/ ethane 0.000000
GASIFIER 14.30 ethylene 0,000000
SEC COMB 125.00 11.20 hydrogen 11.70 acetylene 0.000000
.30 METHANE • 15 CARBON DIOXIDE • 16639?
>
’
STEAM FLOW LB/HR 0.00 ETHANE 0.00 nitrogen .661525

ee-
0.00 ETHYLENE 0.00 OXYGEN+ARGON .01460?

DEVOL 0.00 .30 HYDROGEN SULFIDE 0.00
10.00 Carbon dioxide 10.10
OXYGEN ADDED LB/HR .90 OXYGEN+ARGON 1.00
0.00
100.10 100.15
SEC COMB PERCENT
BASED ON MEASURED CARBON HYDROGEN OXYGFN nitrogen

SOLIDS ANALYSIS
TEST 32 CYCLONE OUT— V.M. 3.8% F.C. 73,0% ASH 23,2%

TARS 0.35 LB/HR
TEST 33
03-04-76 0945 HRS ALL COAL TO VERTICAL BOTTOM GASIFIER COAL NOZZLE ONLY
GASIFIER 316.00 GASIFIFR OUT 1480.00 TOTAL BTU/HR IN FUEL 3566410.00
OEVOL MID 1200.00 HYDROGEN IN GAS LB/HR 12.45
GASIFIER AIR 865.00
TRANSPORT AIR 25.90 solids loading lb/hr MAKE GAS analysis
char EJECT AIR 72.00 . GASIFIER OUT 0.00 WEIGHT FRACTION
4331.50 HYDROGEN .007308
MAKE \ CARBON MONOXIDE •142609
LB/HR GASIFIER GAS ANALYSIS cycloneX methane •007086
OUTLET VOL PERCENT DRY outlet / ethane .001682
GASIFIER 16.50 / ethylene .007234
127.00 10.00 hydrogen 9.90 acetylene .002879
.60 METHANE 1.20 CARBON DIOXIDE •168887
A-40
.70 ethylene .70 OXYGEN+ARGON .014394

LB/HR .90 OXYGEN*ARGON 1.00
0.00
100.10 100.15
PERCENT

SOLIDS ANALYSIS
TEST 33 CHAR RECYCLE— V.M. 7.1% F.C. 67.4% ASH 25.5%
CYCLONE OUT---- V.M. 19.2% F.C. 54.6% ASH 26.2%
TEST 34
03-04-76 1020 HRS ALL COAL TO VERTICAL BOTTOM GASIFIER COAL NOZZLE ONLY
NO AUXILIARY NATURAL GAS WESTERN COAL Calculations
Input
COAL RATE L8/HW TEMPERATURESt F TOTAL BTU/HR IN COAL 3660202.00
GASIFIEP 364.00 GASIFIER OUT 1440.00 TOTAL BTU/HR IN FUEL 3660202.00
OEVOL 0.00 DFVOL IN 1300.00 BTU/HR IN MAKE GAS 1513682.15
DEVOL MID 1200.00 HYDROGEN in GAS LB/HR 10.55
GASIFIER AIR 770.00
TOTAL AIK TO GASIFIER 867.20 CYCLONE OUT 49.46
MAKE CARHON MONOXIDE .142365
natural gas lb/hr GASIFIER GAS ANALYSIS METHANE .006974
SEC COMB 117.00 9.30 HYDROGEN acetylene .002833
14.50 CARBON MONOXIDE HYDROGFN SULFIDE 0,000000
.90 METHANE CARBON DIOXIDE .196578
STEAM FLOW LB/HR 0.00 ETHANE NITROGEN .622426
.60 ETHYLENE OXYGEN+ARGON ,014166
A-41
GASIFIER 0.00 0.00 ACETYLENE

OEVOL 0.00 0.00 HYDROGEN SULFIDE
11.40 CARBON DIOXIDE
62.40 NITROGEN
OXYGEN ADDED LB/HR 1.00 OXYGEN+ARGON
0.00
100.10 100,25
SEC COMB PERCENT
BASED ON MEASURED CARBON HYOROGEN OXYGEN NITROGEN

COAL RATE (WET) LB/HR 364.00 (ORY) 309.40 OUT AT POINT B 171.75 14.13 253.17 653.86
ORY MAKE GAS LB/HR 1050.50
SOLIDS ANALYSIS
TEST 34 CYCLONE OUT— V.M. 15.4% F.C. 57,9% ASH 26.7%

TARS 8.46 LB/HR
TEST 35
03-04-76 1115 HRS 50-50 SPLIT ON COAL FLOW BETWEEN NORTH HORIZ, GASIFIER BURNER
Input AND TOP OF DEVOLATILIZER WESTERN COAL Calculations
COAL PATE Lb/HR TEMPERATURES* F TOTAL RTU/HR IN COAL 3599869.00
GASIFIER 179.00 gasifier out 1710.00 TOTAL BTU/HR IN FUEL 4271557.00
OEVOL 179.00 OEVOL IN 1420,00 BTU/HR IN MAKE GAS 1524991.62
AIR FLOWS LB/HR CYC SEP OUT 830.00 MAKE GAS MOL, WT, 26.27
GASIFIER AIR 640.00
TRANSPORT AIR 23.40 SOLIDS LOADING lb/hr MAKE GAS ANALYSIS
CHAR EJFCT AIR 72.00 gasifier OUT 0.00 WEIGHT FRACTION
AIR TO GASIFIER 935.40 CYCLONE OUT 63.98
SEC COMP AIR 4330.19 hydrogen .009669
NATURAL gas LB/HR GASIFIEP GAS ANALYSIS METHANE .003045
GASIFIER 28.50 ETHYLENE 0,000000
SEC COMB 112.00 - 0.00 HYDROGEN 12.70 acetylene 0,000000
-0,00 CARBON MONOXIDE 15.10 HYDROGFN SULFIDE 0,000000
-0,00 METHANE .50 CARBON DIOXIDE .157448
STEAM FLOW LB/HR • 0,00 ETHANE 0.00 NITROGEN •655526
-0.00 fthylene 0.00 OXYGEN+ARGON .013362
A-42

DEVOL 0.00 -0.00 HYOROGEN SULFIDE 0.00
OXYGEN ADDED LB/HR -0.00 OXYGEN+ARGON .90
0.00
0.00 100.10
SEC COMH PERCENT
BASED ON MEASURED CARBON HYOROGEN OXYGFN NITROGEN
COAL RATE (WET) LB/HR 358.00 (DRY) 304.30 OUT AT POINT B 180.73 16.13 268.14 733,69

SOLIDS ANALYSIS
TEST 35 CYCLONE OUT-- V.M. 16.4% F.C. 57.0% ASH 26.6%
TARS 3.97 LB/HR
TtST 36
03-04-76 1320 HRS ALL COAL To DEVOLATILIZER WITH CHAR RECYCLE
GASIFItR-DEVOLATILlZER
COAL RATE LB/HR TEMPERATURES. F TOTAL BTU/HR IN COAL 2192099.00
OFVOL OUT 1110.00 CARBON IN GAS LB/HR 113.03
GASIFIER AIR 635.00 COLD-GAS CONV. EFF. 40,80
GASIFIER AIR 845.00
transport air o.oo SOLIDS LOADING LB/HR MAKE GAS ANALYSIS
CHAR EJFCT AIR 73.00 GASIFIER OUT 0.00 WEIGHT FRACTION
TOTAL air TO GASIFIER 918.00 CYCLONE OUT 44.09
SEC COWS AIR 4219.99 HYDROGEN .005493
NATURAL GAS LB/HR GASIFIER CYCLONE
GAS ANALYSIS \ METHANE .002891
OUTLET OUTLET /
GASIFIER 26.5n ' ETHYLENE ,003036
SEC COMB 143.00 -0.00 HYDROGEN 7.60 ACETYLENE 0,000000
-0.00 CARBON MONOXIDE 13.60 HYDROGEN SULFIDE 0,000000
-0.00 METHANE • 50 CARBON DIOXIDE .155837
STEAM FLOW LB/HR -0.00 ETHANE 0.00 NITROGEN •681026
-0.00 ethylene .30 OXYGEN+ARGON .014095
A-43

OEVOL 0.00 -0.00 HYDROGEN SULFIDE 0.00
OXYGEN ADDED LB/HR -0.00 OXYGEN*ARGON 1.00
0.00
0.00 100.10
SEC COMB PERCENT
BASED ON MEASURED CARBON HYDROGEN OXYGEN nitrogen

COAL RATE (WET) LB/HR 218.00 (DRY) 185,30 OUT AT POINT 8 149.41 13.09 244.11 732.73
WET MAKE GAS LB/HR 1159.78 OUT AT POINT C 157,96
solids ANALYSIS
TEST 36 CYCLONE OUT— V.M. 27.6% F.C. 50.6% ASH 21.8%

TARS 4.34 LB/HR
test 37
03-04-76 1410 HRS ALL COAL TO DEVOLATILIZER NO CHAR RECYCLE
WESTERN COAL LOW VOLATILE FURNACE OXYGEN VARYING FROM 2.0-5.6 AVG USFD
Input Calculations
COAL RATE LB/HR TEMPFRATURESf F TOTAL BTU/HR IN COAL 2312765,00
DFVOL MID 1340.00 HYDROGEN IN GAS LB/HR 8,45
AIR FLOWS Lb/HR CYC SEP OUT 790,00 MAKE GAS MOL. WT. 25.91
GASIFIEP AIR 580.00
TRANSPORT AIR 0,00 SOLIDS LOADING LB/HR MAKE GAS ANALYSIS
CHaR EJECT AIR 73.00 GASIFIER OUT 0.00 WEIGHT FRACTION
NATURAL GAS LB/HR GASIFIEP GAS ANALYSIS CYCLON methane .003087
OUTLET VOL PERCENT DRY OUTLET ETHANE .000000
GASIFIER 66,00 ETHYLENE .003242
SEC COMB 100.00 -0.00 HYDROGFN 12.70 ACETYLENE .000000
-0.00 CARBON MONOXIDE 8.70 HYDROGFN SULFIDE .000000
-0.00 METHANE .50 CARBON DIOXIDE .122265
STEAM FLOW LB/HR -0.00 ETHANE 0.00 NITROGEN .751032
-0.00 ETHYLENE .30 OXYGEN+ARGON .016557
A-44

OEVOL 0.00 -0.00 HYDROGEN SULFIDE 0.00
-0.00 Carbon dioxide 7.20
OXYGEN ADDED LB/HR -0.00 OXYGEN+ARGON 1.10
0.00
0.00 100.00
SEC COMR PERCENT
BASED ON MEASURED CARBON HYOROGEN OXYGEN NITROGEN
COAL RATE (WET) LB/HR 230,00 (DRY) 195.50 OUT AT POINT B 67.23 18.09 184.34 575.37
SOLIDS ANALYSIS
TEST 37 CYCLONE OUT— V.M. 29.5* F.C. 57.5* ash 13.0*
CYCLONE OUT AFTER TOLUENE EXT, .M, 20.4* F.C. 61.0* ASH 18.6*
tars 0.90 lb/hr
TtST 38
03-11-76 1047 HRS ALL COAL TO VERTICAL BOTTOM GASIFIER COAL NOZZLE
foQ NATURAL GAS TO GASIFIER WESTERN COAL
Input Calculations
COAL RATE LB/HH TEMPERATURES* F TOTAL BTU/HR IN COAL 2865817,50
GASIFIEP 285.00 GASIFIER OUT 1820,00 TOTAL BTU/HR IN FUEL 2865817.50
OEVOL OUT 1290.00 CARBON IN GAS LB/HR 140.53
AIR FLOWS Lb/HR CYC SEP OUT 960.00 MAKF GAS MOL* WT. 27.38
GASIFIER AIR 860.00
TRANSPORT air 32.40 SOLIDS LOADING LB/HR MAKE GAS ANALYSIS
CHAR EJECT AIR 72,00 gasifier out 75.28 WEIGHT FRACTION
TOTAL AIR TO GASlFltR 964,40 CYCLONE OUT 13.32
SEC COMB AIR 4411,39 HYDROGEN .008107
NATURAL GAS LB/HR GASIFIER GAS ANALYSIS methane .001753
SEC COMB 142,00 10.40 hydrogen ACETYLENE .001424
A-45
.30 METHANE CARBON DIOXIDE •208689

STEAM FLOW LB/HR 0.00 ETHANE NITROGEN .619655
.30 ethylene OXYGEN+ARGON •012816
GASIFIER 0,00 0.00 ACETYLENE
OEVOL 0.00 0.00 HYDROGEN sulfide
11.40 carbon dioxide
63.30 NITROGEN
OXYGEN ADDED LB/HR .90 OXYGEN*ARGON
0.00
99.90 ion,45
SEC COMB PERCENT

COAL RATE (wET) LB/HR 285.00 (ORY) 242.25 OUT AT POINT B 151.52 712.32
heating value btu/oscf 91.87
SOLIDS ANALYSIS
UST 39
Input NO NATURAL GAS TO GASIFIER WESTERN COAL Calculations
COAL RATE LB/HR temperatures, f TOTAL BTU/HR IN COAL 4052366.50
DEVOL MIO 1540.00 HYDROGEN IN GAS LB/HR 13.60
AIR FLOWS LB/HR CYC SEP OUT 990,00 MAKE GAS MOL. WT. ?6,73
GASIFIFR AIR 850-00
NATURAL gas lb/hr GASIFIEP GAS ANALYSISCYCLONEX METHANE .005386
outlet / ETHANE • 001908
GASIFIEP 0.00 f ETHYLENE .0031*3
SEC COMB 121.00 12.40 HYDROGEN 12.70 acetylene .001459
A-46

.30 ETHYLENE .30 OXYGFN+ARGON .01313*
GASIFIER 0.00 .30 ACETYLENE .15
DEVOL 0.00 0,00 HYDROGEN SULFIDE 0.00
OXYGEN ADDED LB/HR • 60 OXYGEN+ARGON .90
0.00
100.00 100,30
SEC COMR percent

COAL RATE MEASURED INPUT 237.73 16.10 276.3? 715.0b
SOLIDS ANALYSIS
TEST 39 CYCLONE OUT— C 68.9% H 1.2% N 0.4% S 1.4% ASH 29.0% 0 0.0%
TARS 2.30 LB/HR
TtST 40
03*18-76 1130 HRS ALL COAL TO VERTICAL BOTTOM GASIFIER COAL NOZZLE
^NO NATURAL GAS TO GASIFIER WESTERN COAL SEC. COMB. OXY VARYING
Input Calculations
COAL RATE. LB/HH TEMPERATURES* F TOTAL RTU/HR IN COAL 3921645,00
GASIFIER 390.00 gasifier out 1700.00 TOTAL BTU/HR IN FUEL 3921645.00
DEVOL 0.00 DEVOL IN 1570.00 BTU/HR IN HAKE GAS 1584781.68
OEVOL MID 1490.00 HYDROGEN IN GAS LB/HR 11.2?
GASIFIER AIR 855.00
char EJECT AIR 70.00 GASIFIER OUT 0.Q0 WEIGHT FRACTION
natural gas LB/HR GASIFIER GAS ANALYSIS CYCLON E\ METHANE .000870
OUTLET VOL PERCENT DRY outlet > ETHANE .001850
SEC COMB 100.00 11.30 HYDROGEN 11.90 acetylene .002829
.30 METHANE .IS CARBON DIOXIDE .244134
.15 NITROGEN .573200
A-47
STEAM FLOW LB/HR 0.00 ETHANE

• 30 ethylene .30 OXYGEN+ARGON .011315
GASIFIER 0.00 0.00 ACtTYLENE .30
OXYGEN ADDED LB/HR .90 OXYGEN*ARGON • 80
0.00
100.10 100.55
SEC COMB PFRCFNT
.
?!
MATERIAL BALANCE
©
o
TOTAL AIR
COAL PATE (WET) LB/HR 390.00 (DRY) 331.50 OUT AT POINT B 198.51 9.12 275.63
PERCENT THEO. A1R 32.08
SOLIDS ANALYSIS
TEST 40 TARS 2.96 LB/HR

TEST 41
Input MO NAT, GAS TO GASIFIER WESTERN COAL Calculations
COAL RATE LB/HP TEMPERATURES! F TOTAL BTU/HR IN COAL 4122755.00
GASIFIER 410,00 GASIFIER OUT 1800,00 TOTAL BTU/HR IN FUEL 4122755.00
DEVOL 0,00 DEVOL IN 1650,00 BTU/HR IN MAKE GAS 1437166.90
DEVOL MID 1560,00 HYDROGEN IN GAS LB/HR 10.39
AIR FLOWS LB/HR CYC SEP OUT 1000.00 make gas mol, wt, 26.93
GASIFIER AIR 840,00
TRANSPORT AIR 23,00 SOLIDS LOADING LB/HR makf gas analysis
CHAR EJECT AIR 72,00 GASIFIER OUT 0.00 WEIGHT FRACTION
SEC COMB AIR 4383.39 HYDROGEN ,008874
NATURAL GAS lb/hr GASIFIER GAS ANALYSIS CYCLONeX METHANE .001782
outlet VOL PERCENT DRY OUTLET / ETHANE 0.000000
GASIFIER 0.00 / ethylene 0.000000
SEC COMB 98.00 11.40 HYDROGEN 11.95 ACETYLENE 0.000000
15,60 CARBON MONOXIDE 15,60 HYDROGEN SULFIDE 0.000000
0,00 METHANE • 30 CARBON DIOXIDE .189514
STEAM FLOW
A-48
LB/HR 0.00 ethane 0.00 NITROGEN .621714

0,00 ethylene 0.00 OXYGEN+ARGON .015929
GASIFIER 0,00 0,00 acetylene 0.00
DEVOL 0.00 0,00 hydrogen sulfide 0.00
oxygen added LB/HR .80 OXYGFN+ARGON 1.10
0.00
100,00 100.35
SEC COMB PERCENT
BASED ON MEASURED carbon HYDROGEN OXYGFN NITROGEN
COAL RATE (WET) LB/HR 410.00 (DRY) 348.50 OUT AT POINT B 177,38 275.47 693.10
HEATING VALUE BTU/DSCF 92,1]
SOLIDS ANALYSIS
TEST 41 TARS 0,99 LB/HR

TtST 42
03-18-76 1430 HRS ALL COAL TO VERTICAL BOTTOM GASIFIER NOZZLE
NO NAT. GAS TO GASIFIER WESTERN COAL Calculations
Input
GAS IFIER-DEVOLAT ILI7FR
DEVOL MID 1600.00 HYDROGEN IN GAS LB/HR 13,21
DEVOL OUT IbOO.OO CARBON IN GAS LB/HR 156.01
AIR FLOWS Lri/HR CYC SEP OUT 1125.00 MAKE GAS MOL. WT. 26.58
GASIFIER AIR 845.00 COLD-GAS CONV. EFF. 48,43
GASIFIER AIR 854,00
natural gas lb/hr GASIFIER GAS ANALYSIS CYCLONEX METHANE .001806
OUTLET VOL PERCENT DRY OUTLET 7 ETHANE .001919
GASIFIER 0.00 / ETHYLENE ,001580
> METHANE .30 CARBON DIOXIDE .201964
61’-'
• 30
GASIFIER 0.00 0,00 acetylene .15
DEVOL 0,00 0.00 HYDROGEN SULFIDE 0.00
ji
o
o
NITROGEN
i
57.00
OXYGEN ADDED LH/HR • 80 OXYGEN+ARGON .90
0.00
100.00 100.45
SEC COMB PERCENT

COAL PATE (WET) LB/HR 369.00 (DRY) 313.65 OUT AT POINT B 184.86 12.38 272.86 681.80
WATER FROM REACTION LB/HR -16,66
SOLIDS ANALYSIS
TEST 42 TARS 0.98 LB/HR

TEST 43
04-20-76 1305 HRS Alt COAL TO VERTICAL GASIFIER COAL NOZZLE NO NATURAL GAS TO
Input GASIFIER WESTERN COAL Calculations
GASIFIER 390•00 GASIFIER OUT 1720.00 TOTAL BTU/HR IN FUEL 3921645.00
GASIFIER AIR 860.00 COLD-GAS CONV, EFF. 45.10
GASIFIER AIR 853« 0 0
4120,20 HYDROGEN •008861
MAKE \ CARBON MONOXIDE .157*15
LB/HR GASIFIER GAS ANALYSIS CYCLONEV METHANE .005361
OUTLET VOL PERCENT DRYOUTLET / ETHANE .003798
gasifier 0.00 / ETHYLENE •001564
110.00 11.10 HYDROGEN 11.90 acetylene .002904
15.60 CARBON MONOXIDE 15.10 HYDROGEN SULFIDE 0,000000
LB/HR • 30 ETHANE .30 NITROGEN •610894
o
o
o
ethylene • 15 OXYGEN+ARGON •013068
> GASIFIER 0.00 .30 ACETYLENE • 30
.-50
DEVOL 0.00 • 30 HYDROGEN SULFIDE 0.00

OXYGEN ADDED LB/HR .90 OXYGEN+ARGON .90
0.00
100.40 100.15
PERCENT
total air 118.00 MATERIAL BALANCE
BASED ON MEASURED CARBON HYDROGEN oxygen NITROGEN
HEATING VALUE BTU/DSCF 108,71
SOLIDS ANALYSIS
TEST 43 CYCLONE OUT-- V.M. 10.5% F.C. 62,3% ASH 27,2%
CYCLONE OUT— C 70.3% H 1,3% N 0.6% S 1.0% ASH 27,2% 0 0,0%
TARS 1.91 LB/HR
APPENDIX B ENERGY BALANCE DATA
STEADY STATE HEAT TRANSIENT HEAT TOTAL HEAT LOSS OVER-ALL AVERAGE HEAT AVERAGE HEAT Calc. T4 Measured
LOSS: LOSS: HEAT LOSS LOSS LOSS
STEADY STATE TRANSIENT
fcg-cat
kg. moê of 0? ted “S “F
TEST Gasifier Devol. Cyclones Gasifier Oevol. Gasifier Devol. Cyclones

■*37
l 8928 1036 19,606 24,248 19,052 33,176 20,088 19,606 72.870 3251 900
2 9553 25,987 20,418 35,540 21,454 76,600 3478 1075
3 8712 21,371 16,792 30.083 17,827 67,156 3274 1060
4 7356 23,784 18,687 31,140 19,723 70,468 3303 950
Code 1 5 8816 23,842 18,733 32,658 19,769 72,033 3388 915
6 8909 22,591 17,750 31,500 18,786 69,892 3550 1100
20 12559 21,499 16,892 34,058 17,928 71,592 3457 1050
21 9633 22,661 17,805 32,294 18,841 70,741 3285 1080
22 8712 23,850 18,739 32,562 19,775 71,943 3447 1080
Averages 9242 1036 19.606 23,315 18,319 71,477 29,884 41 ,634
9 9633 20.416 16,041 30,049 17,07? 66,732 3048 930

10 9633 19,893 15,630 29,526 16,666 65,798 3055 990
, 11 9633 22,084 17,351 31,717 18,387 69.710 3143 940
13 9633 14,870 11,683 24,503 12,719 56,828 2777 1100
14 9633 22,214 17,454 31,847 18,490 69,943 3070 880
16 13461 20,458 16,074 33,919 17,110 70.635 3063 905
Averages 10271 1036 19,606 19,989 15,706 66,608 30,913 3S,69S
9635 26,133 20,533 35.768 21 ,569 76,943 3382 1010

U 9635 28,795 22.625 38.430 23,661 81,697 3201 850
Averages 9635 1036 19,606 27,464 21 ,579 79,320 30,277 49,043
27 9890 14,880 11 ,698 24,778 12,734 57,118 3041 1010

3? 8107 17,734 13,933 25,840 14,969 60,415 2951 990
Averages 8999 1036 19,606 16.307 12,816 58,764 29,641 29,123
24 9218 19,546 15,357 28,764 16,393 64,763 2834 870

28 9890 18,125 14,241 28,015 15,277 62,848 3040 800
r - < f
1 29 7893 20,475 16,088 28.368 17,124 65.098 3045 905
35 8829 16,598 13,041 25,427 14,077 59,MO 2569 830
Averages 8958 1036 19,606 18.686 14,682 62,968 29,600 33,368
,26 9765 23,539 18,495 33,304 19.531 72,441 3110 840

Code 6 9265 21 ,756 17,094 31,021 18,130 68,757 2879 820
3.
36 9875 20,120 15,808 29,995 16,844 66,445 3100 880
Averages 9635 1036 19,606 21,806 17,132 69,215 30,277 38,938
33 9164 14.262 11,206 23,426 12.242 55,274 2756 820

34 10371 7,874 6.166 18.245 7,222 45,073 2515 840
38 7224 17,215 13,526 24,439 14,562 58,607 3109 960
Code 7 39 8371 8,632 6,782 17,003 7,818 44,427 2563 990
40 8342 13,677 10,746 22,019 11,782 53,407 2689 970
42 6141 9,703 7,624 15,844 8,660 44,110 2707 1126
43 8371 11,324 8,897 19,695 9,933 49,234 2656 1000
Averages 8283 1036 19,606 11,812 9,281 50,018 28,925 21,093

APPENDIX C MATERIAL BALANCE DATA
DEVOLATIZER
MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE GASIFIER OUTLET OUTLET CYCLONE SEPARATOR f-p (3) Hm
A (2)
IN GASIFIER TEMPERATURE TEMPERATURE OUTLET TEMPERATURE AIR-FUEL by FRACTION MAKE-GAS
T,, "JF V *F V °F RATIO STOICHIO of COAL HEATING
T3* °F
METRY to VALUE
GASIFIER BTU/DSCF
Cyclone Efficiency^' •ic*.90 ■,c=.95 n *. 90 nc=.90 V-55 = .90 r = .95

v-95
ESf Calculated Calculated Measured Ca)ajâte<} Calculated Measured Calculated Calculated Measured Calculated Calculated Measured
NO.
) 3350 2640 .... 1831 1602 1950 1373 1258 1160 900 .43 .23 , 71.4
2 3020 2372 1882 1640 2200 1476 1354 1460 1075 ---------------- .47 .38 1 47.2
3 3814 3144 2038 1843 2240 1592 1484 1730 1060 -------- ------- .514 .13 1 76.9
i 4060 3417 2066 1883 2210 1530 1433 1640 950 ------- --------- ____ .537 .08 1 76.9
Code 1 5 4810 4481 2232 2145 2300 1597 1550 1800 915 . . ------- ........... .595 -.03 1 76.9
6 5356 5685 2527 2563 2300 1648 1862 1800 1100 ------- ------- . 676 -.10 1 66.2
20 4212 3617 2154 1990 2100 1650 1559 1560 1050 -------------------- .58? .07 ! 66.3
21 3159 2489 1866 1643 2090 1496 1375 1600 1080 ...................... . . .. .448 .31 1 76.1
22 3737 3737 2091 1877 2160 1604 1492 1620 1080 .544 .17 1 61.7
..........................
Avg. Diff. between Calc, and Meas. -96 -262 -22 -86
9 3526 2824 .... 2447 1999 2120 1420 1308 1280 930 .457 .19 .5 84.1
/ 10 3422 2725 2337 1984 2200 1455 1341 1320 990 — .446 .22 .5 84.9
11 3379 2679 2323 1956 1950 1410 1293 1200 940 .461 .24 .5 76.6
13 2979 2338 .... 2173 1831 2230 1471 1358 1520 1100 ................— .36? .32 .5 98.8
( 1& 3295 2584 2238 1870 2080 1337 1221 1150 880 ----------- --------- ------- . .439 .25 .5 83.8
16 3038 2350 2124 1754 2010 1316 1198 1340 905 —............— .41. .33 .5 77.6
Avy. Diff. between Calc, and “eas. 176 -109 100 -15
7 3147 2467 .... 3006 2392 2350 1431 1311 1350 1010 ................ .......... . .... .469 .41 0 46.8
Code 3
C -l
Avg. Diff. between Calc, and Meas. 542 • 62 84 -32
27 3514 2822 .... 1746 1692 1930 1467 1364 1400 1010 ___ __________ .439 . 19 1 91.1
32 2876 2225 .... 1601 1417 2040 1345 1237 1560 990 — .381 .34 1
—- 85.0
Avg. Oiff. between Calc, and Meas. -311 -430 -74 -180
24 3528 2816 .... 2213 1894 1860 1347 1243 1100 870 ... .................. _______ .461 .19 .5 83
23 3215 2514 .... 2100 1771 1950 1329 1220 1270 905 —— .424 .26 82.2
.5
29 3296 2572 .... 2080 1747 1810 1246 1138 1090 800 —.............. . .... ... .428 .23 ,5 64.8
36 2333 1754 .... 1663 1361 1710 1106 1010 1100 830 . --------------- .291 .47 95.0
Avg. Diff. between Calc, and Meas. 183 -139 117 13
26 2841 2165 .... 2512 1950 1860 1216 1103 1100 840 ------ ........ ............... .... _______ .413 .39 0 62.1
2550 1920 .... 2325 1779 2070 -- - ............................. —
Code 6 ' 31 1142 1037 1030 820 .351 .45 0 74.5
36 3177 2473 .... 2707 2150 2000 1303 1193 1110 880 --- ........ ....... ............ — .433 .28 0 78.4
Avg. Diff. between Calc, and Meas. 538 -17 140 31
33 3039 2332 .... 1439 1274 1480 1209 1105 1090 820 -------_______________ _______ .358 .24 1 107.2
34 2764 2101 1303 1167 1440 1182 1082 1110 840 .314 .26 1 105.0
36 3604 2902 1760 1591 1820 1431 1330 1290 960 .447 .14 1 91.9
Code 7 39 2727 2100 1426 1290 1760 1305 1260 1430 990 - ... .. .309 .30 1 116.8
40 2639 2024 1454 1298 1700 1278 1178 1395 970 - .321 .35 1 101.2
42 2945 2311 .... 1606 1462 1810 1463 1362 1500 1125 . . .339 .27 1 109.3
43 2719 2096 .... 1469 1321 1720 1315 1216 1440 1000 ----------- . .321 .32 1 108.3
Avg. Diff. between Calc, and Meas. 182 • 331 -10 -110
^ the cyclone separator efficiencies, ric, give here are assumed values.
^ ratio of actual air flow to that required to burn the total fuel (coa? and natural gas)
completely to Cl^, ^0, and SO^.
^ fraction of total input carbon appearing as char in the cyclone separator outlet gas.
Appendix D
DIFFUSION-BASED MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF SUSPENSION GASIFIER
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
To aid in understanding and extrapolating gasification data, it would be ex

tremely valuable to have a mathematical model of its operation. The development
of the present model was undertaken in connection with the analysis of data
recently obtained on the pilot gasifier at ARC. Time being very limited, the
customary preliminary literature review was skipped, and the model was kept
as simple as possible.
The main features of the model are:
1. Assumption of reaction rate controlled by gas-phase diffusion

of CO^ and HÔ to the surface of char particles.
2. Recycle of char until each particle is either completely

consumed by reaction or else escapes the process by the
inefficiency of the separator.
3. Assumption of complete conversion of all and air to CO^

and HÔ by reaction with recycled char just prior to coal
injection.
The reasons for choosing diffusion rather than chemical kinetic rate control
were:
A. It provides a simple model that requires no empirical constants.
B. Since pulverized coal combustion seems to be diffusion con

trolled, there seems to be reasonable hope that the assumption
might be valid.
As it turns out, the diffusion assumption was proven to be wront. Nevertheless,

the modeling effort succeeded in achieving some valuable insights, namely:
I. The gasification reaction in suspension gasifiers must be con
trolled by chemical kinetics. Their performance should, therefore,
D—1
be strongly dependent upon the temperatures achieved in the gasifier.
Thus, heat losses should play an important role in determining make-
gas quality with respect to both Btu content and char carryover.
II. The operating characteristics of recycle-gasifier processes — in

terms of make-gas heating value versus percent theoretical air
— must run across lines of constant carbon utilization. That is,
as one strives to obtain higher heating values by firing more coal
to a given gasifier with given air flow, he must invariably
encounter more char carryover and lower carbon utilization.
III. In suspension gasifiers, the separator efficiency is just as

important as the gasifier volume in determining performance.
In fact, it might even be more important considering that larger
gasifier volumes inherently entail higher heat losses whereas
higher separator efficiencies might not.
We conclude that the modeling effort should be continued, but redirected towards
chemical kinetic control of the rate. To aid in testing such models in the
future, it would be very helpful to have experimental data on the actual separa
tor efficiency.
THE MODEL
Figure D.l shows the gasification process in schematic form. It consists of a

reactor vessel, into which are fed coal, char, and air, and a separator that
separates recycled char from the make gas to give a product consisting of make
gas plus a small amount of char. The gasifier is considered to consist of
three separate zones. Into the very bottom are fed air and char, and the air
burns completely to CO^ and HÔ, consuming in the process a portion of the char.
The amount of reactor volume required for this combustion is assumed to be small
and is henceforth neglected. Coal is fed at only one place into the system,
immediately above the combustion zone. It is assumed that the coal almost
immediately devolatilizes, that the volatile immediately equilibrates with the
combustion gas, and that all the char particles so produced have the same size.
As a matter of fact, the combustion assumption is probably not too important
because the combustion section doesn't require much space anyhow. The assump
tions about the behavior of the coal immediately upon an injection are, of
course, all unrealistic. However, if the char particles make several transits
through the apparatus, the error introduced by assuming immediate devolatilization
may not be too important. Moreover, whether or not the volatile material equili
brates immediately with the combustion gas, or whether it does so over the whole
D-2
volume of the reactor affects only in a relatively minor way the concentrations
of the diffusing species. Thus, this assumption should at least give a good first
approximation. Neglect of the polydispersity of char particle sizes may be more
serious; but it is justified for the present by the simplicity that it provides.
As illustrated in Figure D.l, it is further assumed that each char particle makes
several passes through the gasifier. (In the illustration, three passes are
assumed.) For the sake of simplicity, we assume that the number of passes is an
exact integer. That is, we assume that each char particle that does not escape
through the separator is completely consumed exactly at the place where coal is
introduced. While at first this might seem like an outrageously unrealistic
assumption, actually it is not, for we might imagine that the reactor size can
be adjusted so as to cause each char particle just to disappear at the coal inlet
point. Thus, it amounts to assuming that reactor vessels come in discrete sizes
that just allow one, two, three, etc., respectively, char-particle passes. To
accommodate an actual reactor size lying between these discrete sizes, we simply
interpolate between the results for two discrete sizes.
The foregoing and some additional important assumptions are summarized in

Table D.l. Since both CO^ and HÔ are assumed to react with char, the extent
of the water gas shift reaction is not too important, although it still retains
some significance since the diffusivity of HÔ is about 1.56 times the value for
CO^. Thus, the concentrations of both CO^ and HÔ are needed in order to
compute the reaction rate at any station, and the HÔ is 1.56 times as important
as the CO^. At first blush, assuming the separator efficiency nc, to be
independent of particle size would seem to be at variance with theory. It is
made for two reasons. Firstly, it's the simplest assumption one can reasonably
make. Secondly, considering that char particle sizes should be of the order of
50 microns and the cyclone cut size of the order of 10 microns, it may actually
be fairly accurate. That is, cyclone efficiencies generally don't reach 100 per
cent, even for very large particles. In any event, the assumption is correct
to a first approximation in that the function of the separator is to let some
of the particles through, but not all of them.
Assumption No. 6 of Table D.l is intended to provide a rational starting point

for the gasification calculation. It is based upon the fact that this is the
experimentally determined course of the reaction in fixed bed gasifiers. It is
also based upon the rational that CO^ and HÔ are probably the main products of
reaction up until the point where most, if not all, of the is consumed.
D-3
Nevertheless, it must be admitted that some CO and are probably reaction pro
ducts before all the 02 is consumed, so that the actual starting point for gasi
fication reactions is probably at somewhat lower C02 and H20 concentrations than
given by Assumption No. 6. Still, without getting bogged down in this detail,
this should be a good first approximation. Assuming that the rate is diffusion
controlled is a good assumption, especially if the gasifier itself is diffusion
controlled. Characterizing the diffusion by a constant Sherwood number should be
valid for particle sizes up to about 100 microns. The reason is that such par
ticles should experience little relative motion with respect to the gas and,
thus, the Sherwood number approaches its asymptotic value of 2.0. The effect
of a constant Sherwood number is to make the amount of surface removed from a
particle in a given portion of the gasifier independent of the initial size of
the particle. (A constant diffusion coefficient would make the amount of radius
removed a cost independent of particle size.)
As it turns out, the heat losses assumed in this model. Assumption No. 8 of
Table D.l, are completely unrealistic with respect to the pilot gasifier. Thus,
the assumption made here amounts to a minimal heat loss assumption. In actual
execution, we have assumed that the char stream supplies all of the heat loss,
with the make-gas temperature being the same as the separator inlet temperature.
The char stream was assumed to lose heat to the surroundings, which are the
constant temperature, through a heat transfer coefficient, h . Thus, the heat
s
loss parameter becomes one proportional to this heat transfer coefficient and
the area of the "separator", normalized to the material-balance basis of the
flow sheet, namely, one mol of C>2 as in air.
Tables D.2 and D.3 summarize the model itself based upon these assumptions.
Table D.2 gives the equations, and Table D.3 the nomenclature. The first set
of equations at the top of Table D.2 determines the value of e^, the relative
amount of surface to be removed from a particle between the injection point (2)
and the gasifier exit (3). This is obtained from a trial and error solution of
equation 3. The second set of equations determines the gas composition at points
between points (2) and (3). The points are equally spaced in terms of amount of
surface removed from a given particle. The water gas shift equilibrium is satis
fied by solving the quadratic equation (8). The third set of equations in
Table D.2 determines the temperature at these various points within the gasifier.
This is done by trial and error solution of the enthalpy balance. Equation 15.
The value of T^ necessary for us to obtain the char temperature is obtained by
an initial estimate at the beginning of the calculation, and then subsequently
D-4
from the previously calculated value. The fourth set of equations in Table D.2
is the set that determines the required reactor volume for given operating con
ditions. Actually, the nominal reactor volume, V is included in the definition
of the constant KyR, so that the summation of Avr represents the relative reactor
volume required for given conditions. Thus, v greater than unity means that
the reactor would have to be larger than it actually is in order to satisfy the
conditions. The various factors that go into the rate constant, KyR, have to
do with the initial surface area of the char particles, the Sherwood number, the
actual reactor volume, the diffusivity of carbon dioxide, and the variation of
diffusivity with temperature and pressure. It is a variation of diffusivity
with temperature (proportional to the three halves power of temperature) that
*"1/2
gives the peculiar unity to (°K)
In actual execution, we have evaluated the model of Table D.2 by first assuming
successive values of v, one, two, three, etc. The relative reactor volume, v ,
K
was calculated for each successive v value. As a rule, the initial value of v
K
was larger than unity, and it became smaller with increasing v. The end result
of the calculation, as indicated by the equations at the bottom of Table D.2,
was an interpolation between results for the v value that first gave v less than
unity and the preceding one which, of course, gave v greater than unity. When a
R
v value of unity gave v less than unity, we discarded the results, or at least
R
earmarked them as probably incorrect.
CALCULATIONAL PROCEDURE
The model was programmed for the Hewlett-Packard Model 9100A with extended mem
ory. It was arranged in various subroutines so as to minimize programming.
Each subroutine was debugged and checked by a manual calculation starting with
the lowest order routines. (That is, with those subroutines that, themselves,
call no other subroutines.) The debugged subroutines were then used in manual
checking and debugging of the higher order subroutines. This process was con
tinued until the whole program had been checked and debugged. A final check
included a manual (or semi-manual) verification of every value in memory. The
calculations were carried out with the following initial values of the constants:
1. A values between 0.3 and 0.55
2. n values between 0.7 and 0.95

c
■"5 “1/2
3. A value of of 2.5 x 10 (°K) , which corresponds to an
initial char particle diameter of 45 microns (45 x 10 ^ meters), a
char density of 0.44 grams/cc (440 kg/cubic meter), a diffusivity
D-5
of CC>2 at 298°K of 0.157 cm^/sec (1.57 x 10 ^ meter2/sec) , a
Sherwood number of 2.0, a reactor volume of 24.44 cubic ft (0.693
3 -4
meters ), and an air flow rate of 950 Ib/hr (8.67 x 10 kg mols
02/sec).
4. A value of 6 of 4.5 kcal/mol 0 °K, which corresponds to an h

s ^ ^ s
value of 30 Btu/hr ft °F. (The value of the heat transfer
coefficient was a compromise between the expected value of
2
3 Btu/hr ft °F for transfer from a cyclone to air and as
2
high as 100 Btu/hr ft °F for transfer from char to the water-
cooled elbow at the bottom of the devolatilizer.)
RESULTS
The most immediate and striking result obtained was that the a priori set of
constants mentioned above could in no way predict the experimental results
observed from the pilot gasifier. With char making only one pass through the
apparatus (v = 1), calculated reactor volumes were far below the actual reactor
volume. Only when the value of parameter was raised nearly four orders of
magnitude (corresponding to an initial char particle size of 2.5 mm, rather
than a few microns), were we able to "predict" actual experimental results.
Since char particles of this size were never found in practice, we must conclude
that the diffusion assumption is wrong. The alternative is, of course, rate
control by chemical kinetics, probably involving gaseous molecules and the char
surface. Since chemical-kinetic rate constants are usually more temperature
sensitive than diffusivities, this also implies greater temperature sensitivity
than assumed in the present model.
Figures D.2 through D.4 show the model's "predictions" with empirical values of
the rate cost, K^. . In Figure D.2, we show the data for code 7, wherein Western
coal was fired vertically upward in the gasifier with no coal to the devolatil
izer. The effects of variation of separator efficiency are illustrated by the
three curves for 85, 90, and 95 percent separator efficiency. Figure D.3 shows
the data for code 4, wherein Western coal was fired in the conventional manner
all into the gasifier. The same central curve, = 0.10, nc = 90 percent,
fits these data fairly well, as it did for the data of code 7, Figure D.3. The
—1/2
effects of varying the rate constant from 0.05 to 0.2 (°K) ' are also shown
in Figure D.3. In comparing Figures D.2 and D.3, it will be noticed that the
effect of varying the rate constant by a factor of 2 is about the same as the
effect of varying the separator "penetration" by a factor of 2. (Penetration
is 100 - separator efficiency.) Thus, just as one might suspect, it turns out
D-6
that the separator efficiency is just as important as the rate constant in deter
mining the overall performance of the gasifier process.
Another effect obvious from Figures D.2 and D.3 is that the operating curve
predicted by the model tends to cut across the lines of constant carbon utiliza
tion. This, too, is as one might expect since, as one increases the amount of
coal fired (decreases percent theoretical air), he puts more char into suspen
sion, achieves more reaction and a higher Btu gas, but also loses more char
through the separator.
Figure D.4 shows the model "prediction" for code 1 data, Eastern coal fired
all into the gasifier. The curve here, = 0.1, nc = 90 percent, is the same
as the middle curve of Figures D.2 and D.3, except that the coal-composition
parameters have been changed to correspond to the Eastern coal. It will be
noted that the predicted curve lies some 8 Btu's above the same curve for
Western coal, and the agreement with the Eastern-coal data is fairly good.
Thus, the model appears to correctly predict trends with coal composition. On
the other hand, since the diffusion assumption is obviously erroneous, this
kind of agreement with experimental data may be purely fortuitous.
DISCUSSION
In spite of the failure of the diffusion assumption, this simple model still
appears to have some virtue. That is, even though the constant K^, had to be
adjusted empirically in order to fit the data, the recycle portion of the model
remains valid. Thus, it correctly predicts the trend of data with air fuel
ratio, and it demonstrates the importance of separator efficiency. It's also
obvious that future efforts to fit a model to experimental data will be facili
tated considerably if experimental data are available on separator efficiency.
This will, of course, require a method of measuring the particulate flows in at
least two of the three streams entering or leaving the separator. (We have a
method in mind for measuring char flow.)
The fact that the diffusion assumption failed by so wide a margin, two orders
of magnitude in particle size, virtually proves that the actual rate is con
trolled by chemical kinetics. Consequently, we can be fairly sure that it is
temperature sensitive, and therefore, sensitive to heat losses.
D-7
@
MAKE GAS
N2, CO, H2,
CO2, h2o
+ CHAR
Q, ~ T,CHAR
ILLUSTRATED
FOR
CHAR
PARTICLE
CH„
COAL
CHAR
O,+ 3.76 N O o o
FIGURE D.l REACTION ENGINEERING MODEL IB
D-8
TABLE D.l REACTION ENGINEERING MODEL I: MAIN ASSUMPTIONS
Gasification reactions, between (2) and (3), are:
CH + C0„ + 2CO + ^ H
y 2 2 .2
CH + H O -*■ CO + (1 + ^) H
y 2 2 2
and rate is controlled by a diffusion of H20 and C02 to char particle

surface.
2. Char particles are formed immediately upon coal injection and are
initially uniformly sized.
3. If not lost through the separator, char particles are recycled exactly
an integral number of times, V, until consumed.
4. The separator efficiency is n for all particles regardless of size.

c ------------------
5. Within the bulk of the reactor, which lies between points (2) and (3) ,
the gas is at all times in water gas shift equilibrium.
6. All of the air is burned with part of the recycled char to produce a gas
containing only C02, H20, N2, and CH^ (solid) particles. The rate is
diffusion controlled.
7. In both gasifier, (2) — (3), and combustor, (0) — (1), the diffusion rate
is characterized by a constant Sherwood number, e.g., = 2.0.
8. There are no heat losses except from the separator and char return line.
D-9
TABLE D.2 GASIFIER MODEL IB EQUATIONS
Determining e_
CHzOw ■+■ Y CHy (solid) + (1 - Y) CHz,Ow, (gas) (1)
TQ^ A (1 + i - |) ; Au01 ^ 4 To / (4 + y) Y (2)
A 5 = v - 1 r F 3/2
Aa)m = Cs <v' ~ s D]? s £) = l (l - t3)
Gas Composition at Increments Between (2) and (3)
Ae = e3/N; e = l ke-, Aw2+ = s (v, e) - s (v, o) (4)
4 1 - Y (1 + Au2+)
a = 2 (3.76); a = 2 + w/t : a = ^ + ------------------ (5)
N 0 c 4 + y
z - Yy (1 + Aw2+)
aH = 4-T7 + ---------------^-------------------- ; P = \ aH + “a5 - (Kw - « a0
a = 4 a (a - oi);K = p p /p p
c v O C7' w ^CO fH^0/PC0o (7)
2 2 2
[ " 3 + \&2
’
+ (K - 1) Y ]/2 (K - 1), K / I
w w w
(8)
Y/43, Kw = 1, i.e., 1 (Kw - 1) Y < 0.01
^CO = “c - yC02; yH20 = % - “c - yC02
H2 2 aH yHÔ; aN; ^ ^ ^ (10)

2 2
Determining T
char = Ync VT02; W3 = S (V' ^ } Uchar = YS (V' £)/T02 (ID
Bs' = hsV(0-21 V29); Ps = Bs'/(CpU) Char;

(12)
T . = 298 + (T_ - 298) e“Ps (13)

char 3
D-10
TABLE D.2 COIMT'D
A . . , , ^coal^Tcoal^ (14)
hIN = h02 (Tair) + 3’76 hN2 âir5 ' char hchar (Tchar) + —^-------
hm = hT„; hm = y u.h. (T) (includes char) (15)

T IN T ,L ,11
1 = 1
h. (T) = a. (T - 298) + -r—• (T2 - 2982) - c. - — ) + h (16)

11 ^ 11 298^
Determining
p D (R /P) (0.21 W /29) (P 298,3/2
/ /I atm)
^ CH po g A
(17)
4 (12 + y) Nsh VR
v2 J-/2 (18)
V X T A£/V (yC0^ + 1*56 W' T ~ ^
T < TKR; VR = ^ AVF
Interpolation
5 = (1 - v ) (51 - 5)/(v 1 - v ) + 5/ where 5 is an average between

R R R
£ values for the first V value given, v < 1 and the previous
K
H = (124675 + 122891 )/387 (A - yuh2° = (1 - nJ ^ Y (20)

p
D-ll
TABLE D.3 GASIFIER MODEL IB EQUATION NOMENCLATURE
English
a. = constant in empirical heat-capacity equation, kcal/kg mol °K
x
A = air-to-fuel ratio expressed as a fraction of that theoretically
required to burn completely to C02 and H20 with no 02, nor CO, nor
H2, dimensionless
2
= heat transfer area of separator, m
2
= constant in empirical heat-capacity equation, kcal/kg mol (°K)
= heat loss factor for separator, kcal/sec mol 02 °K
= constant in empirical heat-capacity equation, kcal °K/kg mol
= a + bT + c/T = heat capacity, kcal/kg mol °K
= diameter of newly formed char particle, m
= diffusivity of C02 at 298°K, m^/sec

C02298
2
= heat transfer coefficient from char to surroundings, kcal/sec m °K
= enthalpy of gas-solid mix at temperature, T, referred to elements

at 298°K and calculated from heat capacities of components, kcal/kg
mol 02 in air feed
h = combined enthalpy of streams that produce gas-solid mix, referred

IN
to elements at 298°K, kcal/kg mol 02 in air feed
h = enthalpy of formation at 298°K of i-Th component of gas-solid mix,

fi
kcal/kg mol
h± (T) = enthalpy of i-th component at temperature, T, referred to elements

at 298°K, kcal/kg mol
H = heating value of make-gas, Btu/dscf
K = equilibrium constant for water-gas shift reaction, dimensionless

w
— 1/2
*S/R = rate constant characteristic of gasifier volume, (°K) '
N = number of steps in numerical integrational over gasifier volume,

dimensionless
N = Sherwood number = k D /D, where k is mass transfer coefficient,

Sh
2 g P 3 g
mols per sec m per (mol/m ); D is particle diameter, m; D is
2 P
diffusivity m /sec; N_, is dimensionless
Sh
D-12
TABLE D.3 COIMT'D
P partial pressure atmosphere
P total pressure, atmosphere
R universal gas constant, atmosphere m /kg mol °K

g
s(v,e) relative volume of char, i.e., volume of char for given values
of v and e, per unit volume of char input from coal, dimensionless
temperature, ° K
critical temperature below which chemical kinetic rate is no

KR
longer much larger than diffusion rate and reaction rate (for
practical purposes) stops, °K
relative gasifier volume up to point under consideration, i.e.

gasifier (reactor) volume divided by total actual gasifier volume,
V , dimensionless
gasifier (reactor) volume (exclusive of combustion volume below

3
coal feed point), m
oxygen in coal, atoms oxygen per atom carbon
oxygen in volatile, atoms oxygen per atom carbon
air feed rate, kg/sec
Y hydrogen in char, atoms H per atom C
Y amount of char produced by coal, mols char as CH^ per mol coal
as CH 0
z w
z amount of hydrogen in fuel, atoms H per atom C
z1 amount of hydrogen in volatile, atoms H per atom C
Greek
elemental concentration in gas at a given point, kg atoms/kg mol

C>2 in air feed
a constant appearing in the solution of the water-gas-shift equilib

rium, kg atoms/kg mol C>2 in air feed
char output expressed as atoms carbon per atom carbon input in

coal, dimensionless
a heat-loss parameter appearing in the solution of the char-cooling

problem, dimensionless
D-13
TABLE D.3 CONT'D
Y = a constant appearing in the solution of the water-gas-shift equilib-

2
rium, (kg atoms/kg mol in air feed)
£ = relative amount of char particle area removed between point of first

appearance of char particle, point (2), and a given point in the
reactor. That is, £ is the amount of area removed divided by the
total amount of area removed per pass, where the number of passes
is V. £ is dimensionless.
= the value of £ at station (3), dimensionless
Ae = the change in £ per unit computational increment, dimensionless
r| = separator efficiency, dimensionless
A = total gas flow, kg mols/kg mol 0^ in air feed

= flow of a given component such as CO^, CO, H20, H2, N2, char,
kg mols/kg mol 02 in air feed
yo = value of y at station (0), kg mols/kg mol 02 in air feed
V = number of passes a char particle makes before it is completely

consumed (assuming it does not escape through the separator),
dimensionless
C = an index variable used in summations or used to stand for several
other variables that are manipulated in similar fashions
C = previous value of £
5 = linearly interpolated value between current E, and previous E,'
= density of char, kg/m3

Cxi
y
T0 = mol ratio of oxygen in air feed to mols of coal feed, dimensionless
w = relative volume of char flowing, i.e., volume of char flow per unit
volume of char input, dimensionless
= relative volume of char flowing at station (3), dimensionless
AoJq^ = relative volume of char consumed incombustor, dimensionless
Ao)2+ = relative volume of char consumed between point (2) and arbitrary
point in reactor between (2) and (3), dimensionless
Subscripts* i
C, 0, H, N = pertaining to carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen
CC>2, CO, H20, H2, N2, Char, Coal = pertaining to these species
i = an index standing for the first six of the above
D-14
CODE 7
WESTERN COAL
MODEL
% THEORETICAL AIR
(3p = FRACTION OF TOTAL INPUT CARBON APPEARING AS CHAR IN GAS LEAVING

CYCLONE SEPARATORS.
0 = FRACTION OF THE TOTAL INPUT CARBON APPEARING AS HYDROCARBONS, CHX,
IN STREAM LEAVING SYSTEM. THE VALUE OF x IS APPROXIMATELY 2.5.
%G. = NATURAL GAS (METHANE) FEED RATE EXPRESSED AS kg OF METHANE PER kg

OF AS-FIRED COAL, DIMENSIONLESS.
X = RATIO OF ATOMS OF HYDROGEN PER ATOM OF CARBON IN THE HYDROCARBON
GAS MIXTURE COMPOSED OF CH4, C2H2, C2H4, C2H6, ETC. IN THE MAKE GAS,
DIMENSIONLESS.
Y = RATIO OF ATOMS OF HYDROGEN PER ATOM OF CARBON IN THE CHAR,
DIMENSIONLESS.
tjc= CYCLONE SEPARATOR EFFICIENCY, DIMENSIONLESS.
kVr = RATE CONSTANT CHARACTERISTIC OF GASIFIER VOLUME, (°K)'1/2.
FIGURE D.2 DATA OF CODE 7
D-15
CODE #4
WESTERN COAL
DATA
MODEL
0.050
\ >
‘0.100
0.200
% THEORETICAL AIR
0p = FRACTION OF TOTAL INPUT CARBON APPEARING AS CHAR IN GAS LEAVING

CYCLONE SEPARATORS.
(3g = FRACTION OF THE TOTAL INPUT CARBON APPEARING AS HYDROCARBONS. CHX.

DIMENSIONLESS.
DIMENSIONLESS.
Vc= CYCLONE SEPARATOR EFFICIENCY, DIMENSIONLESS.
kVR = RATE CONSTANT CHARACTERISTIC OF GASIFIER VOLUME, (°K)'1/2.
D-16
CODE #1
EASTERN COAL
. MODEL
0.10 (‘'Kr1''2'
% THEORETICAL AIR
0p = FRACTION OF TOTAL INPUT CARBON APPEARING AS CHAR IN GAS LEAVING

CYCLONE SEPARATORS.
P = FRACTION OF THE TOTAL INPUT CARBON APPEARING AS HYDROCARBONS, CHX,

DIMENSIONLESS.
DIMENSIONLESS.
r)c= CYCLONE SEPARATOR EFFICIENCY, DIMENSIONLESS.
Kvr = RATE CONSTANT CHARACTERISTIC OF GASIFIER VOLUME, (°Kr1/2.
D-17
APPENDIX E
SUMMARY OF MATERIAL AND ENERGY BALANCES FOR

DETERMINING THE TEMPERATURE AND COMPOSITION OF
THE INTERNAL FLUID IN THE THERMAL MODEL
Note: The figures and tables of this appendix assume

the apparatus consists of the six components:
combustor, gasifier, crossover duct, second
combuster devolatilizer, and cyclones. The
fact that the complete model contains two addi
tional components, gasifier top and devolati
lizer top, required that the equations be modi
fied slightly in translation from the present
algebraic form to the FORTRAN program. However,
the sense of the present equations was preserved
as described in the body of the report.
CROSSOVER
kg mol Oj FED
ASH = 0
CHAR = 0 SPECIES
INDEX
N2------ 3
CO = 0
H2 = 0
C02------- 6 CYCLONE
H20------ 7
H2S = 0
02---11
COMBUSTOR
AIR 09 +
AIR/FUEL RATIO 4 A'
FIGURE E.1 GAS FLOW DIAGRAM AND NOMENCLATURE - NATURAL GAS FIRING
E-l
CROSSOVER
d-S) McOAL
COAL
kg mol 0.
ASH
CHAR = CH,
CYCLONE
IGNORE CHX SEPARATOR
4 #ch4/#as FIRED COAL
COMBUSTOR
CHAR TO
Qc kcal/kg mol Oj FED

ÂSÔ “ TT 1 ^FUEL
AIR/FUEL RATIO
^FUEL _ ^COAL + ^CH
FIGURE E.2 GAS FLOW DIAGRAM AND NOMENCLATURE - COAL FIRING
E-2
TABLE E.1 BASIC EQUATIONS FOR NATURAL GAS FIRING
Preliminary Calculations
^NÎO (yN2)o ' ^COÎO 2A'
(2)
A' ; (U02)10 (1 A'*
(3)
gi0 h02(Tair) + hN2(Tair) + 2A' hCH4(Tfuel)
f' ^ TTnn
mn )
f' (T ) = (u ) h (T ) + (u ) h (T ) + (y „) hTI „(T )

v mn' ' N2' mn; co2 co2 mn H2° H2° 11111
+ (y ) h (T ) - q
°2 °2 11111 11,11
g s
gÎn g,l,n-l
« i — —
l,n
g20 giN ; g_ = g0 - Q0
g ^2n 2,n-l 2n
(7)
g40 92N ; g4n 94,n-l ~ 24n
c
g50 g4,N
g60 = g50 “ Qs
E-3
All Stations
(10)
(yN2) (yN2>0 ' ('ic02) ^yC02^ 10 : ^^0^ ^HÎO
(11)
(y°2) = (y°2)l0
TABLE E.2 BASIC EQUATIONS FOR COAL FIRING

Preliminary Calculations
coal (as fired) char ,

Coal: CH ,0 ,S N , (Ash) , Y'CH + Gas + t (Ash) (1)
z' w' v' u' t' y
Fuel: CHz,OwISvlNu, (Ash)^ + 3^ CH4 - (1 + 3^) CH^S^ (Ash)t ( 2)
CHzOwSvNu (Ash)t -> Y CHy + t(Ash) + Gas (3)
(12.01 + l.OOSz' + 16w' + 32.06v' + 14.01u' + t')

^NG ^NG 16.042
t = t'/(l + 3ng) ; p = U'/(1 + 3ng) ; v = V/(l + 3N(J ; (5)
w = w,/(1 + W ^ = (z- + 4 3NG)/d + 3nq) ; y ^ y'/d + 3NG)
3
A z w 1 NG
(7)
T°2 = A (1 + 1 + " ' ^ '' yCOal = '' UCH4 = T0 (1 + ^Ng)
c P T1Ct
char 0 (1 - n ) t. '-• (M
'''ash'O (1 - n )
c 02 o 02
S12 “ - "coal h' - yi " y>] " 4/(4 + y)
f (T)
hi(T) = ai (T - 298) + ^ (T2 - 2982) - Ci (| - ^ + hf (10)
f(T) Mi h±(T) g, i = ash, char, N2, CO, H2, C02, H20, H2S (11)
5
E-4
At 10
g,n = -Q„ + hn J + (UM )n hM (Ta.v) + S h^T^)

d10 yc 02 air N2 0 air
(12)
+ PCH hCH ('rfuel) + (Mchar)0 hchar(Tc) + âsh5 0 hash('ro)
4 4
âshÔ = (lJash)0 + S ^coal t‘ ; ^charÔ = ^char^ + S ^coal
Y' - (13)
4 + y
(14)
= rTT + S Ucoal + ^ch4 ; '“oô = 2 + s "coal W’
(o'), = —-— + S y , (z1 - Y'y) - 2(a^).„ + 4u T ; = S y n v’ (15)

H 10 4 + y ^coal S 10 CH S 10 coal
(16)
^lO = 2("n2)0 + s "coal u'
12
(17)
gin gl,n-l 2ln; ^H^ln (aH)10 " ny A12/Ng; (0tC) in = ^lO ' N
(18)
(Vln = VlO7 (as) in = ^s’lO* (a0) In = (a0)10
(19)
^"ash) In = ("ash) 10'" ("char) In = ^char’10 + n A12/Ng
n = 1,2, ...n...N (20)
WATER GAS SHIFT
3 " Kw {h an + ac) " (Kw " x) V Y = 4ac (ao " ^
(21)
(Kw PCO PH20//pC02 PH2)
E-5
UC02 = "B +[^ + <KW - 1} Y] /2(Kw 1): KW^ 1
Y/46, K = 1, i.e. K - 1 <0.01

w 1 w 1
yCO = a'c - yC02; yH20 = aO - aC - yC02; yN2 =
u =J5a,-u ;u =a
MH2 H MH20' MH2S s
T20 T1N ; g20 glN 20 (yi}lN 1 1 • • • 8
(a )
(°C)2n = (0tC)lN : (aH)2n = ^ IN ! 2n ' 0; IN
(aN)2n = (aN)lN ; = (°lS) IN
g9r,
^ri = go2 ,n
r, 11 " 2n n = 1, 2 . . . N c
(“C>40 = (1 + BBG> Uoo,1 a - 6p>'' (“0>40 - 2 + “co.l «'
‘“h'40 ‘ "coal [Z' - 2V' + 4BNG ‘ a + eNG> yBp]
‘“n’40 ‘ 2<"l<2>0 4 "coal u' ’ ‘“s’40 - "coal V'
("ch.r>40 “ V'1 ' “o’ T02 ; '"aahÔ ‘ "coal t,/(1 “ V

940 g2N + (1 - S) y h (T )
c coal coal fuel
E-6
4n
(35)
(“;>4n - ’ <V4„ - <«i>40 : '“s’ln " (V40
(36)
âS^4n ~ âs^40 ; â0^4n ~ ^0^40 ' ^char^n Ûchar^40
(37)
âsh^n = âshÔ ; g4n " g4,n-l " 24n
(38)
(39)
t^SO = {pi)4N ' 1 = 1 • * • 8 ; g60 = 94N, - Qs
d d
E-7
NOMENCLATURE
English
A = ratio of actual air flow to that required to burn the total fuel
(including CH4> if any) to C02 (g), H20 (1), S02 (g), N2 (g),
and ash with no 02 (g) or CO (g) in the mixture, dimensionless
a = constant in heat capacity equation, kcal/kg mol °K
2
b = constant in heat capacity equation, kcal/kg mol (°K)
2
c = constant in heat capacity equation, C^ = a + bT + c/T , kcal
°K/kg mol
f (T) = enthalpy error between enthalpy out in a given stream and enthalpy
in by all other streams, kcal
h = molal enthalpy referred to the elements in their normal state as

298°K, kcal/kg mol
= heat of formation, kcal/kg mol

hf
K = equilibrium constant for water gas shift reaction, dimensionless

w
Q = heat loss, kcal/mol 02 fed in air
s = fraction of coal fed to gasifier, dimensionless
T = stream temperature, °K
t = ratio, kilograms of ash to kilogram atoms of carbon in "fuel"

("fuel" is coal plus methane, if any), kg/kg atom
t' = ratio, kilograms of ash to kg atoms of carbon in coal, kg/kg atom
u = ratio, atoms of nitrogen in "fuel" to atoms of carbon in fuel,

dimensionless
u' = ratio, atoms of nitrogen in coal to atoms of carbon in coal,

dimensionless
V, w,z = ratios similar to u, but for sulfur, oxygen, and hydrogen,

respectively, dimensionless
E-8
ratios similar to u', but for sulfur, oxygen, and hydrogen,
respectively, dimensionless
ratio, atoms of hydrogen per atom of carbon in the hydrocarbon

gas mixture composed of , etc" i-n the make
gas, dimensionless
ratio of atoms of hydrogen per atom of carbon in the char,

dimensionless
mols of char formed per mol of "fuel" (A mol of fuel is

CH 0 S N Ash ), dimensionless
z w v u t
mols of char formed per mol of coal (A mol of coal is CHÔ^,

S^jN^jAs^, ) , dimensionless
amount of atoms of a given kind in a given stream, kg atoms/kg

fed as air
amount of carbon atoms in a given stream exclusive of those in

char (measured by (5 ) and hydrocarbons (measured by g ), kg
atoms/kg mols 0^ fed as air
amount of hydrocarbon atoms in a given stream exclusive of those

in char, hydrocarbons, and H^S, kg atoms/kg mol fed as air
fraction of total input carbon appearing as char in stream (6),

dimensionless
methane feed rate expressed as mols of methane per mol of coal,

dimensionless
methane feed rate expressed as kg of methane per kg as-fired

coal, dimensionless
a constant defined in equation 21
overall efficiency of particulate collector (both cyclones in

series taken together as a single device), dimensionless
A = dry gas flow rate, mols dry gas per mol 0^ fed as air
Vi = molecular flow rates of individual species, kg mols/kg mol fed

as air
'"'coal = inPut rate of as-fired coal, mols/mol 0^ fed as air
yCH = input rate of CH^, mols/mol 0^ fed in as air
(yM )„ = input rate of atmospheric nitrogen, mols/mol 0^ in as air.

N2 °
(yi, ) = 3.76 in ordinary air
N2 °
= oxygen requirement to completely burn one mol of "fuel," mols

02/mol fuel
A increment of char flow through the gasifier, mols char per mol of
12
0 fed as air - a negative number if char is gasified by CD or
^ 2
Subscripts
i,1,2,3,etc = subscript denoting chemical "specie", e.g., char, ash, N2, CO,
H2' C°2' H20’ H2S' CHx
1,2,3,4 = where specie is denoted by chemical subscript, numerical sub

script denotes stream number
Air, Fuel = pertaining to feed streams
c,g,d,s = combustor, gasifier, devolatilizer, separator, respectively
C,0,H,N,S = pertaining to the elements carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen,

and sulfur, respectively
E-10
Appendix F
MATERIAL AND CHEMICAL SPECIES PROPERTIES

AND HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS
TABLE F.1 TABLE OF ACTUAL AND ADJUSTED MATERIAL DENSITIES

(REFS. F.9, F.10, F.11)
Actual Adjusted
Density, Density
Location Material kg/m3 kg/m3
Gasifier
Bottom
Silicon
Carbide 2563.2
Kaotab CS
Castable 2658.7
K-28 Firebrick 768.8
50/50 mix of
Kaotab Cs and
Crushed K-28
Firebrick 1714.0
K-23 Firebrick 496.5
K-3000
Firebrick 929.2
Carbon Steel 7689.6
Kaowool 96.1
Top of
Gasifier
Kaocast
Castable 2018.0 2997.7
Carbon
Steel 7689.6 14418.0
F—1
TABLE F.1 CONT'D
Actual Adjusted
Density, Density
Location Material kg/m^ kg/m^
Top of
Crossover
Kaocast
Castable 2018.0 4708.8
Carbon
Steel 7689.6 222171.
Bottom of
Crossover
K-28 Firebrick 768.8 1624.4
Kaocast
Castable 2018.0 7846.6
Carbon Steel 7689.6 34843.5
Top of
Devolatilizer
Kaocast
Castable 2018.0 2659.3
Carbon
Steel 7689.6 20633.8
Bottom of
Devolatilizer
Kaocast
Castable 2018.0
Carbon
Steel 7689.6
TABLE F.2 MATERIAL CONDUCTIVITY EQUATIONS

(REFS. F.8, F.9, F.10, F.11)
KCAL
Units:
hr-°K-M
Silicon Carbide k 11.46999 + 2.284821 x 10_3 T - 5.02232 x 10 7 T2
Kaotab CS k = 4.962047 - 4.276949 x 10~3 T - 1.294516 x 10_6 T2
K-28 Firebrick k = 0.1790266 + 3.72752418 x 10~5 T + 8.9717814 x 10~8 T2
K-23 Firebrick k = 0.077187126 + 9.0657337 x 10_5 T + 1.9578549 x 10_8 T2
K-3000 Firebrick k = 0.2836668 - 1.1380847 x 10_4 T + 1.6013019 x 10_7 T2
Kaocast k = 1.3026305 - 1.0754459 x 10~3 T + 5.296965 x 10~7 T2
Kaowool k = 0.977500
Carbon Steel k = 44.60
F-2
TABLE F.3 MATERIAL HEAT CAPACITY EQUATIONS
(REFS. F.8, F.9, F.11)
KCAL
Units:
kg-0K
Silicon Carbide Cp = 0.285 - not a function of temperature
Carbon Steel Cp = 0.107 - not a function of temperature
All refractories
castable and 2
firebrick Cp = 0.155861 + 1.184536 x 10 T - 3.13417 x 10 T
(for T in °K)
TABLE F.4 HEAT CAPACITIES, ENTHALPYS, AND HEATS OF FORMATION

FOR PROCESS SPECIES
KCAL _
Units : . for T in °K
kg mol
2
a. + b . T + C
Si = i i
a.(T-298) + b /2(T2-2982) _ c (i - —) + hf
hi = i l T 298'
Species a^ b. c.
i 1 hf
1 Ash 0.189 0.000081 0 0

2 Char 2.23 0.00291 0 0
3 6.66 0.00102 0 0
N2
4 CO 6.79 0.00098 -1100 -26416
5 6.52 0.00078 1200 0
H2
6 10.55 0.00216 -204,000 -94,052
C02
7 7.17 0.00256 800 -57,798
H2°
8 7.02 0.00368 0 -4815
H2S
9 Coal 5.13 0 0 *
10 8.5 0 0 -17,889
CH4
11 7.16 0.001 -4000 0
°2
*Eastern coal - 4923, Western coal -19930
F-3
TABLE F.5 COEFFICIENTS FOR CALCULATION OF VISCOSITY; CONDUCTIVITY
AND MOLECULAR WEIGHT (REFS. F.3, F.5)
Specie N2 CO H2 co2 h2o h2s 02

3 4 5 6 7 8 11
1
d. 1.38 x lO-3 1.35 x 10“3 7.46 x 10~4 1.51 x 10-3 1.60 x 10-3 1.58 x 10-3 1.67 x 10
1
S. 102.38 88.93 176.13 206.48 510.54 332.00 116.40
i
k. .06702 .06850 .48417 .07287 .11527 .07233 .07323
i
.750 .776 .897 .870 1.444 .975 .704
pi
m. 28.01 28.01 2.016 44.01 18.02 34.08 32.00
i
TABLE F.6 COAL PROPERTIES
Analysis by Weight
#/# dry coal Eastern Western
C 0.727 0.694
H 0.051 0.047
N 0.010 0.009
Ash 0.105 0.078
S 0.032 0.004
0 0.075 0.188
h2° (1) 0.015 0.150
Total 1.015 1.150
Fixed Carbon (CH ) 0.489 0.511

y
Heating Value 13,100 11,830 Btu/# dry
Analysis by Atom Ratios
kg atoms/kg atom carbon Eastern Western
H , z' 0.863 1.095
N , w' 0.012 0.011
Ash, t' 1.735** 1.350**
S , v' 0.017 0.002
0 , w' 0.091 0.347
CH , Y' 0.660 0.723

y
y 0.24* 0.22*
CH , 3 0.06* 0.06*
X g
X 2.5* 2.5*
h. -4923** -19930**kcal/kg
f atom c
* Typical values found in these tests; individual runs may

show slight variance
Calculated assuming molecular weight of ash is unity and
heat of formation is zero
F-5
F.1 CALCULATION OF HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS
INTERNAL WALLS
Coal Firing:
N = 0.3537 —
RE
VD
A c v
N £ 3.6
PR
0.7
1 + (Ref. F.1)
N»tJ ’ °-023 (liRE>°'8 “PR’"'4 (N-.5) L
(N = index number of axial element, L = length of axial element)
Heat Transfer Coefficient For Convection
KCAL
h
c
m2-hr-°K
Heat Transfer Coefficient For Radiation
KCAL
[;4 - (T„,ii + 1°°|4]
h = 4.88 x 10
r •HR-0 K
[? - <Tw,ll + 100)]
(T = average gas temp, over element, e=l for coal firing)
Heat Flux Density to Internal Walls
T T
Wall
q = Resistance of
h + h + Char Layer
c r
F-6
Heat Flux to Wall
_ g (Area) KCAL
2 - • ' Kg Mol 0
M Z
°2
Natural Gas Firing:

The equations for natural gas firing are identical to those for coal
firing with the one exception of that for the HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT FOR
RADIATION. For coal firing the presence of a large amount of fine char would
make the gas emissivity very nearly equal to unity, the value which we assumed.
However, for natural gas firing at A/F ratios of 1 or greater very little
char would result, therefore the gas emissivity was calculated. This calcu
lation was based on the assumption that CO^ and water vapor would be the main
source of radiant energy. The fact that the emissivity varies as a function
of temperature was taken into account by breaking the system up into three
main temperature ranges. The calculation of the emissivity is shown below
(Ref. F.2) :
e e
- (y
m
+ 6T)
+ e m + nT)
m + em
Ym ____<5 m
Top and Bottom 1.57 2.72 x 10 1.59 2.89 x 10-4 -.04

of Gasifier
Top and Bottom of 1.88 2.69 x 10' 1.31 2.73 x 10"4 -.001
Crossover Pipe
Top and Bottom of 1.62 2.41 x 10 1.76 6.41 x 10“4 -.012
Devolatilizer
F.2 CALCULATION OF PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AND FLOW OF PROCESS SPECIES
Individual Species:
3/2
d.
i
Viscosity (centipoise) where T is the average temperature
(Si + T) over an axial element (Ref. F.4, F.5)
Pi
KCAL _T__ (Ref. F.3, F.6)
Conductivity k.
i 1200
F-7
KCAL
Heat Capacity C„ = a. + b. T + (See Table E-2 for coefficients)
Kg-mol- K/ P. i i -2
V / l T
Gas Mixture:
8
£ y v M 1/2
i=3 Mi i i
Viscosity (centipoise) v (Ref. F.3)
8 - « 1/2
E Ui “i
i=3
A
^ u k M
i=3 yi ki i
Conductivity f-kg^- ,-Kjk (Ref. F.3)
8 - 1/3
E ^ M1
i=3
(KCAL \ ^1 î Cpi
Heat Capacity
^kg-mol-°Ki 8 -
E ^ ^
i=l
Flowrate w = M0 E i1:
2 i=l
where vu is the flow of a given species such as CO, CO^, etc.,
kg mols
kg mol in air feed
is the molecular weight of a species
Mq flow rate of OXYGEN from AIR to system kg mols 02/hr
F-8
F.3 REFERENCES
F.1 M. A. Feild, D. W. Gill, B. B. Morgan and P. G. W. Hawksley,

"Combustion of Pulverized Coal," BCURA, Leutherheud, Surrey,
England, 1967. (Also Institute of Fuel, 1974).
F.2 J. A. Weibelt, "Engineering Radiation Heat Transfer," Holt,

Reinhart and Winston, New York, 1966.
F.3 J. C. Janka and R. Malhotra, "Estimation of Coal and Gas Properties,
for Gasification Design Calculations," Inst. Gas Technology, Chicago,
R&D Report No. 22, Interim Report No. 7, OCR Contract 14-01-0001-381,
1971.
F.4 R. C. Reid and T. K. Sherwood, "The Properties of Gases and Liquids,"

McGraw Hill Chemical Engineering Services, Second Edition, New York,
1966.
F. 5 K. Raznjevic, "Handbook of Thermodynamic Tables and Charts," Hemi

sphere Publishing Co., Washington/London, 1976. (Also McGraw Hill,
New York.)
F.6 N. V. Tsederberg, "Thermal Conductivity of Gases and Liquids,"

MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1965.
F. 7 C. A. Depeu and T. J. Kramer, "Heat Transfer to Flowing Gas-Solid

Mixtures," Advances in Heat Transfer, Academic Press, New York, 1973.
F.8 F. H. Norton, "Refractories," Third Edition, McGraw Hill, New York,

1949.
F.9 Babcock & Wilcox Company, Refractories Division, Product Literature.
F.10 Carborundum Company, Refractories & Electronics Division, Product
Literature.
F.11 J. H. Perry, "Chemical Engineers Handbook," Fourth Edition, McGraw

Hill, New York.
F-9

Evaluation of Coal Devolatilization Concept: Lectric Power Research Institute

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation of Coal Devolatilization Concept: Lectric Power Research Institute

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

Evaluation of Coal Devolatilization Concept: Lectric Power Research Institute

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation of Coal Devolatilization Concept EPRI

lywords: EPRI AF-608

LECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an

Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image

Final Report, December 1977

Research & Development Division

EPRI Project Manager

2. PILOT PLANT----------------------------------------- 2-1

2.1 Coal Preparation Facilities -------------------- 2-2

3. TEST APPARATUS AND PROCEDURES----------------------- 3-1

3.1 Test Procedure----- --------------------------- 3-1

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION------------------------------- 4-1

4.1 Precision of Measurements ----------------------- 4-1

5. THERMAL ANALYSIS OF PILOT APPARATUS -------------------- 5-1

A. Test Data------------ A-l

2.1 Pilot Plant------------------------------------------ 2-1

4.8 Effect of Amount of Hydrocarbons on Stoichiometric

4.35 Statistical Analysis "B", Heat Loss Effect------- 4-48

2.1 Coal Analysis---------------------------------------- 2-20

4.5 Gas Analyses - Comparison ofARC and Gollob

A pilot plant was constructed consisting of a one-foot diameter gasifier fol­

• What heat losses might be achieved at steady-state, and

• What changes to the apparatus might be necessary to shorten

In order to answer these questions a detailed thermal model of the pilot

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

• Unacceptably large tar quantities were generated when half or all

• Tar content of the make-gas tended to be negligible or low

Within the range of substoichiometric air-to-fuel ratios studied utilizing this

Upon completion of the necessary modifications, additional tests, using the

The development of a mathematical model of suspension gasification based upon

In an effort to achieve national energy independence and to find suitable

One of the potential drawbacks to air blown suspension gasification is the

In the devolatilizer concept, some or all of the coal is injected into a

The object of this contract was to evaluate experimentally the devolatilizer

1. Pulverized coal storage tank

2. Coal feed tank

3. Coal screening tank

6. Char collection and recycle system

7. Secondary combustion furnace.

A detailed description of the above components and ancillary facilities

FIGURE 2.1 PILOT PLANT

2.2 COAL FEED SYSTEM

2.2.1 Coal Screening Tank

FIGURE 2.2 LOWER PORTION OF COAL

-6-1/32" HOLES FOR

1/2" PIPE NIPPLE~2" LONG

TRANSPORT |~ FLUIDIZING AIR

FIGURE 2.3 COAL FEED TANK

2.2.3 Measurement and Control of Coal Flow

2.3.1 Initial Design and Modifications

In the initial design of the gasifier

to slip down about 4 inches. This broke

liner which separated the annular fired

the two silicon carbide liners had

ical shock. B&W K-3000 FIRE BRICK

To provide a quick fix and continue the B&W KAOCAST

tions were made:

2. A water-cooled support ring

A pilot plant was constructed consisting of a one-foot diameter gasifier fol

Immediately after initiating the sampling procedure the necessary adjust