Fuel 82 (2003) 161–164

www.fuelfirst.com

An experimental study on gasification of Colombian coal in fluidised bedq

A. Ocampoa, E. Arenasb, F. Chejnea,*, J. Espinela, C. Londoñoa, J. Aguirrea, J.D. Pereza
a
Escuela de Procesos y Energia, Facultad de Minas, Universidad Nacional de Colombia-sede Medellin, Calle 65 No 78-28 Medellin, Colombia
b
Instituto de Energı́a y Termodinámica, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, A.A. 56006 Medellin, Colombia
Received 5 March 2002; revised 14 June 2002; accepted 12 July 2002; available online 2 August 2002

Abstract
The main results of an experimental work on gasification of Colombian coal in a fluidised bed are reported in this paper. Experiments were
carried out at different steam/coal (Fs/Fc) and air/coal (Fa/Fc) ratios and temperatures of gasifying agent. In addition, the influence of bed
temperature on coal conversion was analysed. Results show a maximum value in the curve of high heating value versus Fa/Fc. From the
environmental standpoint, low concentrations of sulphur compounds were obtained but more work should be done in order to decrease
particulate matter. q 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Coal gasification; Fluidised bed; Environment

1. Introduction tion of Titiribı́ coal in a pilot fluidised bed at atmospheric

pressure with air – steam mixtures, using steam/coal ratios of
Coal gasification is a clean coal technology that presents 0.58 and 0.71 kg/kg, and air/coal ratios from 2.1 to
good prospects for coal use, mainly for producing electricity 2.9 kg/kg.
with a high coal conversion efficiency and low environ-
mental impact [1]. Colombia has the biggest coal reserves in
South America; these reserves are around 6700 Mt [2] but 2. Experimental
this coal is just used in combustion processes. Considering
these aspects, a project on the technical evaluation of the In order to study the gasification of Colombian coals in
gasification of Colombian coals in a pilot fluidised bed fluidised bed, a pilot scale reactor was designed and built. A
reactor at atmospheric pressure was developed.
schematic diagram of this reactor and its auxiliary
Different studies on coal gasification in fluidised beds
equipment is presented in Fig. 1. The reactor has an internal
have been realised. Tomeczek et al. [3], studying coal
diameter of 22 cm and a height of 200 cm; it was built with
gasification by means of air or steam –air mixtures at
stainless steel AISI 310 internally covered with a 10 cm
atmospheric pressure, reported gas heating values between
layer of refractory cement. A gas distributor with 142 holes
2.9 and 3.5 MJ/m3 using air and gas heating values between
of 1 mm diameter arranged on a triangular pattern was
4.1 and 4.5 MJ/m3 using air –steam mixtures. Watkinson
placed between the conical bottom and the cylindrical
et al. [4], carrying out experiments with different coals in a
section of the reactor. The external wall of the reactor was
fluidised bed with steam and air, found that gas heating
lined with a 15 cm layer of ceramic fibre to lower heat
values were between 1.6 and 4.2 MJ/m3. Similar results
losses. An overflow pipe, placed 100 cm above the
were found by Kawabata et al. [5]and Saffer et al. [6]. The
distributor plate, allows ash to be continuously evacuated
data reported in most of the papers are insufficient to be used
and to maintain the height of the expanded bed. In the bed
for the validation of fluidised-bed coal gasification models
zone, thermocouples were put each 30 cm starting at the
[7].
grid level. Other thermocouples were present in the conical
This paper presents the results obtained in the gasifica-
section and at the freeboard exit.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 57-4-425-53-02; fax: þ 57-4-234-10-02. The feed rate of coal mixed with limestone was measured
E-mail address: [email protected] (F. Chejne). by means of a screw placed in the bottom of a bin. A
q
Published first on the web via Fuelfirst.com—http://www.fuelfirst.com water-cooled screw-feeder located at 30 cm above the grid
0016-2361/03/$ - see front matter q 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 1 6 - 2 3 6 1 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 2 5 3 - 3
162 A. Ocampo et al. / Fuel 82 (2003) 161–164

Fig. 1. Schematics of the gasifier and auxiliary equipment.

introduces the solids into the reactor. Separated streams of Experiments were made with Titiribı́ and Venecia coals
air and steam were preheated before reaching the wind box. but in this paper, only results with the first coal are
A propane combustion chamber beneath the bed provided presented. In Table 1 the characteristics of the coal and the
heat to start-up. Gases leaving the freeboard section passed limestone are shown.
through two cyclones in series to trap entrained particles.
These solids were not recycled to the gasifier in these
experiments. Gas samples were taken after the cyclones 3. Results and discussion
were purified and analysed by chromatography. In some
experiments, particles present in the gas stream leaving the The values of the variables that were manipulated (solids
cyclones were collected with the aid of filters. feed rate, air and steam feed rates, and inlet temperature of
During the starting period, a small bed of limestone the gasifying agent) and the main results of some typical
contained in the reactor was heated up by means of flue experiments with Titiribı́ coal are shown in Table 2; gas
gases generated in the combustion chamber. When an concentrations are reported on a dry basis. The gas
adequate temperature for the ignition of the coal was concentrations and the conversions obtained are comparable
attained, the combustion chamber was shutdown and coal to those reported in other papers for similar conditions [3,4,
supply began. Preheated air was the only gas fed up to about 6].
700 8C, when steam was added and the reactor was guided The energy balances for different experiments showed
to steady-state conditions. The gasifier was considered to be that around 44% of the total energy leaves with the gas and
in steady state when the bed temperature and the gas 20% corresponds to energy losses. High heating values
concentrations were substantially constant. While in steady (HHV) versus air/coal ratio (Fa/Fc) were plotted for
state, at least three gas analyses were made before passing to steam/coal ratios (Fs/Fc) of 0.58 and 0.71 in Fig. 2. The
another experiment. gas heating values were between 2.7 and 3.3 MJ/m3, with
 A. Ocampo et al. / Fuel 82 (2003) 161–164 163

Table 1
Characteristics of solids

Coal
Proximate analysis
Moisture 2.6%
Volatile matter 41.8%
Fixed carbon 54.1%
Ash 1.5%
Ultimate analysis
Carbon 75.3%
Hydrogen 5.4%
Nitrogen 1.8%
Oxygen 15.6%
Sulphur 0.4% Fig. 2. HHV versus Fa/Fc ratio for different Fs/Fc ratios.
Ash 1.5%
Others
High heating value (wet basis) 29,695 kJ/kg
Mean particle size 0.62 mm
Apparent density 1250 kg/m3
Free swelling index 1

Limestone
CaCO3 99.2%
MgCO3 0.4%
Fe2O3 0.2%
SiO2 0.3%
Apparent density 2700 kg/m3
Mean particle size 0.60 mm
Fig. 3. Carbon conversion versus Fa/Fc ratio for different Fs/Fc ratios.

the latter corresponding to Fa/Fc ratios of 2.4 and 2.6, former one. This can be confirmed when carbon conversion
respectively. The low efficiencies obtained are mainly due versus bed temperature is plotted, as in Fig. 4. In this figure,
to a high entrainment of particles (not recycled) as a the highest carbon conversions correspond to the highest
consequence of a high friability of the coal used and the temperatures when combustion reactions dominate.
short freeboard of the gasifier. Heat losses through the walls Regarding the environmental aspect in the experiments,
and the bare flanges were also important. the average values of emissions of sulphur compounds,
Carbon conversion versus Fa/Fc is presented in Fig. 3 for mainly H2S, and particulate matter (PM) were 0.052 lb
two levels of the Fs/Fc ratio. It can be seen that the H2S/106 Btu (0.049 lb S/106 Btu) and 0.177 lb PM/106 Btu.
conversion increases almost linearly with the Fa/Fc ratio due Coal gasification emissions have not yet been regulated, but
to the fact that an increase in the Fa/Fc value permits in order to have an estimate of magnitude, emissions were
combustion and gasification reactions to occur, mainly the compared with the US EPA norm for coal combustion in
fluidised beds. Compared to the values permitted by the
Table 2 EPA norm of 1.2 lb SO2/106 Btu (0.6 lb S/106 Btu) and
Typical results of selected runs
0.05 lb PM/106 Btu [8], the experimental emissions of
Exp. no 6 8 12 13 16 sulphur compounds were lower, but particulate matter
emissions were higher.
Coal (kg/h) 8.0 8.0 6.6 6.6 6.6
Air (kg/h) 21.9 17.0 17.0 14.8 17.0
Limestone (kg/h) 0.8 0.8 0.66 0.66 0.66
Steam (kg/h) 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.0
Tair – steam (8C) 420 413 390 380 355
Air ratio 0.275 0.214 0.259 0.226 0.259
Tbed (8C) 855 812 864 850 872
H2 (%) 8.53 8.84 12.86 9.90 10.10
CO2 (%) 19.31 18.38 20.90 20.12 20.27
N2 (%) 60.37 61.10 54.55 59.97 57.50
CH4 (%) 0.84 1.07 0.83 0.73 0.77
CO (%) 10.94 10.59 10.71 8.84 11.36
Gas yield (N m3/kg coal) 2.5 2.1 2.9 2.3 2.7
Conversion (%) 57.6 47.1 69.2 49.4 64.7
HHV of gas (MJ/N m3) 2.8 2.9 3.3 2.7 3.0
Fig. 4. Carbon conversion versus bed temperature for different Fs/Fc ratios.
164 A. Ocampo et al. / Fuel 82 (2003) 161–164

3.3 MJ/m3 was obtained using a steam/coal ratio of 0.71 and

an air/coal ratio of 2.6. With respect to coal conversion, the
highest values were reached using the steam/coal ratio of
0.71. Another factor that influences coal conversion is the
bed temperature; coal conversion tends to increase when
bed temperature increases.
From the environmental standpoint, low concentrations
of sulphur compounds were obtained, but more work should
be done in order to decrease particulate matter.
Coal gasification technology is an alternative for using
coal in energy applications. Due to the differences in coals
that exist in Colombia, a fuel gas with a higher calorific
Fig. 5. Sulphur capture efficiency versus bed temperature. value, than was obtained in these experiments, could be
In Fig. 5, sulphur capture efficiency versus temperature is produced with a low environmental impact.
shown. It can be seen that the efficiency of capturing sulphur
was low. Therefore, low sulphur emissions were mainly due
to the low sulphur content of the Titiribı́ coal. It can also be Acknowledgements
noted that the highest efficiencies were between 830 and
860 8C. Authors acknowledge the financial support of COL-
In Fig. 6, particulate matter versus Fa/Fc is presented. CIENCIAS, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Universi-
Emissions decrease as Fa/Fc increases. This behaviour could dad Nacional de Colombia-Sede Medellı́n and Universidad
be due to more particles being oxidised when there is more de Antioquia. Thanks are given to Mr John Ramirez, Mr
air. Furthermore, there is less unburned coal and less Leonardo Velásquez, Mrs Beatriz Gómez, and Dr Marcio de
particulate matter emissions. Souza-Santos for their collaboration.

References
4. Conclusions
[1] Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program: Program Update
Experimental results showed a maximum in the HHV 2000, DOE; April 2001.
[2] Ministerio de Minas y Energı́a de Colombia, UPME. Boletı́n no. 11
curves versus Fa/Fc. The highest gas heating value of
Estadı́sticas Minero-Energéticas, Mayo; 2000.
[3] Tomeczek J, Kudzia W, Gradon B, Remarczyk L. The influence of
geometrical factors and feedstock on gasification in a high temperature
fluidised bed. Can J Chem Engng 1987;65:785.
[4] Watkinson AP, Cheng G, Prakash CB. Comparison of coal gasification
in fluidised and spouted beds. Can J Chem Engng 1983;61:468.
[5] Kawabata J, Yumiyama M, Tazaki Y, Honma S, Takeda S, Yamaguchi
H, Chiba T, Yoshida K. Performance of a pressurised two-stage
fluidised gasification process for production of low-BTU gas from coal
char. Chem Engng Commun 1981;11:335.
[6] Saffer M, Ocampo A, Laguerie C. Gasification of coal in a fluidised bed
in the presence of water vapor and oxygen: an experimental study and a
first attempt at modeling the reactor. Int Chem Engng 1988;28(1):46.
[7] Gururajan VS, Agarwal PK, Agnew JB. Mathematical modelling of
fluidised bed coal gasifiers. Trans IchemE 1992;70(A):211.
[8] Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Regulations Code; 1990.
Fig. 6. Particulate matter emissions versus Fa/Fc ratios. Part 53–60.