i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 2 5 8 3 e2 5 9 1

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

Numerical modeling of a downdraft plasma

gasification reactor

Beycan Ibrahimoglu a, Ahmet Cucen b, M. Zeki Yilmazoglu c,*

a
Giresun University, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Energy Systems Engineering, Giresun, Turkey
b
Anadolu Plasma Technology Center, Gazi University Technopark, Ankara, Turkey
c
Gazi University, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ankara, Turkey

article info abstract

Article history: Gasification, a method of producing hydrogen, is an alternative way to obtain clean, sus-
Received 11 February 2016 tainable, and domestic energy using coal and biomass resources. Gasification can be
Received in revised form achieved with several methods or using various reactor designs, and plasma gasification is
2 June 2016 one of these methods. Plasma gasification has advantages compared to conventional
Accepted 25 June 2016 gasification systems regarding syngas cleaning and gasification rates. Tar production, the
Available online 12 July 2016 greatest problem in fixed bed gasifiers, can be reduced and higher carbon conversion rates
can be achieved with plasma gasification systems.
Keywords: In this study, a 10 kW microwave plasma-integrated down-draft coal gasifier was
Plasma modeled with ANSYS FLUENT. A novel design is simulated in order to obtain the swirl
Plasma gasification effect and observe the increase in the residence time for coal particles inside the reactor.
Downdraft gasification Plasma ionization is ignored due to the overlapping of the MHD (MagnetoHydroDynamics)
CFD module and combustion models. Therefore, plasma inlet conditions are determined via
Coal experimental studies instead of activating the MHD module in Fluent. SIMPLE algorithm is
Biomass selected for pressureevelocity coupling. Turbulence variables are calculated with the k-
turbulence model. The interaction between gas phase and discrete phase is followed by
Eularian-Lagrangian approach and 10 injection time steps are chosen for the continuity of
the reactions. The Finite Rate Chemistry/Eddy Dissipation model is selected for both
combustion and gasification models. DO radiation model is used for radiation modeling.
Temperature, species (CO, H2, CO2, H2O), and velocity results on different planes are ob-
tained. According to the results, approximately 1350 K average temperature is obtained
inside the reactor. Grid independency study is also performed. The results show that it is
possible to obtain a syngas with 18.4% H2 and 37.2% CO mole fractions, respectively. The
cold gas efficiency of the gasifier is found to be 55.3%.
2016 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 90 5327014159.

E-mail addresses: beycan.ibrahimoglu@agu.edu.tr (B. Ibrahimoglu), acucen@anadoluplazma.com (A. Cucen), zekiyilmazoglu@gazi.
edu.tr (M.Z. Yilmazoglu).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.06.224
0360-3199/ 2016 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2584 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 2 5 8 3 e2 5 9 1
Introduction
Coal is the main energy source for many countries for cen-
turies. Although the interest for alternative energy sources
has increased with developing technologies; however, it has
never lost its value and importance worldwide due to its
availability and price. Efficient utilization of the coal in com-
bustion and gasification systems has been investigated.
Gasification can be defined as producing H2 and CO in a lean
oxygen medium. Plasma gasification is a relatively new tech-
nology compared to the conventional gasification methods.
Atom, radical, and ion mediums, as a result of the plasma
formation at high temperature and velocity, have a positive
effect on the gasification process, which uses air and water
vapor plasma and increases the gasification efficiency [1,2].
Plasma gasification technology decreases the harmful emis-
sions such as NOx, dioxins, and furans. In addition, it provides
fuel flexibility for the designer and operator. The ash is inert,
non-hazardous glassy slag that can be used as a by-product of
construction aggregate. It is shown that radicals, charged
electrons, and ions have positive effects on the gasification of
Fig. 1 e Technical drawing of the down-draft gasifier.
different types of fuels. Because of its high temperature, the
time required for the reactions is decreased. Kalinci et al. [3]
performed an exergoeconomic research for hydrogen pro-
duction from sewage waste with plasma gasification. Three
different methods were used in the analysis. Chemical
composition of the waste was investigated and, from chemi-
cal decomposition to devolatilization, all of the processes and
the production mechanism of each species were discussed.
According to their results, it was concluded that the sewage
waste can be treated as a biomass source. Also, it was indi-
cated that the plasma gasification systems are convenient for
the capability of producing high purity hydrogen. Byun et al.
[4] investigated solid waste gasification and production of 99%
purity hydrogen. The produced syngas was considered to be
used in PEM (Proton Exchange Membrane) fuel cells due to its
high H2 content. High temperature plasma was used for the
gasification and three reasons were considered in the selec-
tion of plasma gasification systems, namely, higher reactor
temperatures, fuel flexibility, and stable operation due to
higher reaction rates. Yoon et al. [5] investigated the gasifi-
cation of glycerol with a microwave plasma. Nitrogen was
selected as the plasma medium in the study and it was found
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 2 5 8 3 e2 5 9 1 2585

that atomization positively affect the reactions, but increasing modeling. Che et al. [18] investigated biomass gasification
mass flow rates above the optimum point decreases the cold using Aspen Plus and ANSYS Fluent. Pyrolysis was modeled in
gas efficiency and carbon conversion rate. Arc and microwave a 1D code in order to get inlet conditions for Fluent. Cornejo
are the most common methods in plasma gasification of the and Farias [19] modeled a bubbling fluidized bed coal gasifier
coal and waste. Even though arc methods need less equip- with Fluent 6.3. The EulerianeEulerian approach was used in
ment for the operation, the physical deformation and high the modeling of the discrete phase. For the turbulence k- RNG
consumption rates of anode, and discontinuous operation are and Finite rate chemistry/Eddy dissipation models were
the negative perspectives [6]. Therefore, microwave plasma is selected for combustion modeling. Zhang et al. [20] investi-
the common method for large scale industrial applications gated a pilot scale solid waste plasma gasifier in 2D. In the
[7e10]. Yoon et al. [11] investigated the microwave plasma analyses, the EulerianeEulerian approach was selected for the
gasification of the three different types of coal. Air and water melting process inside the reactor. Vicente et al. [21] investi-
vapor was used as plasma medium and in order to obtain the gated the 2D numerical modeling of a fixed bed coal gasifier.
best cold gas efficiency various air/water vapor rates were The EulerianeEulerian approach was selected for the particle-
investigated. Their results showed that using water vapor in fluid interaction. Gerber et al. [22] investigated a laboratory
microwave plasma gave the best results because of its high scale bubbling fluidized bed wood gasifier in 2D. In the ana-
temperature effect. Shin et al. [12] investigated coal gasifica- lyses, two different types of pyrolysis models were used. The
tion with steam microwave. The behavior of steam at micro- results were compared with experimental data. Murgia et al.
wave conditions and the effect of steam plasma to coal [23] investigated a Wellman-Galusha updraft coal gasifier.
gasification were discussed. According to results, it is found Transient behavior of the gasifier and the variation of the ef-
that the coal gasification with steam plasma has some ad- ficiency were investigated in a 2D model with the
vantages when compared to conventional gasification. Hong
et al. [13] investigated coal gasification with microwave water
vapor plasma. Two different plasma sources and different
plasma types were compared for the suitability in gasification
processes.
In the numerical modeling of gasification process, many
modeling codes were used or developed. Galeno et al. [14]
modeled the integration of the plasma gasification and SOFC
fuel cell application in a 1D code. Preciado [15] investigated
coal gasification with Aspen commercial code. Hcoalgen and
dcoalgit codes were used for boundary conditions for enthalpy
and density. According to the results, the production of
hydrogen depends on the ratio of oxygen fed to reactor with
carbon in the coal. For the ratios greater than 0.64, increasing
the oxygen flow rate decreases the hydrogen production.
Ismail et al. [16] investigated the modeling of an updraft
biomass gasification reactor. High temperature water vapor
fed into the reactor was investigated for five different mass
flow rates and temperatures. According to the 2D numerical
analysis, the results are in compliance with the experimental
results. Mandl et al. [17] modeled the gasification of wood
particles in an updraft fixed bed gasification reactor using the
EulerianeEulerian modeling behavior. The effects of the fuel/ Fig. 2 e 3D gasification reactor geometry.
air ratio on the efficiency were investigated with a 1D

Table 1 e Kinetic Parameters of reactions.

Reactions Ar Er br
30
Volatile 1:127CO 0:021H2 S 0:236CH4 0:125H2 O 0:576H2 0:018N 1  10 100 0
C < S > 0:5O2 CO 1.13  102 1.2  108 0
C < S > CO2 2CO 6.27  105 2.83  108 0
C < S > H2 O CO H2 4.18  104 2.52  108 0
CO 0:5O2 CO2 2.239  1012 1.674  108 0
H2 0:5O2 H2 O 6.8  1015 1.67  108 1
CO H2 O CO2 H2 2.34  1010 2.883  108 0
CO2 H2 CO H2 O 2.2  107 1.9  108 0
CH4 O2 CO2 2H2 0 4.4  1011 1.25  108 0
CH4 H2 0 CO 3H2 8  107 2.51  108 0
CO 3H2 CH4 H2 O 5.12  1014 2.73  104 0
2586 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 2 5 8 3 e2 5 9 1

EulerianeEulerian particle-velocity interaction approach.

Messerle et al. [24] investigated 1D analysis of the coal gasifi-
cation process with plasma. A commercial 1D simulation
program, Plasma-coal, was used during simulations. The ef-
fect of air and oxygen plasmas is investigated respectively.
According to simulation results, the biggest energy output
obtained from oxygen-coal gasification process. Zhang et al.
[25] investigated the steam plasma gasification of the munic-
ipal solid waste (MSW). The effect of steam and air gasifica-
tion, and equivalence ratio were discussed. Messerle et al. [26]
investigated coal plasma gasification via thermodynamic
Fig. 3 e Connection of water vapor feeding unit (top view). calculation code, TERRA. Also, another study was carried out
in 0D [27]. It is obvious that modeling has been used as an
important tool in order to determine the gasification charac-
teristics, syngas composition, and pressureevelocity in-
teractions inside the gasifier. In the literature, there are
limited numbers of 3D plasma gasification modeling papers
are available and most of them are focused on municipal solid
wastes (MSW) or biomasses.
In this study, a 3D modeling of a downdraft coal gasifier
with a capacity of 10 kWel power microwave plasma is simu-
lated. In the simulations, ANSYS FLUENT is used. Apart from
the literature, a novel design is simulated in order to obtain
the swirl effect and increase the residence time for coal par-
ticles inside the reactor. Plasma inlet conditions are deter-
mined via experimental studies from previous works of the
research group. In addition, FLUENT is able to model the
plasma conditions with the MHD (MagnetoHydroDynamic)
module. However, it was experienced that the integration of
the MHD module with chemical reactions, especially for the
Fig. 4 e Flow domain of the down-draft gasifier. ionization, has some problems. Therefore, experimental data
are used for the plasma inlet conditions into the gasifier. A
grid independency study is also performed. In the analyses,
Table 2 e Proximate and ultimate analysis of coal. Eularian-Lagrangian approach is used. For the reactions Finite
Rate Chemistry/Eddy Dissipation model is selected. Temper-
Proximate analysis (as received) [wt.%]
Moisture 25.22
ature, molar percentages of the species (CO, H2, CO2, H2O), and
Volatile matter 32.83 velocity results are obtained for different planes.
Fixed carbon 23.55
Ash 18.4
Ultimate analysis (dry basis) [wt.%]
C 39.48
Plasma coal gasifier design and numerical
H 2.95 modeling
N 0.59
O 12.83 Even though there are other types of gasifiers currently
S 0.53 available in the market, downdraft gasifiers have some ad-
Lower heating value [kJ/kg] 14,248 vantages over the other types. The proposed system will be a
part of a pilot project in which a small scale electricity gen-
eration is considered. In order to use the syngas in a com-
Table 3 e Inlet mass flow rates and temperatures. bustion chamber of a gas turbine or an internal combustion
engines, the syngas has to be treated. Therefore, the outlet
Feeding region Mass flow rate (kg/s) Temperature (K)
temperature comes into prominence in gas cleaning. As is
Coal feeding 0.029 550
known, the outlet temperature of the syngas in a moving
Air plasma feeding 0.0087 1173
Water vapor feeding 0.0029 673
(fixed) bed is significantly lower than the fluidized bed or
entrained flow gasifiers. In addition, moving bed gasifiers are

Table 4 e Species by volume and the temperature at the outlet cross-section.

CO (%) H2 (%) CO2 (%) H2O (%) CH4 (%) N2 (%) Temperature (K)
Case 1 37.2 18.4 2.6 15.4 5.46 20.94 1381
Case 2 37.2 18.38 2.5 15.2 5.36 21.36 1347
Case 3 37.5 18.48 2.6 15 5.49 20.93 1386
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 2 5 8 3 e2 5 9 1 2587

Fig. 5 e (a) CO%, (b) CO2%, (c) H2O%, (d) O2%, (e) H2%, (f) Temperature results on middle plane and inlet planes.

capable to be operated with higher coal particle sizes. There-
fore, a downdraft gasifier is selected for the pilot project.
In the design section of the gasifier, in order to obtain the
swirl effect and observe the increase in the residence time of
the coal particles inside the reactor, plasma is fed into the
reactor circumferentially. The technical drawing of the
reactor is shown in Fig. 1. Coal particles are fed from the top of
the reactor and are gasified with the air plasma. It is expected
that the combustion zone will occur through the plasma inlet
area. Then, gasification reactions take place due to low O2
content. Syngas is taken from the bottom of the reactor with
an annular pipe. Liquid water is used to cool down the syngas
with this annular configuration. Ash is collected at the bottom
of the reactor, under the grate as shown in Fig. 1. Liquid water
is used to quench the ash in this part of the reactor. An
insulation material is used to minimize the heat losses to the
environment.
In the numerical analysis, SIMPLE algorithm is selected for
velocity-pressure coupling. Energy, momentum, and continuity
equations are solved with pressure based solver. Turbulence
variables are calculated with the k- turbulence model. DO
(Discrete Ordinates) radiation model is selected for radiation
modeling and WSGGM (domain-based weighted-sum-of-gray-
gases) model is chosen for gas phase radiative properties. The
interaction between gas phase and discrete phase is followed
by the Eulerian-Lagrangian approach and the gravity force is
considered in the simulations. For the Eulerian-Lagrangian
approach, the turbulence values, stemming from the fluid
phase movement, are transferred to the particles and their ef-
fects on the particles are calculated. In order to maintain the
2588 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 2 5 8 3 e2 5 9 1

Fig. 7 e CO2 mole fraction distribution (isosurface).

Fig. 6 e Temperature profile of the gasifier for different

areas inside the reactor.

reactions continuity, particle calculations are repeated every 10

iterations. The Finite Rate Chemistry/Eddy Dissipation model is
selected for the combustion modeling. In this approach, Finite
Rate Chemistry and Eddy Dissipation models are used together,
Fig. 8 e CO mole fraction vectors.
which enables to control the enthalpy values of the species and
calculates the turbulence kinetic energy, respectively. Enthalpy
calculations are based on Eq. (1).
in Eq. (2). A1 and E are pre-exponential factor and activation
kf ;r Ar Tbr eEr =RT (1) energy, respectively.

where Ar is the pre-exponential factor, Er is the activation k A1 eE=RT (2)

energy (J/kmol), br is the temperature constant, T is the gas
temperature (K), and R is the gas constant (J/kmolK). Eleven
reactions are used in order to model the gasification process, Geometry and properties
given in Table 1, with the pre-exponential factors and the
activation energies. The single rate model is used for devola- The 3D plasma gasification reactor solid model is shown in
tilization modeling. Devolatilization kinetic equation is given Fig. 2, which mainly has three sections. The first section is the
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 2 5 8 3 e2 5 9 1
Fig. 9 e Pressure contours inside the gasifier.
coal gasification reactor and all of the reactions and phase
changes for the gasification occur in this section. The second
section is the plasmatron where air plasma is introduced. The
third section is the water vapor inlet and it is shown in red
color (in the web version) in Fig. 2. It can be noted that syngas
is cooled down with this annular design. The water vapor
feeding section is shown in Fig. 3. The water vapor feeding
region inside the gasifier is designed circumferentially as
shown.
Fluid domain for the simulation is shown in Fig. 4. High
temperature air plasma is fed from the plasma inlet zone. Coal
is fed from the top of the gasifier. The water vapor inlet section
is designed under the plasma inlet section. The locations of
these inlets are determined from the expected gasification
and combustion zones. Syngas outlet is located at the bottom
of the reactor. The proximate and ultimate analysis of coal are
shown in Table 2. The lower heating value of the coal is
calculated to be 14,248 kJ/kg. Coal samples are obtained from
Soma where gasifier pilot project will be installed.
Table 3 shows the mass flow rates and temperatures for
each inlet section. Water vapor/coal and air/coal ratios are
selected as 0.1 and 0.3 by mass, respectively.
Grid independency study
Grid independency has to be performed for each numerical
analysis. The results are directly affected by mesh number
2589
Fig. 10 e Velocity vectors in the gasifier.
and mesh quality. Therefore, a mesh study is performed in
order to obtain accurate results. The simulations are repeated
for three different mesh numbers and the most appropriate
mesh number is selected for optimization studies. In the
simulations, the flow domain is meshed with 1,300,000 (Case
1), 2,000,000 (Case 2), and 3,200,000 (Case 3) cells. The variation
of species by volume and average temperature values are
selected for the decision of the independency.
Results
The area weighted average results of temperature and species
at the outlet of the reactor shown in Table 4. According to the
results the variation of the species is found to be less than 1%,
which means that Case 1 with 1,300,000 mesh number can be
used for further analysis.
According to the results of the species, the cold gas effi-
ciency of the gasifier has to be calculated with Eq. (3). The
lower heating value of the coal is 14,248 kJ/kg. In addition, the
mass flow rates of the CO, H2, and CH4 are calculated to be
0.01232, 0.000439, and 0.001016 kg/s, respectively. The cold gas
efficiency and the lower heating value the syngas are calcu-
lated to be 55.3% and 8997,62 kJ/kg, respectively.
P
m_ product LHVproduct
Cold gas efficiency : hc (3)
m_ coal LHVcoal
Fig. 5 shows the mole fractions of the species and the
temperature distribution on the middle plane and the plasma
2590 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 2 5 8 3 e2 5 9 1

and water vapor inlet planes. CO mole fraction is given in

Fig. 5(a). The highest mole fraction inside the reactor is ob-
tained at the top of the reactor. It has a direct connection with
gasification and combustions zones. CO2 mole fraction, given
in Fig. 5(b), shows the combustion area. It should be noted that
combustion takes place at the plasma inlet cross-section,
where CO mole fraction is the lowest. Furthermore, Fig. 5(b)
shows the lowest CO mole fraction in the middle of the plane,
where gasification reactions takes place. Fig. 5(d) shows the
mole fraction of the O2. It also shows the combustion zone,
where most of the O2 is consumed by combustion reactions.
As stated before, H2O is fed into the gasifier from the lower
section. The swirl effect is obtained for both plasma and water
vapor inlets. The highest H2 mole fraction is obtained at the
top of the reactor. However, at the outlet cross-section, it is
found to be 18% approximately. Fig. 5(f) shows the gasifier
temperature profile, which is around 1300 K through the
reactor. Fig. 6(a) shows the temperature profiles for different
areas inside the reactor. These areas are shown in Fig. 6(b). It is
clear that the temperature profiles are approximately the
same at the bottom of the reactor. The highest difference is
obtained in the upper part of the reactor, where Line 1 has the
lowest temperature value. Fig. 5(b) supports this result where
the highest CO2 mole fraction due to combustion occurred
between Line 2 and 3.
In order to identify the combustion zone, CO2 production is
investigated in detail. Fig. 7 shows the isosurface for the CO2
zone inside the reactor. It is found that combustion takes
place circumferentially in the region of plasma inlet and the
swirl effect is obtained due to the inlet position of the plasma
fed. Fig. 8 shows the CO mole fraction in vectorial form with
respect to the velocities. It is obvious that CO moves to the top
of the gasifier and the highest mole fraction obtained in this
volume. It can be explained by the temperature difference due
to combustion zone. In the middle of the gasifier, CO moves
downward, where gasification reactions take place.
Fig. 9 shows the pressure contours inside the gasifier. The
lowest pressure is found at the outlet cross section of the
syngas. Fig. 10 supports the pressure contours inside the
gasifier with velocity vectors. It is obvious that the product
syngas is removed from the bottom of the gasifier with an
average velocity of 8 m/s. Fig. 11 (a) and (b) shows the tem-
perature isosurfaces in order to determine temperature dis-
tribution inside the gasifier. It should be noted that the
temperature of the combustion zone and coal feeding zone is
above 1400 K. As a conclusion, the great part of the gasifier is
kept above 1250 K which is suitable for the gasification.

Conclusions

In this study, a novel downdraft plasma gasifier is investi-

gated. The study deals with detailed 3D numerical analyses of
the gasifier. In the numerical analyses, SIMPLE algorithm is
used for velocity-pressure coupling and k- turbulence model
is selected. In order to obtain accurate results, the effects of
Fig. 11 e Temperature distribution regions; a) 1250 K and b) the radiation heat transfer are modeled via the DO radiation
1400 K. model. The interaction between the gas phase and the
discrete phase is followed by the Eulerian-Lagrangian
approach. The Finite Rate Chemistry/Eddy Dissipation model
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 2 5 8 3 e2 5 9 1
is selected for the combustion modeling. In order to increase
the residence time, plasma and water vapor inlets are intro-
duced circumferentially. A grid independency study is also
performed. Temperature, molar percentages of the species
(CO, H2, CO2, H2O, CH4), and velocity results are obtained for
different planes. According to the results, 18.4% H2 and 37.2%
CO mole fractions are obtained at the outlet cross-section of
the gasifier. The temperature distribution showed that the
gasifier can be operated approximately 1300 K. The cold gas
efficiency of the gasifier is found to be 55.3%, which will be
increased with an optimization study in terms of oxygen/coal
and steam/coal ratios.
Acknowledgment
The authors gratefully acknowledge TUBITAK, General
Directorate of Turkish Coal, and Anadolu Plasma Technology
Center for funding this study through the TUBITAK 113M104
project.
Nomenclature
Symbols
Ar Pre-exponential Factor
Er Activation Energy, J/kmol
T Gas Temperature, K
R Gas Constant, J/kmolK
A1 Exponential Factor
Greek symbols
br Temperature Constant
Subscripts
r Reactant
1 Solid Particle factor
references
[1] Qui J, He X, Sun T, Zhao Z, Zhou Y, Guo S, et al. Coal
gasification in steam and air medium under plasma
conditions: a preliminary study. Fuel Process Technol
2004;85:969e82.
[2] Rutberg P, Kuznetsov V, Serba E, Popov S, Surov,
Nakonechnyu G, et al. Novel three-phase steameair plasma
torch for gasification of high-caloric waste. Appl Energy
2013;108:505e14.
[3] Kalinci Y, Hepbasli A, Dincer E. Exergoeconomic analysis and
performance assessment of hydrogen and power production
using different gasification systems. Fuel 2012;102:187e98.
[4] Byun Y, Cho M, Chung J, Namkung W, Lee H, Jang S, et al.
Hydrogen recovery from the thermal plasma gasification of
solid waste. J Hazard Mater 2011;190:317e23.
[5] Yoon S, Yun Y, Seo M, Kim Y, Ra H, Lee J. Hydrogen and
syngas production from glycerol through microwave plasma
gasification. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2013;38:14559e67.
[6] Han J, Kim H. The reduction and control technology of tar
during biomass gasification/pyrolysis. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2006;12:397e416.
2591
[7] Tang L, Huang H. Biomass gasification using capacitively
coupled RF plasma technology. Fuel 2005;84:2055e63.
[8] Sekiguchi H, Orimo T. Gasification of polyethylene using
steam plasma generated by microwave discharge. Thin Solid
Films 2004;457:44e7.
[9] Ksawery K, John G, Gorm P, Emielda Y. The composition and
dissolution in citric Extractants of ash from the thermal
gasification of pig manure. Chem Eng J 2010;163:1e9.
[10] Lemmens B, Elslander H, Vanderreydt I, Peys K, Diels L,
Oosterlinck M, et al. Assessment of plasma gasification of
high caloric waste streams. Waste Manag 2007;27:1562e9.
[11] Yoon S, Lee J. Hydrogen-rich syngas production through coal
and charcoal gasification using microwave steam and air
plasma torch. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2012;37:17093e100.
[12] Shin D, Hong Y, Lee S, Kim Y, Cho C, Ma S, et al. A pure steam
microwave plasma torch: gasification of powdered coal in
the plasma. Surf Coatings Technol 2013;228:520e3.
[13] Hong Y, Lee S, Shin D, Kim Y, Lee B, Cho S, et al. Syngas
production from gasification of brown coal in a microwave
torch plasma. Energy 2012;47:36e40.
[14] Galeno G, Minutillo M, Perna A. From waste to electricity
through integrated plasma gasification/fuel cell (IPGFC)
system. Int J hydrogen energy 201;36:1692e1701.
[15] Preciado Jorge E, Ortiz-Martinez John J, Gonzalez-Rivera Juan
C. Simulation of synthesis gas production from steam
oxygen gasification of colombian coal using aspen Plus.
Energies 2012;5:4924e40.
[16] Ismail TM, Abd El-Salam M. A numerical model simulation
for an updraft gasifier using high temperature steam. World
Acad Sci Eng Technol Int J Mech Aerosp Manuf Ind Sci Eng
2014;8:5.
[17] Mandl C, Obernberger I, Biedermann F. Modelling of an
updraft fixed-bed gasifier operated with softwood pellets.
Fuel 2010;89:3795e806.
[18] Che D, Li S, Yang W, Jia J, Zheng N. Application of numerical
simulation on biomass gasification. In: International
Conference on Future Electrical Power and Energy Systems;
2012. p. 49e54.
[19] Cornejo P, Farias O. Mathematical modeling of coal
gasification in a fluidized bed reactor using an Eulerian
granular description. Int J Chem React Eng 2011:1e30.
[20] Zhang Q, Dor L, Yang W, Blasiak W. Eulerian model for
municipal solid waste gasification in a fixed-bed plasma
gasification melting reactor. Energy Fuels 2011:4129e37.
[21] Vicente W, Ochoa S, Aguillon J, Barrios E. An Eulerian model
for the simulation of an entrained flow coal gasifier. Appl
Therm Eng 2003;23:1993e2008.
[22] Gerber S, Behrendt F, Oevermann M. An Eulerian modeling
approach of wood Gasification in A Bubbling fluidized bed
reactor using char As bed material. Fuel 2010;89:2903e17.
[23] Murgia S, Vascellari M, Cau G. Comprehensive CFD model of
an air-blown coal-fired updraft gasifier. Fuel
2012;101:129e38.
[24] Matveev Igor B, Messerle Vladimir E, Ustimenko Alexander B.
Plasma gasification of coal in different oxidants. IEEE Trans
Plasma Sci 2008;36(6):2947e54.
[25] Zhang Q, Dor L, Biswas A, Yang W, Blasiak W. Modeling of
steam plasma gasification for municipal solid waste. Fuel
Process Technol 2013:546e54.
[26] Messerle VE, Ustimenko AB, Lavrichshev OA. Comparative
study of coal plasma gasification: simulation and experiment
Fuel 2016;164:172e9.
[27] Matveev IB, Messerle VE. Ustimenko AB investigation of
plasma-aided bituminous coal gasification. IEEE Trans
Plasma Sci 2009;37(4):580e5.