Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
ScienceDirect

Energy Reports 7 (2021) 256–269

www.elsevier.com/locate/egyr

Tmrees, EURACA, 28 to 30 May 2021, Athens, Greece

Modeling and simulation of a fixed bed gasification process for

thermal treatment of municipal solid waste and agricultural residues
Matheus Oliveiraa , Ana Ramosb , Eliseu Monteiroc , Abel Rouboab,d ,∗
a ECT/UTAD, School of Science and Technology, University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal
b LAETA-INEGI, Institute of Science and Innovation in Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal
c LAETA-FCTUC, Faculty of Sciences and Technology of the University of Coimbra, R. Sílvio Lima, 3030-790 Coimbra, Portugal
d MEAM - School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Pennsylvania, PA 19104-6391, USA

Received 24 July 2021; accepted 28 July 2021

Abstract
This work aims to develop a numerical simulation model of the combined and integrated production process of combustion
and gasification, for a synthesis gas production system (SYNGAS), fed with municipal solid waste (MSW), agricultural and
forestry waste. For this purpose, the EMSO software (Environment for Modeling, Simulation, and Optimization) was used in
the formulation of a fixed-bed gasifier with the co-current flow. The model is developed based on mathematical calculations
of partial differential equations, being one-dimensional (1-D), and considers chemical kinetics, diffusivity, and heat and mass
transfer phenomena. Its validation is based on data available in the literature (variables, initial and operational conditions). As
a result, a simulation of a gasifier was obtained, capable of predicting the production of Syngas, having a good correlation
with the published experimental results. The general data obtained were in agreement, with high consistency for the analysis
of the pilot plant in the laboratory and semi-industrial scale for solid waste processing. However, detailing the behavior of
the gasifier is essential to maximize the efficiency of the process. For that, the numerical simulation tested several operational
parameters, such as air–fuel ratio and gasifier temperature for instance.
⃝c 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Tmrees, EURACA, 2021.

Keywords: Gasification; Syngas; Solid residues; Circular economy; Modeling; Fixed bed

1. Introduction
Waste management should increasingly be a priority in adopting public policies, whereas a more efficient
management of natural resources and the consequent reduction of associated environmental impacts would create
business opportunities, also promoting new jobs [1,2]. The European Commission and other regulatory bodies
enforce circular economy as a tool to increase sustainability, having set challenging ambitions such as achieving
carbon neutrality, promoting an efficient use of resources, and keeping them in the economy at their highest value for
∗ Corresponding author at: MEAM - School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Pennsylvania, PA 19104-6391, USA.
E-mail address: rouboa@utad.pt (A. Rouboa).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.07.124
2352-4847/⃝ c 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Tmrees, EURACA, 2021.
M. Oliveira, A. Ramos, E. Monteiro et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 256–269

longer [3–5]. Population increase is directly related to the generation of municipal solid waste (MSW). Therefore,
under the circular economy view, it is essential to reintegrate waste into the value chain, reducing the impacts caused
to the environment, guaranteeing human and animal health [6]. Currently, the most common methods of solid waste
disposal are landfills and incineration. However, there are more adequate techniques to deal with this problem, such
as gasification, the conversion of waste into energy, and synthesis gas generation. In other words, this operational
application would have the dual benefit of reducing the amount of waste deposited in landfills while recovering its
heat, which may be used to produce electricity. This synthetic gas can, subsequently, be converted into electrical
energy, playing a vital role to meet the future global energy demand [7–9]. In comparison to other techniques
(such as combustion and pyrolysis), gasification requires lower temperatures and produces less pollutants. Still, the
worldwide gasification of solid waste is not used to its full capacity [10].
Gasification is defined as a method in which the raw material molecules are broken down into their elements at
high temperatures (between 500 and 1400 ◦ C) and atmospheric or elevated pressures (up to 33 bar) [11]. Gasifying
agents such as steam, air, O2 , CO2 or mixtures thereof can be utilized in the process [12–18]. Exposure of the
raw material to the sub-stoichiometric level of oxygen leads to the production of synthetic gas mainly composed
of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, methane, carbon dioxide, branched hydrocarbons, tar and a negligible amount of
nitrogen [19]. This gas has applications such as combustion in engines for the production of electric energy, heat
generation, raw material in chemical synthesis, among others [15], in similar systems to the one presented in Fig. 1.
Tar, which can be categorized as primary, secondary alkyl, tertiary and condensed tertiary, is a dark viscous liquid
consisting mainly of aromatic hydrocarbons from a single ring to benzene units also formed in the process [20].

Fig. 1. 3D modeling of the waste processing plant.

Pyrolysis is the first step of gasification. Here, the high temperature destroys a combination of organic molecules,
causing the organic compounds contained in the residues to detach and volatilize. When steam enters the processing
chamber, these components are converted into synthesis gas. Then this gas is cleaned, a mixture of CO, CO2 and H2
being achieved by the steam reforming reaction. Other residual components that do not volatilize are transformed
into a molten state and then cooled to form a glassy state, in the case of plasma gasification. The vitrified residue,
has a chemical stability providing environmental benefits, as it has high resistance to the leaching of dangerous
components, which adhere to glass, and has interesting downstream applications [17].
Syngas is mainly composed of carbon monoxide and hydrogen (CO and H2 , respectively). Currently, the use
of gasifiers is not only restricted to use in the chemical and petrochemical industries but also has a wide range of
applications in many other fields (industrial and domestic). According to Gómez [21], there are four basic reasons
to gasify biomass for energy purposes: (1) it is a natural and renewable resource, with high availability and relative
ease of use; (2) it represents a renewable and safe source of energy that is not adjusted to changes in prices and
supply in the foreign market; (3) its use allows developing countries to decrease their external dependence on oil;
(4) from an energy point of view, it is a clean fuel when compared to fossils. All energy sources have limitations,
nevertheless biomass is a relatively low-cost and clean energy source, but its production is limited, above all, by
economic factors [10,22,23]. In addition, it is noteworthy that biomass gasification can be considered a carbon-
neutral technique [24,25], legally complying with pollutant emissions [16,26], and accounting for high compaction
rates through gasification, that is, reduction of mass and volume of solid waste [27].
257
M. Oliveira, A. Ramos, E. Monteiro et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 256–269

A gasifier is a very complex system, not only due to the operational conditions but also to the chemical
reactions entailed [8], therefore the use of efficient numerical models is highly necessary, to predict the final output
as well as optimize the system design [7]. Mathematical computational models can provide quick and accurate
insights, by simulating a variety of experimental conditions (temperature, vapor/biomass ratio, catalyst type, mixture
composition, among others) before applying them in the real facilities. Therefore, sensitivity analysis and parametric
optimization might be readily performed, leading to considerable savings in time and resources. Computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) is one of the preferred numerical approaches for gasification systems [22,23,28–30]. Municipal
waste and forest/agricultural residues have been massively studied, different operational parameters being reported
in the most diverse references [9,18,24–26]. CFD enables the development of mathematical models such as kinetic
and thermodynamic equilibrium models [16,17,22,23,29,31].
IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) is a Rankine cycle process that combines the production and
purification of syngas with its use in a turbine to produce clean, affordable energy. The integration of this energy
conversion process allows the use of resources and energy generation with high efficiency and very low levels of
pollution. In addition, the IGCC system is quite flexible in terms of raw materials, as it can convert almost any type
of carbon-based feedstock into useful chemicals and energy [32]. The first step of the IGCC is partial oxidation
using a gasifier, where residual moisture is removed from the raw material. In the second stage, the gasification
stage, the conversion of solid and liquid waste into gaseous products takes place, eliminating the volatiles, which
may be used in gas turbines. The turbine combustor is utilized to completely oxidize the previously produced gas,
after purification to remove particles (sulfur compounds and nitrogen oxides).
This work aims at modeling the gasification reactor, developing a one-dimensional model to simulate the
gasification of agro-industrial waste in a fixed bed. The numerical results obtained were validated according to an
experimental dataset of a semi-industrial fixed bed gasifier [10,33]. Simulation of operating parameters can predict
the effect of moisture content, air–fuel ratio and gasifier temperature, among others. This model proved to be very
effective in predicting a different set of responses for each situation, considering that the model can be used for
different raw materials, such as MSW, agricultural and forestry residues or mixtures.

2. Model description
The combined gasification and combustion technology for the thermal treatment of waste, seen in Fig. 1, was
simulated using a computational model. Therefore, the description in the next sections relates to this system.
In this study, the operational parameters simulated by the model considered only the steady-state and the primary
airflow (102.4 Nm3 /h). This flux corresponds to ϕ = 0.33 considering the oxygen consumption for the complete
combustion of biomass equal to 1.57 kgO2 /kgB , as seen in [10,34,35]. The reactor core is a conventional fixed bed
downstream gasification reactor. The reactor is a fixed-bed gas cylinder with a kinetic (1-D) model developed for
the fusion and gasification process. For kinetic modeling, the reactor is divided into four sections and the process
of each section is studied separately (Fig. 2).
The dimensions adapted for simulating the gasifier were the same used in [10], cross-sectional area of 1.95 m
and height of 0.63 m2 . However, they can undergo changes and evaluations as to the possible effects in determining
the residue drying zone, the loss of volatile substances, the injection of gasification agent and the generation of fuel
gas. These processes characterize the four theoretical zones in the reactor from top to bottom: (1) drying zone (>
150 ◦ C), (2) pyrolysis zone (150–700 ◦ C), (3) oxidation zone (700–1500 ◦ C) and (4) reduction zone (800–1100 ◦ C).
These four areas are the classic and idealized phases reported in literature [34].
In the drying zone, the residual moisture that enters the reactor decreases, due to the contact with the hot exhaust
gas at the top of the reactor, drying the feedstock. According to [36], the evaporation temperature at the pressure
of atmospheric residual moisture is assumed to be 120 ◦ C. The behavior of the temperature gradient in the gasifier
was modeled taking into account the losses to the medium and the energy needed to perform the heating seen in
Fig. 3.
In the pyrolysis zone (Fig. 2), the process is then carried out using a set of mass balance equations, removing
the moisture in the dry MSW feed used in this simulation. Before starting the pyrolysis process, the MSW must be
considered as being just a solid, excluding the effects of liquefaction. The biomass pyrolysis process starts at 200 ◦ C
and ends at 500 ◦ C. When increasing the temperature to more than 500 ◦ C, the primary tar changes becoming gas
and secondary tar.
258
M. Oliveira, A. Ramos, E. Monteiro et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 256–269

Fig. 2. Process diagram and temperature variation.

Source: Adapted from [20].

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of the model at EMSO [18].

259
M. Oliveira, A. Ramos, E. Monteiro et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 256–269

Finally, in the gasification step, thermal decomposition happens, producing gaseous agents (H2 O and O2 ).
Depending on the profile of the studied sample and operating temperature inside the gasifier, the reactor is divided
into two regions: high temperature (HTZ) and low temperature (LTR), which vary according to a temperature
gradient. As a result, the organic gasification process of the MSW is carried out operating at a temperature of
about 800 ◦ C–1200 ◦ C, the gasification process is complete, and the organic portion is converted into syngas.

2.1. Thermodynamics

Numerical gasification simulations include the calculation of continuity, heat transport and diffusivity equations.
In the current model, complex phenomena, such as chemical reactions, must be simulated in a simplified way,
disregarding the gas–solid coupled flow that is difficult to implement, such as in turbulent conditions. The initial
stage of the gasification process starts with the decomposition region (pyrolysis) and continues with the combustion
region, seen in Fig. 2. The relevant reactions considered in these processes are shown in Table 1 [37]:

Table 1. Chemical reactions involved in gasification process [10,37].

Reaction Chemical reaction Process
Solid phase
km
m H2 O(l) −→ H2 O(g) Evaporation
k p1
( p1 )a B −−→ 0, 7389C + 0, 1182CO + 0, 2266CO2 + 0, 0345H2 + 0, 0788CH4 + Primary pyrolysis
0, 4581H2 O + 0, 03941T
k p2
( p2 )a T −−→ 0, 3663CO + 0, 4488CO2 + 0, 1848CH4 Secondary pyrolysis
Gaseous phase
k c1
(c1)a CH0,7393 O1,264 + 0, 0528O2 −→ CO + 0, 3696H2 O Tar combustion
k c2
c2 CH4 + 1, 5O2 −→ CO + 2H2 O Methane combustion
kc3
c3 2CO + O2 −→ 2CO2 Combustion of carbon monoxide
k c4
c4 2H2 + O2 −→ 2H2 O Hydrogen combustion
kwg
wg CO + H2 O −−→ CO2 + H2 Water–gas shift reaction
Heterogeneous reactions
k g1
g1 C + CO2 −−→ 2CO Boudouard reaction
k g2
g2 C + 2H2 −−→ CH2 Methanation reaction
k g3
g3 C + H2 O −−→ CO + H2 Water vapor gasification
k g5
c5 C + O2 −−→ CO2 Combustion of carbonaceous material
a Calculated from Font et al. [38] e Di Blasi (2000) [39].

The mass balance for the system can be represented by global balance expressions and components with terms
advective, accumulation, diffusive and generation. According to [10], 11 chemical species are considered, of these
3 solid components: biomass (B), moisture (M) and residual carbon (C), and 8 gaseous: tar (T), water vapor (H2 O),
oxygen (O2 ), nitrogen (N2 ), carbon monoxide and dioxide (CO and CO2 , respectively), hydrogen (H2 ) and methane
(CH4 ). The equations and reactions followed are (1)–(29).
Balance for the solid phase
N
∂ρi ∂(ρi Us ) ∑ rs
+ = vi, j R j (1)
∂t ∂z j=1

where N is the total number of species, υi the number of moles of the species, and Ri the chemical potential of the
species i. Given i = B, M, C and j = m, p1
With except N2 , the balance for the gas phase:
Nr s
∂ρi ∂(ρi Us ) ∂ ∂ xi
( ) ∑
ε + = Dρg + Mωi vi, j R j + ωi (2)
∂t ∂z ∂z ∂z j=1
260
M. Oliveira, A. Ramos, E. Monteiro et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 256–269

In which i = T, O2 , CO2 , H2 , H2 O, CH4 , CO and j = m, c1 –c5 , g1 –g3 , ωg . The term ωi represents the number of
gaseous species i produced by a chemical reaction in the solid phase, represented in Table 1. It must be obtained
from the following formula [40,41];
Nr s
∑
ωi =i vi, j R j (3)
j=1

Where i = B, M, C e j = p1 , p2 .
The mass concentration of nitrogen (N2 ) is calculated by difference of the total quantity ρg , mass concentration
of the gas phase:
∑
ρN2 = ρg − ρi (4)
i̸= N2

In which ρg is given by the law of ideal gases:

P Mωg = ρg RTg (5)
Overall balance for the solid phase:
N N
δUs ∑ rs
cs ∑
ρs = vi, j R j (6)
δz i=1 j=1

Continuity equation:
N N Ncg
∂ρg ∂(ρg Ug ) ∑ rs
cs ∑ ∑
ε + = vi, j Mωi R j + (1 − vc, p1 )R p1 + vi, p2 R p2 (7)
∂t ∂z i=1 j=1 i=1

Where i = T, O2 , CO2 , H2 , H2 O, CH4 , CO, N2 e j = m, c5 , g1 –g3 , ωg . The terms on the right side represent the
production rates of all gaseous species.
Energy balance
Energy balances consist of the terms of accumulation, heat by conduction and advection, heat from chemical
reactions, and heat exchanged between the phases and the wall, as shown below:
Energy balance for the solid phase:
Nr s
∂(ρs Hs ) ∂ ∗ ∂ Ts ∂(Us ρs Hs ) ∑
( )
= λs + − R j ∆H j − Q sg − Q sω (8)
∂t ∂z ∂z ∂z j=1

Where i = B, M, C e j = c5 , g1 -g3 , p1 , m.
Energy balance for the gaseous phase
Nr s
∂(ρg Hg ) ∂ ∗ ∂ Tg ∂(Ug ρg Hg ) ∑
( )
ε = λg + − R j ∆H j − Q sg − Q sω (9)
∂t ∂z ∂z ∂z j=1

Where i = T , O2 , CO2 , H2 , H2 O, CH4 , CO, N2 e j = c1 –c4 , ωg , p2 .

The heat exchanged between the solid and gaseous (Q sg ) phases and the heat exchanged from the wall to the
solid (Q sw ) and gaseous (Q gw ) phases are given by:
Q sg = h sg υ p (Ts − Tg ) (10)
4h sw
Q sw = (Ts − Tw ) (11)
dr
4h gw
Q gw = (Tg − Tw ) (12)
dr
Reaction rates
Drying:
( )
−E 1
r1 = 1 − αg A1 ex p ρm
( )
(13)
RTs
261
M. Oliveira, A. Ramos, E. Monteiro et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 256–269

To assign the values of the equated parameters, data from references [42–48] were used. Throughout a
chemical combustion reaction, a wide variety of intermediate reactions occur, due to the influence of several
factors, including the diffusion of reagents, the breaking of the binding of solid compounds, as well as the
interactions between the streams and the flow regime. For this reason, several previous models have been combined
into a single Kinetic/Diffusion Surface Reaction Model to represent the effects of free radical polymerization
[17,22,23,28,30,49,50].
PO
Rc = 1 2 1 (14)
Kr
+ Kd
5.06 × 10−7 Ts + Tg 0.75
( )
Kd = × (15)
dp 2
[ ]
Ec
K r = Ac Ts ex p (16)
RTs

2.2. Model assumptions

In developing the proposed model, the kinetics of the main reactions involved and the phenomena of heat and
mass transfer between solid and gaseous compounds and the walls of the gasifier are considered. The developed
model is based on the stationary model proposed by [47]. They simulate the mass and energy conservation equations,
so that the terms generators, consumers and accumulators are described by the physical relationships (heat and mass
transfer) and chemical (kinetics).
Model input parameters are: reactor dimensions, operating conditions, phase inlet temperatures, pressure,
concentrations, flows, and reactor wall temperature. Some of the estimated variables are: gradient temperature,
pressure, the concentration of species and phase flows.
The following restrictions were adopted in the model:

• Behavior of the gas phase as an ideal gas.

• Co-current flow only with the solid and gas phases involved;
• Dynamic and one-dimensional system (1-D model);
• Ballast wall as sole source/heat sink;

From the co-current flow of the solid and gaseous phases along the reactor bed, the following processes are
considered:
1. Drying of biomass;
2. Devolatilization of biomass and thermal degradation of tar;
3. Carbonaceous material combusts and gasifies;
4. Combustion of volatilized species;
5. Resistance to extra-particle mass transfer;
6. Transfer of mass through the bed between the solid and gaseous (moisture) phases;
7. The reactor wall and the phases transfer heat to each other;
8. Heat transfer by radiation;
9. Absence of thermal equilibrium between the solid and gaseous phases;
10. Variable flows of the solid and gaseous phases

2.3. EMSO modeling

The model diagram created in EMSO can be seen in Fig. 3. Waste enters the system through the waste stream.
The simulator EMSO (Environment for Modeling, Simulation and Optimization), introduced by Soares and Secchi
[33], has characteristics that set it apart from other free simulators, and even from most commercial packages. It is
an equation-driven type and allows the user to freely create and modify models through its own modeling language,
which is intuitive and easy to use, based on two basic entities called Model and FlowSheet. The first is suitable
for describing individual models, as for each piece of equipment; the second, on the other hand, is suitable for
262
M. Oliveira, A. Ramos, E. Monteiro et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 256–269

describing systems, flowcharts, composed of models and their connections. The software also offers the possibility
to define models as subtypes of other models through an inheritance concept.
Thus, the aim of this work is to develop a library of mathematical models for simulating processes involving
particulate solids through the EMSO simulator, which does not have native models for such systems.
An extensive bibliographic search on the characteristics of particulate systems and their unitary operations was
carried out, contemplating purely solid and solid–fluid systems. The model was implemented in the EMSO simulator
in a structured way, using the object-oriented language. Gas flow, solid flow, air flow and kinetic model were
described in different entities and sub-entities, using the concepts of composition and inheritance (Fig. 3).
The entity “input current” is internally composed of the initial currents: solid phase and gas phase. The main
kinetic model is a single entity, but it is divided into “reactor top”, “reactor quite” and “ reactor background”
according to the height of the gas flow inlet, as shown in Fig. 3. The calculation routines of the kinetic model
return output data are then passed on to the next step plus an air current. “Lost heat” represents the heat lost by the
walls to the external environment. This application example, with 50 points of discretization, results in a problem
of 16,426 variables, 16,399 equations and 27 specifications, conform to what was suggested by [10].

3. Materials and methods

3.1. Fuel

The waste used as fuel in this study is a combination of solid urban waste and forestry waste. In most cases,
they are a mixture of these forms with different amounts of chemical species. According to the literature [51], the
profile of the studied sample is shown in Table 2. Therefore, this global chemical composition will be considered
in the next sections to perform a sensitivity analysis of this compound. Solid waste does not exist in the EMSO
software database, creating a challenge to define this material in the software. The method used in this model is
based on the complete decomposition of the residues or the complete pyrolysis of the residues.

3.2. Model validation

According to the bibliographic review, the residues are predominantly plastic (50.54% by mass), in addition to
paper (7.54%), fabric (9.95%), rubber (5.55%) and garbage in general [44]. For the operation of the pilot plant, only
the processed waste was considered. This simulation is developed under the assumption that the residence time is
long enough to allow the chemical reactions to reach an equilibrium state. The characteristics of MSW and input
parameters of gasifier operating conditions are given in Table 2. Ashes were also defined as a non-conventional
component with an ash content set to 100%.

Table 2. Municipal solid waste characterization [10,51].

Ultimate analysis (%) Proximate analysis (%)
C 47.9 Volatiles 77.6
H 6.0 Fixed carbon 10.7
O 32.9 Moisture 20
N < 1.2 Ash 11.7
S 0.3 LHV (MJ/kg) 12.890

3.3. Gasifier

The fixed bed combustion reactor with co-current flow used experimentally, has as main characteristics: a total
volume of 0.730 m3 , receiving four air injections for oxidizing the fuel gas generated, due to the reactor operation
specification in co-current with air injections at 81 cm and 15 cm above the grid (reactor bottom). According to the
injections of oxidizing agent, the reactor chamber was divided into 4 zones: primary combustion zone, secondary
combustion zone, tertiary combustion zone and quaternary combustion zone [34].
The load fed in semi-batch is received in the supply chamber with a volume of 0.25 m3 , being hermetically
closed by means of an external and an internal cover.
263
M. Oliveira, A. Ramos, E. Monteiro et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 256–269

The primary combustion zone, with a total volume of 0.160 m3 , is located below the grate, right at the end of the
reactor. In this chamber there is an expansion and the start of combustion of the fuel gas coming from the reduction
zone of the gasification stage. Below this zone is located the ashtray, with a total volume of 0.110 m3 , where the
ash with a larger particle size is collected.
Secondary air, preheated by passing through the grate, is injected through ducts distributed in the initial section of
the secondary combustion zone, with a total volume of 0.042 m3 . In this zone, there is an increase in the turbulence
of the gases coming from the gasification reactor, with a view to increasing the efficiency of combustion.
The tertiary combustion zone has a cylindrical shape with a total volume of 0.458 m3 , being lined with refractory
material and designed to ensure the complete combustion of the combustible gases formed. It has an afterburner that
is used to start the equipment. The exhaust of flue gases takes place horizontally in the center of this zone. Finally,
there is the final combustion step taking place in the quaternary combustion zone. This zone has a cylindrical shape
with a total volume of 0.075 m3 and is located downstream of the previous tertiary combustion zone.

4. Analysis of results
For the process of gasification on a laboratory or semi-industrial scale for MSW, in a fixed bed gasifier reported
by [10], a simulation of a downdraft fixed bed biomass gasifier is proposed. It is noteworthy that one of the main
advantages of the model developed here is the inclusion of tar in the kinetics of the reactions involved, seen in
Table 2, represented by the p2 T (tar) reaction, as this can drastically increase the precision of the proposed model.

4.1. Numerical model validation

In this section, the validation of the model is shown, which can be endorsed with the data and experimental
results provided by [10,34,35,47,52]. The deviation of results was quantified using relative error. The results for the
validation of the model may be seen in Fig. 4, the concentration of syngas components being shown.

Fig. 4. A comparison between experimental and simulation results of syngas composition.

Fig. 4 shows that the simulation results are consistent within the 96% confidence level, mainly in terms of the
methane reaction. The percentage of relative error obtained for the main gaseous components of the synthesis gas
is 8.2% for N2 , 2.15% for H2 , 14.1% for CO2 , 8.9% for CO and 3,77% for CH4 . In a study conducted by [53], the
excessive prediction of the H2 content compared to the experimental results is closely related to the negligence of
tar formation in all phases of gasification. A major problem with tar modeling is the chemical uncertainties of tar
compositions, many models developed related to biomass gasification ignore tar modeling due to its complexity,
which is not neglected in this proposed model, considering the influence of this variable in the modeling. Tar is
predominantly determined by the operating condition of the gasifier. Despite variations in the chemical compositions
of the tar produced, in different studies it was included in the modeling in different ways. [54] considered tar as a
mixture of benzene, toluene and naphthalene. During an investigation conducted by [55] and [56], tar was modeled
as phenol and toluene, respectively. It is important to emphasize that, regardless of the chemical composition of the
264
M. Oliveira, A. Ramos, E. Monteiro et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 256–269

tar, its inclusion in the model as a modification strategy can improve the model’s credibility. [57] explain that the
inclusion of tar in the mass balance equation brings a notable increase in model accuracy.
Once validated, the model was utilized to analyze the influence of some parameters and variables, such as air–fuel
ratio and gasification temperature, as seen in Sections 4.2 and 4.3.

4.2. Equivalence ratio effect

For energy generation, the combination of hydrogen and methane in the synthesis of gas is of great relevance. To
investigate the amount of methane, several parameters such as the Equivalence Ratio (ER), which is an important
parameter in the analysis of a gasifier, and in addition to the temperature gradient were combined for air and oxygen
as an oxidizing agent and the results can be seen in Fig. 5. ER was ranged from 0.1 to 1.0 and temperature from
430 ◦ C to 1000 ◦ C. Equivalence ratio is proposed by [58,59] as follows:
Air/Fuel Mass
ER = (17)
Stoichiometric Air/Fuel Mass
The air–fuel ratio is the ratio between the amount of air needed to complete combustion and the amount of fuel
available. In this study, for a temperature of 700 ◦ C, the air–fuel ratio ranged from 0.1 to 1.0, more air being allowed
in the system to verify the influence of this parameter in syngas composition. The results of varying air–fuel ratios
can be seen in Fig. 5 , which shows that the maximum value of CO2 when air is the oxidizer is obtained when ER
equals 1.

Fig. 5. Effect of air–fuel ratio (gasifier temperature: 700 ◦ C).

From Fig. 5, it is observable that syngas quality is strongly affected by the air–fuel ratio, therefore influencing
ER. For the range of studied values, when the air–fuel ratio increases from 0.3 to 1.0, CO2 concentration increases
by 30%, in contrast to CO, which drops by 35%. The concentration of H2 decreased (from 10% to 2%), and CH4
remained unchanged. Low air–fuel ratios tend to compromise the results, as incomplete gasification may occur, while
on the other hand, high values for this parameter may promote the excessive formation of combustion products,
such as CO2 and H2 O, at the expense of fuel gases like H2 and CO [22,23,28]. The results herein achieved are
in accordance to these findings, as shown by the following trends: when air–fuel ratio increased, CO2 yield rose,
while CO and H2 decreased, due to the oxidation reactions favored.

4.3. Temperature effect

Temperature is one of the chief operating variables for gasification, due to the endothermic nature of the main
gasification reactions. The final gas composition reflects the result of complex and competing reactions, as for
instance Boudouard reaction, water-gas and water-gas shift reactions, which are promoted by higher temperatures,
according to Le Chatelier’s principle. Fig. 6 shows the effect of temperature variation for an air–fuel ratio of 0.2.
265
M. Oliveira, A. Ramos, E. Monteiro et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 256–269

Fig. 6. Effect of gasifier temperature (air–fuel ratio: 0.2).

For the gasifier temperature ranging from 500 ◦ C to 850 ◦ C, the CO concentration increases by about 15% in the
gasifier while the CO2 is reduced by 15%, the H2 concentration is the same for air and air/oxygen as the oxidants,
but the amount of H2 in the synthesis gas is greater when using air as the oxidant. This can be explained because
more oxygen consumes H2 and converts it to CO according to the water-gas shift and methanation reactions. It was
also found that the concentrations of CH4 have remained constant. Other authors report a similar trend for CO2
content, explaining that it was consumed by the Boudouard and tar reforming reactions [22,23,28]. In addition, at
higher temperatures, the exothermic water gas shift reaction promotes the formation of H2 O and CO, lowering the
yield of CO2 .

5. Conclusion
With the present work, a kinetic model (phenomenological model more robust than a chemical equilibrium
model) was developed for gasification to process different types of solid waste. This was done to promote the
transformation of residues in a combined energy generation cycle, as a strategy to reassess waste, keeping its added
value for a much longer period (Closed Chain Life Cycle), instead of disposing it in landfills, as recurring end-of-life
scenario. This work contributes to the search for sustainable alternatives, actions that have been gaining notoriety
and are increasingly recommended by government and administrative bodies, as they promote the efficient use
of resources. In this way, waste is no longer considered ‘garbage’, becoming a raw material for other processes
and being reintegrated into a clean energy production chain. This promotes the “closing the loop” approach, as
preconized by circular economy principles.
The proposed mathematical model allowed a detailed analysis, considering the partial derivatives as a function of
space and time of the modeled system, using applications with CFD tools. A fixed bed gasifier was simulated using
EMSO software for solid waste gasification, a dedicated subroutine involving solid phases being implemented, to
enhance feedstock flexibility for a wider range of materials. This work is an initial step in syngas production and
recovery chain. As an impact of this work, we highlight the construction and contribution of knowledge to this
framework, which proved to be very useful, as circular strategies for sustainable development.
The model presented results compatible with the experimental data in the literature and could also simulate
other compositions of MSW and biomass. However, one of the main limitations found in the simulation is the
sensitivity, which requires a precise adjustment of the diffusion and heat exchange parameters. A fundamental
aspect to consider was the fact that pyrolysis reactions are fundamental for a good prediction of the composition
profiles of the generated gases, since they characterize the fraction of components in which the biomass decomposes
thermally. Therefore, a good adjustment of the kinetic parameters for the pyrolysis reactions was essential for a good
correlation with the experimental data. Another limitation was the approach of the process by a one-dimensional
model, as it greatly restricted the representation of multiple injections of lateral airflow along the gasifier. Using the
266
M. Oliveira, A. Ramos, E. Monteiro et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 256–269

model, the impact of parameters such as air–fuel ratio, gasifier temperature and moisture content can be estimated
over the entire operation. Other studies are being carried out to model the performance of gasification and optimize
its operating conditions, using different raw materials such as agricultural and forestry residues. The presented
results are preliminary and are still under analysis.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could
have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported by FCT - Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, under the project
PCIF/GBV/0169/2019. This project has also received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research
and innovation programme under grant agreement No 818012, and was co-financed by FITEC, Programa Interface.

References
[1] Jensen-Cormier S. Estimating employment effects of the circular economy. International Institute for Sustainable Development; 2018.
[2] Wijkman A, Skånberg K. The Circular Economy and Benefits for Society. Club of Rome; 2015.
[3] Oberle B, Bringezu S, Hatfield-Dodds S, Hellweg S, Schandl H, Clement J. Global resources outlook: 2019 (9280737414). 2019,
Retrieved from.
[4] OECD. Global material resources outlook to 2060 economic drivers and environmental consequences. OECD Publishing; 2019.
[5] Plan ECEA. A new circular economy action plan for a cleaner and more competitive europe. 2020, In.
[6] Munir M, Mardon I, Al-Zuhair S, Shawabkeh A, Saqib N. Plasma gasification of municipal solid waste for waste-to-value processing.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;116:109461.
[7] Hantoko D, Yan M, Prabowo B, Susanto H, Li X, Chen C. Aspen plus modeling approach in solid waste gasification. In: Current
developments in biotechnology and bioengineering. Elsevier; 2019, p. 259–81.
[8] Mukherjee C, Denney J, Mbonimpa E, Slagley J, Bhowmik R. A review on municipal solid waste-to-energy trends in the USA. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2020;119:109512.
[9] Tungalag A, Lee B, Yadav M, Akande O. Yield prediction of MSW gasification including minor species through ASPEN plus simulation.
Energy 2020;198:117296.
[10] Rodrigues R. Modelagem e simulação de um gaseificador em leito fixo para o tratamento térmico de resíduos sólidos da indústria
calçadista. 2008.
[11] Mazzoni L, Janajreh I, Elagroudy S, Ghenai C. Modeling of plasma and entrained flow co-gasification of MSW and petroleum sludge.
Energy 2020;196:117001.
[12] Ahmed A, Salmiaton A, Choong T, Azlina WW. Review of kinetic and equilibrium concepts for biomass tar modeling by using Aspen
Plus. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;52:1623–44.
[13] Arena U. Process and technological aspects of municipal solid waste gasification. A review. Waste Manage 2012;32(4):625–39.
[14] Indrawan N, Mohammad S, Kumar A, Huhnke RL. Modeling low temperature plasma gasification of municipal solid waste. Environ
Technol Innov 2019;15:100412.
[15] Neves RC. Reforma de gás de gaseificação por meio de tocha de plasma: ensaios preliminares. 2013.
[16] Ramos A, Monteiro E, Rouboa A. Numerical approaches and comprehensive models for gasification process: A review. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2019;110:188–206.
[17] Ramos A, Teixeira CA, Rouboa A. Environmental assessment of municipal solid waste by two-stage plasma gasification. Energies
2019;12(1):137.
[18] Ramos A, Monteiro E, Silva V, Rouboa A. Co-gasification and recent developments on waste-to-energy conversion: A review. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2018;81:380–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.07.025.
[19] Abdelrahim A, Brachi P, Ruoppolo G, Fraia SD, Vanoli L. Experimental and numerical investigation of biosolid gasification:
equilibrium-based modeling with emphasis on the effects of different pretreatment methods. Ind Eng Chem Res 2019;59(1):299–307.
[20] Basu P. Biomass gasification, pyrolysis and torrefaction: practical design and theory. Academic Press; 2018.
[21] Gómez E. Projeto, construção e avaliação preliminar de um reator de leito fluidizado para gaseificação de bagaço de cana-de-açúcar.
(Dissertação de Mestrado), Faculdade de Engenharia Agrí; 1996.
267
M. Oliveira, A. Ramos, E. Monteiro et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 256–269

[22] Couto N, Monteiro E, Silva V, Rouboa A. Hydrogen-rich gas from gasification of Portuguese municipal solid wastes. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2016;41(25):10619–30.
[23] Couto ND, Silva VB, Rouboa A. Assessment on steam gasification of municipal solid waste against biomass substrates. Energy Convers
Manage 2016;124:92–103.
[24] Puig-Arnavat M, Bruno JC, Coronas A. Modified thermodynamic equilibrium model for biomass gasification: a study of the influence
of operating conditions. Energy Fuels 2012;26(2):1385–94.
[25] Shehzad A, Bashir MJ, Sethupathi S. System analysis for synthesis gas (syngas) production in Pakistan from municipal solid waste
gasification using a circulating fluidized bed gasifier. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;60:1302–11.
[26] Tavares R, Monteiro E, Tabet F, Rouboa A. Numerical investigation of optimum operating conditions for syngas and hydrogen
production from biomass gasification using aspen plus. Renew Energy 2020;146:1309–14.
[27] Pan Z, Chan WP, Veksha A, Giannis A, Dou X, Wang H, . Lim T-T. Thermodynamic analyses of synthetic natural gas production via
municipal solid waste gasification, high-temperature water electrolysis and methanation. Energy Convers Manage 2019;202:112160.
[28] Monteiro E, Ismail TM, Ramos A, Abd El-Salam M, Brito P, Rouboa A. Assessment of the miscanthus gasification in a semi-industrial
gasifier using a CFD model. Appl Therm Eng 2017;123:448–57.
[29] Richardson J, Björheden R, Hakkila P, Lowe A, Smith C. Bioenergy from sustainable forestry: guiding principles and practice (Vol.
71). Springer Science & Business Media; 2006.
[30] Silva VB, Rouboa A. In situ activation procedures applied to a DMFC: analysis and optimization study. Fuel 2012;93:677–83.
[31] Ismail TM, Ramos A, Abd El-Salam M, Monteiro E, Rouboa A. Plasma fixed bed gasification using an Eulerian model. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2019;44(54):28668–84.
[32] Council Directive 96/61/EC. 2006, Seville, Spain, July.
[33] Soares Rd P, Secchi AR. EMSO: A new environment for modelling, simulation and optimisation. In: Computer aided chemical
engineering, Vol. 14. Elsevier; 2003, p. 947–52.
[34] Godinho M. Gaseificação e combustão de resíduo sólidos da indústria calçadista. 2006.
[35] Quaak P, Knoef H, Stassen H. Energy from biomass: a review of combustion and gasification technologies. The World Bank; 1999.
[36] de Souza-Santos ML. Solid fuels combustion and gasification: modeling, simulation. CRC Press; 2010.
[37] Skoulou V, Zabaniotou A, Stavropoulos G, Sakelaropoulos G. Syngas production from olive tree cuttings and olive kernels in a
downdraft fixed-bed gasifier. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008;33(4):1185–94.
[38] Font R, Caballero J, Esperanza M, Fullana A. Pyrolytic products from tannery wastes. J Analyt Appl Pyrol 1999;49(1–2):243–56.
[39] Di Blasi C. Modeling chemical and physical processes of wood and biomass pyrolysis. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2008;34(1):47–90.
[40] Saha P, Uddin MH, Reza MT. A steady-state equilibrium-based carbon dioxide gasification simulation model for hydrothermally
carbonized cow manure. Energy Convers Manage 2019;191:12–22.
[41] Sharma V, Agarwal VK. Equilibrium modeling and optimization for gasification of high-ash Indian coals by the gibbs free energy
minimization method. Process Integr Optimiz Sustainab 2019;3(4):487–504.
[42] Boerrigter H, Den Uil H, Calis H-P. Green diesel from biomass via fischer–tropsch synthesis: new insights in gas cleaning and process
design. In: Pyrolysis and gasification of biomass and waste, vol. 1. 2003.
[43] Chan W-CR, Kelbon M, Krieger BB. Modelling and experimental verification of physical and chemical processes during pyrolysis of
a large biomass particle. Fuel 1985;64(11):1505–13.
[44] Gungor A. Two-dimensional biomass combustion modeling of CFB. Fuel 2008;87(8–9):1453–68.
[45] Li C, Suzuki K. Tar property, analysis, reforming mechanism and model for biomass gasification—An overview. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2009;13(3):594–604.
[46] Loha C, Chattopadhyay H, Chatterjee PK. Three dimensional kinetic modeling of fluidized bed biomass gasification. Chem Eng Sci
2014;109:53–64.
[47] Tinaut FV, Melgar A, Perez JF, Horrillo A. Effect of biomass particle size and air superficial velocity on the gasification process in
a downdraft fixed bed gasifier. An experimental and modelling study. Fuel Process Technol 2008;89(11):1076–89.
[48] Westhoff R, Dilawari A, Szekely J. A mathematical representation of transport phenomena inside a plasma torch. MRS Online Proc
Lib 1990;190(1):213–9.
[49] Prando D, Patuzzi F, Pernigotto G, Gasparella A, Baratieri M. Biomass gasification systems for residential application: An integrated
simulation approach. Appl Therm Eng 2014;71(1):152–60.
[50] Valmundsson AS, Janajreh I. Plasma gasification process modeling and energy recovery from solid waste. 2011, Paper presented at
the Energy Sustainability.
[51] Zhang Q, Wu Y, Dor L, Yang W, Blasiak W. A thermodynamic analysis of solid waste gasification in the plasma gasification melting
process. Appl Energy 2013;112:405–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.03.054.
[52] Naveed S, Ramzan N, Malik A, Akram M. A comparative study of gasification of food waste (FW), poultry waste (PW), municipal
solid waste (MSW) and used tires (UT). The Nucleus 2020;46(3):77–81.
[53] Pala LPR, Wang Q, Kolb G, Hessel V. Steam gasification of biomass with subsequent syngas adjustment using shift reaction for
syngas production: An Aspen Plus model. Renew Energy 2017;101:484–92.
[54] Lam MK, Lee KT. Mixed methanol–ethanol technology to produce greener biodiesel from waste cooking oil: A breakthrough for
SO42-/SnO2–SiO2 catalyst. Fuel Process Technol 2011;92(8):1639–45.
[55] Nilsson S, Gómez-Barea A, Fuentes-Cano D, Ollero P. Gasification of biomass and waste in a staged fluidized bed gasifier: Modeling
and comparison with one-stage units. Fuel 2012;97:730–40.
[56] Sadhukhan J, Zhao Y, Shah N, Brandon NP. Performance analysis of integrated biomass gasification fuel cell (BGFC) and biomass
gasification combined cycle (BGCC) systems. Chem Eng Sci 2010;65(6):1942–54.
268
M. Oliveira, A. Ramos, E. Monteiro et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 256–269

[57] Barman NS, Ghosh S, De S. Gasification of biomass in a fixed bed downdraft gasifier–a realistic model including tar. Bioresour
Technol 2012;107:505–11.
[58] Favas J, Monteiro E, Rouboa A. Hydrogen production using plasma gasification with steam injection. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2017;42(16):10997–1005.
[59] Han J, Liang Y, Hu J, Qin L, Street J, Lu Y, Yu F. Modeling downdraft biomass gasification process by restricting chemical reaction
equilibrium with aspen plus. Energy Convers Manage 2017;153:641–8.

269