The thesis primarily focuses on the pressure influence on the reaction rate of char gasification using laboratory thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). It discusses also the gasification of char with a mixture of gasifying agents (CO2 + steam) under a pressure of 40 bar and temperatures up to 1100°C, which has not been reported in the literature to the best of found knowledge. The first section investigates the pressure impact on char gasification kinetics by varying the total and partial pressure of the gasifying agent. The second section investigates the effect of gasifying agent at 40 bar and combining the pyrolysis step in the investigation, which was done in-situ under inert atmosphere. Then, mixtures of the two gasifying agents were used for the gasification in separate experiments. The third section uses raw coal as material and gives attention to the char structure formed after the pyrolysis under the high pressure. The fourth section includes measurements for char characteristics during the gasification reaction and compares them with the reference char data performed previously in this research group under atmospheric pressure.:Abstract 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Scope of the thesis 1 1.2 Layout of the thesis 2 2. Literature Review 4 2.1 Background 4 2.2 Coal and gasification 5 2.2.1 Coal classification and characteristics 5 2.2.2 Introduction to gasification process 7 2.2.3 Coal Analysis 10 2.2.4 Pyrolysis 13 2.2.5 Gasification reactions 13 2.2.6 Mechanism of solid-gas reaction and Thermodynamic background 14 2.2.7 Regimes of gas-Solid Reactions 17 2.2.8 Summary 19 2.3 Effect of Pressure on gasification process 20 2.3.1 Advantages of high-pressure operation 20 2.3.2 Influence on the pyrolysis step 20 2.3.3 Effect of Pressure on coal swelling 21 2.3.4 Pressure influence on char morphology 23 2.3.5 Effect of pyrolysis pressure on char surface area 23 2.3.6 Effect on reaction order n 24 2.3.7 Summary 24 2.4 Pressure influence on char gasification reaction kinetics 24 2.4.1 Pressure influence on gasification reaction kinetics 25 2.4.2 Summary 27 2.5 Char gasification using gasifying agent mixtures 27 2.5.1 Mechanism 29 2.5.2 The role of the inhibition and the catalytic effect 29 2.5.3 Summary 32 2.6 Thermodynamic aspects and the estimation of the reaction rate 32 2.6.1 Background 32 2.6.2 Basic definitions of reaction rate 34 2.6.3 Intrinsic kinetic models 35 2.6.4 Theoretical models 36 2.6.5 Empiric Models 39 2.6.6 Intrinsic kinetic models expressed by CO2 concentration 40 2.6.7 Arrhenius Activation Energy 40 2.6.8 Differentiation of a polynomial fit data (Differential method): 41 2.6.9 Summary 43 3. Experimental Analysis 44 3.1 Thermogravimetry 44 3.2 Testing of the gas volume fraction and the total pressure influence on char gasification 45 3.2.1 Testing of the gas volume fraction influence 45 3.2.2 Testing of system pressure influence on char gasification 56 3.2.3 Discussion 65 3.3 Coal gasification at 40 bar with pure CO2, H2O and their mixtures 65 3.3.1 Gasification with pure CO2 and H2O 66 3.3.2 Coal gasification using CO2 / H2O mixtures at high system pressure 87 3.3.3 Discussion 96 3.4 Pressure influence on coal gasification 100 3.4.1 Coal gasification under different system pressures 100 3.4.2 The effect of increasing pressure on coal morphology 104 3.4.3 Discussion 117 3.5 Influence of the pressure on the char properties during gasification 118 3.5.1 Discussion 129 4. General discussion 134 5. Conclusions 139 5.1 Significance of the findings 143 5.2 Recommendations 144 6. Appendix 146 6.1 Literature and Results 146 6.1.1 Conditions influence on gasification of the (a) temperature, (b) partial pressure 146 6.1.2 TGA-DMT 147 6.1.3 Testing of the gas volume fraction influence on coal gasification 148 6.1.4 Testing of system pressure influence on char gasification 150 6.1.5 Coal gasification at 40 bar with pure CO2, H2O and their mixtures 152 6.1.6 Coal gasification under different pressures 162 6.1.7 Summary of gas mixture gasification studies 167 6.2 Figures Index 169 6.3 Tables Index 175 6.4 References 177

Slags plays a significant role at high temperature processes. The estimation of the slag viscosity is vital for the safe run of e.g. entrained flow gasifiers. One opportunity of determination is rotational viscometry. This technique is disadvantageous in view of elevated temperatures, applied materials and the necessary time. Additionally, the viscosity can be predicted by the help of viscosity models, where viscosity is a function of slag composition and temperature. Due to changing slag properties within the technical processes, the calculated viscosities can hugely differ from measured ones. In this work, the viscosities of 42 slags where measured up to 100 Pa s and temperatures up to 1700 °C. Oxidizing and reducing conditions were applied. Additionally, selected slag samples were quenched at defined temperatures to qualitatively and quantitatively determine the formed minerals by X-ray diffraction (XRD). Differential temperature analysis (DTA) was applied to find the onset of crystallization for the complementation of investigations. The Einstein-Roscoe equation was chosen to improve the classic viscosity models. Reducing atmosphere decreased viscosity and the number of formed minerals was increased. Slags show a shear-thinning behavior above ca. 10 vol.-% of solid mineral matter. Also, Newtonian behavior was observed up to 60 vol.-%. To overcome problems with the kinetic cooling behavior of the slags, a viscosity approximation method was applied afterwards. This can result in optimized viscosity predictions when several preconditions are fulfilled.

Slags plays a significant role at high temperature processes. The estimation of the slag viscosity is vital for the safe run of e.g. entrained flow gasifiers. One opportunity of determination is rotational viscometry. This technique is disadvantageous in view of elevated temperatures, applied materials and the necessary time. Additionally, the viscosity can be predicted by the help of viscosity models, where viscosity is a function of slag composition and temperature. Due to changing slag properties within the technical processes, the calculated viscosities can hugely differ from measured ones. In this work, the viscosities of 42 slags where measured up to 100 Pa s and temperatures up to 1700 °C. Oxidizing and reducing conditions were applied. Additionally, selected slag samples were quenched at defined temperatures to qualitatively and quantitatively determine the formed minerals by X-ray diffraction (XRD). Differential temperature analysis (DTA) was applied to find the onset of crystallization for the complementation of investigations. The Einstein-Roscoe equation was chosen to improve the classic viscosity models. Reducing atmosphere decreased viscosity and the number of formed minerals was increased. Slags show a shear-thinning behavior above ca. 10 vol.-% of solid mineral matter. Also, Newtonian behavior was observed up to 60 vol.-%. To overcome problems with the kinetic cooling behavior of the slags, a viscosity approximation method was applied afterwards. This can result in optimized viscosity predictions when several preconditions are fulfilled.:List of Tables ............................................................................................................ vi List of Figures ........................................................................................................ viii Symbols and Abbreviations .................................................................................. xviii 1. Introduction and Aim ....................................................................................... 1 2. General Overview of Slag ............................................................................... 2 2.1 Viscosity ...................................................................................................... 2 2.1.1 Viscosity Introduction ........................................................................... 2 2.1.2 Flow behavior of fluids ......................................................................... 3 2.2 Slag Definition and Phase Diagrams ........................................................... 4 2.3 Solid Slag Structure .................................................................................... 5 2.4 Liquid Slag Structure ................................................................................. 10 2.5 Basicity and B/A-ratio ................................................................................ 11 2.6 Slag Components...................................................................................... 13 2.6.1 Silicon dioxide .................................................................................... 13 2.6.2 Aluminum oxide ................................................................................. 13 2.6.3 Calcium oxide .................................................................................... 15 2.6.4 Iron oxide ........................................................................................... 16 2.6.5 Magnesium Oxide .............................................................................. 18 2.6.6 Potassium Oxide ................................................................................ 19 2.6.7 Sodium Oxide .................................................................................... 20 2.6.8 Titanium Oxide ................................................................................... 21 2.6.9 Phosphorous ...................................................................................... 22 2.6.10 Sulfur .............................................................................................. 22 2.7 Summary of Last Chapters ........................................................................ 23 3. Slag Viscosity Toolbox .................................................................................. 25 3.1 Slag Viscosity Predictor............................................................................. 25 3.2 Slag Viscosity Database............................................................................ 26 3.3 Prediction Quality of Viscosity Models ....................................................... 27 4. Classic Slag Viscosity Modelling ................................................................... 30 4.1 Selected Classic Viscosity Models ............................................................ 31 4.1.1 S2 ....................................................................................................... 32 4.1.2 Watt-Fereday ..................................................................................... 32 4.1.3 Bomkamp ........................................................................................... 32 4.1.4 Shaw .................................................................................................. 32 4.1.5 Lakatos .............................................................................................. 33 4.1.6 Urbain ................................................................................................ 33 4.1.7 Riboud ............................................................................................... 33 4.1.8 Streeter .............................................................................................. 34 4.1.9 Kalmanovitch-Frank ........................................................................... 34 4.1.10 BBHLW .......................................................................................... 34 4.1.11 Duchesne ....................................................................................... 34 4.1.12 ANNliq ............................................................................................ 35 4.2 Need of Improvement in Viscosity Literature ............................................. 35 4.3 Summary of Last Chapters ........................................................................ 36 5. Advanced Slag Viscosity Modelling .............................................................. 37 5.1 Crystallization ............................................................................................ 37 5.1.1 Nucleation .......................................................................................... 38 5.1.2 Crystallization Rate ............................................................................ 39 5.1.3 Crystallization Measurement Methods ............................................... 39 5.2 Slag Properties Changes During Crystallization ........................................ 40 5.2.1 Slag Density ....................................................................................... 40 5.2.2 Solid Volume Fraction ........................................................................ 46 5.2.3 Estimation of Slag Composition During Cooling ................................. 46 5.3 Viscosity Depending on Particles and Shear Rate..................................... 47 5.3.1 Einstein-Roscoe Equation .................................................................. 48 5.3.2 Improved Modelling Approach by Modified Einstein-Roscoe .............. 49 5.4 Summary of Last Chapters ........................................................................ 50 6. Experimental Procedures ............................................................................. 52 6.1 Viscosity Measurements ........................................................................... 52 6.1.1 Estimating Parameter Ranges of Viscosity Measurements ................ 53 6.1.2 Viscosity Measurement Procedure ..................................................... 54 6.2 Thermal Analysis of Slags ......................................................................... 55 6.2.1 Experimental Conditions of DTA ........................................................ 55 6.3 Phase Determination ................................................................................. 55 6.3.1 Quench Experiment Processing ......................................................... 56 6.3.2 Phase Determination on XRD Results ............................................... 56 6.4 Summary of Last Chapters ........................................................................ 57 7. Results and Discussion ................................................................................ 58 7.1 Selected Slag Samples ............................................................................. 58 7.1.1 Slag Sample Composition Before Viscosity Measurements ............... 58 7.1.2 Slag Sample Composition After Viscosity Measurements .................. 59 7.2 General Results of Viscosity Measurements ............................................. 60 7.2.1 Viscosity under Air Atmosphere ......................................................... 63 7.2.2 Viscosity under Reducing Atmospheres ............................................. 65 7.2.3 Viscosity under Constant Partial Oxygen Pressure ............................ 66 7.2.4 Summary of Last Chapter .................................................................. 68 7.3 Mineral Formation ..................................................................................... 69 7.3.1 General Results on Primarily Mineral Formation ................................ 69 7.3.2 Influences on Primarily Mineral Formation ......................................... 70 7.3.3 Mineral Formation over Wide Temperature Ranges ........................... 71 7.3.4 Summary of Last Chapter .................................................................. 77 7.4 Results Obtained by DTA .......................................................................... 78 7.4.1 Comparing Results obtained by DTA and Quenching ........................ 80 7.4.2 Summary of Last Chapter .................................................................. 82 7.5 Shear Rate Influence on Slag Viscosity ..................................................... 82 7.5.1 Shear Rate Influence under Oxidizing Atmospheres .......................... 83 7.5.2 Shear Rate Influence under Reducing Atmospheres .......................... 87 7.5.3 Shear Rate Influence under Constant Atmospheres .......................... 91 7.5.4 Summary of chapter ........................................................................... 92 7.6 Atmospheric Influence on Viscosity ........................................................... 93 7.6.1 Summary of Last Chapter .................................................................. 95 7.7 Cooling Rate Influence on Slag Viscosity .................................................. 95 7.7.1 Summary of Last Chapter .................................................................. 97 8. Advanced Viscosity Modelling Approach ...................................................... 99 8.1 Prediction Quality of Classical Viscosity Models ........................................ 99 8.1.1 Selecting the Best Viscosity Model for Newtonian Flow ..................... 99 8.1.2 Summary of Last Chapter ................................................................ 103 8.2 Predicting Liquidus Temperature ............................................................. 103 8.2.1 Comparing Liquidus Calculations and Quenching Experiments ....... 103 8.2.2 Comparing DTA Results and Liquidus Calculations ......................... 105 8.2.3 Summary of Last Chapter ................................................................ 107 8.3 Predicting Liquid Slag Composition ......................................................... 108 8.3.1 Results of Slag Composition Calculations at Oxidizing Conditions ... 108 8.3.2 Results of Slag Composition Calculations at Reducing Conditions ... 110 8.3.3 Summary of Last Chapter ................................................................ 111 8.4 Modelling Approach ................................................................................ 112 8.4.1 Development of Datasets for Advanced Viscosity Modeling ............. 113 8.4.2 Summary of Last Chapter ................................................................ 116 8.5 Results of Advanced Slag Viscosity Modelling Approach ........................ 116 8.5.1 Summary of Last Chapter ................................................................ 121 9. Summary .................................................................................................... 123 10. Appendix: Information on Classic Viscosity Modelling ................................. 126 10.1 Backgrounds of Applied Viscosity Models............................................ 126 10.2 Viscosity Model of the BCURA (S2) ..................................................... 129 10.3 Watt-Fereday ....................................................................................... 130 10.4 Bomkamp ............................................................................................ 130 10.5 Shaw ................................................................................................... 131 10.6 Lakatos Model ..................................................................................... 132 10.7 Urbain Model ....................................................................................... 133 10.8 Riboud Model ...................................................................................... 134 10.9 Streeter Model ..................................................................................... 136 10.10 Kalmanovitch-Frank Model .................................................................. 137 10.11 BBHLW Model ..................................................................................... 137 10.12 Duchesne Model .................................................................................. 139 10.13 ANNliq Model ...................................................................................... 141 11. Appendix: Settings of Equilibrium Calculations ........................................... 143 12. Appendix: Parameters of Einstein-Roscoe Equation ................................... 153 13. Appendix: Ash and Slag Sample Preparation ............................................. 155 14. Appendix: Experimental Procedures: Viscometer ....................................... 159 14.1 General Viscometer Description .......................................................... 159 14.2 Temperature Calibration ...................................................................... 160 14.3 Viscometer Calibration ......................................................................... 160 14.4 Accuracy and Reproducibility of HT-Viscosity Measurements .............. 161 14.5 Influence of Inductive Heating .............................................................. 163 14.6 Influence of Measurement System Materials ....................................... 164 15. Appendix: Experimental Procedures: Quenching Furnace .......................... 167 16. Appendix: Slag Sample Parameters and Composition ................................ 168 17. Appendix: Slag Viscosity Measurements Results ....................................... 175 18. Appendix: Viscosities at Different Cooling Rates ........................................ 182 19. Appendix: Slag Viscosity Modelling: AALE Calculations ............................. 187 20. Appendix: Advanced Viscosity Modelling: a-factors .................................... 193 21. Appendix: Slag Mineral Phase Investigations and Modelling ...................... 197 22. Appendix: Results of DTA Measurements on Slags .................................... 207 23. Appendix: Advanced Slag Viscosity Modelling Approach ............................ 211 References ........................................................................................................... 228

This research has been performed in the framework of the Virtuhcon project, which intends to virtualize high temperature conversion processes. Coal gasification is one of these processes, which is nowadays considered as a promising technology for the chemical industry. This study is devoted to the coal char physical structure, which is one of the most important parameters influencing coal gasification reaction. First, this study presents the extensive literature review of the char physical structure role during its conversion. Collection of the char structural properties as well as their changes during char conversion are shown and discussed. Literature review is followed by the experimental investigations. Chars prepared from two brown coals (Lusatian and Rhenish) were gasified in a laboratory scale fluidized bed reactor in CO2 at temperatures of 800, 850, 900, and 950 °C and atmospheric pressure. Char samples were gasified completely as well as partially in order to evaluate the reaction kinetics and char structural changes during the reaction, respectively. Complete gasification curves were evaluated by different methods, including application of three gasification models (the Random Pore Model, the Volume Reaction Model, and the Shrinking Reaction Model), instantaneous reaction rate approach as well as the self-developed surface-related reaction rate approach. The results of different approaches were compared. This study also presents a comprehensive methodology to analyze coal char physical structure. The variety of measurement techniques (gas physical adsorption, mercury porosimetry, helium pycnometry, SEM, etc.) were applied to assess structural properties of the char, such as specific surface area, particle density, porosity, pore size and shape, structure morphology, etc. Problems associated with the choice of a proper measurement technique and the comparability of the data delivered by different techniques were discussed. The main objective of the study was to link char structural changes to the char gasification kinetics. The specific task of this thesis was to investigate pore size in relation to their availability for the reaction. As such, specific surface areas of pores of different sizes (from sub-micro to mesopores) were correlated to the instantaneous reaction rates. Both chars exhibit similar trends in their structural changes during gasification, although the absolute values differ, especially with respect to the pores of microscale. Furthermore, structural changes were caused not only by the reaction but also by the influence of the heat treatment, especially at the earlier stages of the reaction. The most reasonable correlation has been achieved between the instantaneous reaction rate and the specific surface area of mesopores. Sub-micro- and micropores did not govern the gasification reaction under given conditions. Finally, kinetic parameters derived from different evaluation methods were reapplied in order to test their ability to predict the experimental data. Each of the method has its advantages and disadvantages as used for the kinetic evaluation. The results of this study represent a substantive base of the experimentally derived data concerning physical structure and morphology of coal char. The findings can be used in numerical and simulation studies for development, validation, and improvement of the models which consider coal particle as a reactive porous solid.

This research has been performed in the framework of the Virtuhcon project, which intends to virtualize high temperature conversion processes. Coal gasification is one of these processes, which is nowadays considered as a promising technology for the chemical industry. This study is devoted to the coal char physical structure, which is one of the most important parameters influencing coal gasification reaction. First, this study presents the extensive literature review of the char physical structure role during its conversion. Collection of the char structural properties as well as their changes during char conversion are shown and discussed. Literature review is followed by the experimental investigations. Chars prepared from two brown coals (Lusatian and Rhenish) were gasified in a laboratory scale fluidized bed reactor in CO2 at temperatures of 800, 850, 900, and 950 °C and atmospheric pressure. Char samples were gasified completely as well as partially in order to evaluate the reaction kinetics and char structural changes during the reaction, respectively. Complete gasification curves were evaluated by different methods, including application of three gasification models (the Random Pore Model, the Volume Reaction Model, and the Shrinking Reaction Model), instantaneous reaction rate approach as well as the self-developed surface-related reaction rate approach. The results of different approaches were compared. This study also presents a comprehensive methodology to analyze coal char physical structure. The variety of measurement techniques (gas physical adsorption, mercury porosimetry, helium pycnometry, SEM, etc.) were applied to assess structural properties of the char, such as specific surface area, particle density, porosity, pore size and shape, structure morphology, etc. Problems associated with the choice of a proper measurement technique and the comparability of the data delivered by different techniques were discussed. The main objective of the study was to link char structural changes to the char gasification kinetics. The specific task of this thesis was to investigate pore size in relation to their availability for the reaction. As such, specific surface areas of pores of different sizes (from sub-micro to mesopores) were correlated to the instantaneous reaction rates. Both chars exhibit similar trends in their structural changes during gasification, although the absolute values differ, especially with respect to the pores of microscale. Furthermore, structural changes were caused not only by the reaction but also by the influence of the heat treatment, especially at the earlier stages of the reaction. The most reasonable correlation has been achieved between the instantaneous reaction rate and the specific surface area of mesopores. Sub-micro- and micropores did not govern the gasification reaction under given conditions. Finally, kinetic parameters derived from different evaluation methods were reapplied in order to test their ability to predict the experimental data. Each of the method has its advantages and disadvantages as used for the kinetic evaluation. The results of this study represent a substantive base of the experimentally derived data concerning physical structure and morphology of coal char. The findings can be used in numerical and simulation studies for development, validation, and improvement of the models which consider coal particle as a reactive porous solid.

By analyzing process samples full and pilot scale gasifiers, the main influences affecting their slag are identified. Based on this knowledge as well as the current literature, the effect of crystallization was identified as crucial for understanding slag behavior and is analyzed during cooldown. Finally, the emerging interest in sewage sludge upcycling via gasification necessitated an investigation on the influence of adding P2O5 as slag constituent. All conclusions concerning the full scale gasifier slags were based on XRF, XRD, and SEM-EDX analyses coupled with thermodynamic equilibrium calculations via FactSage. The subsequently presented research on crystallization and the effect of P2O5 was centered on conducting slag viscosity measurements, recreating the conditions of said measurement in a quench oven, and analyzing the resulting quench samples via the mentioned analysis methods. Special focus was put on the phase evolution, its governing factors, and the effect on slag viscosity.:1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. FUNDAMENTALS IN SLAG BEHAVIOR CHARACTERIZATION 3 2.1. BASE TO ACID RATIO AS KEY FIGURE FOR SLAG CHARACTERIZATION 7 2.2. VISCOSITY ALTERING SECONDARY PHASES IN SLAGS 9 2.2.1. The effect of crystallization on slag flow 10 2.2.2. Modelling and measuring crystallization in slags 11 2.3. CRITICAL VISCOSITY 13 2.4. PHOSPHOROUS OXIDE IN SLAGS 15 2.4.1. Behavior of P2O5 within slags 16 2.4.2. Phase separation in melts containing P2O5 17 2.4.3. Effect on slag viscosity 22 3. ANALYTICAL METHODS 26 3.1. SAMPLE PRETREATMENT 26 3.2. ASH FUSION TEMPERATURE 28 3.3. X-RAY FLUORESCENCE MEASUREMENT (XRF) 30 3.4. X-RAY DIFFRACTION 31 3.5. VISCOSITY MEASUREMENT 32 3.6. DIFFERENTIAL THERMAL ANALYSIS (DTA) 36 3.7. QUENCH APPARATUS 37 3.8. SEM-EDX 39 3.9. THERMODYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM CALCULATIONS 40 4. CHARACTERIZATION OF SLAGS FROM FULL OR PILOT SCALE GASIFIERS 42 4.1. SLAG FROM GENERAL ELECTRICS GASIFIER IN TAMPA 43 4.1.1. Analysis of the suspending main phase 45 4.1.2. Analysis of the silica phase 50 4.1.3. Analysis of the metal enclosures 51 4.1.4. Analysis of the vanadium-rich particles 53 4.1.5. Summary of the analysis of the General Electrics gasifier slag 55 4.2. SLAG FROM GSP GASIFIER 57 4.2.1. NCPP slag 57 4.2.2. Huainan Anhui slag 64 4.2.3. Genesee slag 70 4.2.4. Hambach-Garzweiler 50:50 slag 75 4.2.5. Summary of the analysis of the GSP slags 86 4.3. SLAG FROM BRITISH GAS/LURGI (BGL) GASIFIER 88 4.3.1. Summary and conclusions of the analysis of the BGL slag 99 5. CHARACTERIZING CRYSTALLIZATION DURING SLAG VISCOSITY MEASUREMENTS 102 5.1. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE 103 5.1.1. Sample preparation 107 5.1.2. Viscosity measurement 108 5.1.3. Differential thermal analysis (DTA) 108 5.1.4. Quench oven 108 5.1.5. XRD, XRF, SEM-EDX, and FactSage calculations 109 5.2. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 109 5.2.1. Slag 1 (CO/CO2 atmosphere) 110 5.2.2. Slag 2 (CO/CO2 atmosphere) 112 5.2.3. Slag 3 (air atmosphere) 116 5.2.4. Slag 3 (CO/CO2 atmosphere) 119 5.3. CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY OF THE STUDY OF CRYSTALLIZATION IN SLAGS DURING COOLDOWN 122 6. THE EFFECT OF PHOSPHOROUS OXIDE ON SLAGS 125 6.1. PRELIMINARY SEWAGE SLUDGE SLAG INVESTIGATION 126 6.1.1. Conclusion and summary sewage slag investigation 136 6.2. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE FOR PARAMETRIC STUDY 139 6.3. PARAMETRIC STUDY 141 6.3.1. HKN with 15% sand (HKNS) 142 6.3.2. HKNS with low P2O5 addition (HKNS5P) 147 6.3.3. HKNS with medium low P2O5 addition (HKNS10P) 153 6.3.4. HKNS with medium high P2O5 addition (HKNS15P) 158 6.3.5. HKNS with high P2O5 addition (HKNS20P) 163 6.3.6. P2O5 distribution 169 6.3.7. Effect of P2O5 on viscosity 174 6.4. SUMMARY ON THE INVESTIGATION OF P2O5 IN SLAGS 179 7. CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK 185 8. REFERENCES 190 9. APPENDIX A: DIFFERENCE IN PREDICTION OF SEWAGE SLUDGE ELEMENTAL DISTRIBUTION 213 10. APPENDIX B COMPARISON OF XRF ANALYSES OF HKNS-P2O5 MIXTURES 215 11. APPENDIX C EDX MAPS OF THE QUENCH SAMPLES IN THE PARAMETRIC PHOSPHORUS ADDITION STUDY 218 12. APPENDIX D SUMMARY OF PHASE COMPOSITION OF THE EDX MAPS 239 13. APPENDIX E ENRICHMENT FACTORS FOR THE QUENCH SAMPLES IN THE PARAMETRIC PHOSPHORUS ADDITION STUDY 242

Die Arbeit zeigt wichtige Nutzungswege von fester Biomasse in Form von Holzhackschnitzel (HHS). Einleitend wird das Potenzial und der derzeitige Stand dargestellt. Es werden die physikalischen und chemischen Eigenschaften mit dem Schwerpunkt Wassergehalt in bezug auf die energetische Nutzung der HHS behandelt. Kerne der Nutzungswege bilden dabei die Vergasung im Gleichstromvergaser und die Co-Verbrennung in der Zirkulierenden Wirbelschicht. Mit Hilfe eines Versuchsvergasers werden die Auswirkungen von HHS-Eigenschaften auf den Betrieb untersucht. Der Modellvergaser IGEL bietet durch seine Konstruktion die Möglichkeit, innere Vorgänge zu beleuchten und Messungen in verschiedenen Vergaserebenen durchzuführen. Die Auswirkungen von verschiedenen Brennstoffchargen mit unterschiedlichem Wassergehalt führten zu Änderungen in der Gaszusammensetzung. Eigene Untersuchungen ermittelten einen Grenzwassergehalt, mit dem der Vergaser noch betrieben werden kann. Die Experimente an der Pilotanlage mit zirkulierender atmosphärischer Wirbelschicht befass-ten sich mit der wichtigen Frage, ob und welches NOx-Minderungspotenzial beim Einsatz von Biomasse vorliegt. Die mathematische Modellierung verdeutlicht die Nutzbarkeit von Simulationsprogrammen bei der Untersuchung von Einflüssen der Co-Verbrennung auf die NOx-Bildung. Hier wurden die Gesichtspunkte der Luftzahl, der Luftstufung, des Wassergehaltes, das Mischungsverhältnis und die Brennstoffstufung betrachtet. Eine Wirtschaftlichkeitsbetrachtung führt zu dem Ergebnis, dass Anlagen zur reinen Stromerzeugung mit Biomasse nur nahe der gesetzlichen Höchstleistung von 20 MWel zur Einspeisevergütung von wirtschaftlich betrieben werden können. Die ökologisch und ökonomisch günstigste Variante stellt die Co-Verbrennung in vorhandenen Anlagen dar. Die Kalkulationen zu den in Deutschland benötigten 20-MWel-Anlagen verdeutlichen, dass bei den gegenwärtig geplanten Heizkraftwerken das Potenzial an HHS schnell aufgebraucht ist.

High-Pressure Partial Oxidation (HP-POX) of natural gas is one of the techniques in the synthesis gas production by non-catalytic reforming. On the path to emissions reduction, all operating facilities must be optimized to satisfy environmental regulations. In a rapidly changing economic and political environment, technological development from lab-scale to demo-scale, and industrial-scale is no longer feasible. Therefore, new research and design methods must be applied. One of such methods commonly used in science and industry is numerical modeling, which utilizes Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), Reduce Order Models (ROMs), kinetic, and equilibrium models. The CFD models provide details about flow field, temperature distribution, and species conversion. However, the computational effort required to conduct such calculations is significant. The computationally expensive CFD models cannot be effectively used in the reactor optimization. Herewith, other modeling techniques utilizing kinetic and equilibrium models do not provide necessary details for process optimization and can only be used for adjustments of boundary conditions, investigation of specific processes occurring in the reactor, or development of sub-models for CFD. A numerical investigation was conducted to validate existing CFD models against benchmark experiments. The results reveled that the CFD model is sensitive to modeling parameters, when simulating complex flows where turbulence-chemistry interaction occurs. Moreover, it was shown that the results sensitivity increases along with the oxidizer/fuel inlet velocities ratio. Based on the conducted experiments, the CFD model validation resulted in definition of the modeling parameters suitable for modeling of HP-POX of natural gas. Based on the validated CFD model, a ROM for HP-POX of natural gas was developed. The model assumes that the reactor consists of several zones characterized by specific conversion processes. Moreover, the model considers inlet streams dissipation upon the injection, and includes several optimization stages that allows model adjustments for any reactor geometry and boundary conditions. It was shown that the developed ROM can reproduce global reactor characteristics at non-equilibrium conditions unlike other ROMs, kinetic, or equilibrium models. Moreover, the validation against CFD results showed that the ROM can correctly account for the \gls{rtd} in the reactors of different geometries and volumes without extensive additional optimization. Finally, new experiments were designed and conduced at semi-industrial HP-POX facility at TU Bergakademie Freiberg. The experiments aimed to study the influence of different oxidizer/fuel velocities ratios on the reactants mixing and process characteristics at high operating pressures. The high velocity difference between oxidizer and fuel was achieved by injection of High-Velocity Oxidizer (HVO). The experiments showed no significant influence of the HVO on the global reactor characteristics and overall species conversion process. However, the numerical analysis of the experimental results demonstrated that the oxidation zone is affected by the oxidizer inlet velocity, and becomes less efficient in the fuel conversion when the oxidizer/fuel inlet velocities ratio is increased. In summary, a sophisticated numerical model validation was conducted and sensitivity of the numerical results to the modeling parameters was carefully studied. The novel natural gas conversion technique was experimentally studied. Based on the conducted experiments and numerical evaluation a ROM was developed. The ROM is capable of producing high accuracy results and greatly decreases the computational effort and time needed for reactor development and optimization.

The design and optimization of entrained flow gasifiers is conducted more and more via computational fluid dynamics (CFD). A detailed resolution of single coal particles within such simulations is nowadays not possible due to computational limitations. Therefore the coal particle conversion is often represented by simple 0-D models. For an optimization of such 0-D models a precise understanding of the physical processes at the boundary layer and within the particle is necessary. In real gasifiers the particles experience Reynolds numbers up to 10000. However in the literature the conversion of coal particles is mainly regarded under quiescent conditions. Therefore an analysis of the conversion of single particles is needed. Thereto the computational fluid dynamics can be used. For the detailed analysis of single reacting particles under flow conditions a CFD model is presented. Practice-oriented parameters as well as features of the CFD model result from CFD simulations of a Siemens 200MWentrained flow gasifier. The CFD model is validated against an analytical model as well as two experimental data-sets taken from the literature. In all cases good agreement between the CFD and the analytics/experiments is shown. The numerical model is used to study single moving solid particles under combustion conditions. The analyzed parameters are namely the Reynolds number, the ambient temperature, the particle size, the operating pressure, the particle shape, the coal type and the composition of the gas. It is shown that for a wide range of the analyzed parameter range no complete flame exists around moving particles. This is in contrast to observations made by other authors for particles in quiescent atmospheres. For high operating pressures, low Reynolds numbers, large particle diameters and high ambient temperatures a flame exists in the wake of the particle. The impact of such a flame on the conversion of the particle is low. For high steam concentrations in the gas a flame appears, which interacts with the particle and influences its conversion. Furthermore the impact of the Stefan-flow on the boundary layer of the particle is studied. It is demonstrated that the Stefan-flow can reduce the drag coefficient and the Nusselt number for several orders of magnitude. On basis of the CFD results two new correlations are presented for the drag coefficient and the Nusselt number. The comparison between the correlations and the CFD shows a significant improvement of the new correlations in comparison to archived correlations. The CFD-model is further used to study moving single porous particles under gasifying conditions. Therefore a 2-D axis-symmetric system of non-touching tori as well as a complex 3-D geometry based on the an inverted settlement of monodisperse spheres is utilized. With these geometries the influence of the Reynolds number, the ambient temperature, the porosity, the intrinsic surface and the size of the radiating surface is analyzed. The studies show, that the influence of the flow on the particle conversion is moderate. In particular the impact of the flow on the intrinsic transport and conversion processes is mainly negligible. The size of the radiating surface has a similar impact on the conversion as the flow in the regarded parameter range. On basis of the CFD calculations two 0-D models for the combustion and gasification of moving particles are presented. These models can reproduce the results predicted by the CFD sufficiently for a wide parameter range.

The design and optimization of entrained flow gasifiers is conducted more and more via computational fluid dynamics (CFD). A detailed resolution of single coal particles within such simulations is nowadays not possible due to computational limitations. Therefore the coal particle conversion is often represented by simple 0-D models. For an optimization of such 0-D models a precise understanding of the physical processes at the boundary layer and within the particle is necessary. In real gasifiers the particles experience Reynolds numbers up to 10000. However in the literature the conversion of coal particles is mainly regarded under quiescent conditions. Therefore an analysis of the conversion of single particles is needed. Thereto the computational fluid dynamics can be used. For the detailed analysis of single reacting particles under flow conditions a CFD model is presented. Practice-oriented parameters as well as features of the CFD model result from CFD simulations of a Siemens 200MWentrained flow gasifier. The CFD model is validated against an analytical model as well as two experimental data-sets taken from the literature. In all cases good agreement between the CFD and the analytics/experiments is shown. The numerical model is used to study single moving solid particles under combustion conditions. The analyzed parameters are namely the Reynolds number, the ambient temperature, the particle size, the operating pressure, the particle shape, the coal type and the composition of the gas. It is shown that for a wide range of the analyzed parameter range no complete flame exists around moving particles. This is in contrast to observations made by other authors for particles in quiescent atmospheres. For high operating pressures, low Reynolds numbers, large particle diameters and high ambient temperatures a flame exists in the wake of the particle. The impact of such a flame on the conversion of the particle is low. For high steam concentrations in the gas a flame appears, which interacts with the particle and influences its conversion. Furthermore the impact of the Stefan-flow on the boundary layer of the particle is studied. It is demonstrated that the Stefan-flow can reduce the drag coefficient and the Nusselt number for several orders of magnitude. On basis of the CFD results two new correlations are presented for the drag coefficient and the Nusselt number. The comparison between the correlations and the CFD shows a significant improvement of the new correlations in comparison to archived correlations. The CFD-model is further used to study moving single porous particles under gasifying conditions. Therefore a 2-D axis-symmetric system of non-touching tori as well as a complex 3-D geometry based on the an inverted settlement of monodisperse spheres is utilized. With these geometries the influence of the Reynolds number, the ambient temperature, the porosity, the intrinsic surface and the size of the radiating surface is analyzed. The studies show, that the influence of the flow on the particle conversion is moderate. In particular the impact of the flow on the intrinsic transport and conversion processes is mainly negligible. The size of the radiating surface has a similar impact on the conversion as the flow in the regarded parameter range. On basis of the CFD calculations two 0-D models for the combustion and gasification of moving particles are presented. These models can reproduce the results predicted by the CFD sufficiently for a wide parameter range.:List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .XIII Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XV Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIX 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 1.1 State of the Art in Carbon Conversion Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1.1 Combustion of Solid Particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1.2 Gasification of Porous Particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.2 Classification of the Present Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 1.3 Overview of the Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 2 Basic Theory and Model Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.1 Geometry and Length Scales of Coal Particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 2.2 Conditions in a Siemens Like 200 MW Entrained Flow Gasifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.2.1 Velocity Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 2.2.2 Temperature Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.2.3 Particle Volume Fraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 2.3 Time Scales of the Physical Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.4 Basic Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 2.5 Conservation Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2.6 Gas Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 2.7 Boundary Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.8 Numerics and Solution Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 2.9 Mesh and Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 3 CFD-based Oxidation Modeling of a Non-Porous Carbon Particle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 3.1 Chemical Reaction System for Combustion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 3.1.1 Heterogeneous Reactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 3.1.2 Homogeneous Reactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 3.1.3 Comparison of the Semi-Global vs. Reduced Reaction Mechanisms for the Gas Phase . .41 3.2 Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 3.2.1 Validation Against an Analytical Solution of the Two-Film Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 3.2.2 Validation Against Experiments I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 3.2.3 Validation Against Experiments II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 3.3 Influence of Ambient Temperature and Reynolds Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 3.4 Influence of Heterogeneous Kinetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 3.5 Influence of Atmosphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 3.6 Influence of Operating Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 3.7 Influence of Particle Diameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 3.8 The influence of Particle Shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 3.9 Impact of Stefan Flow on the Boundary Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 3.9.1 Impact of Stefan Flow on the Drag Coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83 3.9.2 Impact of Stefan Flow on the Nusselt and Sherwood Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 3.10 Single-Film Sub-Model vs. CFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 3.11 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 4 CFD-based Numerical Modeling of Partial Oxidation of a Porous Carbon Particle . . . . . . . . . .99 4.1 Chemical Reaction System for Gasification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 4.1.1 Heterogeneous Chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100 4.1.2 Homogeneous Chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 4.2 Two-Dimensional Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 4.2.1 Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 4.2.2 Influence of Reynolds Number and Ambient Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109 4.2.3 Influence of Porosity and Internal Surface . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 4.3 Comparative Three-Dimensional Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 4.3.1 Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126 4.3.2 Results of the 3-D Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 4.4 Extended Sub-Model for Gasification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133 4.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .138 5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .141 5.1 Summary of This Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141 5.2 Recommendations for Future Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145 6 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 6.1 Appendix I: Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 6.2 Appendix II: Two-Film Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 6.3 Appendix III: Sub-Model for the Combustion of Solid Particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 6.4 Appendix IV: Sub-Model for the Gasification of Porous Particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161