Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Energy Procedia 110 (2017) 53 – 58

1st International Conference on Energy and Power, ICEP2016, 14-16 December 2016, RMIT
University, Melbourne, Australia

Development and performance evaluation of a biomass gasification

system for ceramic firing process
Phitsanupong Punnarapong, Anucha Promwungkwa, Nakorn Tippayawong*
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, 50200, Thailand

Abstract

Ceramic products are manufactured in many countries worldwide. Ceramic manufacturing industry is vital in terms of employment
and economics. The industry is very energy intensive, consuming large amount of fuels. Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and natural
gas are usually used, representing a significant portion of the total production cost. Switching to alternative gaseous fuel such as
biomass derived producer gas may result in lower energy cost. Producer gas generated from biomass gasification process contains
H2, CO and CH4 which are combustible. Under carefully controlled conditions, burning of producer gas can provide suitable firing
atmospheres for manufacture of ceramic products. In this work, attempt has been made to develop a 600 kWth biomass gasification
system for ceramic firing. Woodchips were used as fuel. Product gas was generated and analyzed for its composition and energetic
content. Firing of this fuel gas in place of LPG with modified gas burners in a firing chamber and preliminary testing at a local
ceramic factory were carried out and demonstrated. It was found that required heat outputs and high temperature conditions were
realized. Acceptable quality of the ceramic products was obtained. A simple economic analysis yielded an attractive return on
investment. This proved to be a very promising energy option for substitution of fossil based gaseous fuels in ceramic industry.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 1st International Conference on Energy and Power.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 1st International Conference on Energy and Power.
Keywords: Bioenergy; Energy conservation; Producer gas; Renewable energy; Thermochemical conversion

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +66-5394-4146; fax: +66-5394-4145.

E-mail address: n.tippayawong@yahoo.com

1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. 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 organizing committee of the 1st International Conference on Energy and Power.
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.105
54 Phitsanupong Punnarapong et al. / Energy Procedia 110 (2017) 53 – 58

1. Introduction

Ceramic product is referred to any pottery made from fired high quality clay, silica and feldspar. Manufacture of
ceramic products takes place in different types of kilns, involving four basic steps; shaping, drying, firing and glazing.
During firing step, accurate temperature evolution is necessary to ensure that the right heat treatment of the products
is obtained. Controlled cooling is subsequently required for the products to gradually release heat and preserve their
structure. Afterwards, they are packaged and stored for delivery.
Ceramic manufacturing industry is vital to the economy of many countries, including Thailand. It is a source of
employment and occupation of the local people, generating income for Thailand's economy. Original ceramics
industry was mainly distributed in Samutsakhon, Saraburi, Chiang Mai, and Lampang. Ministry of Industry revealed
that the number of industrial ceramic operations across the country was about 530 ceramic factories [1]. Export of
ceramic products generates large revenue from Japan, China, USA, Australia, Germany and Asian countries, totalling
about 725 million USD in 2013. The products exported include wall tiles, floor tiles, sanitary ware, tableware and
other ceramic products. Production and sales of ceramic products are likely to increase due to growth in domestic
demand and global economic recovery [2].
For ceramic firing procedure, thermal energy is usually provided from combustion of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)
or natural gas. This process is energy-intensive, consuming large amount of gaseous fuels. Ceramic manufacturing
industry requires LPG and natural gas as fuel, accounting for approximately 15-40% of production costs [3]. Energy
conservation measures are urgently needed for the industry to remain competitive. One of the possible solutions is
switching to alternative gaseous fuel such as biomass derived producer gas that may result in lower energy cost.
Producer gas is from conversion of solid biomass into fuel with the fuel synthesis process called gasification.
Energetic content of the producer gas is in the range of 3-6 MJ/Nm3 if air is used as gasifying agent. Composition of
the producer gas is dependent on conditions, techniques, production methods, but it contains combustible gases,
mainly CO, H2, and CH4, from the following reactions;

Gasification: Biomass → char + tar + gases (H2, CO, CO2, CH4) (1)

Thermal decomposition: tar → gases (H2, CO, CO2, CH4) (2)

Boudouard reaction: C + CO2 + 162 kJ/mol ↔ 2CO (3)

Steam reforming reaction: CH4 + H2O(g) + 206 kJ/mol ↔ CO + 3H2 (4)

Water gas reaction: C + H2O(g) +131 kJ/mol ↔ CO + H2 (5)

Water–gas shift reaction: CO + H2O - 41 kJ/mol ↔ CO2 + H2 (6)

Oxidation: C + O2 - 408.8 kJ/mol ↔ CO2 (7)

Hydrogasification: C + 2H2 + 75 kJ/mol ↔ CH4 (8)

Methane steam reforming reaction: CO + 3H2 - 206 kJ/mol ↔ CH4 + H2O (9)
CO2 + 4H2 - 165 kJ/mol ↔ CH4 + 2H2O (10)

Gasification offers optional conversion technology for the biomass residues available that has high thermal
efficiency and environmental acceptability. The technology is well established and employed in many countries to
generate electricity, synthetic fuels, and process heat [4-6]. It has been demonstrated to be relatively economical for
use in small and medium enterprises and in rural areas [7-11]. For direct thermal application, many types of biomass
gasifiers have been developed and demonstrated. Among the most popular designs of gasifier adopted was downdraft
system from experimental reactors to commercially installed systems [7, 12, 13]. The technology may be adopted by
ceramic manufacturing industry.
 Phitsanupong Punnarapong et al. / Energy Procedia 110 (2017) 53 – 58 55

In this work, woodchips were utilized as a source of clean energy via gasification for ceramic firing process. A
simple downdraft gasifier system was developed. It was installed and operated at a local ceramic factory, with the aims
to reduce operating cost of current manufacturing practice, and to demonstrate a cost effective and practical producer
gas burner to provide process heat with appropriate gasification technology. Experimental data obtained from the
operation was presented. Analysis of its projected economic performance was conducted, and compared with existing
LPG fired system from conventional practice.

2. Methodology

2.1. Biomass feedstock

Woodchips were used as fuel input. Its heating value was about 12-15 MJ/kg. The shape and size of this biomass
material were uniform, about 20-50 mm long and 5-10 mm thick. Density was in the range of 200-400 kg/m3. They
were left in open air to dry for at least a month. The moisture content was about 15-20% wet basis.

2.2. Gasification system

A single-stage, downdraft, throat-type, fixed-bed gasifier with capacity of 600 kWth was designed and built (shown
in Fig. 1). The gasifier components included an insulated cylindrical reactor, a grate, and an ash pit. The reactor wall
was made of firebrick and covered with a steel sheet. A centrally located stirring shaft was installed. Loading of fuel
feedstock was done from the top, via a bucket conveyer and locked hopper. Air was induced via a preheater and
discharged through circumferential holes by a suction blower downstream. The gasifier core was designed such that
a cross section area was reduced downstream of the air inlets to form a throat or constriction. The reactor volume was
designed to require recharging once every two hours when working at rated capacity. The grate area of 0.88 m2 was
designed from specific gasification rate of 450 kg/h/m2 and the fuel feed rate of up to 400 kg/h. Ash formed was
removed from the gasifier by a motorized screw and fell into a water sealed, ash pit. The volume of the ash pit was
sufficiently large to allow long hour operation without ash removal. The system consists of the gasifier, and a gas
conditioning system. Fig. 1 also shows the gas conditioning system which includes a cyclone, a cooler, and a biomass
filter.

Fig. 1. Drawing of the gasifier system.

56 Phitsanupong Punnarapong et al. / Energy Procedia 110 (2017) 53 – 58

2.3. Modified gas burners

Partially mixed LPG burners used in the existing ceramic firing chamber were adopted and modified for producer
gas. Air and producer gas inlet pipes were enlarged to 38 mm diameter. The mixing section upstream of the burner
port of at least 450 mm long was deployed. They were equipped with valves to adjust flow rates of both air and
producer gas, shown in Fig. 2. Also shown are the positions of gas burners installed underneath a typical 4.5 m3
ceramic firing chamber used in a ceramic manufacturing factory.

Fig. 2. The modified gas burners and their installation in a ceramic firing chamber.

2.4. Test procedure and data analysis

Initially, a small amount of burning paper was used to establish a combustion zone on the grate inside the
gasification reactor. The suction blower was started, drawing air in to sustain combustion. The woodchips were
subsequently loaded and the cover was closed. Air was regulated by valves in such a way that combustible producer
gas was generated. This would take about 30-60 min for a stable flame at the gas burner to be established. Producer
gas was utilized to provide direct heat to an existing 4.5 m3 ceramic chamber. Each run lasted between 2 – 10 h.
Several test runs were performed to evaluate the thermal performance of the system. Measurements were taken by
monitoring fuel consumption rate and amount of water used on an hourly basis. The gas flow rate was measured with
a volume meter. The cool, dry, clean gas was sampled using gas bags and analyzed on a Shimadzu Model GC-8A gas
chromatograph for measuring volumetric concentration of H2, O2, N2, CH4, CO, CO2. Standard gas mixtures were
used for quantitative calibration. Gas temperature at the gasifier exit and flame temperature were measured with type
K thermocouples. Temperatures were recorded continuously on a data acquisition system.

3. Results and discussion

Operators with some technical background were trained to handle the system by a team of engineers and technicians.
A number of test runs were carried out. Biomass feed rate was between 50 – 150 kg/h. The gasification reactor was
able to start within 15 min and attain steady state operation from cold start in about 30-60 min. The gas generation
system appeared to operate smoothly. With careful control of air and gas at the burners, the mixture could be ignited
successfully in which stable flames were established at the ports. No visible smoke was observed. Fuel flow
obstruction was not detected. As a precaution, poking in the reactor was undertaken at regular interval. Less than about
10% of the biomass remained as solid residues, constituting ash. Visual inspection of the ash revealed a small fraction
of charcoal left. Clinkering was observed, but the sizes were generally small. All solid residues were normally
contained within the water seal underneath the gasifier.
 Phitsanupong Punnarapong et al. / Energy Procedia 110 (2017) 53 – 58 57

Table 1. Average composition of producer gas.

Component (% v/v)
CO 11.55
CO2 10.27
H2 9.62
CH4 3.36
O2 2.62
N2 balance
Chamber temperature (oC)

Operation time (h)

Fig. 3. Temperature evolution inside a ceramic chamber during firing process.

For current setup, gas production rate was about 70 – 200 m3/h/m2. The gas temperature leaving the reactor was
found to vary from 250-350oC. Composition of the producer gas was shown in Table 1. The gaseous fuel’s lower
heating value was estimated to be 3.73 MJ/m3. Gasification efficiency was calculated to be 62%. A typical condition
required during ceramic firing process as well as that achieved in this work is shown in Fig. 3, as temperature profiles
inside the chamber. It was demonstrated clearly that high temperatures (1000 – 1200oC) required for firing and glazing
steps can be attained with the current setup. With regards to samples of ceramic products fired by the system, the
quality of these products was accepted by the factory quality control personnel.
A simple period to positive cash flow was performed to assess the economic performance. Initial investment,
additional operating costs, and LPG cost savings were considered. The payback period was estimated to be within
four years. With subsidy, the return on investment will be more attractive. Up to the time of reporting, the system has
been in use for over 12 months. Results were consistent throughout the experimental campaign. The operators were
satisfied with the installation of the gasifier system in place of existing fuel gas system.

4. Concluding remarks

In this study, potential utilization of biomass as replacement fuel for LPG via gasification technology was
considered for ceramic manufacturing industry. Development of a downdraft gasifier and modification of existing gas
burners were carried out. They were found to perform satisfactorily in providing required thermal atmospheres for
ceramic firing process. No major problem was encountered during operation. The factory owner and operators were
satisfied with the results and the system. Economic analysis showed that the gasifier system installation and operation
were viable. Simple period to positive cash flow was estimated to be less than four years.
58 Phitsanupong Punnarapong et al. / Energy Procedia 110 (2017) 53 – 58

Acknowledgements

Supports from the Energy Policy and Planning Office, Ministry of Energy, Thailand Research Fund
(RSA5680011), and Chiang Mai University are gratefully acknowledged. The authors would like to thank technical
and secretarial staff from the Bioenergy lab for assistance.

References

[1] Department of Industrial Works, Ministry of Industry, Thailand, Industry information, http://www.diw.go.th/
[2] Office of the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Thailand, International trade statistics, http://www2.ops3.moc.go.th/
[3] Promwungkwa A, Development of high efficiency burner for ceramic kiln, a report to Energy Policy and Planning Office, Ministry of Energy,
Thailand, March 2011.
[4] Wang L, Weller CL, Jones DD, Hanna MA, Contemporary issues in thermal gasification of biomass and its application to electricity and fuel
production. Biomass Bioenergy 2008;32:573-81.
[5] Kirubakaran V, Sivaramakrishnan V, Nalini R, Sekar T, Premalatha M, Subramanian P, A review on gasification of biomass. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2009;13:179-86.
[6] Asadullah M, Barriers of commercial power generation using biomass gasification gas: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;29:201-15.
[7] Tippayawong N, Chaichana C, Promwungkwa A, Rerkkriangkrai P, Gasification of cashew nut shells for thermal application in local food
processing factory. Energy Sustain Dev 2011;15:69-72.
[8] Wongsiriamnuay T, Tippayawong N, Product gas distribution and composition from catalyzed gasification of mimosa. Int J Renew Energy Res
2012;2:363-8.
[9] Tippayawong N, Chaichana C, Promwungkwa A, Rerkkriangkrai P, Investigation of a small biomass gasifier – engine system operation and its
application to water pumping in rural Thailand. Energy Sour Part A 2013;35:476-86.
[10] Homdoung N, Tippayawong N, Dussadee N, Performance and emissions of a modified small engine operated on producer gas. Energy Convers
Manag 2015;94:286-92.
[11] Homdoung N, Tippayawong N, Dussadee N, Performance investigation of a modified small engine fueled with producer gas. Maejo Int J Sci
Technol 2015;9:10-20.
[12] Patel SR, Bhoi PR, Sharma AM, Field testing of SPRERI’s open core gasifier for thermal application. Biomass Bioenergy 2006;30:580-3.
[13] Pathak BS, Patel SR, Bhave AG, Bhoi PR, Sharma AM, Shah NP, Performance evaluation of an agricultural residue-based modular throat-
type down-draft gasifier for thermal application. Biomass Bioenergy 2008;32:72-7.