This Is A Great Stuff

!

" # $
$% &
' (
)

#*+

, -
%../ 0 #
1 0 2 ,
- - +3 2
0#

!"!

! !"#$ !

!
" #
$ !% ! & $
' ' ($
' # % % ) % * %
' $ '
+ " % &
' !# $,
( $
- .

!
"- (
%
. %
% % % $
$ $ -
-
- -
// $$$
0

1"1"#23."

4& )*5/ +)
* !6 !& 7!8%779:9& % ) -
2 ; !
* &

< "-+ = -
/- >:?9@4& )*5/ +)

"3 " & :?9@
ABSTRACT
Gasification of biomass (wood, wood waste, agriculture residue, etc) is an often-
discussed option that may permit electrical utilities to obtain a portion of their fuel
requirements from renewable energy resources. However, the technical state of this
option is unclear in Nepal at present, and this study was initiated to provide
documented design guideline and performance testing information of commercially
available and laboratory commercial prototype biomass gasifiers to electricity utility
end user.
To achieve this goal, several laboratory prototypes has been developed and rigorously
tested for performance testing. Commercial prototype, Series-3, 3.2 kWe biomass
gasifier worked out to be successful upon which this thesis experiment and results
work are discussed in details. Due to small in physical size of the gasifier, lapsi seed
stone was selected as the basis for fuelling.
Experimental were conducted on effect of particle size and effect of feeding rate on
the biomass gasifier. Increasing the mean particle size than required, produces low
heating value gas quality and high tar generation. Increasing the biomass consumption
rate near to rated biomass consumption capacity produces good consistent gas quality,
low tar generation. Equivalence ratio also played significant role for gas quality in
terms of heating values of the gas. Higher the equivalence ratio, lower the syngas
heating values.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Suraj Pandey born on 1985 in Butwal earned his Bachelor of Engineering in

Mechanical Engineering from Kathmandu University in 2007 with first class.
After his graduation, he worked as various capacities at Kathmandu University from

teaching assistant to research engineer.
Since 2010-2013, he is active in biomass gasifier research project funded by

Renewable Nepal Programme managed by Kathmandu University under the
leadership of Dr. Bivek Baral.
He also received Erasmus Mundus Mobility Asia (EMMA) scholarship as an

exchange student to University of Padova, Italy under the supervision of Professor
Anna Stoppato.
Apart from research activities, Pandey has published many research articles in the
field of biomass gasification in journals, seminar and conferences national and
international.
iii
This thesis is dedicated to rural people around the world who are out of reach from the
electricity.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My sincere gratitude goes to Dr. Bivek Baral, supervisor, and his family, who have
showed me the international level of research and academic exposure through this
project. I would also like to thank Assistant Professor Sunil Prasad Lohani, co-leader
of the RENP-PID-248 “Gasifier”.
I would also like to thank Dr. Bhupendra Bimal Chettri and Renewable Nepal
Programme and the team for their support throughout the project. Similarly, my
appreciation also goes to Dr. Bhola Thapa, Registrar of Kathmandu University, for his
every effort to establish a biomass gasifier laboratory in the country.
Similarly, my sincere thanks goes to Dr. Hari Prasad Neupane, Head of Department of
Mechanical Engineering and Dr. Bim Prasad Shrestha, Dean of School of Engineering
and Professor Anna Stoppato from University of Padova, Italy, for their moral support.
This thesis and research work could not have been successful without the support of
project team members Aadarsh Upreti, Sumit Karki, Bhaskar Dahal, Anant Bhusal and
other under graduate’s students.
My sincere condolence to Late Shri Ram Sharan Thapa Magar, with whom I have
shared my technical difficulties while building the biomass gasifier at the laboratory.
Similarly, many thanks to Mr. Shyam Makaju for his support in accessing tools and
machine at the workshop.
Finally, my thanks go to my wife and family members who continuously supported
me for higher education at every stages of my life.
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION. ............................................................................... 13

1.1 Background on Biomass Energy . ...................................................................... 13
1.2 Gasifier Types and Processes . ........................................................................... 14
1.2.1 Updraft Gasifier . ......................................................................................... 15
1.2.2 Downdraft Gasifier . .................................................................................... 16
1.2.3 Fluidized Gasifier . ...................................................................................... 17
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW. .................................................................... 19
2.1 Gasification Reaction and Chemical Process . ................................................... 19
2.2 Effect of Various Parameters in the Gasification Process . ................................ 21
2.2.1 Moisture Content . ....................................................................................... 22
2.2.2 Equivalence Ratio . ...................................................................................... 23
2.2.3 Superficial Velocity . ................................................................................... 25
2.2.4 Temperature . ............................................................................................... 27
2.2.5 External Heating on Pyrolysis Zone . .......................................................... 28
2.2.6 Biomass Types and Properties. ................................................................... 30
2.2.7 Particle Size . ............................................................................................... 33
2.2.8 Gasification Medium and Secondary Air . .................................................. 34
2.3 Formation of Tar and In-Situ Destruction Methods . ......................................... 35
1.6 Summary. ........................................................................................................... 38
1.7 Objectives of this Study. .................................................................................... 39
CHAPTER 3: DESIGN OF DOWNDRAFT BIOMASS GASIFIER . ........................ 41
3.1 Introduction . ...................................................................................................... 41
3.2 Analysis of the commercial available gasifier. .................................................. 41
3.2.1 Ankur Scientific Gasifier Reactor Model . .................................................. 42
3.2.2 IISc-Open top Gasifier Reactor Model. ...................................................... 43
3.2.3 DTU-Vikings Gasifier Reactor Model . ...................................................... 45
3.3 Design Criteria. .................................................................................................. 46
3.3.1 Hearth Load Sizing . .................................................................................... 47
3.4 Design Guideline and sizing . ............................................................................. 51
3.4.1 Height of Nozzle Plane . .............................................................................. 52
3.4.2 Diameter of firebox . ................................................................................... 53
3.4.3 Diameter of Nozzle Ring . ........................................................................... 53
3.4.4 Diameter of Reduction zone and length . .................................................... 54
3.4.5 System configuration . ................................................................................. 54
3.5 Development of Spreadsheet . ............................................................................ 55
2.6 Modelling the gasifier reactor in CAD . ............................................................. 55
2.7 Initial Design and Development . ....................................................................... 56
2.7.1 Series 1 . ...................................................................................................... 56
2.7.2 Series 2 . ...................................................................................................... 57
2.7.3 Series 3 . ...................................................................................................... 58
vii
CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ 60
4.1 Methodology for Thermodynamic Modeling ..................................................... 60
4.1.1 Model Formulation ...................................................................................... 60
4.2 Methodology for Experiment on Effect of Particle Size .................................... 64
4.2.1 Materials ...................................................................................................... 64
4.2.2 Procedure ..................................................................................................... 64
4.2.3 Equipment.................................................................................................... 64
4.3 Methodology for Experiment with Varying Fuel Feeding Rate ......................... 65
4.3.1 Materials ...................................................................................................... 65
4.3.2 Procedure ..................................................................................................... 65
4.3.3 Equipment.................................................................................................... 66
4.3.4 Biomass Characterization ............................................................................ 68
4.3.5 System Operation ........................................................................................ 69
4.3.6 Theoretical Framework and Post Processing .............................................. 70
4.3.6.1 Producer Gas to Fuel Ratio (G/F) ............................................................. 70
4.3.6.2 Specific air consumption-Air to Gas Ratio (A/G) .................................... 71
4.3.6.3 Equivalence Ratio (ER) ............................................................................ 72
4.3.6.4 Heating Value of the fuel ......................................................................... 72
CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................... 73
5.1 Results and Discussion for Thermodynamic Modeling ..................................... 73
5.1.1 Effect of moisture content on N2 formation to run at preset reaction temper-
ature ...................................................................................................................... 74
5.1.2 Effect of moisture content on CO formation to run at preset reaction
temperature ........................................................................................................... 75
5.1.3 Effect of moisture content on H2 formation to run at preset reaction temper-
ature ...................................................................................................................... 75
5.2 Results and Discussion for the Effect of Particle Size ....................................... 75
5.2.1 Effect of particle size on Pyrolysis Length.................................................. 76
5.2.2 Effect of Reduction Temperature to the Molar Percentage of the Syngas
Composition ......................................................................................................... 77
5.2.3 Effect of particle size on temperature and tar .............................................. 78
5.3 Results and Discussion for Varying Fuel Feeding Rate ..................................... 79
5.3.1 Effect of Feeding Rate on Syngas Composition.......................................... 79
5.3.2 Effect of Feeding rate on Heating Value of the Syngas .............................. 82
5.3.3 Effect of Throat temperature on Hydro Carbon (HC) Concentration ......... 83
5.3.4 Effect of biomass feeding rate on throat temperature and HC .................... 85
5.3.5 Effect of Biomass Feeding Rate on Equivalence Ratio and Heating Values
of gas .................................................................................................................... 86
5.3.6 Effect of Equivalence Ratio on Syngas Composition ................................. 87
5.4 Grate shaking issues ....................................................................................... 88
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... 90
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 92
APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................. 112
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Range of applicability for biomass gasifiers types. (Basu, 2006) .................. 15
Figure 2 Throat less downdraft gasifier........................................................................ 17
Figure 3 Double throat downdraft gasifier. .................................................................. 17
Figure 4 Single throat downdraft gasifier with side entry air. ...................................... 17
Figure 5 Single throat downdraft gasifier with top entry air. ....................................... 17
Figure 6 Single throat downdraft gasifier with bottom entry air. ................................. 17
Figure 7 Potential path for the gasification process (Basu, 2006) ................................ 19
Figure 8 Overall process of biomass gasification processes. ....................................... 20
Figure 9 Effect of equivalence ratio on product gas output (Channiwala, 2009)......... 24
Figure 10 Effect of superficial velocity on tar generation, pressure drop and pyrolysis
time (Reed, 1988) ......................................................................................................... 26
Figure 11 Two air injection plane gasifier (S. Dasappa, 2003). ................................... 27
Figure 12 Two stage separate pyrolysis gasifier (P. Brandt, 2000).............................. 27
Figure 13 Results of two stage separate pre heated pyrolysis (Ulrik Henriksena, 2006)
...................................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 14 Biomass tar formation (Evans, R.J. and T.A. Milne, 1987)......................... 35
Figure 15 Tar yield as a function of the maximum temperature exposure ................... 37
Figure 16 Typical tars and particulates loading in different biomass gasifiers ............ 38
Figure 17 Schematic configuration of Ankur 12 kWe biomass gasifier ...................... 43
Figure 18 IISc open top biomass gasifier with secondary air injection ....................... 44
Figure 19 Schematic diagram of DTU-Viking biomass gasifier with separate external
pyrolysis reactor ........................................................................................................... 46
Figure 20 Variation of throat diameter with variation in hearth load design value. .... 48
Figure 21 Variation of throat diameter with variation in hearth load design value. .... 49
Figure 22 Flow chart showing the design steps for sizing the gasifier of required
output. ........................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 23 Sketch of the biomass gasifier reactor ......................................................... 51
Figure 24 Relationship between throat diameter and height of the air tuyers plane .... 52
Figure 25 Relationship between throat diameter and firebox diameter ....................... 53
Figure 26 Relationship between throat diameter and firebox diameter ....................... 53
Figure 27 Snapshot of MS-Excel Gasifier Design Spreadsheet ................................... 55
Figure 28 Series 1 prototype......................................................................................... 56
Figure 31 Photograph of lapsi seed stone ..................................................................... 65
Figure 32 Photograph of laboratory scale commercial prototype with necessary acces-
sories and instrumentation . .......................................................................................... 66
Figure 34 Sketch of the reactor with location of K-type thermocouple ....................... 67
ix
Figure 33 Moisture Meter ............................................................................................. 67
Figure 35 Thermo-gravimetric analysis (TGA) of Lapsi seed stone ............................ 68
Figure 36 Glow flame as seen from air inlet nozzles. .................................................. 69
Figure 37 Effect of moisture content on equivalence ratio (above) and HHV of syngas
generated (below) ......................................................................................................... 73
Figure 38 Effect of moisture content on syngas species on dry basis for Eucalyptus
wood. ............................................................................................................................ 74
Figure 39 Effect of large mean particle size on temperature distribution along the
gasifier .......................................................................................................................... 76
Figure 40 Effect of small mean particle size on temperature distribution along the
gasifier .......................................................................................................................... 77
Figure 41 Syngas composition of two different particle size for reduction temperature
...................................................................................................................................... 78
Figure 42 Gas composition and temperature profile from the gasifier at various time
from starting the gasifier (3.91 kg/hour) ...................................................................... 79
Figure 43 Gas composition and temperature profile from the gasifier at various time
from starting the gasifier (3.91 kg/hour) ...................................................................... 80
Figure 44 CO/CO2 ratio and temperature profile with respect to time (3.91 kg/hour) 81
Figure 45 CO/CO2 ratio and temperature profile with respect to time (3.91 kg/hour) 81
Figure 46 CO-CO2 trade off temperature plot ............................................................. 82
Figure 47 Effect of throat temperature on heating value with respect to time (3.91 kg/
hour) ............................................................................................................................. 83
Figure 48 Effect of throat temperature to heating value with respect to time (2.1 kg/
hour) ............................................................................................................................. 83
Figure 49 Effect of throat temperature on hydro carbon (3.91 kg/hr) .......................... 84
Figure 50 Effect of throat temperature on hydro carbon (tar) (2.1 kg/hour) ................ 84
Figure 51 Effect of feed rate on throat temperature and Hydro Carbon (tar) concentra-
tion . .............................................................................................................................. 85
Figure 52 Effect of equivalence ratio on heating values of the final syngas (3.91 kg/
hour) ............................................................................................................................. 86
Figure 53 Effect of equivalence ratio on heating values of the final syngas (2.1 kg/
hour) ............................................................................................................................. 86
Figure 54 Effect of equivalence ratio on higher heating value of syngas .................... 87
Figure 55 Effect of equivalence ratio on syngas composition and higher heating values
...................................................................................................................................... 88
Figure 56 Ash sintering at the oxidation zone. ............................................................. 89
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Various characteristics, properties and difference between common types of
gasifier .......................................................................................................................... 18
Table 2 Generalization of reaction taking place for gasification (Basu, 2006) ............ 20
Table 3 Effect of moisture content in three common gasifiers .................................... 22
Table 4 Optimal equivalence ratio for selected feed stocks ......................................... 25
Table 5 Proximate and Ultimate analysis of various biomass feedstocks .................... 30
Table 6 Biomass typical physical, chemical and thermodynamic properties ............... 31
Table 7 Typical minerals content in some selected biomass feedstock ....................... 32
Table 8 Chemical components in biomass tars (Milne, 1998) .................................... 36
Table 9 Gas composition from Ankur Biomass Gasifier for different feed stock........ 42
Table 10 Typical gas composition from IISc open top biomass gasifier ..................... 44
Table 11 Typical gas composition from the DTU-Viking biomass gasifier ................ 45
Table 12 Physical properties and proximate analysis of Lapsi seed stone ................... 68
Table 13 Comparison of properties of Lapsi seed stone with other similar biomass ... 68
xi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background on Biomass Energy

Biomass energy has taken a new height of interest since last decades for the possible sustainable
energy for the future. This movement is motivated by several factors; declining fossil fuels
reserves and thus an increase need of energy security, environmental concerns and promotion of
socioeconomic benefits to rural areas. Nepal heavily relies on imported fossil fuel and LPG gas
from India and overseas for mainly transportation and cooking. Nepal is an agriculture and
mountain country and has a large number of remote villages that do not have access to electricity
and agriculture mechanization is rare. Being an agricultural country is an advantage in terms of
biomass availability. Biomass is a promising alternative energy. The end use and products from
biomass conversion can be mainly in any one of heat and power applications, transportation fuels
(biodiesel, bio-ethanol) and chemicals for subsequent processing. Biomass can be converted in to
bio fuel using thermal or chemical processes. Among the processes for extracting, thermal
process has gained much popularity through the gasification process because of higher thermal
conversion efficiency.
Different forms of thermal treatment of biomass are distinguished from each other by the amount
of air supplied, residence time, temperature, and consequently the heat transfer rate in the
process. Supplying excess air results in normal combustion while treatment without air/oxygen
results in pyrolysis products. Gasification is the conversion of biomass into the mixture of
combustible and non-combustible gases (referred as syngas hereafter) by partial oxidation at high
temperature around 800-900˚C in the presence of a gasifying medium such as air, oxygen or
steam. Syngas from biomass is a mixture of carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2),
hydrogen (H2), water (H2O) and a small amount of methane (CH4). The use of syngas for power
generation by fuelling the gas in an i.c. engine is widely accepted and is considered to be a
mature technology.
Considering the relevance of such product in Nepal this project carried out activities for
designing, fabricating and testing a low cost indigenous biomass gasifier that uses agricultural
and forest waste including rice husk, rice/wheat straw, corn hops, wood chips and saw dust; to
13
give producer or ‘syngas’. The syngas is a combustible mixture consisting mostly of carbon
monoxide and hydrogen gases, and is obtained by limiting the air supply to obtain partial
combustion of biomass. The syngas can be used for fuelling both petrol and diesel engines with
slight modifications. The capacity/size of the gasifier is targeted to cater the small sized engines
(5-10 kW) which are widely used in Nepal for pumping water, operating thrashers and small rice
and flour mills, and also for the generation of electricity locally in a small scale. This category of
engines includes petrol, diesel and kerosene engines.
1.2 Gasifier Types and Processes

There are numbers of gasifiers available which has based up on their basic characteristics of
generating the syngas. The gasifiers are in four categories which are based on the fluid and/or
solid movement inside the reactor (Warnecke, 2000).
i. Quasi non-moving or self-moving feedstock

ii. Mechanically-moved feedstock
a. Downdraft gasifier
b. Updraft gasifier
c. Cross-draft gasifier
iii. Fluidically-moved feedstock
a. Bubbling bed (BB) gasifier
b. Circulating fluidized bed (CFB) gasifier
c. Entrained-bed gasifier
iv. Special reactors
a. Spouted bed gasifier
b. Cyclone gasifier
Among those listed above, downdraft, updraft, BB and CFB gasifiers are the most common as
also shown by studies (Knoef, 2000). Figures 1.3 show schematics of various gasifiers that are
widely used in the commercial market. Commercially, about 75% of the gasifiers sold are
downdraft gasifiers, 20% fluidized bed, 2.5% updraft, and 2.5% of the other types (Knoef, 2000).
14
The updraft gasifier is popular for application choice when the primary purpose of gasification is
heating only (below 10 MWt) due to its high thermal efficiency and ability to handle feedstock
with wide variation in size and moisture content as high as 50% (Beenackers, 1998).
Downdraft gasifiers are preferred for small scale power generation due to low amount of tar
content in the syngas. The problem with fixed-bed gasifiers is their inability to maintain uniform
radial temperature which results in local slag, bridging and clinkering problems. Lack of uniform
radial temperature is one of the reasons why this kind of gasifier cannot be scaled up rendering
them inflexible and of limited use (Beenackers, 1998).
Fluidized bed gasifier provides higher throughput than those with a fixed bed. Fluidization
enhances mass and heat transfer from the fuel thereby increasing heating value of the output and
higher efficiency rendering it excellent for low-rank coal and biomass gasification.
Entrained bed gasification is similar to fluidized bed gasification except for the operation range
temperature which is usually higher than 1900ஈC. This type can have an even higher throughput
capacity but is limited to coal use only due to the particle size constraint on the feedstock (less
than 0.15 mm) (Basu, 2006)
Figure 1 Range of applicability for biomass gasifiers types. (Basu, 2006)
The various types of gasifiers shown in Figure 2 are discussed in the sections below. BB and
CFG gasifiers are discussed in a single section as fluidized gasifier due to minor differences
between them.
1.2.1 Updraft Gasifier
An updraft gasifier is one of the oldest and simplest of all designs. The movement of the
feedstock and the gasifying agent are in opposite directions in this kind of gasifier (also called a
counter-current gasifier). Since the syngas formed is not forced to pass through the hot high
15
temperature zone, the tar content is high in the syngas from this gasifier. On the other hand, the
temperature of syngas exiting from this gasifier is lower around (200-300ஈC) and hence the
thermal efficiency of this kind of gasifier is high. Due to high tar content in the syngas, a
subsequent tar cleaning system is needed, which can become a major investment if the end-
process requires tar-free syngas.
1.2.2 Downdraft Gasifier
A downdraft gasifier is a co-current reactor where air enters the gasifier at a certain height below
the top. The product gas flows downward (giving the name downdraft) and leaves through a bed
of hot ash. In a downdraft gasifier, the feedstock and gasifying agent both move in the same
direction. The gases have to pass through the high-temperature so amount of tar is significantly
lower than that in an updraft gasifier. The particulate content is however higher for downdraft
gasifier and the thermal efficiency are lower since syngas draws an appreciable amount of energy
while passing through the high-temperature zone inside the gasifier.
Downdraft gasifiers work well with internal-combustion engines. The engine suction draws air
through the bed of fuel, and gas is produced at the end. Low tar content (0.015–3 g/Nm3) in the
product gas is another motivation for their use with internal-combustion engines. A downdraft
gasifier requires a shorter time (20–30 minutes) to ignite and bring the plant up to working
temperature compared to the time required by an updraft gasifier.
There are various types of downdraft gasifier as illustrated in Figure 2 – 6, depending on the
biomass fuel availability, fuel size, density and end use. Biomass fuel can be categorized in to
two, woody based biomass and fine biomass. Woody based includes wood chips having the bulk
density above 350 kg/m3. Fine biomass includes saw dust, rice husk etc having bulk density less
than 300 kg/m3.
16
Figure 2 Throat less downdraft gasifier. Figure 3 Double throat downdraft gasifier.
Figure 4 Single throat downdraft Figure 5 Single throat Figure 6 Single throat
gasifier with side entry air. downdraft gasifier with top downdraft gasifier with bottom
entry air. entry air.
1.2.3 Fluidized Gasifier
In fluidized bed gasifiers, feedstock is fluidized with some bed material like sand/silica with a
gasifying medium which can be air or steam. Fluidized bed gasifiers can further be classified into
two types: bubbling and circulating. Circulating fluidized bed adds one more feature to bubbling
bed such that solid material trapped in the gas phase is trapped and re-circulated back to the
gasification bed. This provides the significant advantages over the bubbling bed gasifier in terms
of mass conversion efficiency and reduces particulate content in the syngas output (Basu, 2006).
17
Table 1 Various characteristics, properties and difference between common types of gasifier
(Warnecke, 2000) (Basu, 2006) (Dogru, 2002) (McKendry, 2002)
Gasifier Type
Characteristics
Downdraft Updraft BBG CFBG
Less space required due to
High space requirement for higher throughput
enhanced heat transfer resulting in much
Gasifier size due to modular design of the gasifier and high
faster gasification and lower residence
residence time
time inside the gasifier
Not uniform temperature distribution in the Uniform temperature distribution inside
Temperature Profile
radial distribution the gasifier
Permissible particle
< 50 mm/good < 5 mm/more sensitive to feedstock size
size/Size sensitivity
Reaction zone ஈ
800-1100 C 800-1000ஈC
temperature
Ability to handle fine
Limited Good
particles
Moisture content Very flexible Flexible Flexible
Gas exit temperature 600-800 oC 250 oC 800 oC
Very low (0.01-6 Very high (50
Tar concentration 6-12 gm/Nm3)
gm/Nm3) gm/Nm3)
Carbon conversion
Very good Fair Very good
efficiency
Thermal efficiency Very good Excellent Good Very good
LHV of syngas Poor Poor Poor Fair
Cold gas efficiency 80 % 90 %
Gas clean-up High cleaning required Relatively clean gas Clean-up required for dust and tar
Dust content in syngas High Low Higher dust content
Higher investment for the energy eneration
Investment Lower investment
compared to BBG/CFBG (for large scale output)
Applications Small to medium scales Large scales
18
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Gasification Reaction and Chemical Process

Gasification converts solid or liquid feedstock into useful and convenient gaseous fuel or
chemical feedstock that can be burned to release energy or used for the production of value-
added chemicals. Gasification is a highly complex chemical process. The gasification process
adds hydrogen to and strips carbon away from the feedstock to produce gases with a higher
hydrogen-to-carbon (H/C) ratio. Bridgewater (2003) described the gasification sequence as
drying and evaporating processes of biomass followed by pyrolysis, and finally oxidation and
reduction (Bridgwater, 2003).
Figure 7 Potential path for the gasification process (Basu, 2006)
Figure 7 is a schematic of typical gasification processes. Biomass is first heated (dried) and then
it undergoes thermal degradation or pyrolysis. The products of pyrolysis (i.e., gas, solid, and
liquid) react among themselves as well as with the gasifying medium to form the final
gasification product. In most commercial gasifiers, the thermal energy necessary for drying,
pyrolysis, and endothermic reactions comes from a certain amount of exothermic combustion
reactions allowed in the gasifier. However, the overall process can be reasonably described by
the reactions describe as Figure 8.
19
Figure 8 Overrall process of biomass gasification processes.
Table 2 Generalizationn of reaction taking place for gasification (Basu,, 2006)
Reaction Type Reaction Eq
Carbon Reaction
R1 (Boudouard) C + CO O2 ÅÆ 2CO οࡴ = 172 kJ/kmmol 2.1
R2 (water-gas or steam) C + H2O ÅÆ CO + H2 οࡴ = 131 kJ/kmmol 2.2
R3 (hydro-gasification) C + 2HH2 ÅÆ CH4 οࡴ = -74.8 kJ/k
kmol 2.3
R4 C + 0.5 O2 ÅÆ CO οࡴ = -111 kJ/k
kmol 2.ϰ
Oxidation Reactions
R5 C + O2 Æ CO2 οࡴ = -394 kJ/k
kmol 2.ϱ
R6 CO + 00.5 O2 Æ CO2 οࡴ = -284 kJ/k
kmol 2.6
R7 CH4 + 2 O2 ÅÆ CO2 + 2 H2O οࡴ = -803 kJ/k
kmol 2.7
R8 H2 + 00.5 O2 Æ H2O οࡴ = -242 kJ/k
kmol 2.8
Shift Reaction
R9 CO + H2O ÅÆ CO2 + H2 οࡴ = -41.2 kJ/k
kmol 2.9
M
Methanation Reaction
R10 2 CO + 2 H2 Æ CH4 + CO2 οࡴ = -247 kJ/k
kmol 2.10
R11 CO + 3 H2 ÅÆ CH4 + H2O οࡴ = -206 kJ/k
kmol 2.11
R14 CO2 + 4 H2 Æ CH4 + 2 H2O οࡴ = -165 kJ/k
kmol 2.12
Steaam- Reforming Reactions
R12 CH4 + H2O ÅÆ CO + 3 H2 οࡴ = 206 kJ/km
mol 2.13
R13 CH4 + 0.5 O2 Æ CO + 2 H2 οࡴ = -36 kJ/km
mol 2.14
Table 2 describes the basic reaaction that takes place in the gasification proccess. Among the
reactions described above in Tabble 2, the char-oxidation (Eq. 2.5) and partial-ox
xidation (Eq. 2.4)
reactions are slowest, and conssequently the rate controlling factor in the overall gasification
process (Lee, 1996). Pyrolysis also results in liquid which is resistant to the cracking due to
temperature increase though moost of the pyrolyzed liquid does so at higher temperature. This
requires subsequent cleaning sett-up for the tar, which can be a substantial inv
vestment in many
cases (Bridgwater, 2003).
It is worth to mention the speed of char reaction with various oxidizer or gasify
ying medium viz,
air/oxygen, carbon-dioxide and ssteam. The reaction between gasifying agent oxy
ygen/air and char
20
is the fastest then followed by steam and carbon-dioxide. The speed of charcoal and oxygen/air
so fast that it quickly consumes all the oxygen and hardly leaves any free oxygen for the other
reaction. The speed of char and steam reaction is 3-5 times slower in magnitude than char-
oxygen reaction. Similarly, the speed of the char and carbon-dioxide is 6-5 times slower in
magnitude than char-oxygen reaction (Basu, 2006).
The reaction of char and gasifying medium can be expressed as
RC+O2 >> RC+H2O > RC+CO2 >> RC+H2
When carbon comes in contact with oxygen, both eq. 2.4 and eq. 2.5 can take place, but their
extent depends on temperature. A partition coefficient, ȕ, may be defined to determine how
oxygen will partition itself between the two. Eq. 2.4 & 2.5 may be combined and written as
ߚ‫ ܥ‬൅ ܱଶ ՜ ʹሺߚ െ ͳሻ‫ ܱܥ‬൅ ሺʹ െ ߚሻ‫ܱܥ‬ଶ
The value of the partition coefficient ȕ lies between 1 and 2 and depends on temperature. One of
the commonly used expressions (Arthur, 1951) for ȕ is
ሾ‫ܱܥ‬ሿ లమయర
ߚൌ ൌ ʹͶͲͲ݁ ି ೅
ሾ‫ܱܥ‬ଶ ሿ
Where, T is the surface temperature of the char.
2.2 Effect of Various Parameters in the Gasification Process

Syngas composition varies widely and mostly depends upon the gasifier type, feedstock,
feedstock pre-treatment, gasifying medium and operating parameters like temperature, pressure,
and nature of interaction between reactants in the gasification process (Babu, 1995) and (Prins,
2005). The effects of major parameters affecting the quality of syngas are discussed in the
sections below.
21
2.2.1 Moisture Content
Biomass contains moisture in both ways: intrinsically by its nature, and extrinsically wherein
moisture is absorbed from the surrounding atmosphere (McKendry, 2002) and (Roy, 2009).
Moisture content in the biomass, during gasification, increases CO2 concentration by the water-
shift reaction (Eq. 1.9) which consumes CO and liberates H2 (Zainal, 2001) and Roy (2009).
While the equilibrium constant for water-shift reaction varies little over a wide range of
temperatures, the direction tends to reverse at higher temperature. Since more heat is required for
moisture evaporation than the small amount of heat gained due to the exothermic behavior of the
water-shift reaction, thermal energy inside the gasifier reduces when gasifying biomass with
higher moisture content (Lee, 1996). Thus, the decrease in temperature further worsens the
scenario and forms more CO2 since the water-shift reaction is improved at lower temperature.
The overall effect is the reduction in calorific value of syngas because, the small increase in H2 is
not sufficient to compensate the loss of significant amount of CO with increase in moisture
content (Shin, 2000), (Zainal, 2001), (Altafini, 2003), (Sharma, 2003), (Melger, 2007) and (Roy,
2009). However, the negative effect of moisture content on the calorific value of syngas is lower
at lower equivalence ratio (ER). The ER is the ratio of actual air fuel ratio to the stiochiometric
air fuel ratio which provides the basis for evaluating the amount of air supplied for the
gasification with respect to the amount of air required for the complete combustion of the
feedstock. Roy (2009) have observed that, in a downdraft gasifier, when the moisture content is
increased from 0 to 40%, heating value of syngas decreases by 8.72% at ER of 0.45 while the
decrease was of 4.7% when the ER used was 0.29. This result was reported from their
equilibrium model and thus is applicable to any gasification process. Table 3 summarizes the
effect of moisture content in three common gasifier types.
Table 3 Effect of moisture content in three common gasifiers
Maximum Source
Gasifier
Parameter CO CO2 H2 CH4 limit (%
type
w.b)
Moisture Updraft -a +b + ~c <50 (Beenackers, 1998)
22
Content
Downdraft - + + ~ <40 (Dogru, 2002)
(M.C)
Fluidized - + + ~ <10 (Basu, 2006)
a
decreases with increase in M.C, b increases with increase in M.C, c no significant change
A limiting condition called auto-thermal limit is reported as 65% moisture content in literature
beyond which self-sustaining gasification is not possible due to an enthalpy deficiency for
vaporization. In fact, supplemental fuel is required for most of the combustor when the moisture
content is greater than 50% on a wet basis (Jenkins, 1998) and (Reed, 1988). Moisture content
up to 30% (wet basis) can be used for downdraft gasifier (Dogru, 2002). When air is used as the
gasification agent, the amount of methane produced is small and stays almost constant with
change in moisture content (Zainal, 2001) and (Gautam, 2010). Thus the temperature decrease
inside the gasifier due to moisture also results lower mass conversion efficiency and increases tar
content (Jayah, 2003), (Melger, 2007), (Ptasikski, 2007) and (Ratnadhariya, 2009). Sheth (2009)
reports the decrease in biomass consumption rate with increase in moisture content which is due
to the higher amount of heat necessary for drying those wood chips inside the reactor before they
can be pyrolyzed. However, some moisture content is always desirable since it enhances steam
reforming and helps to crack tar, and at higher temperature, also enhances other reactions such as
char gasification (Narvaez, 1996) and (Li, 2004). Steam injection is widely used in industrial
applications to adjust syngas composition in the gasification process but often, in the presence of
higher temperature provided by some external source (Li, 2001).
2.2.2 Equivalence Ratio
Equivalence ratio (ER) is the most influential parameter in any gasification process and often has
significant impact on syngas composition. Increase in ER increases the temperature inside the
gasifier while ER decreases; increases char formation inside the gasifier. As can be seen from
Figure 9, all combustible products reduce with an increase in ER with the formation of higher
amount of CO2 as well as total gas yield greatly diminishing the heating value of the final syngas
(Drift, 2001), (Zainal, 2002), (Enden, 2004), (Hanping, 2008) and (Skoulou, 2008) compared the
best optimal value for the downdraft gasifier with respect to equivalence ratio using furniture
wood and wood chips as feedstock. The effect of equivalence ratio for each syngas component
23
was analyzed with the conclusion of an optimal equivalence ratio of 0.38 for the gasifier
performance for that particular feedstock. At this equivalence ratio, CO, CH4 and calorific value
each attain their maximum outputs while CO2 reaches its minimum.
Figure 9 Effect of equivalence ratio on product gas output (Channiwala, 2009)
Heat conduction inside the gasifier is often limited by the thermal diffusivity of charcoal
particles- 0.7 ×10-7 m2/s which is lower than that of wood (Larfeldt, 2000). The optimum
equivalence ratio is necessary for accelerating pyrolysis and drying rate due to conduction and
convection process which also increases the biomass consumption rate (Sheth, 2009).
Both (Skoulou, 2008) and (Sheth, 2009) reports an optimal equivalence ratio of 0.2 for
downdraft gasification of olive kernels and olive tree cutting and furniture wood. The optimum
equivalence ratio varies for different biomass due to the amount of oxygen elementally present in
the biomass as well as the ash content. For example, coal requires far more oxygen than common
biomass materials for gasification due to its lower oxygen content (Ptasinksi, 2007). The existing
literature shows that equivalence ratio should be around 0.3 - 0.4 for the successful gasification.
Table 4 shows the optimal equivalence ratio for selected feed stocks. Also from Table 4,
difference in optimal ER can also be observed for the feedstock with same elemental
composition (pine wood chips and saw dust) in fluidized bed. This is due to the difference in
24
gasification temperature which was lower for pine saw dust (780-830ஈC) than pine wood chips
(>900ஈC).
Table 4 Optimal equivalence ratio for selected feed stocks
Gasifier Type Feedstock Optimal ER References

Downdraft Furniture wood + charcoal 0.38 (Z.A. Zainal, 2002)
Olive kernels and olive tree cutting 0.2 (V. Skoulou, 2008)
Hazelnut shells 0.28 (M. Dogru, 2002)
Furniture waste 0.2 (P.N. Sheth, 2009)
Fluidized Bed Rice husk 0.2-0.55 (E. Natrajan, 1998)
Pine wood chips 0.3 (J. Gil, 1999)
Pine saw dust 0.2 (I. Narvaez, 1996)
Tar concentration decreases with increase in ER. Any compound with molecular weight greater
than that of benzene is called tar (Milne, 1998). This is mainly due to two reasons: (a) higher
temperature as a result of higher ER increases reaction rates of the chemical products; and (b)
high ER supplies additional oxygen for cracking of tar into lower hydrocarbons, CO2 and H2O.
Thus, at some point between the applicable ranges (0.15-0.4), a shift between types of tar is also
reported. Light tar increases while heavy tar decreases (V. Skoulou, 2008) (T.A. Milne, 1998).
(J. Corella, 2006) suggests an equivalence ratio above 0.36 for pine wood in a fluidized bed to
reduce the tar content below 2 g/m3, a level below which coke formation does not exceeds its
removal rate.
2.2.3 Superficial Velocity
The superficial velocity is the ratio of volume flow rate of syngas to the cross sectional area of
the gasifier and can be thought as one independent parameter unconstrained to a particular
gasifier size. The effect of superficial velocity (SV) is worthy of discussion under the topic of
equivalence ratio due to its direct relation with the amount of gasification/fluidization medium
injected inside the gasifier.
ே௠య
ܸ‫݊݋݅ݐܿ݅ݎݐݏ݊݋ܿݐܽݏܽ݃݊ݕݏ݂݋݁ݐܽݎݓ݋݈݂݁݉ݑ݈݋‬ሺ ሻ
௛௥
ܵ‫ ݕݐ݅ܿ݋݈ܸ݈݂݁ܽ݅ܿ݅ݎ݁݌ݑ‬ൌ
‫ܽ݁ݎܽ݊݋݅ݐܿ݁ݏݏݏ݋ݎܥ‬ሺ݉ ଶ ሻ
25
Ϯ͘ϱ
dĂƌнWĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƚĞ;ŐŵͿ
WǇƌŽůǇƐŝƐƚŝŵĞ;ŵͿ
Ϯ WƌĞƐƐƵƌĞĚƌŽƉ;ŝǁĐͿ
ϭ͘ϱ
Ϭ͘ϱ
Ϭ
Ϭ͘Ϭϰ Ϭ͘Ϭϵ Ϭ͘ϭϰ Ϭ͘ϭϵ Ϭ͘Ϯϰ Ϭ͘Ϯϵ Ϭ͘ϯϰ Ϭ͘ϯϵ Ϭ͘ϰϰ
^ƵƉĞƌĨŝĐŝĂůsĞůŽĐŝƚǇ;ŵͬƐͿ
Figure 10 Effect of superficial velocity on tar generation, pressure drop and pyrolysis time
(Reed, 1988)
Higher SV promotes burning as well as reaction rate and decreases the residence time of biomass
in the system (Tinaut, 2008). Higher burning rate increases the temperature of the gasifier.
Yamazaki (2005) recommended SV greater than 0.4 m/s for syngas appropriate for internal
combustion engines. An overall increase in combustibles (except CH4 which shows no
appreciable change) is reported with increase in SV. An initial decrease reaching the minimum
level followed by an increase is reported with SV, the optimum SV being 0.4 m/s. Increase tar
after the increase beyond optimum SV is due to the short residence time of the tar vapors inside
the gasifier and slowing down cracking which can be seen at Figure 10.
26
2.2.4 Temperature
Increase in temperature at the cconstriction section known as throat, reduces th

he tar content as
well as decreases char inside the gasifier (Kucuk, 1997) and (Skoulou, 2008). Gaas yield increases
Figure 12 Two stage separate pyroolysis Figure 11 Two air injection plane
p gasifier (S.
Figure 2.4:
gasifier (P. Brandt, 2000). Dasappa, 2003).
due to higher tar cracking. O
One of the means of increasing temperaturee is by internal
recirculation of syngas (P.R. Waander, 2004). Tar cracking temperatures are ofteen reported to be
around 1000-1100 ஈC with somee dependency on gasifier design (M. Dogru, 20
002) (T.A. Milne,
1998). Other methods of tar craccking are also employed such as multi-stage gassifiers (P. Brandt,
2000) (L. Gerun, 2008) (S. Moonteiro Nunes, 2007)(Dasappa et al). Multi-sttage gasifiers, as
shown in Figure 12, have separrated pyrolysis and gasification zones and make use of partial
oxidation of pyrolysis gas obtainned in the pyrolysis zone for tar cracking and thus, tar content
can be reduced as low as 15mg//Nm3 (Nm3 –volume at STP) (P. Brandt, 2000). Figure 11, uses
two stage of air injection withhin the same reactor. CO content increases with increase in
temperature because endotherm
mic reactions are more favored at higher temperature (A.
Zabaniotou, 2008). Mass conveersion of produced gas efficiency decreases with
w decrease in
temperature (P.R. Wander, 20004). An oxidation zone below a temperature of 725 oC gives
significantly lower mass converssion efficiency (A. Rogel, 2006).
Uniformity of temperature in a radial as well as in axial direction inside thee reactor is very
important for efficient mixing inn a fluidized bed. Generally, less than 100 ஈC difference
d in total
27
riser height is acceptable (X.T. Li, 2004). Heating value as well as syngas yield is found to
increase due to increase in combustibles, particularly at temperatures above 800 ஈC with an
increase in operating temperature driven by an external supply of heat in the gasifier for constant
ER (X.T. Li, 2004) (C. Hanping, 2008) (P.J. van den Enden, 2004) (P. Weerachanchai, 2009) (C.
Wu. X. Yin, 2008). However, this is different when the temperature is increased due to increase
in ER inside the reactor which actually reduces the combustibles (P.J. van den Enden, 2004).
Temperature control cannot be independent in any gasification process and is an output variable,
with the exception of small lab-scale or pilot plants which can be heated with external heat. The
temperature of the reactor is dependent on various factors such as moisture content of the fuel,
ER, heat losses from the system, and amount of steam added (J. Corella, 2006) (J. Corella, 2005)
(S.R.A Kersten, 2003). Thus, the temperature inside the gasifier should represent an optimal
compromise with ER. The best approach is the proper insulation of the reactor and using waste
heat. Higher temperature also reduces tar content significantly due to thermal cracking (X.T. Li,
2004) (C. Hanping, 2008) (P.J. van den Enden, 2004) (C. Wu. X. Yin, 2008) (Y. Cao, 2006)
(Y.G. Pan, 1999) (Z. Wu, 2003). In addition, (Y. Cao, 2006) reports higher reduction in tar with
same increase in top part of reactor than in bottom section. However, (A.v.d. Drift, 2008) suggest
that the tar that is cracked due to temperature is mostly the heavy tar while light tar is not
decomposed. Heavy tars are the product of pyrolysis process which has not gone through
cracking while light tars are the cracking products of heavy tar. In certain cases, light tar seems
to increase due to the subsequent breakdown of heavy tar into light tar and other compounds.
Typical temperatures suggested for biomass gasification in a fluidized bed are around 800-900 ஈC
by various studies (C. Wu. X. Yin, 2008) (Z. Wu, 2003) (R.C. Saxena, 2008). Although, high
temperature increases carbon conversion efficiency of the overall gasification system,
consideration should be given to prevent the formation of ash-melt, made not to form ash-
melting, especially when used to gasify biomass material with high ash content like rice husk
(A.v.d. Drift, 2008)
2.2.5 External Heating on Pyrolysis Zone
External heating the biomass especially in the drying and pyrolysis zone is worth to mention to
increase the ER without addition of additional air supply. So far, Vikings gasifier from Technical
University of Denmark has the external heating of the pyrolysis from the waste heat recovery
28
from the gasifier exit and enginee exhaust. They claim that utilizing the 15 % of the thermal input
of biomass, the heating temperatture of 600 oC can be achieved with proper inssulation shown in
Figure 13. The heating of the pyrrolysis also results in increase of combustible prroducts of syngas
and thus lowering the air supply rate.
Figure 13 Results of two staage separate pre heated pyrolysis (Ulrik Henrikksena, 2006)
Furthermore, the biomass of up to 40% moisture content by weight can be han

ndled through the
external heating of the pyrolysiss reactor. The higher the moisture content durin
ng the inlet of the
biomass, the reaction favors thhe production of H2 due to water gas shift reaction at high
temperature. Similar, configurattion can also be seen from IISc, open top deesign. They have
claimed to utilize the sensible hheat from the exit of the gasifier to heat the dry
ying zone. In this
way they can use the biomass oof moisture content as high up to 30 % by weeight. The engine
ound 90 oC.
exhaust is utilize to pre drying thhe biomass in batch feed reactor marinated at aro
29
2.2.6 Biomass Types and Properties
The wide variety of biomass sources result in a wide range of biomass fuel properties, both
physically and chemically (Yang et al., 2005). Table 5 illustrates the estimated variations of
conventional properties of biomass which can be measured by standard methods. Moisture can
vary from 5 % for pre-dried to 50 % for freshly harvested crops. Volatile matter in biomass is
much higher than in coal, ranging from 65-85%, while fixed carbon is much lower, ranging from
7-20%. For elemental analysis, a noticeable feature is the high oxygen content (32-45%).
Depending on the type of species and specific cultivation condition, levels of the minor
components, such as N, S, Cl and K can also vary widely.
This wide variation in biomass properties listed in Table 6, can greatly affect the burning
characteristics of the biomass fuel as well as the syngas composition generated from the grate.
The effect of moisture level in fuel for packed bed system was investigated by Yang et al. and
Thunman (2001). It was found that the maximum burning rate with a very dry fuel can be several
times higher than with a very wet fuel and the reaction zone thickness becomes thinner as the
moisture level in fuel increases. Flame extinction also occurs at higher moisture levels, which
was related to the minimum amount of combustible material (both volatiles in solid and char)
above the moisture evaporation layer.
Biomass elemental composition has a significant effect on syngas composition. The release of
pyrolysis gas is highly dependent on hydrogen/carbon ratio as well as oxygen/carbon ratio and
increases when these ratios increase, especially with an increase in Hydrogen/Carbon ratio (B.M.
Jenkins, 1998). A higher oxygen concentration in biomass needs lower ER for gasification
because of its inherent oxygen that will also be available for gasification (K.J. Ptasinski, 2007).
Table 5 Proximate and Ultimate analysis of various biomass feedstocks
HHV
Fuel Name Proximate Analysis Ultimate Analysis
[MJ/kg]
FC VC ASH C H O N S
Block wood 14.59 83.32 2.09 46.9 6.07 43.99 0.95 0 18.261
30
Ply wood 21.80 74.20 4.00 19.720
Peach Pit 19.80 79.10 1.10 49.14 6.34 43.52 0.48 0.02 19.423
Pistachio shell 16.84 82.03 1.13 48.79 5.91 43.41 0.56 0.01 19.260
Hazelnut shell 28.30 69.30 1.40 52.9 5.6 42.7 1.4 - 19.300
Cotton shells 16.90 68.50 14.60 - - - - - 16.376
Wood Chips 23.50 76.40 0.10 48.1 5.99 45.74 0.08 0 19.916
Red wood 19.92 79.72 0.36 50.64 5.98 42.88 0.05 0.03 20.720
Softwood 28.10 70.00 1.70 52.1 6.1 41 0.2 - 20.000
Spruce wood 28.30 70.20 1.50 51.9 6.1 40.9 0.3 – 20.100
Pine wood 15.70 73.60 11.30 - - - - - 16.644
Subabul wood 18.52 81.02 1.20 48.15 5.87 44.75 0.03 0 19.777
Eucalyptus 21.30 75.35 3.35 46.04 5.82 44.49 0.3 0 18.640
Table 6 Biomass typical physical, chemical and thermodynamic properties
M VM FC Ash C H O N S
5-50 65-85 7-20 0.5-20 38-53 4.5-7.0 32-45 0.15- 0.02-0.35
2.7
Cl LCV, d p, Maximum dimension ratio Thermal Bulk density, psb
MJ/kg mm conductivity, ks
0-0.5 15-22 1-100 1-15 0.07-0.5 W m-1 20-710 kg m-3
K-1
31
Table 7 Typical miinerals content in some selected biomass feedsto
ock
Another important factor is the aash content of the feedstock. Table 7, provides th
he ash content (%
dry basis) and the elemental com
mposition of various common biomass feed stock
ks (B.M. Jenkins,
1998) (M.J. Fernandez Lorenetee, 2005). Although formation of clinkers can caause problems for
the gasifier operation with biom
mass having ash-content above 5%, successful gasification with
ash-content up to 25% is reporrted (McKendry, 2002) (X. L. Yin, 2002). Higher ash content
causes slagging, and consequeently ash agglomeration due to fusion, the rate
r of which is
dependent upon the ash content in biomass and ash composition (B.M. Jenkinss, 1998) (C. Ryu,
2006) (Livingston, 2007). Thus high ash content biomass should be gasified att the temperature
below the oxidation or reducing temperature of the minerals constituents in the ash, often which
is not possible if the constituentss have relatively low ash-fusion temperature (T
T.A. Milne, 1998)
(L. Gerun, 2008). Common ash minerals in biomass are silica, potassium, calcium, aluminum,
magnesium, iron, sodium and chhlorine. These minerals present in biomass can exist as salts and
vaporize during the gasification process contaminating the syngas. Also, it is hiighly possible for
these minerals to react with silicon in presence of oxygen to create low-tem
mperature melting
silicates which can create a sevvere deposition problem. Alkali metals such as
a potassium and
calcium silicates have melting teemperatures even below 700 ஈC (B.M. Jenkins, 1998). One other
way to tackle the problem is to resort to some kind of removal process like leeaching for alkali
metal removal which has been reeported to reduce these minerals by more than 80%.
8 Removal of
these alkali metals will increasee the ash fusion temperature thus facilitating gasification (B.M.
Jenkins, 1998).
32
The presence of ash in biomass requires careful control over the operating temperature. Neither
should it be high enough to fuse minerals in the ash forming a barrier to further gasification by
formation of clinkers, nor too low leading to un-burnt carbon resulting in lower carbon
conversion efficiency.
2.2.7 Particle Size
Fixed bed gasifiers have lower biomass feedstock size restrictions compared to fluidized bed
gasifiers. Usually, feed size less than 51 mm and 6 mm is recommended for fixed bed and
fluidized bed, respectively (Basu, 2006). Use of larger size feedstock has been tried and reported
by several authors (K.M. Bryden, 1996) (A. Saravanakumar, 2007) (R. Bilbao, 1993). (A.
Saravanakumar, 2007) have successfully gasified long sticks with length of 68 cm and diameter
of 6 cm successfully in a top-lit updraft gasifier. The maximum particle size suggested for a
conventional downdraft gasifier with throated design is one-eighth of the reactor throat diameter
(Earp, 1988). The larger particles form bridges preventing the efficient flow of biomass inside a
gasifier while smaller particles interferes with the air/gasifying agent passage creating high
pressure drop and consequently can result in gasifier shut-down (McKendry, 2002).
Sharma (2006), reports increase in the temperature of oxidation and reduction zone with decrease
in particle size of the biomass feedstock in a downdraft gasifier. Decrease in particle size reduces
the heat loss due to radiation and enhances the thermal conductivity in the oxidation and
reduction zones. On the other hand, decrease in particle size increases pressure drop inside the
gasifier. Burning rate and thus the char oxidation period of fuel particles decrease with increase
in bulk density and particle size (D. Shin, 2000) (C. Ryu, 2006). Biomass consumption rate is
inversely related to particle size (F.V. Tinaut, 2008). In other words, higher residence time is
recommended for larger biomass particle size. Decrease in CO with increase in CO2
concentration is observed.Ryu (2006), report decrease from 18% to 13.5% CO when the size of
wood cubes used in the experiments were increased from 10 mm to 35 mm. Their model predicts
a decrease in CH4 and an increase in H2 with increase in size of biomass particles. Also, the
temperature gradient decreases thus increasing time taken for diffusion of heat. This will result in
poor temperature distribution which is also one of the reasons for the increase in CO2
concentration with increase in particle size.
33
Carbon conversion efficiency is not strongly affected by particle size except the lower biomass
size increases tar concentration because of high entrainment susceptibility during fluidization
(D.Y.C. Leung, 2003). This is because particles can be easily transported to the upper part of the
reactor, leaving little time for tar cracking.
2.2.8 Gasification Medium and Secondary Air
Biomass gasification can be done with any of the following medium:
• Air
• Oxygen
• Steam
Gasification with air results in syngas with low higher heating value (HHV) due to inherent
dilution with N2 present in the air. Conversely, gasification with oxygen yields syngas with a
heating value of 10-12 MJ/Nm3 and steam gasification results in syngas with heating value even
higher, 15-20 MJ/Nm3 (Bridgwater, 2003). Air gasification is widely used compared to oxygen
and steam due to its economical and operational advantages (Bridgwater, 1995).
Secondary air reduces the tar content in the syngas due to partial combustion of syngas. This in
turn establishes local high temperature zone due to exothermic reactions. Thermal cracking of tar
is thus due to these high temperature zones in the periphery of the secondary air. Since heat is
obtained from the combustion, HHV decreases with increase in secondary air (X.T. Li, 2004) (Y.
Cao, 2006) (Y.G. Pan, 1999). (Y.G. Pan, 1999) suggest 20% secondary air (% of the primary air)
for the minimum tar in forest waste residues. With the secondary air injection (if two plane of air
injection provided), the syngas heating values never crosses the 4.5 MJ/m3. The secondary air
injection concept is different from the two-stage of gasification. There must not be confusion that
two stage gasification and two stage air injection are totally different things. The two stage
gasifier of DTU-Vikings and Two stage of air injection of AIT-2 stage gasifier and IISc-open top
with secondary air injection gasifiers are completely different in terms of injecting the air supply.
Moreover, DTU-Viking gasifier utilizes the waste heat to initiate separately for pyrolysis
whereas, AIT and IISc use primary air for flaming pyrolysis in series with secondary air for
charcoal reaction. Moreover, it can be concluded that DTU-Viking gasifier is single air injection-
34
two reactor gasifier, whereas, AIT and IISc gasifier are two stage air injection-single reactor
gasifiers. Similar to AIT, research on two plane air injection has also been conducted at Brazil by
(Juan Daniel Martı´nez).
2.3 Formation of Tar and In-Situ Destruction Methods

The raw producer gas contains condensable organic compounds, which are commonly
denominated as "tar". Tar is formed during the pyrolysis process by the thermal breakdown of
the polymers cellulose, hemicelluloses and lignin. Tar is the major problem that has remained the
theme of research in gasifier technology. It cannot be avoided easily and if neglected, the
cleaning cost will be so high that, the power plant cannot be operated economically.
At an IEA gasification task meeting, it was stated that all organics boiling at temperatures above
that of benzene should be considered as tar (Brussels, 1988). Generally, biomass tar is referred to
condensable organics in the syngas produced in the gasification process of biomass, and it is
assumed to be largely aromatics (Milne, 1998). The primary and tertiary products are mutually
exclusive, that is, the primary products are destroyed before the tertiary products appear as
shown in Figure 14.
Figure 14 Biomass tar formation (Evans, R.J. and T.A. Milne, 1987)
35
Table 8, indicates the classes of chemical compounds based on GC/MS analysis of collected
“tars” (Milne, 1998). From this table, tar components varying as temperatures increase is
distinguished in each major regime.
Table 8 Chemical components in biomass tars (Milne, 1998)
From previous research results, it is indicated that temperature is an important factor affecting tar
composition (Baker, E.G.; M.D. Brown, D.C. Elliott, and L.K. Mudge, 1988) (Kinoshita, 1994)
(X.T. Li, 2004) (Qin, 2007) showed a conceptual relationship between the yield of tars and the
reaction temperature, shown in Figure 15. They cited levels of tar for various reactors with
updraft gasifiers having 12 wt% of wood and downdraft less than 1%. For oxygen-blown fluid
beds, the levels of tar were 4.3% at 750 °C and 1.5% at 810 °C. An ideal assumption is that tars
are thermally cracked to CO, H2, and other light gases with temperature. This is true with
primary product cracking, and yields of 50% by weight of CO are possible by thermal cracking.
However, it is not true for the condensed tertiary products, which grow in molecular weight with
reaction severity. As a result, many researchers have conducted various experiments to remove
tars from biomass gasification process with increasing operating temperature. The decision to
run a gasification system at high severity to crack tars, however, should be balanced by a
consideration of the remaining tars composition. The dilemma is that, high temperatures favor
greater efficiency and rates but also lead to a more refractory nature of the tar (Milne, 1998)
36
Figure 15 Tar yield as a function of the maximum temperature exposure
Each type of gasifier has its unique operation and reaction conditions, which results in different
tar composition and yield. Figure 16 presents typical tar (note: tar refers to compounds boiling
higher than at 150 °C) and particulate loadings generated in biomass gasifier as reported by
(Brown, 1986). As a general conclusion, it has been proven and explained scientifically and
technically that updraft gasifiers produce more tars than fluidized beds and fluidized beds more
than downdrafts (Milne, 1998). In updraft gasifiers, the tar nature is buffered somewhat by the
endothermic pyrolysis in the fresh feed from which the tars primarily arise. In downdraft
gasifiers the severity of final tar cracking is high, due to the conditions used to achieve a
significant degree of char gasification. Tar loading in raw syngas from updraft gasifiers has an
average value of about 100 g/Nm3, fluidized bed and CFBs have an average tar loading of about
10 g/Nm3, downdraft gasifiers produce the cleanest syngas with tar loading typically less than 1
g/Nm3. (Baker, 1986) also concluded very similar research results, which stated a very general
tar level in respect to different gasifier types. It is also established that well-functioning updraft
gasifiers produce a largely primary tar, with some degree of secondary character; downdraft
gasifiers mostly produce tertiary tar, and fluidized beds produce a mixture of secondary and
tertiary tars. Entrained flow gasifiers produce very low level of tar due to the high temperatures,
possible mainly tertiary tar if exists.
37
Figure 16 Typical tars and particulates loading in different biomass ga
asifiers
(Baker, E.G.; M
M.D. Brown, D.C. Elliott, and L.K. Mudge, 1988))
For satisfactory IC engine operration, an acceptable particle content of < 50

0 mg/mn3 and a
(gravimetric) tar content of < 1000 mg /mn3 of producer gas has been postulated
d (Stassen, 1993).
Although these values have not bbeen experimentally confirmed from engine durrability tests, they
are commonly accepted as refereence values.
1.6 Summary
Although biomass gasification is not a new concept by itself, current enerrgy scenario and
significant interests in renewablee energy has spurred the industrial and academic research in this
field. Various configurations off biomass gasifiers have been studied to achiev
ve the maximum
efficiency from the process. An exhaustive amount of literature can be found in this field. The
summary of this literature review
w is tabulated below:
• Proper utilization of biom

mass through gasification can increases the eneergy security and
creates opportunities in thhe renewable energy sector.
• Moisture content is one oof the major technical challenges in biomass gassification. Drying
is usually cost-intensive. Utilization of waste heat to dry biomass can be
b very helpful or
even the use of solar drierr.
• The equivalence ratio pllays important role in determining the overalll syngas quality.
While using air as the gaasifying agent, high amount of sensible energy is lost in heating
38
the nitrogen from air. Although steam or oxygen gasification is possible, the cost
associated with the process make them economically unfeasible. Identifying and
operating a gasifier in an optimal equivalence ratio can greatly increase the efficiency of
the gasifier.
• Pre-pyrolysis of the biomass by using waste heat, before sending to the oxidation zone is
useful in terms of tar destruction.
• Tar content has remained as one of the major issues in biomass gasification. Although
primary or secondary tar treatment can be done to reduce the level of tar from the
biomass gasifier, costs associated with the process might be considerable. Hence,
identification of cost-efficient tar removal techniques can be a major breakthrough in the
field of biomass gasification.
• The effect of temperature has significant impact in overall gasification process. Higher
temperature cannot be achieved without increasing equivalence ratio which in turn,
reduces quality of the syngas. Preventing heat losses from the gasifier by proper
insulation can reduce air need to maintain the sustainable gasification temperature.
• The type of biomass affects significantly in the overall syngas composition and
sometimes, also in the operational issues in the biomass gasification plants. High ash
content material is not desirable. However, many pre-treatment processes exists that can
be used to cure the biomass before feeding into the reactor.
• Co-gasification of biomass is an emerging concept and though not have achieved wide
industrial acceptance, might be a excellent means of increasing the use of biomass in
power plants in near future.
1.7 Objectives of this Study

The subject of the present study is to design and develop a suitable type of gasifier that can be
conveniently coupled with small IC engines for the power output of the range 5-10 kWe.
Moreover, design analysis of different configuration of downdraft gasifier study is also priority
of the objective.
39
Although the investigations were conducted with the background and the emphasis on downdraft
biomass gasification, the goal was to design and develop efficient and less tar generation
downdraft gasifier (4.0 kg/hour capacity) that can be easily coupled to the small IC engines for
the power generation of 3 kWe.
Based on the outcomes of the literature review, the downdraft biomass gasifier was preferred for
the design startup due to its relatively low tar production, power range for fuelling IC engines
and easy response to the IC engine load variation. Design, development, and performance testing
are the focus of the present work, which should give answers to the following questions:
• Which type of biomass gasifier generates low tar and cost effective way to mitigate the
tar reduction?
• What is the optimal sizing of the biomass gasifier for allocated IC engines in response to
the power output?
• What is the equivalence ratio for a particular biomass composition and its effect on
moisture content to the quality of producer gas and its heating values?
• How the elemental composition of the biomass alter the syngas composition with varying
moisture content theoretically.
The purposes of such a design are manifold:
• If the modelling works for predicting producer gas output for particular biomass species,
it will help in designing reactors and processes for up-scaling biomass gasification with
quality producer gas suitable for IC engine operation.
• The experimental result also provides knowledge about up-scaling theories. This can be
used for the diagnosis of operating conditions of running gasifiers, based on the analysis
of the temperature measurement at the oxidation and reduction zone and also composition
measurement of the producer gas.
40
CHAPTER 3: DESIGN OF DOWNDRAFT BIOMASS GASIFIER
The design of thermal devices always starts from the capacity of the system in terms of thermal
power required. The current project is targeted to design and develop a suitable biomass gasifier
intended for small sized I. C engines. Small size of the engine capacity ranges from 5-10 kW
electrical output running with syngas. In this chapter, the design guidelines, independent
parameters , design steps and calculation for running 3.2 kWe gasifier with modified diesel
engine. The downdraft gasifier system intended for fuelling small size I.C engines requires
design of various other accessories as well for smooth and tar free operation. This includes a
cyclone, gas cooling unit and finally particulate matter filter.
3.1 Introduction
The gasification of coal and carbon containing fuels and the use of the gas as fuel in internal
combustion engines is a technology which has been utilized for more than a century. Among the
different types of gasifier, the downdraft gasifier is selected for the current study for being its
ability to generate small proportion of the tar and particulates among the other types of gasifier.
The other advantage is user friendly and economical operation.
It is a common mistake to assume that any type of biomass which fits into the opening of the re-
fuelling lid can be used as fuel. Many of the operational difficulties which are faced by
inexperienced users of gasifiers are caused by the use of unsuitable fuels. In order to avoid
bridging in the fuel bunker, reduced power output because of large pressure losses, or "weak"
gas, slag cakes, tar in the engine and damage to the gasifier caused by overheating, it is necessary
for most designs that the fuel properties are kept within fairly narrow ranges. The need for strict
fuel specifications is well documented in the experiences reported from the Second World War.
3.2 Analysis of the commercial available gasifier

In this chapter the design configuration of three well established commercial type gasifier for
small scale (<50 kWe) is considered for design analysis. The consequences of the different
gasifier reactor on gas output and in-situ tar control technique is also documented in this chapter.
The three well established and accepted gasifier reactor chosen as a reference for this study are
from Ankur Gasifier from India, IISc-Open top gasifier from India and Two-stage separate
41
pyrolysis and gasification reactor from DTU-Vikings gasifier. Their physical structure,
advantage and disadvantages are also included in this chapter. Finally, the improved version of
the gasifier reactor with consideration to economically acceptable and human comfort gasifier is
designed with combine effect of the well approved gasifier reactor.
3.2.1 Ankur Scientific Gasifier Reactor Model
Ankur Scientific is manufacturing gasifier in India since 1986 A.D. They have already exported
their units in almost all of the continents. Ankur manufactures the gasifier reactor for both of the
fuels (low bulk density-rice husk, high bulk density-wood chips). The main design of the Ankur
model is adapted from the Imbert gasifier closed top design concept of using throat for high bulk
densities fuel. The schematic of the Ankur model is shown in Figure 17 below. The gas
composition claimed by the manufacturer is shown in the Table 9 below.
Table 9 Gas composition from Ankur Biomass Gasifier for different feed stock
CO H2 CH4 CO2 N2
Model
19േ3% 18േʹ% Up to 3% 10േ3% 50 %

Wood based
ʹͲ േ2% 10േʹ% Up to 4% 13േ1% ͷʹ േ2%

Rice Husk
Looking closely, the Ankur gasifier reactor does not utilize the waste heat for preheating the
biomass internally and externally. This restricts the biomass moisture content to be fed in to the
gasifier. They claim to have their efficiencies to be 85 % for wood based reactor and 65 % for
rice husk based reactors in hot gas mode. The gas cleaning is external (physical) type. The other
advantage claimed being the startup time for flaring is short 5-10 minutes.
42
Figure 17 Schematic configuration of Ankur 12 kWe biomass gasifier
3.2.2 IISc-Open top Gasifier Reactor Model
The IISc-open top gasifier is based on Thomas and Reed (1985) stratified gasifier concept. This
concept is different from Imbert design as well in terms of throat and air nozzles configuration.
There is no throat which permits the fuel to flow more easily. There are no air nozzles for this
type of gasifier reactor although, but with some air nozzles introduction at reduction zone helps
to crack the tar and stabilization of the flaming pyrolysis. With the open top configuration, it is
always easy to load the biomass into the reactor continuously. The typical gas composition from
the IISc-open top re-burn gasifier reactor is shown in Table 10 and the typical sketch of the IISc-
Open top re-burn is shown in Figure 18 below.
43
Table 10 Typical gas composition from IISc open top biomass gasifier
CO H2 CH4 CO2 N2
Model
Wood based 20 % 20 % Up to 1.5 % 12 % 50 %
Figure 18 IISc open top biomass gasifier with secondary air injection
The IISc-open top shown in Figure 18 has utilized the waste heat to heat up the biomass within
the reactor for drying. It is claimed that with preheating of the biomass, the reactor can handle
the biomass of high moisture compared to conventional non-preheating of the gasifier reactor.
44
Initially they develop the gasifier reactor without air nozzles thus purely working air charge
through the top opening of the reactor. With these arrangements, stabilization of flaming
pyrolysis moved up to the top making troublesome operation as faced by Thomas and Reed.
Stating this problem, they introduced the air injection nozzles near to the start of the reduction
zone where sufficient charcoal bed are available. The introduction of air nozzles helped the
gasifier to be stabilized with flaming pyrolysis and thus maintaining the high temperature zone at
the reduction which in turn also helped to crack the higher molecular chain of tar. The other
configuration also includes the proper insulation of the reduction and drying zone cylinder.
Nevertheless, with much introduction of air permits to lower the combustible gas fraction and
increases the equivalence ratios. The effect of increasing the equivalence ratio through more air
injection is outlined in Chapter 2.
3.2.3 DTU-Vikings Gasifier Reactor Model
The Viking gasifier reactor developed by Technical University of Denmark is different from the
classical approach of gasification either open top-throat-less type and closed top with throated
type. The gasifier has two separate reactors for pyrolysis and reduction. Pyrolysis is initiated
with the waste heat from the gas exit and engine exhaust in a sustainable way. The physical
configuration is also different from other two previous configurations. The configuration of the
DTU-Viking gasifier is shown in Figure 19 and its typical gas composition is shown in Table 11.
Table 11 Typical gas composition from the DTU-Viking biomass gasifier
Model CO H2 CH4 CO2 N2
Wood chips based DTU-Vikings 19.6 % 30.5 % 1.2 % 15.4 % 33.3 %
45
Figure 19 Schematic diagram of D
DTU-Viking biomass gasifier with separate external pyrolysis reactor
From the Figure 19, the pyrolyysis reactor with screw auger mechanism pyrollyze the biomass
with external heating through waaste heat from gasifier exit and engine exhaust. The
T screw augers
help the biomass and pyrolyze biomass to move forward to the reduction reacto
or held at the next
end. The reduction reactor has eenough free space for mixing the pyrolyzed gas and air to mixed
up for partial combustion therebby cracking the tar and providing heat to charco
oal for reduction.
The other important configuuration used is the air preheating beforre sent to the
oxidation/reduction chamber whhich thereby reduce the air requirement. In overall,
o with the
external heating of the pyrolysis sufficiently to 600 oC with proper insulation, th
he air requirement
for oxidation and reduction is reeduced significantly. The result of lower requirrement of air for
combustion/gasification improvees the gas combustible constituents which can be seen in Table
11.
3.3 Design Criteria

Venselaar (1982) published a revview paper related to classical approach of gasiffier design before
and during the WWII. He has coollected the numerous design data and literature to
t summarize the
design criteria for the biomass gaasifier for power generation.
The main criteria for a well functtioning gasifier are:
46
• High heating value of the gas, meaning high content of H2 and CO2 [3500 - 5000 kJ/Nm3
seems quite good with 10 - 15 % moisture in feedstock].
• Low content of tar, commonly a value of 0.5 g/Nm3 dry gas is given, but values of 0.2 is
preferable.
• Thorough burn-out of the carbon (>95%), which implies a high efficiency of the process.
(70 - 75% should be attainable)
• Unhampered down flow of the feed.
• Low pressure drop.
• Good variable load-following characteristics
There are basically two approaches for sizing the gasifier reactor. As the reactor is the main
component of the gasifier which gasify solid biomass fuels into useful combustible gas known as
syngas or producer gas. The first method is based on the Swedish Experience on Imbert design
with throat and the later one is based upon the laboratory result of determining the specific
gasification rate for particular type of fuels. The Imbert design of gasifier is basically for wood
chips only (or with high bulk density of biomass) and the specific gasification rate design
concept is based upon the throat-less gasifier in which any of the specified fuel can be co-related.
Various parameters that are independent and are most important for calculating and sizing the
dimension of the gasifier reactor are summarized below in the flowchart based upon the classical
Imbert design containing throat.
3.3.1 Hearth Load Sizing
Hearth load is similar to superficial velocity explained in Chapter-2, and is defined as the
maximum gas generation rate of any biomass per cross section area. In Imbert design of biomass
gasifier, maximum hearth load attainable is 0.9 Nm3/hr/cm2. This implies, 9000 Nm3/hour gas is
generated at the cross section area of 1 square meter.
௠య
‫݊݋݅ݐܿݑ݀݋ݎ݌ݏܽܩ‬ሺ௛௢௨௥ሻ
‫ ݀ܽ݋ܮ݄ݐݎܽ݁ܪ‬ൌ
‫ܽ݁ݎܽ݊݋݅ݐܿ݁ݏݏݏ݋ݎܥ‬ሺܿ݉ ଶ ሻ
47
Hearth load is restricted by many factors in order to reach the full value of 0.9 Nm3/hr/cm2.
These factors may be mechanical integrity of char bed structure within the gasifier, degree of
agitation, grate shaking period and the time available for the conversion to gas. Hence, in order
to overcome this situation, recommended design hearth load range from 0.3-0.45. Too, low
hearth load values indicate the necessity to increase the cross section area of the throat of the
Imbert type biomass gasifier. The range of hearth load having 0.3-0.45 can have a turn down
ratio of 1:3, which is suitable for stationery power applications. Hearth load sizing less than 0.3
needs careful insulation of the combustion, throat and the reduction zone. This is because, at low
hearth load designed value, the cross section area of the throat increases for the same power
output. The higher the throat area for the same power output, there is more losses in heat and
energy. Figure 20 reflects the change in diameter of the throat for varying hearth load design
values for a fixed power output in all the cases.
ϭϬ
ϵ
dŚƌŽĂƚŝĂŵƚĞƌ΀Đŵ΁
ϯ
Ϭ͘ϭϱ Ϭ͘Ϯϱ Ϭ͘ϯϱ Ϭ͘ϰϱ Ϭ͘ϱϱ Ϭ͘ϲϱ Ϭ͘ϳϱ Ϭ͘ϴϱ Ϭ͘ϵϱ
,ĞĂƌƚŚ>ŽĂĚ΀ŵϯͬŚƌͬĐŵϮ΁
Figure 20 Variation of throat diameter with variation in hearth load design value.
48
ϯ͘ϬϬ
Ϯ͘ϱϬ
^ƵƉĞƌĨŝĐŝĂůsĞůŽĐŝƚǇ΀ŵͬƐ΁
Ϯ͘ϬϬ
ϭ͘ϱϬ
ϭ͘ϬϬ
Ϭ͘ϱϬ
Ϭ͘ϬϬ
Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϯ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϳ Ϭ͘ϴ Ϭ͘ϵ
,ĞĂƌƚŚ>ŽĂĚ΀ŵϯͬŚƌͬĐŵϮ΁
Figure 21 Variation of throat diameter with variation in hearth load design value.
49
Imbert gasifier design guideline for calculating the throat type gasifier for wood chips/blocks.
Input Engine data:

a. Volume (Liters)
b. RPM
c. Volumetric efficiency
d. Number of working cycles per
work
e. Engine conversion efficiency
f. Generator efficiency (power
Input fuel (biomass) data:

a. Lower heating value of biomass
b. Moisture content
c. Heating value of syngas required
Input Gasifier data:

a. Hearth load
b. Gasification efficiency
c. Turn down ratio
d. Number of air nozzles
requirement
Calculation
a. Maximum Power output from the engine in KVA
b. Maximum Power of Gasifier in thermal
c. Biomass consumption from gasifier at full load
d. Sizing the reactor: Throat diameter, firebox diameter, nozzle diameter,
location of the air nozzle, distance of nozzle diameter, length of reduction
zone
Figure 22 Flow chart showing the design steps for sizing the gasifier of required output.
50
3.4 Design Guideline and sizing
Based upon the Swedish experience and design guideline published by FAO (1986) and
Venselaar (1982), the gasifier reactor can be sized accordingly. The steps shown in flowchart in
Figure 3.4 are to carry out the independent parameter to be supplied for the optimized value
output sizing results. The independent parameters and calculation result to produce 3.2 kWe (4
kg/hour biomass consumption) powers output is presented below.
To generate 3.2 kWe of power output, the throat size should be 5 cm in diameter and the engine
should of single cylinder 0.8 Liter of capacity for natural aspirated. The details of the calculation
are presented in APPENDIX B. Once the calculation of the throat diameter is evaluated, the
throat diameter is associated to other parameters of gasifier reactor. Figure 23 represents the
typical sketch of the Imbert type throated gasifier.
Figure 23 Sketch of the biomass gasifier reactor
Where,
df = Firebox diameter
dn = Diameter of nozzle opening
h = Height of the nozzle plane
dt = Diameter of the throat
dm = Diameter of the nozzle and is dependent on number of nozzles
51
3.4.1 Height of Nozzle Plane
The burning zone, positioned in front of the air inlet, is a rather thin zone. Real burning, of the
pyrolysis gasses, is taking place only in an area close to the actual inlets. The hot zone is
extended through penetration of the hot gasses, driven by the power of the entering air. The
extension of the hot zone must be good, meaning the complete area at the air inet height should
have the maximal attained temperature. The main reasons for this are:
• At cold spots, tar cracking is not sufficient, so tar can pass through to below and end up
in the produced gas.
• At such colder places, the above and under laying areas stay colder too, this result a non-
homogeneous progress of the reactions over the reactor.
The height of the nozzle from the throat, and is expressed as ‘h’ in the Figure 24 above and is
calculated to be 7.3 cm. From the experimental and simulation results from Channiwala 2003, it
o
has been suggested that nozzle inclined at an angle to 60-70 will be a good approach for less
pressure drop, uniform temperature bed and good tar reduction. The basis of calculating the
height of nozzle plane is based upon the Swedish experience which they have supplied through
the graph.
Figure 24 Relationship between throat diameter and height of the air tuyers plane
52
3.4.2 Diameter of firebox
It is the diameter of the fire box where fire spreads. The calculated firebox diameter is 18.7 cm.
The basis of calculating the diameter of firebox is based upon the Swedish experience which
they have supplied through the Figure 25.
Figure 25 Relationship between throat diameter and firebox diameter
3.4.3 Diameter of Nozzle Ring
It is the diameter of single air nozzle and is expressed as ‘dn’. The calculated diameter made by
sets of nozzle is 13.6 cm. The basis of calculating the diameter of ring diameter of air nozzles is
based upon the Swedish experience which they have supplied through the Figure 26.
Figure 26 Relationship between throat diameter and firebox diameter
53
3.4.4 Diameter of Reduction zone and length
This is the most important and crucial parameter of the gasifier design. This is the place where
tar gets reduced along with the reduction of CO2 and further reaction occurs producing the
superior gas quality. The design of this section is different from the Imbert classical approach.
The reduction zone holds the active charcoal and determining the length is crucial for sudden
load variation. Too large length results in high pressure drop and too short length results in
incomplete gasification. In this thesis due to Intellectual Property Right (IPR), the calculation
has not been shown.
3.4.5 System configuration
The gasifier has been sized as per design guideline from Swedish experience and Imbert design.
It is important to configure the system accordingly in order to achieve the system at maximum
operating efficiency with respect to cost and optimized parameters. Moreover, for developing the
commercial version of gasifier, each of the parts must be easily dismantle and assembled for
cleaning and maintenance as well. In the present study, single throat design with side entry air
configuration is adapted.
From the literatures in Chapter 2 and three different configurations, the gasifier configuration has
been recommended to be:
a. Closed top because of the safety issues and well proven design adaptation from the
Swedish design.
b. Insulation at the combustion, throat and reduction zone.
c. Throat inclination of 45-60 o.
d. Heat recovery from the grate exit to pre-heat the biomass.
e. Insulated cyclone after the gas exit from grate and before the hopper heat re-circulation
seems to be scientific and advantageous.
f. Concentric biomass hopper for heat re-circulation to the hopper.
g. Insulation of the biomass hopper for better drying and initiation of biomass pyrolysis.
54
3.5 Development of Spreadsheet

A spreadsheet in MS-Excel is developed to configure out the desire output for the physical
configuration of the gasifier. The input parameters, independent, can be supplied based upon the
requirement. The spreadsheet accurately provides the required dimensions of the gasifier reactor.
Figure 27 Snapshot of MS-Excel Gasifier Design Spreadsheet
2.6 Modelling the gasifier reactor in CAD

After finalizing the basic parameters from the basis of Imbert design guideline and FAO for
gasifier, which are similar for all the closed top throated gasifier, the physical model is first
created in CAD using SOLIDWORKS. The gasifier then has to be configured in such a way that
it can perform well than many of the current available commercial gasifier has no feature in their
reactor system. Moreover, the physical model must not violate any of the patented design.

55
2.7 Initial Design and Development
2.7.1 Series 1
The initial gasifier design (Series – 1) with double air entry and in-situ air preheating
arrangement was considered after theoretically evaluating several gasifier designs. The air
preheating was obtained by exchange of heat by the hot producer gas. The preheating was
expected to increase the efficiency of the gasifier. The gasifier system used an air blower for the
start up of and for flare test. To run the engine with the gasifier, it was expected that the engine
suction would be sufficient for maintaining air flow rate into the gasifier and producing
necessary syngas. The gas cleaning and cooling system was fairly simple comprising of a dry
cyclone, water bubbler and a woodchip filter. Figure 28 shows the setup of Series 1 gasifier and
its test. The flare test with this gasifier went well. However, the engine run in dual mode (diesel
engine operation with gaseous fuel combustion with pilot diesel fuel) was erratic and rough. This
inconsistent engine operation was attributed to the pressure loss in the friction in lengthy and
narrow pipeline.
Figure 28 Series 1 prototype
56
In addition to the inconsistent flow due to pressure loss, the gas was full of tar which resulted in
diesel engine seizure due to tar sticking between piston ring and the cylinder liner. When the
gasifier was operated with the blower there was good flow rate of air into the gasifier which
caused higher temperature in the combustion zone of the gasifier apparently cracking the tar
vapor. The absence of tar could be evident from the clean blue colored flame in the flare test. On
the other hand, when the gasifier is coupled to the engine, the air entry into the gasifier is solely
due to the engine suction which suffered from reduced from the reduced mass flow rate due to
pipe friction and as a result the temperature of the combustion zone was lesser causing low tar
cracking. The tar could have been removed from the gas if better tar removing system was used.
The water bubbler used in this system showed a very low efficiency in tar removal process which
did not help much to lower tar from the syngas.
Hence, the Series – 1 system had to be improved not only for reducing the intake air friction loss
but also a better cleaning system was desirable. To achieve this, another series of gasifier
systems were designed (Series – 2).
2.7.2 Series 2
Several tests were done to study the performance of the Series -2 gasifier. Studies on biomass
behavior (physical properties – size, density etc.) with different gasifier designs (single air entry
and two stage air entry). The general tests showed that the two stage air entry had lesser tar
production than single air entry. This might be because the air reentry at the reduction zone
caused some combustion of charcoal at certain layer increasing the overall in the temperature at
the reduction zone thereby increasing tar cracking and even tar combustion. However, this has a
drawback of increased CO2 in the yield gas (which is a demerit in syngas application). The
increase in CO2 in the two stage gasifier unit can be attributed to the increased combustion
reactions at the reduction zone which produced CO2 at a rate higher than its reduction rate. In
this type of gasifier it seemed that there is a compromise between tar minimization and CO2
minimization. If the air in the reduction zone is restricted (e.g., by using lesser number of air
inlets in the reduction zone) the combustion reaction slows down thereby decreasing the CO2
production and decreasing overall temperature of the reduction zone. These reduce the extent of
tar cracking. The final amount of CO2 and the amount of tar depends on the type and ability of
57
the gas cleaning system available. If the gas cleaning system includes rigorous scrubbing and
filtering units then the secondary air has to be limited which minimizes the CO2 and gives higher
amount of tar which can be removed by the efficient cleaning system.
2.7.3 Series 3
The commercial prototype, Series-3, gave satisfactory results in terms of gasifier performance
(gas quality, ease of operation and reliability). The gasifier was run almost continuously for 6
hours a day for about three months. The gasifier consistent gas quality throughout the test and
was reliable with engine operation. In this thesis, experiment results are based on experiment
with Series-1 and Series-2 gasifier setup.
58
59
CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY
In this chapter, methodology of the experimental and modeling is described. This chapter
categorized the experiment works and mathematical modeling in different sub heading.
4.1 Methodology for Thermodynamic Modeling

The thermodynamics equilibrium model is used at the present study to predict the syngas
composition for various known biomass feed stocks. The thermodynamics equilibrium model is
simplest of all other types and provides the output with reasonable accuracy. The model uses the
chemical equilibrium with minimization of Gibbs free energy concept. The model best predicts
the syngas composition when the reaction temperature is sufficiently high (Zanial, 2001) but due
to thermodynamic limit most of the work is limited to 800 oC (Kumar, 2008).
Although this model can be used to predict the syngas composition for any type of gasifier, it is
more accurate to compare the results with downdraft gasifier type as it is the only gasifier that
exits with lower tar concentration and higher tar conversion (Basu, 2010).
4.1.1 Model Formulation

There are several factors affecting syngas composition from biomass, it mainly depends on the
gasifier types, feedstock and feedstock treatment, gasifying medium and operating parameters
such as pressure, reaction temperature, equivalence ratio and moisture content in the biomass
(Reed, 1998) For the thermodynamic model formulation (Melger, 2007)(Dutta, 2007), following
assumption was made:
a. The biomass is composed of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, element only. The
presence of sulfur and other minerals is not taken in to account.
b. All the carbon content in biomass is converted in gaseous forms and the residence time is
very enough to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium.
c. The products occurred in the syngas is composed of CO, CO2, H2, CH4, N2 and water
only. Moreover, these above gases are treated as ideal gas. Tar is not taken into account.
d. The pressure drop inside the gasifier was assumed to be negligible.
60
e. The reaction is auto thermal and no external heat source was applied. The reactor is
completely adiabatic so that no heat loss can occur from the gasifier.
f. The amount of air is self varied to adjust the on-set reaction temperature of 1073 oK or
above so that auto thermal sustainability can be occurred.
The chemical composition of biomass was taken to be in the form ‫ܪܥ‬௫ ܱ௬ ܰ௭ and the gasification
reaction can be written in the following form:
‫ܪܥ‬௫ ܱ௬ ܰ௭ ൅ ݉௪ ‫ܪ‬ଶ ܱ ൅ ܺ௚ ሺܱଶ ൅ ͵Ǥ͹͸ܰଶ ሻ ՜ ܺଵ ‫ ܱܥ‬൅ ܺଶ ‫ܪ‬ଶ ൅ ܺଷ ‫ܱܥ‬ଶ ൅ ܺସ ‫ܪ‬ଶ ܱ ൅

ܺͷ‫ܪܥ‬Ͷ൅‫ʹݖ‬൅ܺ݃͵Ǥ͹͸ܰʹ Eq. (4.1)
Where mw in Equation 4.1 can be calculated using the following relation.
ሺெ್೔೚೘ೌೞೞ ௠ሻ
݉௪ ൌ ଵ଼ሺଵି௠ሻ
Eq. (2)
The elemental balance gives:
ܺଵ ൅ ܺଷ ൅ ܺହ ൌ ͳ Eq. (4.3)
‫ ݔ‬൅ ʹ݉௪ ൌ ʹܺଶ ൅ ʹܺସ ൅ Ͷܺହ Eq. (4.4)
‫ ݕ‬൅ ݉௪ ൅ ʹܺ௚ ൌ ܺଵ ൅ ʹܺଷ ൅ ܺସ Eq. (4.5)
The major reaction that occurs inside the downdraft reactor is as follows:
‫ ܥ‬൅ ‫ܱܥ‬ଶ ՜ ʹ‫ܱܥ‬ Eq. (4.6)
‫ ܥ‬൅ ‫ܪ‬ଶ ܱ ՜ ‫ ܱܥ‬൅ ‫ܪ‬ଶ Eq. (4.7)
The two reactions shown above can be combined into one single reaction known as water-gas
shift reaction.
‫ ܱܥ‬൅ ‫ܪ‬ଶ ܱ ՜ ‫ܱܥ‬ଶ ൅ ‫ܪ‬ଶ Eq. (4.8)
The other reaction that is prominent in the gasification process is formation of methane as shown
below:
61
‫ ܥ‬൅ ʹ‫ܪ‬ଶ ՜ ‫ܪܥ‬ସ Eq. (4.9)
The equilibrium constant for these two above equation as the function of their molar composition
can be written as follows:
௑య ௑మ
‫ܭ‬ଵ ൌ Eq. (4.10)
௑భ ௑ర
And
௑ఱ
‫ܭ‬ଶ ൌ ܰ௧௢௧௔௟ Eq. (4.11)
௑మమ
Where, ܰ௧௢௧௔௟ is the total number of gaseous moles in the gasifier reactor.
The equilibrium constant of the methane production is dependent of temperature and pressure,
but the water gas shift reaction is only dependent of temperature because the total pressure
disappears when the equation (K1) is simplified.
Gibbs free energy is used in determining the value of K1 and K2. For the given ideal gas, the
Gibbs free energy is a strong function of the reaction temperature and a weak function of
pressure.
οீ೅
‫ܭ‬ሺܶሻ ൌ െ ோ்
Eq. (4.12)
തതതതതത
ο‫ ்ܩ‬ൌ σ௜ ܺ௜ ο݃ ௢
Eq. (4.13)
௙ǡ்ǡప
തതതതതത
Where, ο݃ ௢
௙ǡ்ǡప is empirically calculated.
To solve the equation system, the only missing equation is the energy balance, and the enthalpy
of reactants entering must be same as enthalpy of reactants of products leaving the system.
‫ܪ‬௥௘௔௖௧௔௡௧௦ ൌ ‫ܪ‬௣௥௢ௗ௨௖௧௦ Eq. (4.14)

௢ ௢
‫ܪ‬௥௘௔௖௧௔௡௧௦ ൌ ‫ܪ‬௙ǡ௕௜௢௠௔௦௦ ൅ ෍ ݆൫ο ்ೞ೟ೌೝ೟՜మవఴ ்݄ǡ௝ ൅ ݄௙ǡ௝ ൯
௝ୀ௠ೢ ǡ௑೒
‫ݖ‬ ௢
‫ܪ‬௣௥௢ௗ௨௖௧௦ ൌ ቀ ൅ ͵Ǥ͹͸ܺ௚ ቁ οଶଽ଼ି்೚ೠ೟ ்݄ǡேమ ൅ ෍ ܺ௜ ሺοଶଽ଼ି்೚ೠ೟ ்݄ǡ௜ ൅ ݄௙ǡ௜ ሻ
ʹ
ଵஸ௜ஸହ
62
The enthalpy of formation, Gibbs free energy and specific heat capacity of various gases
coefficients is calculated empirically. The sensible heat (hT) and chemically bond energy (heat of
formation, hf) gives the total enthalpy for reactants and products respectively. The reference
temperature in the system is set to 298 K because the heat of formation (hf) is given at this
temperature. The temperature of the syngas (Tout) is same as that of reaction temperature in the
gasifier. The heat of formation for biomass can be calculated from the model developed by
Zainal et al, 2001.
௢
‫ܪ‬௙ǡ௕௜௢௠௔௦௦ ൌ ‫ ܸܪܮ‬൅ σ௡௜ୀଵ ݊௜ ‫݌‬௜ Eq. (4.15)
LHV is calculated in dry basis of biomass and is calculated using the following equation:
‫ ܸܪܮ‬ൌ ͶǤͳͺ͹൫ͺͳ‫ ܥ‬൅ ͵ͲͲ‫ ܪ‬െ ʹ͸ሺܱ െ ܵሻ െ ͸ሺͻ‫ ܪ‬൅ ݉ሻ൯ሺ݇‫ܬ‬Ȁ݇݃ሻ Eq. (4.16)
The model now has complete sets of equation and is solved in MATLAB [7] programming
platform. Newton-Jacobi iteration was used for solving these equations. The program can handle
the input as elemental composition of biomass supplied as ultimate analysis in the form of C-H-
O-N-Ash and the preset reaction temperature in Kelvin scale. Once the input parameters are
defined the program automatically calculates the equivalence ratio to maintain the preset
temperature with respect to moisture content. It is desirable to set reaction temperature of 1073 K
(800 oC) for self sustain gasification system. The program also features to plot the output results
with varying moisture content from zero to self sustain moisture content in biomass dry basis.
63
4.2 Methodology for Experiment on Effect of Particle Size
4.2.1 Materials
Fuel wood of two different mean size were collected from the nearby local furniture industry.
The smallest mean particle size is measured to be 1.5 cm X 1.5 cm X 2.0 cm and larger mean
particle size is 5.0 cm X 5.0 cm X 10.0 cm.
4.2.2 Procedure
Experimental trials were conducted in laboratory scale biomass gasifier (Series-1) having the
throat diameter of 10 cm with pre-heated air facility to the oxidation zone. For each of the
particle size, the gasifier was started by flaming the torch at the oxidation zone and was set to
stabilize.
Temperature reading was also measured to the following location at various points using K-type
thermocouple coupled with data logger (DATA TAKER 605 series) within the gasifier. The
position of the thermocouple on the gasifier is radial to the wall. The first thermocouple was
located at the grate and other 5 sets of thermocouple were located at 15 cm interval reference
from the grate.
4.2.3 Equipment
Syngas composition was measured by Horriba gas analyzer on site in cool and dry volumetric
basis. The gas analyzer used has the capacity of measuring O2: 0-25 %, CO: 0-30 %, CO2: 0-30
%, HC: 0-15,000 ppm. The gas analyzer was calibrated before measing the gas. The accuracy of
the reading was with in 1% at full scale. To analyze CH4, Dragger make biogas analyzer was
used. Hydrogen in the gas was estimated using the equation developed by Ratnadhariya (2010).
షభభబǤభభ
ሾ஼ைሿ
ൌ ͲǤͻʹ݁ ೅ Eq. (4.17)
ሾுమ ሿ
K-type thermocouple was used to investigate the temperature at the different location of the
gasifier.
64
4.3 Methodology for Experriment with Varying Fuel Feeding Ratee
4.3.1 Materials
In this study only single type biiomass, Lapsi Seed Stone, shown in Figure 31, was carried out
with varying fuel feeding flow raate at two different conditions.
Figuure 31 Photograph of lapsi seed stone
4.3.2 Procedure
For the experminet, the downdrraft gasifier having the throat diamter of 5.0 cm
m (Series-3) was
used at the laboratory. The fuel feeding flow rate was varied by means of varrying the suction
pressure by venturi ejector.The eeffect of fuel feeding flow rate on gas generation
n, gas quality and
hydrocarbon (indicating tar conttent), heating value of the gas and localized th
hroat temperature
was measured. In both of the opperations, moisture content of the lapsi seed sttone was tried to
kept at constant temperature of 220-22 oC by wet basis.
65
Figure 32 Photograph of laboratory scale commercial prototype with necessary accessories and
instrumentation
4.3.3 Equipment
Syngas composition was measured by Horriba gas analyzer on site in cool and dry volumetric
basis. The gas analyzer used has the capacity of measuring O2: 0-25 %, CO: 0-30 %, CO2: 0-30
%, HC: 0-15,000 ppm. The gas analyzer was calibrated before measing the gas. The accuracy of
the reading was with in 1% at full scale. To analyze CH4, Dragger make biogas analyzer was
used. As hydrogen measurement facility was not avilable, it was estimated using the equation
developed by Ratnadhariya (2010) in Equation (4.17).
66
Biomass mositure content was ddetermined using digital moisture meter as showb in Figure 33,
Brennenstuhl-Germany make cappable of measuing moisture content from 0 - 80
0 % on wet basis.
Randomly selected Lapsi seed stone was analyzed to determine the moisture con
ntent.
F
Figure 33 Moisture Meter
For experiment, only one set of hheavy duty K-type thermocouple was used and was
w located at the
throat. The reason of using only one set of thermocouple was because of small th
hroat diameter of
5.0 cm. The sketch of the location of the thermocouple and gasifier reactor is showin in Figure
34.
Figure 34 Sketch oof the reactor with location of K-type thermocoup

ple
Thermocouple located at the thhroat is interfaced with Data Taker 605 series recording at the
interval of 3 minutes to accompaany with the gas analyzer reading time. Temperaature are recorded
immediately after the torching thhe gasifier along with syngas composition measu
urement.
67
4.3.4 Biomass Characterization
n
Although, ultimate analysis coulld not be performed with current facilities, prox
ximate analyis of
the Lapsi seed stone was out souurced from the literature published elsewhere. Moreover,
M thermo
gravimetric analysis of Lapsi seeed stone is also presented in Figure 35.
Table 12 shows the results of finndings of the different properties and charactersstics of the Lapsi
seed stone biomass and Tablee 13 reflects the chemical properties comparrision with other
biomass.
Table 12 Physical prroperties and proximate analysis of Lapsi seed stone

s
VM FC ASH H HHV (MJ/kg) Bulk Density Void Size (cm x cm)
64.4 % 32.9 % 2.7 % ʹͳǤ͸ͷ േ ͲǤͺͳ 750 kg/m3 0.465 1.0 X 1.5
Figure 35 Thermo-gravimetric analysis (TGA) of Lapsi seed ston

ne
Table 13 Comparison of pproperties of Lapsi seed stone with other similarr biomass
Wo
Wood Chips Hazelnut Lapsi Stone
Proximate Analysis
Volatile Matter 77.5 68.2 64.4
Fixed Carbon 12.3 18.2 32.9
Ash 1.5 1.1 2.7
HHV 20.5 19.5 21.65
Ultimate Analysis
Carbon 45.6 45.9 NA
Hydrogen 5.9 5.7 NA
Oxygen 48.4 48.2 NA
68
4.3.5 System Operation
Before loading the biomass in to the gasifier, first charcoal was filled in to th
he reduction zone
cylinder up to the air nozzle oppening. This kind of loading the charcoal help
ps to start up the
gasifier quickly and thus minimizze the tar during the start up. Then after which the known weight
and moisture content of biomass was loaded from the top of the downdraft gasifi
fier till the hopper
fills up manually. The gasifier uused at present condition is throated type with closed
c top. So the
m set of air nozles only. Venturi water ejector system was used to
oxidation agent, air, comes from
Two opertaing fuel feeding flow rate condition can be achieved
suck the gas from the gasifier. T
through ventrui ejector by using two differnet ejection pump of ½ HP and 1 HP power. The grate
located at the end of reductionn zone supporting charcoal was shaked at reg
gular interval for
removing ash and some unreacteed charcoal. The regular shaking of the grate also
a provides low
pressure drop and smooth gas ggeneration. To start the gasifier, first motor ejjector pump was
turned on, venturi ejector playss the suction role. A protocol developed by IIT-Bombay and
released by Ministry of Non Connventional Energy Socurces, Government of Ind
dia for testing the
gasifier was followed to start upp the gasifier and for tesing purposes. Leak test was first done
before torching the gasifier. Affter the leak test was accomplished, torching the gasifier was
proceeded. Then fire was torchedd at the both of the inlet of air nozzles where it fire gets sucked.
The charcoal inside the gasifier gets ignited quickley. After 1-2 min of torchin
ng, self sustain of
fire inside the gasifier is possiblle. The view port of the fire from the nozzle can
c be seen as in
Figure 36.
Figure 36 Glow flame as seen from air inlet nozzles.
69
4.3.6 Theoretical Framework and Post Processing
In order to determine the various parameters, following equations sets is useful.
4.3.6.1 Producer Gas to Fuel Ratio (G/F)
Using Carbon balance;
‫ܥ‬௙ ൌ ‫ܥ‬௚ ൅ ‫ܥ‬௖ି௔ ൅ ‫ܥ‬௧ Eq. (4.18)
ൌ
ൌ
Ǧൌ Ǧ
ൌ
Assumng carbon in char-ash and tar is negligible compared to carbon in the producer gas;
ൌ Eq. (4.19)
Mass percentage of carbon in the dry fuel wood is taken as 52.2% (FAO, 1986)
ൌͲǤͷʹʹ Eq. (4.20)
݇݃
‫ ܨ‬ൌ ‫݊݋݅ݐ݌݉ݑݏ݊݋݈ܿ݁ݑܨ‬ሺ ሻ
݄
From (4.19) and (4.20)
ൌͲǤͷʹʹ
Volumetric fraction of carbon in the producer gas is computed as follows;
ܸ‫݈݋‬Ǥ ݂‫݈݁݋݉ݎ݁݌ݐ݄݃݅݁ݓܥܺݕݐ݅ݏ݊݁ܦܺ݀݊ݑ݋݌݉݋ܿ݃݊݅݊݅ܽݐ݊݋ܿܥ݂݋݊݋݅ݐܿܽݎ‬
‫ܥ‬௚ ൌ ෍
‫ݐ݊݁݊݋݌݉݋݂ܿ݋ݐ݄݃݅݁ݓݎ݈ܽݑ݈ܿ݁݋ܯ‬
ൌ Eq. (4.21)
70
௠య
G = Producer Gas Flow Rate ቀ ቁ
௛
From (4.20) and (4.21);
ͲǤͷʹʹ ൌ
ீ ଴Ǥହଶଶ
ቀ ቁൌ Eq. (4.22)
ி ஼೒ೡ
4.3.6.2 Specific air consumption-Air to Gas Ratio (A/G)
In order to determine the Air flow to Gas flow (A/G) nitrogen balance is used.
Using Nitrogen balance
൅ൌ
ൌ
ൌ
ൌ
Assuming nitrogen fraction in the biomass fuel is very small compared to the nitrogen in air;
ൌ Eq. (4.23)
Taking volumetric fraction of nitrogen in air as 0.79;
ൌͲǤ͹ͻ Eq. (4.24)

3
Where, A = Supply air flow rate (m /h)
ൌͲǤ͹ͻ Eq. (4.25)
Volumetric fraction of nitrogen in the gas is obtained from the gas composition.
ൌ Eq. (4.26)
71
From Equation (4.25) and (4.26);
ͲǤ͹ͻൌ
஺ ே೒ೡ
ቀ ቁൌ Eq. (4.27)
ீ ଴Ǥ଻ଽ
4.3.6.3 Equivalence Ratio (ER)
Equivalence Ratio reflects the combine effect of air flow rate and fuel flow rate. This is defined
as the ratio of operating or actual air-fuel ratio to the stiochiometric air-fuel ratio.
ಲ
ை௣௘௥௔௧௜௡௚௢௥௔௖௧௨௔௟ቀ ቁ
ಷ ೌ
‫ ܴܧ‬ൌ ಲ Eq. (4.28)
ௌ௧௜௢௖௛௜௢௠௘௧௥௜௖ቀ ቁ
ಷ ೞ
஺ ெ௔௦௦௙௟௢௪௥௔௧௘௢௙௔௜௥ ஺ ீ
ቀ ቁ ൌ ൌ ቀ ቁ ቀ ቁ ܺ‫ݎ݅ܣ݂݋ݕݐ݅ݏ݊݁ܦ‬ Eq. (4.29)
ி ௔ ி௨௘௟௪௢௢ௗ௖௡௦௨௠௣௧௜௢௡௥௔௧௘ ீ ி
Stiochiometric air-fuel ratio is taken as 6.36 kg of air per kg of wood (SERI 1988).
4.3.6.4 Heating Value of the fuel
Higher heating value of the biomass was calculated based upon equation developed by Jigisha
Parikh et. al, 2005.
ൌͲǤ͵ͷ͵͸ሾ ሿ൅ͲǤͳͷͷͻሾሿȂͲǤͲͲ͹ͺሾ ሿ Ȁ Eq. (4.30)
Where the range of FC: 1.0 – 91.5 %, VM: 0.92 – 90.6 % and ASH: 0.12 – 77.2 % in weight %.
72
CHAPTER
R 5: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this chapter, results are producced from the experimental works and mathematiical model and
are discussed in details.
5.1 Results and Discussion

n for Thermodynamic Modeling
The Figure 37 and Figure 38, refflects the simulation results of the model for the Eucalyptus
wood having the elemental compposition in the form C-H-O-N as 49.5-6.3-42.0-0
0 respectively.
The reaction temperature is set too 1073 K.
Figure 37 Effect of moisture conttent on equivalence ratio (above) and HHV of syyngas generated
(below)
Figure 5.1 reflects the effect of moisture content on HHV of syngas for the Ecaulyptus
E wood.
With the increase in moisture ccontent, the HHV of the syngas generated has been decreased.
Moreover, with the increase inn moisture content, the equivalence ratio for gasification to
maintain the 1073 K preset temperature, has been increased.
73
The model simulation results has shown that with the increase of moisture content
c on preset
reaction temperature of 1073 K at the gasifier reactor in Figure 5.2, the CO lev
vel has decreased,
N2 has been increased, H2 has inncreased up to its certain limit of the moisture content
c and starts
to decrease again. Similarly, CO2 has been increased at the expense of CO. Interrestingly, the CH4
is far below than the practical results. The thermodynamics model under predicts
p the CH4
composition. The CH4 under preediction results is also stated by Zanial, 2001.
Figure 38 Effect of moisture content on syngas species on dry basis for Euca
alyptus wood.
5.1.1 Effect of moisture contentt on N2 formation to run at preset reaction tem

mperature
From Figure 38, it can be seen clearly that, with the increase of moisture con
ntent the volume
mole fraction in dry basis of nittrogen has been increased. The fact for increassing the nitrogen
volume fraction is due to more aair from atmosphere is required to compensate and maintain the
reaction temperature of 1073 K. The higher the moisture content more heat enerrgy is required to
liberate the moisture from the biiomass and more air is required to sustain and maintain
m the heat
and temperature. This is the reasson for Figure 37; the equivalence ratio has alsso been increased
and thus decreases in HHV of thee syngas generated.
74
5.1.2 Effect of moisture content on CO formation to run at preset reaction temperature
From Figure 38, it can be seen clearly that, with the increase of moisture content the volume
mole fraction in dry basis for carbon-monoxide has been decreased. With increase in moisture
content, the water-gas shift reaction takes place favoring the production of H2 and CO2. Although
the favor of highest energy hydrogen is produced, but hydrogen has lower energy density
compared to the carbon-monoxide in terms of volume basis. This is the reason where HHV of
syngas generated has decreased with the increase in moisture content and production of
hydrogen at the expense of carbon-monoxide.
5.1.3 Effect of moisture content on H2 formation to run at preset reaction temperature

From Figure 38, it can be seen clearly that, with the increase of moisture content the volume
mole fraction in dry basis of hydrogen has been increased to the extent where water-gas shift
reaction is favored and starts to decline. The maximum hydrogen production is favored at the
point where the formation of carbon-monoxide and carbon-dioxide are at the equilibrium mole
fraction. Upon increasing the moisture content, the more air is introduced into the reactor to
maintain the preset temperature and thus CO gets more oxygen to react to get oxidize and form
CO2. The other reason to maintain the preset temperature is at the expense of combustion of H2,
and CO with increase in equivalence ratio.
5.2 Results and Discussion for the Effect of Particle Size

Figure 1, shows the result of the experiment for temperature profile of the large wood particle
size approximate (5 cm X 5 cm X 10 cm) at various location of the gasifier reactor after 10
minutes from the startup of the gasifier system. It can be seen that, at the grate it has the
maximum temperature of 550 oC and followed by 473 oC at the oxidation zone where air enters
through 5 sets of nozzle aligned at equally spaced angle. From the figure it can be seen that
pyrolysis length end to 45 cm from the grate and starts from the immediate overlapping from the
oxidation zone. In overall, the length of the pyrolysis length is 30 cm.
Figure 2, shows the result of the experiment for temperature profile of the small wood particle
size approximate (1.5 cm X 1.5 cm X 2 cm) at various location of the gasifier reactor after 10
minutes from the startup of the gasifier system. It can be seen that, at the grate it has the
maximum temperature of 930 oC and followed by 574 oC at the oxidation zone. The pyrolysis
75
length in this case ends to 29 cm from the grate and starts from the immediate overlapping from
the oxidation zone. In overall, the length of the pyrolysis length is 14 cm.
5.2.1 Effect of particle size on Pyrolysis Length
It can be seen from Figure 39 that, gasification with larger wood particle size requires more time
to reach the maximum temperature than the smaller particle size of wood for the same amount of
air flow rate. The pyrolysis length for the given constant cross section of the reactor is generally
higher in the case of large particle size of the wood. The length of the pyrolysis zone for large
particle wood size is 30 cm whereas, the length of the pyrolysis zone for small particle size of the
wood is just 14 cm. This is because of the porosity increases with the increasing particle size of
the wood for the given constant cross section of the reactor. This porosity helps heat to flow
through two mode of heat transfer via radiation and convection. The smaller particle size has
lower porosity and so called packed bed. The heat transfer through convection and radiation is
less effective in low porosity media. Interestingly, the drying zone with the large wood particle
size has the temperature of 153 oC as compared to the smaller particle size which is 73 oC.
Figure 39 Effect of large mean particle size on temperature distribution along the gasifier
76
Figure 40 Effect of small mean particle size on temperature distribution along the gasifier
5.2.2 Effect of Reduction Temperature to the Molar Percentage of the Syngas Composition
According to Sharma (2009), it can be seen that the CO and H2 components in product gas
increases with reaction temperature, while un-reacted char and CO2 decrease with increasing
reaction temperature. The improvement in CO component has been observed to be more
sensitive as compared to the H2 component, for a typical range of temperature encountered.
However, CH4 percentage does not show any significant variation with reaction temperature. The
influence of bed temperature on N2 component (inert) was not presented by the model of author.
The prediction of kinetic modeling also shows that the char consumption continues exponentially
with increasing reaction temperature.
77
Figure 41 Syngas composition of two different particle size for reduction temperature
5.2.3 Effect of particle size on temperature and tar

The tar was sampled in the filter paper and was visually inspected. This study presents some
interesting facts about the tar production with respect the particle size. From the visual
inspection, it was found that, tar generation from the small wood particle size was high at the
initial stage of the ignition, and was reduced significantly after the temperature was reached high
enough for the destruction of tar. Further, the tar generated from the pyrolysis zone and oxidation
zone has to be passed through series of packed bed having low porosity where it gets enough
residence time to be cracked in the high temperature region. On the other hand, tar generation
from the large wood particle size was low at the initial stage of the ignition and subsequently
increased with time. At the initial stage, the temperature was too low for the generation of tar.
Another reason may be the, at the later stage, the heat generation in the oxidation zone increased
and thus provides high temperature and sufficient heat for pyrolysis zone. The significant thing
that happed in the larger wood size gasification is that the long length of the pyrolysis zone
yielded high amounts of tar. The tar, travelled through the oxidation zone and then finally exited
through reduction zone with high porosity. The porosity helped the tar to reduce it residence time
to react at high temperature charcoal bed at the reduction zone which reduced thermal cracking
and hence resulted in high amount of tar production as time increased.
78
5.3 Results and Discussion for Varying Fuel Feeding Rate
In this study feeding rate of the biomass is varied keeping the lapsi seed stone moisture content
almost constant for two of the test conditions.
Syngas composition from Lapsi seed stone was successfully generated at two different feed rate
condition 2.0 kg/hour and 3.91 kg/hour with the moisture content of around 20-22 %. The lapsi
seed stone having higher moisture content has been successfully gasified at small scale gasifier.
Lapsi seed stone showed highest CO fraction at 2.0 kg/hour feeding rate. This could be perhaps
due to low superficial velocity which allows more time to interact with the charcoal at the
reduction zone.
5.3.1 Effect of Feeding Rate on Syngas Composition
Two mode of the test was done for the experimental results. Feeding rate of biomass was varied
with increase in syngas output generation using venturi ejector. Test showed that with increasing
in feeding rate of biomass, start up time for torching to the flaring the gasifier is decreased. This
helps in quick start of the gasifier as well prevent in formation of tar. Figure 42 shows the throat
temperature, syngas composition plot at various time intervals from initial start of the gasifier.
ϮϮ͘ϱ ϭϮϬϬ
ϮϬ ϭϬϱϬ
ϭϳ͘ϱ
ϵϬϬ
dĞŵƉĞƌĂƚƵƌĞŽ
ϭϱ
ϳϱϬ
sŽůƵŵĞй
ϭϮ͘ϱ
ϲϬϬ
ϭϬ
ϰϱϬ
ϳ͘ϱ
K KϮ
ϯϬϬ
ϱ
,Ϯ dĞŵƉ ϭϱϬ
Ϯ͘ϱ
Ϭ Ϭ
Ϭ ϴ ϭϲ Ϯϰ ϯϮ ϰϬ ϰϴ ϱϲ ϲϰ ϳϮ ϴϬ ϴϴ ϵϲ ϭϬϰ ϭϭϮ ϭϮϬ
dŝŵĞ;ŵŝŶͿ
Figure 42 Gas composition and temperature profile from the gasifier at various time from
starting the gasifier (3.91 kg/hour)
79
It can be clearly seen that gasifier operating at 3.91 kg/hour (98 % of full load), throat
temperature of the gasifier reactor reaches above 900 oC very quickly and tends to stabilize
within the range of 950-1050 oC. The fluctuation in temperature is due to the shape and size of
the biomass as well untimely grate shaking.
The increase in throat temperature is very helpful in terms of tar cracking, increase the reaction
rate for reduction zone. Throat is the starting point for reduction zone where charcoals are
present. So increasing the throat temperature with fixed equivalence ratio is always helpful in
terms of good syngas quality and higher heating values. In this experiment, in order to prevent
heat loss from the combustion or oxidation zone and at the throat, proper insulation has been
done with the help of rice husk, fire brick, sand and cement.
Similarly, Figure 43 shows the effect of biomass feeding rate at 2.1 kg/hour (52.5 % of full load).
It can be seen clearly that, with higher moisture content of 20-22 %, the gasifier requires much
more time to torch and then to generate flaring syngas. The time required for torching the
gasifier to flaring was around 23 minutes. During conduction of both of the experiment, it was
also found that, syngas can be flared until it has CO concentration of above 10.0 % on dry
volume basis.
ϮϮ ϭϬϬϬ
K ϵϬϬ
ϮϬ
KϮ ϴϬϬ
ϭϴ ,Ϯ ϳϬϬ
sŽůƵŵĞй
ϭϲ dĞŵƉ ϲϬϬ
ϱϬϬ
ϭϰ ϰϬϬ
ϭϮ ϯϬϬ
ϮϬϬ
ϭϬ
ϭϬϬ
ϴ Ϭ
Ϭ ϮϬ ϰϬ ϲϬdŝŵĞ;ŵŝŶͿϴϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϮϬ ϭϰϬ

Figure 43 Gas composition and temperature profile from the gasifier at various time from
starting the gasifier (2.1 kg/hour)
80
Temperature for the feeding rate of 2.1 kg/hour stabilize at around 750-850 oC. This is true that,
with more air entrain, feeding rate is high as well as, the heat of combustion increases rapidly. It
is also true that, oxidation temperature determines the rate of pyrolysis and initial gas quality.
Higher the oxidation temperature, quicker is the pyrolysis reaction rate. In both of the
experiments, temperature has favored the formation of CO and H2.
Figure 44 and Figure 45 shows the effect of temperature at the throat on cumulative CO/CO2
ratio. In both of the cases, it can been seen that, temperature favors the conversion of CO2, which
is the results of combustion at oxidation zone, to CO. It is not to be misunderstood that, with
higher feeding rate, more CO2 is formed at the oxidation zone. But also the degree of pyrolysis
gas formation is also higher due to heat transfer.
ϭϮϬϬ Ϯ
ϭϬϱϬ
ϵϬϬ ϭ͘ϱ
ϳϱϬ
ϲϬϬ ϭ
ϰϱϬ
dĞŵƉ
ϯϬϬ Ϭ͘ϱ
KͬKϮ
ϭϱϬ
Ϭ Ϭ
Ϭ ϮϬ ϰϬ ϲϬ ϴϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϮϬ
dŝŵĞ;ŵŝŶͿ
Figure 44 CO/CO2 ratio and temperature profile with respect to time (3.91 kg/hour)
ϭϬϬϬ
ϭ͘ϲ ϵϬϬ
ϭ͘ϰ ϴϬϬ
ϳϬϬ
ϭ͘Ϯ ϲϬϬ
ϱϬϬ
ϭ
KͬKϮ ϰϬϬ
Ϭ͘ϴ ϯϬϬ
dĞŵƉ ϮϬϬ
Ϭ͘ϲ
ϭϬϬ
Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ
Ϭ ϮϬ ϰϬ ϲϬ ϴϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϮϬ ϭϰϬ
dŝŵĞ;ŵŝŶͿ
Figure 45 CO/CO2 ratio and temperature profile with respect to time (2.1 kg/hour)
81
The temperature at which CO/CO2 ratio is greater than unity is 737 oC. This can be seen clearly
at Figure 46. Therefore, the gasification temperature should be maintained above this
temperature in order to get good conversion of CO2 to CO. Moreover, the reduction reaction
between char and CO2 has been shown in Equation 5.1.
C + CO2 Æ 2CO (5.1)
ϮϬ
ϭϴ ZϸсϬ͘ϴϯϮ
ϭϲ
ϭϰ
ϭϮ
sŽůƵŵĞй
ϭϬ
ϴ
ϲ ZϸсϬ͘ϴϰϯ
K
ϰ KϮ
>ŽŐ͘;KͿ
Ϯ
>ŽŐ͘;KϮͿ
Ϭ
ϴϱϬ ϴϳϱ ϵϬϬ ϵϮϱ ϵϱϬ ϵϳϱ ϭϬϬϬ ϭϬϮϱ ϭϬϱϬ ϭϬϳϱ ϭϭϬϬ ϭϭϮϱ ϭϭϱϬ
dĞŵƉĞƌĂƚƵƌĞ<
Figure 46 CO-CO2 trade off temperature plot
5.3.2 Effect of Feeding rate on Heating Value of the Syngas

The effect of feeding rate on syngas heating value is shown in Figure 47 and Figure 48. With
increasing in feeding rate close to the rated full load, more stable heating value is obtained.
Ofcourse, at low load as well, heating value is quite high. The term used for getting the
consistency of heating value operated at various load is turn down ratio. This is explained as the
lowest biomass consumption where the gasifier operates similar to the rated full capacity.
Moreover, the data plot in Figure 47 and 48 are the post processing from the Equation 4.30.
82
ϲ͘ϬϬ ϭϮϬϬ
ϱ͘Ϯϱ ϭϬϱϬ
ϰ͘ϱϬ ϵϬϬ
,,s;D:ͬEŵϯͿ
ϯ͘ϳϱ ϳϱϬ
ϯ͘ϬϬ ϲϬϬ
,,s;D:ͬEŵϯͿ
Ϯ͘Ϯϱ ϰϱϬ
dĞŵƉ
ϭ͘ϱϬ ϯϬϬ
Ϭ͘ϳϱ ϭϱϬ
Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ
Ϭ ϮϬ ϰϬ ϲϬ ϴϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϮϬ
dŝŵĞ;ŵŝŶͿ
Figure 47 Effect of throat temperature on heating value with respect to time (3.91 kg/hour)
ϭϬϬϬ
ϱ͘Ϯϱ
ϵϬϬ
ϰ͘ϱϬ ϴϬϬ
ϳϬϬ
ϯ͘ϳϱ
,,sD:ͬEŵϯͿ
ϲϬϬ
ϯ͘ϬϬ
ϱϬϬ
Ϯ͘Ϯϱ ϰϬϬ
,,s;D:ͬEŵϯͿ ϯϬϬ
ϭ͘ϱϬ
dĞŵƉ ϮϬϬ
Ϭ͘ϳϱ
ϭϬϬ
Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ
Ϭ ϮϬ ϰϬ ϲϬ ϴϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϮϬ ϭϰϬ
dŝŵĞ;ŵŝŶͿ
Figure 48 Effect of throat temperature to heating value with respect to time (2.1 kg/hour)
5.3.3 Effect of Throat temperature on Hydro Carbon (HC) Concentration
Tar is referred to a Hydro Carbon (HC) in this work, which is analyzed with gas analyzer. Tar is
in fact a fuel, if handled or converted properly. Tar is heavy molecular compound with higher
activation energy required to destroy through thermo chemical process. Figure 49 and Figure 50
shows the HC generation concentration with temperature.
83
ϵϬϬ
ϴϬϬ
ϳϬϬ
ϲϬϬ
,;ƉƉŵͿ
ϱϬϬ
ϰϬϬ
ϯϬϬ
ϮϬϬ
ϭϬϬ
Ϭ
ϵϬϬ ϵϮϬ ϵϰϬ ϵϲϬ ϵϴϬ ϭϬϬϬ ϭϬϮϬ ϭϬϰϬ ϭϬϲϬ ϭϬϴϬ
Figure 49 Effect of throat temperature on hydro carbon (3.91 kg/hr)
ϮϱϬϬ
ϮϬϬϬ
,;ƉƉŵͿ
ϭϱϬϬ
ϭϬϬϬ
ϱϬϬ
Ϭ
ϲϬϬ ϲϱϬ ϳϬϬ ϳϱϬ ϴϬϬ ϴϱϬ ϵϬϬ
Figure 50 Effect of throat temperature on hydro carbon (tar) (2.1 kg/hour)
From Figure 49 and Figure 50, clearly it can be seen that, HC can be destroyed with increase in
temperature. Moreover, some temperature is increase while destruction of HC at throat. Figure
49 is the plot for biomass feeding rate 3.91 kg/hour where as Figure 50 is the plot for biomass
feeding rate 2.1 kg/hour. This implies that with increase in biomass feeding rate near to the rated
84
full load capacity, tar can be diminish virtually to zero. Apart from this, based upon experience
and testing HC less than 350 ppm is required in order to use the syngas for IC engine operations.
5.3.4 Effect of biomass feeding rate on throat temperature and HC

Figure 51 shows the plot of combined effect of throat temperature and HC concentration with
varying biomass feeding rate. With the biomass feeding rate of 2.1 kg/hour maximum throat
temperature attained after 23 minutes is 850 oC where as with the biomass feeding rate of 3.91
kg/hour maximum throat temperature attained is 1050 oC. In both of the cases, HC concentration
has been decreased with increased in temperature. Moreover, with increase in feeding rate,
temperature of the throat is also increased. It is true that, when more biomass is consumed, more
heat and temperature is formed at the oxidation zone.
Temperature of the range 800 – 1050 oC is good temperature for gasification in terms of gas
quality and low tar (HC) concentration. This is also good indication of running temperature
below ash fusion for most of the biomass.
ϮϱϬϬ
ZϸсϬ͘ϲϮϱ
ϮϮϱϬ
ϮϬϬϬ
ϭϳϱϬ
Biomass feed rate: 3.91
ϭϱϬϬ
,;ƉƉŵͿ
ϭϮϱϬ
ϭϬϬϬ
ϳϱϬ
ϱϬϬ Biomass feed rate: 2.0
ϮϱϬ
Ϭ
ϲϭϬ ϲϲϬ ϳϭϬ ϳϲϬ ϴϭϬ ϴϲϬ ϵϭϬ ϵϲϬ ϭϬϭϬ ϭϬϲϬ ϭϭϭϬ
Figure 51 Effect of feed rate on throat temperature and Hydro Carbon (tar) concentration
85
5.3.5 Effect of Biomass Feeding Rate on Equivalence Ratio and Heating Values of gas
Figure 52 and Figure 53 shows the effect of biomass feeding rate of biomass at 3.91 kg/hour and
2.1 kg/hour. With increased in biomass feeding rate, there is more place to play with increase in
equivalence ratio. This fact can be supported by increase in equivalence ratio increases local
oxidation zone temperature. The increased in temperature helps to improve fast pyrolysis
reaction. The final quality of gas mainly depends upon the gas generation from the pyrolysis.
ϲ͘ϬϬ
ϱ͘ϬϬ
,,s΀D:ͬEŵϯ΁
ϰ͘ϬϬ
ϯ͘ϬϬ
Ϯ͘ϬϬ
ϭ͘ϬϬ
Ϭ͘ϬϬ
Ϭ͘ϰϬ Ϭ͘ϰϭ Ϭ͘ϰϮ Ϭ͘ϰϯ Ϭ͘ϰϰ Ϭ͘ϰϱ Ϭ͘ϰϲ Ϭ͘ϰϳ Ϭ͘ϰϴ Ϭ͘ϰϵ
ƋƵŝǀĂůĞŶĐĞZĂƚŝŽ
Figure 52 Effect of equivalence ratio on heating values of the final syngas (3.91 kg/hour)
ϲ͘ϬϬ
ϱ͘ϬϬ
ZϸсϬ͘ϴϳϯ
,,s΀D:ͬEŵϯ΁
ϰ͘ϬϬ
ϯ͘ϬϬ
Ϯ͘ϬϬ
ϭ͘ϬϬ
Ϭ͘ϬϬ
Ϭ͘ϯϱ Ϭ͘ϯϴ Ϭ͘ϰϬ Ϭ͘ϰϯ Ϭ͘ϰϱ Ϭ͘ϰϴ Ϭ͘ϱϬ Ϭ͘ϱϯ Ϭ͘ϱϱ Ϭ͘ϱϴ Ϭ͘ϲϬ
Figure 53 Effect of equivalence ratio on heating values of the final syngas (2.1 kg/hour)
It becomes clear if we combined the data for both of the feeding rate to demonstrate the effect of
equivalence ratio on heating values of the final syngas. Figure 54 reflects the plot between
equivalence ratio and higher heating value of the generated syngas.
86
ϲ͘ϬϬ
ϱ͘ϱϬ
ϱ͘ϬϬ ZϸсϬ͘ϳϵϰ
ϰ͘ϱϬ
ϰ͘ϬϬ
,,s΀D:ͬEŵϯ΁
ϯ͘ϱϬ
ϯ͘ϬϬ
Ϯ͘ϱϬ
Ϯ͘ϬϬ
ϭ͘ϱϬ
ϭ͘ϬϬ
Ϭ͘ϱϬ
Ϭ͘ϬϬ
Ϭ͘ϯϳ Ϭ͘ϰϬ Ϭ͘ϰϮ Ϭ͘ϰϱ Ϭ͘ϰϳ Ϭ͘ϱϬ Ϭ͘ϱϮ Ϭ͘ϱϱ Ϭ͘ϱϳ Ϭ͘ϲϬ Ϭ͘ϲϮ
Figure 54 Effect of equivalence ratio on higher heating value of syngas
5.3.6 Effect of Equivalence Ratio on Syngas Composition
Equivalence plays an important role on final syngas quality. With increasing and decreasing in
ER beyond the optimum value (typically 0.25-0.4), syngas quality gets poorer. Figure 55 reflects
the effects of equivalence ratio on lapsi seed stone on syngas individual components.
It can be seen clearly that, with increase in equivalence ratio, non combustible gases in syngas
(CO2 and N2) starts to increase rapidly. This also makes an adverse effect in syngas final heating
values. Increase in N2 is from the fact that with increase in ER, more N2 from air is entrained.
Due to constrain in the experiment lab, ER could not be decreased up to 0.2, otherwise the effect
of ER till 0.2 could have produced more clear explanation for working range of optimum ER for
Lapsi seed stone.
The equivalence ratio is evaluated using Equation 4.17 to Equation 4.29 in the spreadsheet
program.
87
ϳϬ ϱ͘ϱ
ϱ
ϲϬ
ϰ͘ϱ
ϱϬ ϰ
ϯ͘ϱ
,,s΀D:ͬEŵϯ΁
sŽůƵŵĞй
ϰϬ
ϯ
K KϮ
EϮ ,Ϯ Ϯ͘ϱ
ϯϬ
,,s >ŝŶĞĂƌ;KͿ
Ϯ
ǆƉŽŶ͘;KϮͿ >ŝŶĞĂƌ;EϮͿ
ϮϬ ϭ͘ϱ
ϭ
ϭϬ
Ϭ͘ϱ
Ϭ Ϭ
Ϭ͘ϯϮ Ϭ͘ϯϱ Ϭ͘ϯϳ Ϭ͘ϰϬ Ϭ͘ϰϮ Ϭ͘ϰϱ Ϭ͘ϰϳ Ϭ͘ϱϬ Ϭ͘ϱϮ
Figure 55 Effect of equivalence ratio on syngas composition and higher heating values
5.4 Grate shaking issues
Sometimes, untimely grate shaking causes problem. On the one hand it creates high pressure
drop across the reactor which block the gas to be drawn, on the other biomass at the oxidation
zone start to completely burn off and finally producing char. The oxidation zone has the highest
temperature as it is powered with air supply directly. When biomass, which has been pyrolyzed
in pyrolysis zone, does not able to move below the oxidation zone to reduction zone, complete
burn off takes places in the oxidation zone. This problem causes ash agglomeration or sintering
due to high temperature which promotes ash fusion. Figure 56 is one of the problems
encountered while maintaining the gasifier reactor after 3 hours of operation without shaking the
grate. Although, this test was intentional to know the ash agglomeration process but in reality it
has been avoided. This problem results in blockage of biomass and causes high bridging
problem.
88

Figure 56 Ash sintering at the oxidation zone.
89
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In this chapter conclusion and recommendation is drawn based upon the work carried out in
Chapter 3 and Chapter 5.
In Chapter 3, Downdraft biomass gasifier was designed accordingly to the empirical relation
provided by Imbert designed published in FAO. Careful, selection of type of downdraft gasifier
models (no throat, single throat and double throat) and input parameters for designing the
gasifier reactor is important. During the design, double throat gasifier was chosen, hearth load
was assumed to be 0.6 Nm3/hr/cm2 and resulted throat dimension to be 5.0 cm. This proved to be
accurate selection of hearth load for gasifying lapsi seed stone. This can be proved by the rated
biomass consumption at full load was 4.0 kg/hr in the design process and during the
experimental work, 3.91 kg/hour feeding rate gave the high quality of gas having heating values
reaching to 4.5-5.5 MJ/Nm3. Apparently this also implies that lapsi seed stone has the specific
gasification rate of 2400 kg/hr/m2. The insulation of the combustion chamber and at the throat
played a significant role in increasing the throat temperature. Moreover, the inclination of throat
angle to 45-60o is meaningful to converge the gas passing to the throat with minimum pressure
drop.
The mathematical formulation for predicting syngas from the biomass elemental composition
worked with reasonable accuracy, however it best works for low ash content as heat absorbed by
ash is ignored in the model. The model should be utilized with careful consideration with the
gasification temperature range. The perfect adiabatic condition is not realizable in practical case.
Moisture content reduces the concentration of CO mole fraction significantly, increases
equivalence ratio and thus reduces the HHV of the gas.
The effect of particle size is worthy of the experiment. This experiment concludes that, for a
gasifier with specific power and size (throat or throat-less), biomass has to be processed
accordingly. With mean smaller particle size results in high heating value of the syngas, low tar
generation and residence time for converting tar to useful syngas is decreased favoring good
quality syngas compositions.
90
In overall, following points can be concluded based upon simulation and experimental studies.
• Increasing the moisture content of the biomass results in, increased equivalence ratio thus
resulting poor syngas quality having lower heating value of the final gas.
• Particle size of the biomass plays significant role on biomass gasifier. Increasing the biomass
mean particle size impact the gas quality for a particular size of throat diameter. Therefore,
mean particle size of the biomass must be proportion to the gasifier reactor throat diameter.
• Maintaining the throat temperature above 800oC gives good syngas quality in terms of
heating values and tar concentrations.
• Altering the feeding rate of biomass on the gasifier does not have any impact on gas quality
if it is within the range of turn down ratio.
• Increasing equivalence ratio, heating values of the syngas declines resulting in poor quality
of the syngas.
• Syngas cannot be flared until the dry composition of the gas has CO of 10 %.
Recommendation for the future

The following points are recommended for further studies on series 3 gasifier model.
• Altering the moisture content of the biomass and its effect on syngas heating values and tar
concentration.
• Altering the feeding rate of the biomass consumption.
91
REFERENCES
A. Demirbas, Yields of hydrogen-rich gaseous products via pyrolysis from selected biomass
sample. [Journal]. - [s.l.] : Fuel, 2001. - Vol. 20. - pp. 1885–1891.
A. Melger J.F. Perez, H. Laget, A. Horillo, Thermochemical equilibrium modelling of a

gasifying process [Journal] // Energy Conversion and Management. - 2007. - Vol. 48. - pp. 59-
67.
A. Rogel J. Aguillon, The 2D eulerian approach of entrained flow and temperature in a biomass
stratified downdraft gasifier [Journal] // Americal Journal of Applied Sciences. - 2006. - Vol. 3. -
pp. 2068-2075.
A. Saravanakumar T.M. Haridasan, T.B. Reed, R.K. Bai, Experimental investigation and
modeling study of long stick wood gasification in a top lit updraft fixed bed gasifier [Journal] //
Fuel. - 2007. - Vol. 86. - pp. 2846-2856.
A. van der Drift J. van Doorn, J.W. Vermeulen, Ten residual biomass fuels for circulating
fluidized-bed gasification [Journal] // Biomass and Bioenergy. - 2001. - Vol. 20. - pp. 45-56.
A. Zabaniotou O. Ioannidou, V. Skoulou, Rapeseed residues utilization for energy and 2nd
generation biofuels [Journal] // Fuel. - 2008. - Vol. 87. - pp. 1492-1502.
A.K. Galwey M.E. Brown, Handbook of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry Vol. 1: Principles
and Practice [Book]. - Amsterdam, : Elsevier Science, 1998. - Vol. 1 : pp. 147-224.
A.v.d. Drift J.v. Doorn, Effect of fuel size and process temperature on fuel gas quality from CFB
gasification of biomass [Journal] // Progress in Thermochemical Biomass Conversion / ed.
Bridgwater A.V.. - 2008. - pp. 265-271.
Aparna Arunachalam, Daniel B. Olsen, Experimental evaluation of knock characteristics of

producer gas [Journal]. - [s.l.] : Biomass and Bioenergy, 2012. - Vol. 37. - pp. 169-176.
B. Yan Y. Wua, C. Liu , J.F. Yu, B. Li, Z.S. Li, G. Chen, X.S. Bai,M. Alde´n,A.A. Konnov,
Experimental and modeling study of laminar burning velocity of biomass derived gases/air
92
mixtures [Journal]. - [s.l.] : International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2011. - Vol. 36. - pp. 3769
- 3777.
B.M. Jenkins L.L. Baxter, T.R.M. Jr., T.R. Miles, Combustion properties of biomass [Journal] //
Fuel Processing Technology. - 1998. - Vol. 54. - pp. 17-46.
B.V. Babu A.S. Chaurasia, Heat transfer and kinetics in the pyrolysis of shrinking biomass
particle [Journal] // Chemical Engineering Science. - 2004. - Vol. 59. - pp. 1999-2012.
B.V. Babu A.S. Chaurasia, Modeling for pyrolysis of solid particle: kinetics and heat transfer
effects [Journal]. - [s.l.] : Energy Conversion and Management, 2003. - Vol. 44. - pp. 2251–
2275.
Babu S.P., Thermal gasification of biomass technology developments: End of task report for
1992 to 1994 [Journal] // Biomass and Bioenergy. - 1995. - Vol. 9. - pp. 271-285.
Baker E.G., R.H. Moore, L.K. Mudge, and D.C. Elliott., Engineering Analysis of Biomass
Gasifier Product Gas Cleaning Technology [Report]. - Richland, WA : Battelle Memorial
Institute, Biofuels and Municipal Waste Technology Division, PNL-5534., 1986.
Baker, E.G.; M.D. Brown, D.C. Elliott, and L.K. Mudge, Characterization and Treatment of Tars
from Biomass Gasifiers [Conference] // AIChE 1988 Summer National Meeting. - Denver, CO :
[s.n.], 1988. - pp. 1–11.
Baratieri M., Baggio, P., Fiori, L., Grigiante, M., Biomass as an energy source:thermodynamic
constraints on the performance of the conversion process. [Journal]. - [s.l.] : Bioresource
Technology, 2008. - Vol. 99. - pp. 7063–7073.
Basu P. ,Combustion and gasification in fluidized beds [Book]. - Boca Raton, FL : Taylor and
Francis Group, LLC, 2006.
Beenackers A.A.C.M., Biomass gasification in moving beds, a review of European technologies

[Journal] // Renewable Energy. - 1998. - Vol. 16. - pp. 1180-1186.
93
Blasi Colomba Di, Dynamic behaviour of stratified downdraft gasifiers [Journal]. - [s.l.] :
Chemical Engineering Science, 2000. - Vol. 55. - p. 2931}2944.
Blasi Colomba Di, Influences of physical properties on biomass devolatilization characteristics

[Journal]. - [s.l.] : Fuel, 1997. - Vol. 76. - pp. 957-964.
Bridgwater A.V., Renewable fuels and chemicals by thermal processing of biomass [Journal] //
Chemical Engineering Journal. - 2003. - Vol. 91. - pp. 87-102.
Bridgwater A.V., The technical and economical feasibility of biomass gasification for power
generation [Journal] // Fuel. - 1995. - Vol. 74. - pp. 631-653.
Brown M.D., E.G. Baker, and L.K. Mudge, Evaluation of processes for removal of particulates,
tars, and oils from biomass gasifier product gases. [Conference] // . Energy from Biomass &
Waste X. - London-New York : Elsevier Science, 1986. - pp. 655-676.
Brown R.C., Biorenewable resources-engineering new products from agriculture [Book]. -

Ames, Iowa : Iowa state press, 2003. - First.
Brussels IEA Thermal Gasification of Biomass Task, EC and USDOE Meeting on Tar
Measurement [Conference]. - 1988.
C. Hanping L. Biin, Y. Haiping, Y. Guolai, Z. Shihong, Experimental Investigation of Biomass

Gasification in a Fluidized Bed Reactor [Journal] // Energy & Fuels. - 2008. - Vol. 22. - pp.
3493-3498.
C. Liu B. Yan, G. Chen, X.S. Bai, Structures and burning velocity of biomass derived gas flames
[Journal]. - [s.l.] : International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2010. - Vol. 35. - pp. 542 – 555.
C. Ryu Y.B. Yang, A. Khor, N.E. Yates, V.N. Sharif, J. Swithenbank, Effect of fuel properties
on biomass combustion: Part I. Experiments-fuel type, equivalence ratio and particle size
[Journal] // Fuel. - 2006. - Vol. 85. - pp. 1039-1046.
94
C. Serranoa J.J. Hernandeza, C. Mandilasb, C.G.W. Sheppardb, R. Woolley, Laminar burning
behaviour of biomass gasification-derived producer gas [Journal]. - [s.l.] : International Journal
of Hydrogen Energy, 2008. - Vol. 33. - pp. 851 – 862.
C. Wu. X. Yin L. Ma, Z. Zhou, H. Chen, Design and operation of a 5.5 MWe biomass integrated
gasification combined cycle demonstration plant [Journal] // Energy & Fuels. - 2008. - Vol. 22. -
pp. 4259-4264.
C.R. Altafini P.R. Wander, R.M. Barretoa, Prediction of the working parameters of a wood waste
gasifier through an equilibrium model [Journal] // Energy Conversion and Managament. - 2003. -
Vol. 44. - pp. 2763-2777.
Corbitt R.A., “Standard Handbook of Environmental Engineering. [Book]. - New York :

McGraw-Hill Publishing Co, 1990.
D. Peterson S. Haase, Market assessment of biomass gasification and combustion technology for
small- and medium-scale applications, in, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO
[Report]. - Golden CO : National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2009.
D. Shin S. Choi, The combustion of simulated waste particles in a fixed bed [Journal] //
Combustion and Flame. - 2000. - Vol. 121. - pp. 167-180.
D.R. Mcllveen-Wright F. Pinto, L. Armesto, M.A. Caballero, M.P. Aznar, A. Cabanillas, Y.

Huang, C. Franco, I. Gulyurtlu, J.T. McMullan, A comparison of circulating fluidised bed
combustion and gasification power plant technologies for processing mixtures of coal, biomass
and plastic waste [Journal] // Fuel Processing Technology. - 2006. - Vol. 87. - pp. 793-801.
D.Y.C. Leung C.L. Wang, Fluidized-bed gasification of waste tire powders [Journal] // Fuel
Processing Technology. - 2003. - Vol. 84. - pp. 175-196.
Demirbas A., Biofuels securing the planet's future energy needs [Journal] // Energy Conversion
and Management. - 2009. - Vol. 50. - pp. 2239-2249.
Demirbas A., Biofuels sources, biofuel policy, biofuel economy and global biofuel projection
[Journal] // Energy Conversion and Management. - 2008. - Vol. 49. - pp. 2106-2116.
95
Demirbas A., Biomass resource facilities and biomass conversion processing for fuels and
chemicals [Journal] // Energy Conversion and Management. - 2001. - Vol. 42. - pp. 1357-1378.
Demirbas A. ,Combustion characteristics of different biomass fuels [Journal] // Progress in

Energy and Combustion Science. - 2004. - Vol. 30. - pp. 219-230.
Demirbas A., Progress and recent trends in biofuels [Journal] // Progress in Energy and
Combustion Science. - 2007. - Vol. 33. - pp. 1-18.
Di Blasi C., Signorelli, G., Portoricco, G., Countercurrent fixed-bed gasification of biomass at
laboratory scale [Journal]. - [s.l.] : Ind. Eng. Chem. Res, 1999. - Vol. 38. - pp. 2571–2581.
Dogru M., Howarth, C.R., Akay, G., Keskinler, B., Malik, A.A., Gasification of hazelnut shells
in a downdraft gasifier [Journal]. - [s.l.] : Energy, 2002. - Vol. 27. - pp. 415–427.
E. Natrajan A. Nordin, A.N. Rao, Overview of combustion and gasification of rice husk in
fluidized bed reactors [Journal] // Biomass and Bioenergy. - 1998. - Vol. 14. - pp. 533-546.
Earp D. M., The gasification of biomass in downdraft reactor [Book Section]. - UK : Aston
University, 1988.
Encinar JM Beltran FJ, Gonzalez JF, Moreno MJ., Pyrolysis of maize, sunflower, grape and
tobacco residue. [Journal]. - [s.l.] : Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology, 1997. -
Vol. 70. - pp. 400–410.
Evans, R.J. and T.A. Milne, Molecular characterization of the pyrolysis of biomass [Journal]. -
[s.l.] : Energy & Fuels, 1987. - Vol. 1(2). - pp. 123–137.
F. Pinto C. Franco, R.N. Andre, C. Tavares, M, Dias, I. Gulyurtlu, I. Cabrita, Effect of

experimental conditions on co-gasification of coal, biomass and plastics wastes with air/steam
mixtures in a fluidized bed system [Journal] // Fuel. - Vol. 82. - pp. 1967-1976.
F.V. Tinaut A. Melgar, J.F. Perez, A. Horrillo, Effect of biomass particle size and air superficial
velocity on the gasification process in a downdraft fixed bed gasifier. An experimental and
modelling study [Journal] // Fuel Processing Technology. - 2008. - Vol. 89. - pp. 1076-1089.
96
Fredriksson C, Exploratory Experimental and Theoretical Studies of Cyclone Gasification of
Wood Powder [Report] : PhD Dissertation / Department of Mechanical Engineering ; Lulea
University of Technology. - Lulea, Sweden : [s.n.], 1999. - ISSN: 1402-1544.
G Sridhar H V Sridhar, S Dasappa, P J Paul, N K S Rajan, H S Mukunda, Development of

producer gas engines [Journal] // Journal of Automobile Engineering. - [s.l.] : Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 2005. - Vol. 219 (3 ). - pp. 423-438.
G. Gautam S. Adhikari, S. Bhavnani, Estimation of biomass synthesis gas using equilibrium

modeling [Journal] // Energy and Fuels. - 2010. - Vol. 24. - pp. 2692-2698.
G.J. Stiegel R.C. Maxwell, Gasification technologies: the path to clean, affordable energy in the
21st century [Journal] // Fuel Processing Technology. - 2001. - Vol. 71. - pp. 79-97.
H. Boerrigter R. Rauch, Syngas production and utilization; Review of applications of gases from
biomass gasification, in: H.A.M. Knoef (Ed.) Handbook biomass gasification [Report]. - [s.l.] :
Biomass technology group (BTG), Netherland, 2005.
H.L. Chum R.P. Overend, Biomass and renewable fuels [Journal] // Fuel Processing Technology.
- 2001. - Vol. 71. - pp. 187-195.
Hayashi J.I., Hosokai, S., Sonoyama, N., Gasification of low-rank solid fuels with
thermochemical energy recuperation for hydrogen production and power [Journal]. - [s.l.] :
Process Saf. Environ. Prot, 2006. - Vol. 84. - pp. 409–419.
Heywood J.B., Internal combustion engine fundamentals [Book]. - New York : McGrawHill,
1988.
Hugo J. Burbano Jhon Pareja, Andres A. Amell, Laminar burning velocities and flame stability
analysis of syngas mixtures at sub-atmospheric pressures [Journal]. - [s.l.] : International Journal
of Hydrogen Energy, 2011. - Vol. 36. - pp. 3243-3252.
I. Narvaez A. Orio, M.P. Aznar, J. Corella, Biomass gasification with air in an atmospheric
bubbling fluidized bed. Effect of six operational variables on the quality of the produced raw gas
[Journal] // Industrial & Engineering Chemical Research. - 1996. - Vol. 35. - pp. 2110-2120.
97
J. Corella A, Sanz, Modeling circulating fluidized bed biomass gasifiers. A pseudo-rigorous
model for stationart state [Journal] // Fuel Processing Technology. - 2005. - Vol. 86. - pp. 1021-
1053.
J. Corella J.M. Toledo, G. Molina, Calculation of the conditions to get less than 2 g tar/nm3 in a
fluidized bed biomass gasifier [Journal] // Fuel Processing Technology. - 2006. - Vol. 87. - pp.
841-846.
J. Fermoso B. Arias, M.G. Plaza, C. Pevida, F. Rubiera, J.J. Pis, F. Garcia-Pena, P. Casero,
High-pressure co-gasification of coal with biomass and petroleum coke [Journal] // Fuel
Processing Technology. - Vol. 90. - pp. 926-932.
J. Gil J. Corella, M.P. Aznar, M.A. Caballero, Biomass gasification in atmospheric and bubbling
fluidized bed: Effect of the type of gasifying agent on the product distribution [Journal] //
Biomass and Bioenergy. - 1999. - Vol. 17. - pp. 289-403.
J. Larfeldt B. Leckner, M.C. Melaaen, Modelling and measurements of heat transfer in charcoal
from pyrolysis of large wood particles [Journal] // Biomass and Bioenergy. - 2000. - Vol. 18. -
pp. 507-514.
J. Natarajan T. Lieuwen, J. Seitzman, Laminar flame speeds of H2/CO mixtures: Effect of CO2
dilution, preheat temperature, and pressure [Journal]. - [s.l.] : Combustion and Flame, 2007. -
Vol. 151. - pp. 104–119.
J. Porteiro J.L. Mıguez, E. Granada, J.C. Moran, Mathematical modelling of the combustion of a
single wood particle [Journal]. - [s.l.] : Fuel Processing Technology, 2006. - Vol. 87. - pp. 169 –
175.
J. Wiman A.E. Almstedt, Influence of pressure, fluidization velocity and particle size on the
hydrodynamics of a freely bubbling fluidized bed [Journal] // Chemical Engineering Science. -
1998. - Vol. 53. - pp. 2167-2176.
J.K. Ratnadhariya S.A. Channiwala, Three zone equilibrium and kinetic free modeling of
biomass gasifier-a novel approach [Journal] // Renewable Energy. - 2009. - Vol. 34. - pp. 1050-
1058.
98
Juan Daniel Martınez Electo Eduardo Silva Lora, Rubenildo Viera Andrade, Rene Lesme Jaen,
Experimental study on biomass gasification in a double air stage downdraft reactor [Journal]. -
[s.l.] : Biomass and Bioenergy3564-3480, 2011. - Vol. 35. - pp. 3564-3480.
Juan J. Hernandez Magın Lapuerta,Clara Serrano, Estimation of the Laminar Flame Speed of
Producer Gas from Biomass Gasification [Journal]. - [s.l.] : Energy & Fuels, 2005. - Vol. 19. -
pp. 2172-2178.
Julien Blondeau Herve Jeanmar,t Biomass pyrolysis at high temperatures: Prediction of gaseous
species yields from an anisotropic particle [Journal]. - [s.l.] : Biomass and Bioenergy, 2012. -
Vol. 41. - pp. 107-121.
K.B. Cantrell T. Ducey, K.S. Ro, P.G. Hunt, Livestock waste-to-bioenergy generation
opportunities [Journal] // Bioresource Technology. - 2008. - Vol. 99. - pp. 7941-7953.
K.J. Ptasinski M.J. Prins, A. Pierik, Exergetic evaluation of biomass gasification [Journal] //
Energy. - 2007. - Vol. 32. - pp. 568-574.
K.M. Bryden K.W., Ragland Numerical modeling of a deep, fixed bed combustor [Journal] //
Energy & Fuels. - 1996. - Vol. 10. - pp. 269-275.
Kinoshita C.M., Y. Wang, and J. Zhou, Tar formation under different biomass gasification
conditions [Journal]. - [s.l.] : Journal of analystical ans applied pyrolysis, 1994. - Vol. 29. - pp.
169-181.
Knoef H.A.M., Inventory of Biomass Gasifier Manufacturers and Installations, Final Report to
European Commission, Contract DIS/1734/98-NL [Report]. - Enschede, Netherland : Biomass
Technology Group B.V University of Twente, 2000.
L. Gerun M. Paraschiv, R. Vijeu, J. Bellettre, M. Tazerout, B. Gobel, U. Henriksen, Numerical

investigation of the partial oxidation in a two-stage downdraft gasifier [Journal] // Fuel. - 2008. -
Vol. 87. - pp. 1383-1393.
Lee S. Alternative Fuels [Book Section]. - Washington : Taylor & Francis, 1996.
99
Leiker M Christoph K, Rankl M, Cantellieri W, Pfeifer U., Evaluation of anti-knocking property
of gaseous fuels by means of methane number and its practical application to gas engines
[Report] / AVL, Graz, Austria. - [s.l.] : ASME-72-DGP-4, 1972.
Livingston W.R. Biomass ash characterstics and behaviour in combustion, gasification and
pyrolysis systems [Book] / ed. Limited Doosan Babcock Energy. - 2007.
M. Dogru A. Midillowarth, Gasification of sewage sludge using a throated downdraft gasifier

and uncertainity analysis [Journal] // Fuel Processing Technology. - 2002. - Vol. 75. - pp. 55-82.
M. Dogru C.R. Howarth, G. Akay, B. Keskinler, A.A. Malik, Gasification of hazelnut shells in a
downdraft gasifier [Journal] // Energy. - 2002. - Vol. 27. - pp. 415-427.
M. Lapuerta J.J. Hernandez, A. Pazo, J. Lopez, Gasification and co-gasification of biomass

wastes: Effect of the biomass origin and the gasifier operating conditions [Journal] // Fuel
Processing Technology. - 2008. - Vol. 89. - pp. 828-837.
M. Wegstein Potential of solarhomes systems, biogas-plants and micro-hydro in Nepal and

opportunities for MFI [Report]. - Kathmandu, Nepal : Alternative Energy Promotion Centre
(AEPC), 2010.
M.J. Fernandez Lorenete J.E. Carrasco Garcia, Comparing methods for predicting the sintering
of biomass ash in combustion [Journal] // Fuel. - 2005. - Vol. 84. - pp. 1893-1900.
M.L. Mastellone L. Zaccariello, U. Arena, Co-gasification of coal, plastic waste and wood in a
bubbling fluidized bed reactor [Journal] // Fuel. - 2010. - Vol. 89. - pp. 2991-3000.
M.M. Kucuk A. Demirbas, Biomass conversion processes [Journal] // Energy Conversion and
Management. - 1997. - Vol. 38. - pp. 151-165.
M.M. Roy, Eiji Tomita, Nobuyuki Kawahara,Yuji Harada,Atsushi Sakane, An experimental

investigation on engine performance and emissions of a supercharged H2-diesel dual-fuel engine
[Journal]. - 2010. - Vol. 35. - pp. 844-853.
100
M.P. Aznar M.A. Caballero, J.A. Sancho, E. Frances, Plastic waste elimination by cogasification
with coal and biomass in fluidized bed with air in pilot plant [Journal] // Fuel Processing. - 2006.
- Vol. 87. - pp. 409-420.
Martin Malenshek, Daniel B. Olsen, Methane number testing of alternative gaseous [Journal]. -
[s.l.] : Fuel, 2009. - Vol. 88. - pp. 650–656.
McKendry P., Energy production from biomass (Part 1): Overview of biomass [Journal] //
Bioresource Technology. - 2002. - Vol. 83. - pp. 37-46.
McKendry P., Energy production from biomass (Part 3): Gasification Technologies [Journal] //
Bioresource Technology. - 2002. - Vol. 83. - pp. 55-63.
Michel Bellais K.O. Davidsson, T. Liliedahl, K. Sjostrom, J.B.C. Pettersson, Pyrolysis of large
wood particles: a study of shrinkage importance in simulations [Journal]. - [s.l.] : Fuel, 2003. -
Vol. 82. - pp. 1541–1548.
Milne T.A., R.J. Evans, and N.Abatzoglou, Biomass gasification “tars”: their nature, formation
and conversion [Report]. - Golden, CO : NREL, 1998.
MOF Economic Survey, Fiscal Year 2009/10 Prepared by the Government of Nepal [Report]. -
Kathmandu, Nepal : Ministry of Finance, 2010.
Mohammad Asadullah Shu Zhang, Chun-Zhu Li, Evaluation of structural features of chars from
pyrolysis of biomass of different particle size [Journal]. - [s.l.] : Fuel Processing Technology,
2010. - Vol. 91. - pp. 877–881.
P. Brandt E. Larsen, U. Henriksen, High tar Reduction in a two-stage gasifier [Journal] // Energy
& Fuels. - 2000. - Vol. 14. - pp. 816-819.
P. Garcia-Bacaicoa J.F. Mastral, J. Ceamanos, C. Berrueco, S. Serrano, Gasification of

biomass/high density polyethylene mixtures in a downdraft gasifier [Journal] // Bioresource
Technology. - 2008. - Vol. 99. - pp. 5485-5491.
101
P. Weerachanchai M. Horio, C. Tangsathitkulchai, Effect of gasifying conditions and bed
materials on fluidized bed steam gasification of wood biomass [Journal] // Bioresource
Technology. - 2009. - Vol. 100. - pp. 1419-1427.
P.C. Roy A. Datta. N. Chakraborty, Modelling of downdraft gasifier with finite rate kinetics in
the reduction zone [Journal] // International Journal of Energy Research. - 2009. - Vol. 33. - pp.
833-851.
P.J. van den Enden E.S. Lora, Design approach for a biomass fed fluidized bed gasifier using the
simulation software CSFB [Journal] // Biomass and Bioenergy. - 2004. - Vol. 26. - pp. 281-287.
P.N. Sheth B.V. Babu, Experimental studies on producer gas generation from wood waste in a
downdraft gasifier [Journal] // Bioresource Technology. - 2009. - Vol. 100. - pp. 3127-3133.
P.R. Wander C.R. Altafini, R.M. Barreto, Assessment of a small sawdust gasification unit
[Journal] // Biomass and Bioenergy. - 2004. - Vol. 27. - pp. 467-476.
Prins J.M., Thermodynamics analysis of biomass gasification and torrefaction [Report]. -

Netherland : Eindhoven University of Technology, 2005.
Qin Y., H. Huang, Z. Wu, J. Feng, W. Li, and K. Xie., Characterization of tar from sawdust
gasified in the pressurized fluidized bed [Journal]. - [s.l.] : Biomass and Bioenergy, 2007. - Vol.
31. - pp. 243-249.
R. Bilbao A. Millera, M.B. Murillo, Temperature profiles and weight loss in the thermal
decomposition of large spherical wood particles [Journal] // Industrial & Engineering Chemistry
Research. - 1993. - Vol. 32. - pp. 1811-1817.
R.C. Saxena D. Seal, S. Kumar, H.B. Goyal, Thermo-chemical routes for hydrogen rich gas from
biomass: A review [Journal] // Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. - 2008. - Vol. 12. -
pp. 1909-1927.
R.D. Perlack L.L. Wright, A.F. Turhollow, R.L. Graham, B.J. Stokes, D.C. Erbach, Biomass as
feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: the technical feasibility of a billion-ton
annual supply [Report]. - Oak Ridge : Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2005.
102
R.Renu Kumar Ajit Kumar Kolar,Bo Leckner, Shrinkage characteristics of Casuarina wood
during devolatilization in a fluidized bed combustor [Journal]. - [s.l.] : Biomass and Bioenergy,
2006. - Vol. 30. - pp. 153–165.
RC Pandey Rural entrepreneurship through electricity [Journal] // Journal of Water, Energy and
Environment. - [s.l.] : Hydro Nepal, 2009. - Vol. 1. - pp. 36-39.
Reed T.B., Das, A. Handbook of Biomass Downdraft Gasifier Engine Systems [Book]. -
Colorado : Solar Energy Research Institute, 1988. - pp. 32-39.
Renzhan Yin Ronghou Liu, Jinkai Wu, Xiaowu Wu, Chen Sun, Ceng Wu, Influence of particle
size on performance of a pilot-scale fixed-bed gasification system [Journal]. - [s.l.] : Bioresource
Technology, 2012. - Vol. 119. - pp. 15–21.
Rolando Zanzi Krister Sjostrom, Emilia Bjornbom, Rapid high-temperature pyrolysis of biomass
in a free-fall reactor [Journal]. - [s.l.] : Fuel, 1996. - Vol. 75. - pp. 545-550.
S. Dasappa H.V. Sridhar, G. Sridhar, P.J. Paul, H.S. Mukunda, Biomass gasification—a
substitute to fossil fuel for heat application [Journal]. - [s.l.] : Biomass and Bioenergy, 2003. -
Vol. 25. - pp. 637 – 649.
S. Monteiro Nunes N. Paterson, D.R. Dugwell, R. Kandiyoti, Tar formation and destruction in a
simulated downdraft, fixed-bed gasifier: Reactor design and initial results [Journal] // Energy &
Fuels. - 2007. - Vol. 21. - pp. 3028-3035.
S.R.A Kersten W. Prins, A. van der Drift, W.P.M. van Swaaij, Experimental fact-finding in CFB
biomass gasification for ECN's 500 kWth pilot plant [Journal] // Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research. - 2003. - Vol. 42. - pp. 6755-6764.
S.R.A. Kersten W. Prins, B. van der Drift, W.P.M. van Swaaij, Principles of a novel multistage
circulating fluidized bed reactor for biomass gasification [Journal] // Chemical Engineering
Science. - Vol. 58. - pp. 725-731.
S.V. Loo J. Koppejan, The Handbook of Biomass Combustion and Co-firing [Book]. - London :
[s.n.], 2008. - p. 442.
103
Secretariat Water and Energy Commission Energy Sector Synopsis Report [Report]. -
Kathmandu : WECS, 2010.
Seggiani M., Empirical correlations of the ash fusion temperatures and temperature of critical
viscosity for coal and biomass ashes [Journal] // Fuel. - 1999. - Vol. 78. - pp. 1121-1125.
Sharma A.K., Equilibrium modeling of global reduction reactions for a downdraft biomass
gasifier [Journal] // Energy Conversion and Management. - 2008. - Vol. 49. - pp. 832-842.
Sharma A.K., Modelling fluid and heat transport in the reactive, porous bed of downdraft
(biomass) gasifier [Journal] // International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow. - 2007. - Vol. 28. -
pp. 1518-1530.
Simbeck D.R. , Report on SFA Pacific gasification database and world market report
[Conference] // Gasification Technologies Conference. - San Francisco, CA, : [s.n.], 1999.
Sven Hermansson, Henrik Thunman, CFD modelling of bed shrinkage and channelling in fixed-
bed combustion [Journal]. - [s.l.] : Combustion and Flame, 2011. - Vol. 158. - pp. 988–999.
Sylvie Valin ,Serge Ravel, Jacques Guillaudeau, Sébastien Thiery, Comprehensive study of the
influence of total pressure on products yields in fluidized bed gasification of wood sawdust
[Journal] // Fuel Processing Technology. - 2010. - Vol. 91. - pp. 1222-1228.
T. Yamazaki H. Kozu, S. Yamagata, N. Murao, S. Ohta, S. Shiya, T. Ohba, Effect of superficial

velocity on tar from downdraft gasification of biomass [Journal] // Energy and Fuels. - 2005. -
Vol. 19. - pp. 1186-1191.
T.A. Milne R.J. Evan, Biomass gasification "tars"; their nature, formation and conversion
[Report]. - Golden, CO : NREL, 1998.
T.H. Jayah L. Aye, R.K. Fuller, D.F. Stewart, Computer simulation of a downdraft gasifier for
tea drying [Journal] // Biomass and Bioenergy. - 2003. - Vol. 25. - pp. 459-469.
The World Bank Nepal country overview [Report]. - Washingtin DC : The World Bank, 2010.
104
Ulrik Henriksena Jesper Ahrenfeldt, Torben Kvist Jensen, Benny Gøbel,Jens Dall Bentzen,
Claus Hindsgaul, Lasse Holst Sørensen, The design, construction and operation of a 75 kW two-
stage gasifier [Journal]. - [s.l.] : Energy 31 (2006) 1542–1553, 2006. - Vol. 31. - pp. 1542–1553.
V. Skoulou A. Zabaniotou, G. Stavropoulos, G. Sakelaropoulous, Syngas production from loive

tree cuttings and olive kernels in a downdraft fixed-bed gasifiers [Journal] // International
Journal of Hydrogen Energy. - 2008. - Vol. 33. - pp. 1185-1194.
V. Skoulou G. Koufodimos, Z. Samaras, A. Zabaniotou, Low temperature gasification of olive

kernels in a 5-kW fluidized bed reactor for H2-rich porducer gas [Journal] // International
Journal of hydrogen energy. - 2008. - Vol. 33. - pp. 6515-6524.
van Kemenade H.P. [et al.] Liquid-Phase Separation with the Rotational Particle Separator
[Journal]. - [s.l.] : Chem. Eng. Technology, 2003. - 11 : Vol. 26. - pp. 1176-1183.
Warnecke R., Gasification of biomass: Comparision of fixed bed and fluidized bed gasifier
[Journal] // Biomass and Bioenergy. - 2000. - Vol. 18. - pp. 489-497.
X. L. Yin C.Z. Wu, S.P. Zheng, Y. Chen, Design and operation of a CFB gasification and power
generation system for rice husk [Journal] // Biomass and Bioenergy. - 2002. - Vol. 23. - pp. 181-
187.
X. Li J.R. Grace, A.P. Watkinson, C.J. Lim, A. Ergudenler, Equilibrium modeling of

gasification: A free enery minimization approach and its application to a circulating fluidized
bed coal gasifier [Journal] // Fuel. - 2001. - Vol. 80. - pp. 195-207.
X.T. Li J.R. Grace, C.J. Lim, A.P. Watkinson, H.P. Chen, J.R. Kim, Biomass gasification in a
circulating fluidized bed [Journal] // Biomass and Bioenergy. - 2004. - Vol. 26. - pp. 171-193.
Y. Cao Y. Wang, J.T. Riley, W.P. Pan, A novel biomass air gasification process for producing
tar-free high heating value fuel gas [Journal] // Fuel Processing Technology. - 2006. - Vol. 87. -
pp. 343-353.
105
Y. Yang V. Sharifi, J. Swithenbank, Effect of air flow rate and fuel moisture on the burning
behaviours of biomass and simulated municipal solid wastes in packed beds [Journal]. - [s.l.] :
Fuel, 2004. - Vol. 83. - pp. 1553–1562.
Y.B. Yang V.N. Sharif, J. Swithenbank, Effect of air flow rate and fuel moisture on the burning
behaviours of biomass and simulated municipal solid wastes in packed bed [Journal] // Fuel. -
2004. - Vol. 83. - pp. 1553-1562.
Y.G. Pan X. Roca, E. Velo, L. Puigjaner, Removal of tar by secondary air in fluidised bed
gasification of residual biomass and coal [Journal] // Fuel. - 1999. - Vol. 78. - pp. 1703-1709.
Z. Wu C. Wu, H. Huang, S. Zheng, X. Dai, Test results and operation performance analysis of a
1-MW biomass gasification electric power generation system [Journal] // Energy and Fuels. -
2003. - Vol. 17. - pp. 619-624.
Z.A. Zainal A. Rifau, G.A. Quadir, K.N. Seetharamu, Experimental investigation on downdraft
gasifier [Journal] // Biomass and Bioenergy. - 2002. - Vol. 23. - pp. 283-289.
Z.A. Zainal R Ali, C.H. Lean, K.N. Seetharamu, Prediction of performance of a downdraft
gasifier using equilibrium modelling for different biomass materials [Journal] // Energy
Conversion and Management. - 2001. - Vol. 42. - pp. 1499-1515.
Zahnd A Kimber HM, Benefits from a renewable energy village electrification system [Journal].
- [s.l.] : Renewable Energy, 2009. - Vol. 34. - pp. 362-368..
106
APPENDIX A
MATLAB CODING
function[final_frac_comp]=eq_comp_model_gen(g_temp,ele_comp)
format short
tol=0.0001;
maxit=100;
disp('elemental composition should be of the form [C, H, O, N, Ash]');
ele_comp=input('Enter elemental composition of biomass: ');
disp('Initial guess is of the form [H2 CO CO2 H2O CH4 3.76N2] ')
xx0=[0.1,0.1,0.1,0.1,0.1,0.1]';
g_temp=1073;
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Heat of formation of different compounds at 25 C, kJ/kmol
H_f_H2O_g=-241818;H_f_H2O_l=-285830;H_f_CO2=-393509;H_f_CO=-110525;
H_f_CH4=-74520;H_f_H2=0;H_f_O2=0;H_f_N2=0;
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%Function for finding sensible heat for various gases
%constants
C_p_H2O=[32.24 0.1923e-2 1.055e-5 -3.595e-9];
C_p_H2=[29.11 -0.1916e-2 0.4003e-5 -0.8704e-9];
C_p_CO=[28.16 0.1675e-2 0.5372e-5 -2.222e-9];
C_p_CO2=[22.26 5.981e-2 -3.501e-5 -7.469e-9];
C_p_CH4=[19.89 5.204e-2 1.269e-5 -11.01e-9];
C_p_N2=[28.90 -0.1571e-2 0.8081e-5 -2.873e-9];
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%finding general equations for calculating k1 and k2
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
G_CO=[3.376 0.557e-3 0 -0.031e5 -110525 -137169];
G_CO2=[5.457 1.045e-3 0 -1.157e5 -393509 -394359];
G_H2O=[3.470 1.450e-3 0 0.121e5 -241818 -228572];
G_H2=[3.249 0.422e-3 0 0.083e5 0 0];
G_C=[1.771 0.771e-3 0 -0.867e5 0 0];
G_CH4=[1.702 9.081e-3 -2.164e-6 0 -74520 -50460];
delta_ws_final=[];
delta_meth_final=[];
for iii=1:6
delta_ws=G_H2(iii)+G_CO2(iii)-G_CO(iii)-G_H2O(iii);
delta_meth=G_CH4(iii)-G_C(iii)-2*G_H2(iii);
delta_ws_final=[delta_ws_final delta_ws];
delta_meth_final=[delta_meth_final delta_meth];
end
T_0=298;
k1=exp(-((delta_meth_final(6)-
delta_meth_final(5))/(8.314*298.15)+(delta_meth_final(5)/(8.314*g_temp))...
+(int_eq_sp2(delta_meth_final,g_temp)/g_temp)-
int_eq_sp1(delta_meth_final,g_temp)));
k2=exp(-((delta_ws_final(6)-
delta_ws_final(5))/(8.314*298.15)+(delta_ws_final(5)/(8.314*g_temp))...
+(int_eq_sp2(delta_ws_final,g_temp)/g_temp)-
int_eq_sp1(delta_ws_final,g_temp)));
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%Continued below%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%function for calculating int_eq_sp
function int_for_gibbs_difff1= int_eq_sp1(difff,g_temp)
107
tau=g_temp/298.15;
int_for_gibbs_difff1=difff(1).*log(tau)+((difff(2).*T_0+...
((difff(3)*T_0^2+(difff(4)/(tau^2.*T_0^2)))*((tau+1)/2)))*(tau-1));
end
function int_for_gibbs_difff2= int_eq_sp2(var_sp,g_temp)
tau=g_temp/298.15;
int_for_gibbs_difff2=var_sp(1).*T_0*(tau-1)+...
var_sp(2)*0.5*T_0^2*(tau^2-1)+var_sp(3)*T_0^3*(tau^3-1)/3+...
var_sp(4)*(tau-1)/(tau*T_0);
end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%finding lambda and gamma for below calculation%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
norm_1_C=ele_comp(1)/(12);
norm_1_H=ele_comp(2)/(1.008);
norm_1_O=ele_comp(3)/(16);
norm_1_N=ele_comp(4)/(14.007);
lambda=norm_1_H/norm_1_C;
gamma=norm_1_O/norm_1_C;
beta=norm_1_N/norm_1_C;
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
x0=xx0;
iter=1;
iter_m=1;
sol_final=[];
%w=M_fs*Moisture_Content/(18*(1-Moisture_Content));
w=linspace(0,1,15);
%w=0;
Moisture_Content=[];
M_fs=12+lambda*1.008+gamma*16;
for N=1:length(w)
Moisture_Content=[Moisture_Content 18*100*w(N)/(M_fs+18*w(N))];
end
Moisture_Content
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%Main Loop for solving the equations of interests
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
for iter_m=1:length(w)
while(iter<=maxit)
y=-1*df1(x0)\f1(x0);
xn=x0+y;
err=max(abs(xn-x0));
if(err<=tol)
x=xn;
else
x0=xn;
end
iter=iter+1;
end
iter=1;
sol_temp=x;
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%Continued below%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
sol_final=[sol_final sol_temp];
iter_m=iter_m+1;
end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
108
%Multiplying m with 3.76 to get correct N2 mols
p=length(w);
frac_N2=[];
for l=1:p
frac_N2=[frac_N2 sol_final(6,l)*3.76];
end
final_comp=[sol_final(1:5,1:p);frac_N2];
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%fin_rep=input('Do you want to find syngas composition in dry syngas
basis(y/n): ','s');
fin_rep='y';
if fin_rep=='n';
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%finding total amount of product gas for each moisture content
total_frac_m=[];
for n=1:p
total_frac_m=[total_frac_m sum(final_comp(1:6,n))];
end
total_frac_m; %sum of all product gases
else
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%finding total amount of product gas on dry basis for each moisture
%content
dry_final_comp=final_comp;
dry_final_comp(4,:)=[];
total_frac_m=[];
for n=1:p
total_frac_m=[total_frac_m sum(dry_final_comp(1:5,n))];
end
total_frac_m;
final_comp=dry_final_comp;
end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%expressing all the components in molar fraction or volumetric fraction
final_frac_comp=[];
for MM=1:length(total_frac_m)
final_frac_m=[];
if fin_rep=='y'
l_in=length(xx0)-1;
else
l_in=length(xx0);
end
for NN=1:l_in
final_frac_m=[final_frac_m;final_comp(NN,MM)/total_frac_m(MM)];
end
final_frac_comp=[final_frac_comp final_frac_m];
end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%Continued below%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
function f=f1(X)
x_1=X(1); x_2=X(2); x_3=X(3);x_4=X(4);x_5=X(5);m=X(6);
val_1=x_2+x_3+x_5-1;
val_2=x_1+x_4+2*x_5-w(iter_m)-(lambda/2);
val_3=x_2+2*x_3+x_4-2*m-gamma-w(iter_m);
val_4=-k1*x_1^2+(x_5*(x_1+x_2+x_3+x_4+x_5+3.76*m));
val_5=x_2*x_4*k2-x_1*x_3;
val_6=x_1*t_en_gas(H_f_H2, C_p_H2, g_temp)+...
109
x_2*t_en_gas(H_f_CO, C_p_CO, g_temp)+...
x_3*t_en_gas(H_f_CO2, C_p_CO2,g_temp)+...
x_4*t_en_gas(H_f_H2O_g, C_p_H2O, g_temp)+...
x_5*t_en_gas(H_f_CH4, C_p_CH4, g_temp)+...
3.76*m*t_en_gas(H_f_N2, C_p_N2, g_temp)-...
heat_bio(ele_comp)-w(iter_m)*(H_f_H2O_l+1000);
f=[val_1; val_2;val_3;val_4;val_5;val_6];
end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
function df=df1(X);
x_1=X(1); x_2=X(2); x_3=X(3);x_4=X(4);x_5=X(5);m=X(6);
df=[0,1,1,0,1,0;1 0 0 1 2 0; 0 1 2 1 0 -2;-
2*x_1*k1+x_5,x_5,x_5,x_5,2*x_5+(x_1+x_2+x_3+x_4+3.76*m),3.76*x_5; -
x_3,k2*x_4...
-x_1 k2*x_2, 0, 0; t_en_gas(H_f_H2, C_p_H2, g_temp)...
t_en_gas(H_f_CO, C_p_CO, g_temp), t_en_gas(H_f_CO2, C_p_CO2, g_temp)...
t_en_gas(H_f_H2O_g, C_p_H2O, g_temp), t_en_gas(H_f_CH4, C_p_CH4,g_temp)...
3.76*t_en_gas(H_f_N2, C_p_N2, g_temp)];
end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
function dh_comp=t_en_gas(H_for, sp_heat, temp)
heat_coeff=sp_heat;
dh_comp=H_for+quad(@sensible,298,temp);
function sens_heat=sensible(t)
sens_heat=heat_coeff(1)+heat_coeff(2).*t+heat_coeff(3).*t.^2+heat_coeff(4).*t
.^3;
end
end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%Standard heat of formation of various biomass
%H_f_XX is the heat of formation of XX compound, units in kJ/kmol
%LHV is lower heating value of biomass, kJ/kg
%LHV_mol is the lower heating value of biomass, kJ/kmol
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
function H_f_bio= heat_bio(comp)
LHV=4.187*(81*comp(1)+300*comp(2)-26*comp(3)-54*comp(2));
LHV_mol=LHV*(12+lambda*1.008+gamma*16);
H_f_bio=(lambda/2)*H_f_H2O_l+H_f_CO2+LHV_mol;
%[H2 CO CO2 H2O CH4 3.76N2]
end
plot([Moisture_Content],[final_frac_comp]);
hleg1 = legend('H_2','CO','CO_2','CH_4','N_2');
title('Dry gas volume fraction to reach 800 deg C gasification temperature');
xlabel('Moisture content % ');
ylabel('Volume fraction');
%Abdul bro, Now I need to plot HHV. And HHV is eqaul to {final_frac_comp ko
%1 column X10.2+final_frac_comp ko 1 column ko 2nd row X 12.2+
final_frac_comp ko
%1 column ko 4th row X 45 ho hai...malai yestaii euta matrix multiplication
%banayera 15 column samma ko banaunu cha ani plot (moisture_content v/s
%HHV) banaunu cha..plzz sathi..need desperately help
%HHV=[];
110
%HHV=final_frac_comp(1:l5)*10.2+final_frac_comp(2:15)*12.2+final_frac_comp(4:
15)*45;
%plot([Moisture_Content],[HHV])
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
end
111
APPENDIX B
EQUATION USED FOR DETERMINING THE THROAT DIAMETER
a. Maximum air gas intake

ሺܴܲ‫ܯ‬ሻܺሺ‫ܸܵܧ‬ሻ ଷ
݉ Ȁ‫ܿ݁ݏ‬
ሺ‫ݏ‬ሻܺ͸ͲܺͳͲͲͲ
b. Maximum gas intake with volumetric efficiency
ͳ݂ܺܺሺ‫݁݇ܽݐ݊݅ݏܽ݃ݎ݅ܽ݉ݑ݉݅ݔܽܯ‬ሻ ଷ
݉ Ȁ‫ܿ݁ݏ‬
ʹǤͳ
c. Thermal power in the gas
ܲ௚௔௦ ൌ ሺ‫ݔܽܯ‬Ǥ ݃ܽ‫݁݇ܽݐ݊݅ݏ‬ሻܺ‫ܸܥ‬௦௬௡௚௔௦ ‫ܹܭ‬
d. Maximum mechanical power output
ܲ௠௘௖௛ǡ௠௔௫ ൌ ܲ௚௔௦ ܺߟ௠௘௖௛ ‫ܹܭ‬
e. Maximum electrical power output
ܲ௘௟௘௖ǡ௠௔௫ ൌ ܲ௠௘௖௛ǡ௠௔௫ ܺ߶‫ܣܸܭ‬ሺ‫݀ܽ݋݈݈݈ݑܨ‬ሻ
f. Lower limit of electrical power production
ͳ
ܲ௘௟௘௖ǡ௠௜௡ ൌ ܲ௠௘௖௛ǡ௠௔௫ ܺ ‫ܣܸܭ‬
ܶ
g. Thermal power supplied through biomass
ͳ
ܲ௧௛௘௥௠௔௟ǡ௕௜௢௠௔௦௦ ൌ ܲ௚௔௦ ܺ ‫ܹܭ‬ሺ‫݀ܽ݋݈݈݈ݑܨ‬ሻ
ߟ௚௔௦௜
h. Biomass consumption per hour at full load
ܲ௧௛௘௥௠௔௟ǡ௕௜௢௠௔௦௦
‫ܤ‬௖௢௡௦௨௠௣௧௜௢௡ǡ௕௜௢௠௔௦௦ ൌ ݇݃Ȁ݄‫ݎݑ݋‬ሺ‫݀ܽ݋݈݈݈ݑܨ‬ሻ
‫ܸܥ‬௕௜௢௠௔௦௦
i. Biomass consumption per unit of electricity
‫ܤ‬௖௜௡௦௨௠௣௧௜௢௡ǡ௕௜௢௠௔௦௦
‫ܤ‬௖௢௡௦௨௠௣௧௜௢௡ǡ௄௏஺ ൌ ݇݃Ȁ‫ ܹܭ‬െ ݄‫ݎݑ݋‬
ܲ௘௟௘௖ǡ௠௔௫
j. Surface area of the throat
ሺ‫ݔܽܯ‬Ǥ ݃ܽ‫݁݊݅݃݊݁ݐܽ݁݇ܽݐ݊݅ݏ‬ሻܺ͵͸ͲͲ
ܵ ൌ ܿ݉ଶ
‫ܤ‬௚
112
113

This Is A Great Stuff

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

This Is A Great Stuff

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats



          

#*+       

        

! !"#$ !  

// $$$   

0  

*   &

< "-+   = -

/- >:?9@4& )*5/ +)

Gasification of biomass (wood, wood waste, agriculture residue, etc) is an often-

documented design guideline and performance testing information of commercially

available and laboratory commercial prototype biomass gasifiers to electricity utility

stone was selected as the basis for fuelling.

Suraj Pandey born on 1985 in Butwal earned his Bachelor of Engineering in

After his graduation, he worked as various capacities at Kathmandu University from

Since 2010-2013, he is active in biomass gasifier research project funded by

He also received Erasmus Mundus Mobility Asia (EMMA) scholarship as an

every effort to establish a biomass gasifier laboratory in the country.

Finally, my thanks go to my wife and family members who continuously supported

me for higher education at every stages of my life.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION. ............................................................................... 13

1.1 Background on Biomass Energy

1.2 Gasifier Types and Processes

i. Quasi non-moving or self-moving feedstock

Figure 1 Range of applicability for biomass gasifiers types. (Basu, 2006)

1.2.1 Updraft Gasifier

1.2.2 Downdraft Gasifier

1.2.3 Fluidized Gasifier

2.1 Gasification Reaction and Chemical Process

Figure 7 Potential path for the gasification process (Basu, 2006)

The reaction of char and gasifying medium can be expressed as

RC+O2 >> RC+H2O > RC+CO2 >> RC+H2

ߚ‫ ܥ‬൅ ܱଶ ՜ ʹሺߚ െ ͳሻ‫ ܱܥ‬൅ ሺʹ െ ߚሻ‫ܱܥ‬ଶ

Where, T is the surface temperature of the char.

2.2 Effect of Various Parameters in the Gasification Process

Table 3 Effect of moisture content in three common gasifiers

Moisture Updraft -a +b + ~c <50 (Beenackers, 1998)

Fluidized - + + ~ <10 (Basu, 2006)

2.2.2 Equivalence Ratio

Figure 9 Effect of equivalence ratio on product gas output (Channiwala, 2009)

Table 4 Optimal equivalence ratio for selected feed stocks

Gasifier Type Feedstock Optimal ER References

2.2.3 Superficial Velocity

Increase in temperature at the cconstriction section known as throat, reduces th

2.2.5 External Heating on Pyrolysis Zone

Furthermore, the biomass of up to 40% moisture content by weight can be han

Table 5 Proximate and Ultimate analysis of various biomass feedstocks

Cotton shells 16.90 68.50 14.60 - - - - - 16.376

Softwood 28.10 70.00 1.70 52.1 6.1 41 0.2 - 20.000

Pine wood 15.70 73.60 11.30 - - - - - 16.644

Eucalyptus 21.30 75.35 3.35 46.04 5.82 44.49 0.3 0 18.640

Table 6 Biomass typical physical, chemical and thermodynamic properties

2.2.7 Particle Size

2.2.8 Gasification Medium and Secondary Air

Biomass gasification can be done with any of the following medium:

2.3 Formation of Tar and In-Situ Destruction Methods

Table 8 Chemical components in biomass tars (Milne, 1998)

For satisfactory IC engine operration, an acceptable particle content of < 50

• Proper utilization of biom

1.7 Objectives of this Study

The purposes of such a design are manifold:

3.2 Analysis of the commercial available gasifier

#*+

! !"#$ !

// $$$

0

* &

< "-+ = -

/- >:?9@4& )*5/ +)

ൌ

Ǧൌ Ǧ

ൌ Eq. (4.19)

ൌͲǤͷʹʹ Eq. (4.20)

ൌ Eq. (4.21)

ൌ Eq. (4.23)

ൌͲǤ͹ͻ Eq. (4.24)

ൌͲǤ͹ͻ Eq. (4.25)

ൌ Eq. (4.26)

ൌͲǤ͵ͷ͵͸ሾ ሿ൅ͲǤͳͷͷͻሾሿȂͲǤͲͲ͹ͺሾ ሿ Ȁ Eq. (4.30)