A Theoretical and Experimental Study on a Stratified Downdraft Biomass Gasifier

San Shwe Hla

Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

January 2004

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering The University of Melbourne

Abstract

A transient model has been developed for a stratified downdraft wood gasifier by applying a two-step pyrolysis mechanism in which primary tars (oxygenates) are initially formed and then cracked into secondary tars (hydrocarbons) and other combustible gases. The model describes the complex physical and chemical processes taking place in the reactor by the use of mass and energy balances, together with information about rates of chemical reactions and physical transport processes. The computer model is capable of predicting the primary and secondary tar profile as well as the gas composition profile and temperature profile along the axis of the gasifier. The model results show that the concentration of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, the two main combustible components in the gas produced, is very low initially but gradually increases to a steady value. The model showed that 20-25 min was required to reach steady conditions. Model results also showed that the average range of gravimetric tar content in the gas is between 20 to 200 mg/Nm³ for the range of input parameters investigated provided the gasifier bed below the ignition port level is initially charged with charcoal. Reaction zone stability was also investigated and under conditions where reaction zones were steady the specific gasification rate was found to be 290-296 kg/m2hr (dry basis), a value which is close to previously published experimental results for an open core biomass gasifier. In order to obtain a detailed understanding of the model’s sensitivity to changes in key parameters, a systematic analysis of the effect of varying individual operational and model parameters on predictions of temperature profile, outlet gas tar content, gas composition and reaction zone stability was carried out. The results show that a higher air supply rate increases the combustion zone temperature and reduces outlet tar levels. The final amount of condensable tars in the producer gas was found to be affected by the following model parameters: solid-to-gas heat transfer coefficient, mass transfer coefficient, tar cracking kinetics and effective thermal conductivity. Reaction zone stability was found to be significantly affected by changes in effective thermal conductivity values.

ii

An experimental downdraft gasifier was designed, fabricated and tested, and the experimental data obtained from it was used to validate model predictions. The performance of the experimental gasifier was determined for various supplied airflow rates. Wood blocks in two different sizes were used as reactor fuel. It was found that the gasifier could be operated over a fairly wide range of airflow rates of from 7.5 to 27.6 kg/hr, with corresponding energy outputs ranging from 54 -168 MJ/hr. An average cold gas efficiency of 70% was obtained. Operating the reactor with wood fuel alone produced an outlet gas with a final tar content that was about 20 times higher than the average values of tar content measured in gas produced when using an initial charge of charcoal. Transient temperature profiles, outlet gas compositions, and outlet tar contents predicted by the model were in generally good agreement with experimental values. The predicted rate of increase in the concentrations of two combustible components (H2 and CO) inside the gasifier, however, was much greater than that observed experimentally. There was good agreement between the experimentally observed rates at which the reaction zones moved within the gasifier at different airflow rates and those predicted using the model. By considering two important factors, namely the cold gas efficiency profile and the tar profile along the axis of the gasifier, it was determined that the optimum reaction zone length is 425 mm. Prospects for obviating the need to provide an initial charge of charcoal were investigated using the model. The model was also used to investigate the concept of two-stage gasification. This suggests that provided secondary air can be distributed uniformly across the reactor at a suitable distance downstream of the main oxidation zone, the gas produced will have a lower tar content and a higher cold gas efficiency than those produced in a single-stage gasifier for the same total air supply rate.

iii

Declaration

This is to certify that (i) (ii) (iii) the thesis comprises only my original work towards the PhD; due acknowledgement has been made in the text to all other material used; the thesis is less than 100,000 words in length, exclusive of tables, maps, bibliographies and appendices.

San Shwe Hla January 2004

iv

Acknowledgements
I wish to express my gratitude to those who have contributed guidance, encouragement, and assistance in the completion of this research. First of all I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to my supervisors, Dr. Lu Aye, Dr. Mike Connor and Associate Professor Don Stewart for their guidance, suggestions, and encouragement throughout the course of this study. I also would like to acknowledge their invaluable comments which have significantly improved my manuscript. In particular, I wish to express my deepest gratefulness to Dr. Mike Connor for his invaluable participation as a co-supervisor during the tough years. I gratefully acknowledge the University of Melbourne for financial support which enabled me to complete my PhD study. The experimental work has been partially funded by the Open Society Institute, and this is gratefully acknowledged. I also would like to express my gratitude to my supervisors for their financial support of my experimental work and for help with payment of my tuition fees for the last three months of my candidature. I am also sincerely grateful to Dr. Paul Fung and Mr. Soo Ng (Energy and Recycling Team, Forestry and Forest Products, CSIRO) for their enthusiastic cooperation and in-kind contributions to the experimental work. I would like to thank to all my co-postgraduate friends who in one way or the other have helped me and encouraged me throughout the study, most especially to Chat, Eddy and Wirachai. My gratitude is expressed to Mrs. Fiorella Chiodo and other staff members in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering for their cooperation and assistance. I am deeply indebted to my beloved parents for their spiritual encouragement and moral support in the pursuit of my study at the University of Melbourne. Finally, I express my sincerest thanks to my beloved Latt for her constant encouragement and deep understanding throughout the years of struggle.

v

Contents

Abstract Declaration

................................................................................................................ ii ............................................................................................................... iv

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... v List of tables .............................................................................................................. xii List of figures ............................................................................................................. xiii Nomenclature ............................................................................................................. xix Chapter 1 Introduction................................................................................................. 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Background ...................................................................................................... 1 Problem statement............................................................................................ 2 Aim of the study............................................................................................... 4 Objectives of the study..................................................................................... 4 References........................................................................................................ 6

Chapter 2 Literature review ........................................................................................ 8 2.1 2.2 2.3 Introduction...................................................................................................... 8 Different models of fixed-bed gasification ...................................................... 8 Reaction rates................................................................................................. 10 2.3.1 Drying...................................................................................................... 10 2.3.2 Pyrolysis .................................................................................................. 10 2.3.3 Heterogeneous gas-char reactions ........................................................... 13 2.3.4 Homogeneous gas-phase reactions.......................................................... 16 2.4 Heat and mass transfer processes in packed beds.......................................... 23 2.4.1 Heat transfer ............................................................................................ 24

vi

2.4.2 Mass transfer ........................................................................................... 27 2.4.3 Effective thermal conductivities in packed beds ..................................... 29 2.4.4 Heat loss through the reactor wall ........................................................... 31 2.5 Tar in producer gas ........................................................................................ 33 2.5.1 Tar definition ........................................................................................... 33 2.5.2 Tar quantities as a function of gasifier type ............................................ 34 2.5.3 Tar removal methods............................................................................... 34 2.5.4 Tar removal methods outside the gasifier (Secondary methods) ............ 34 2.5.5 Tar removal methods inside the gasifier (Primary methods) .................. 35 2.5.6 Factors influencing chemical tar conversion in the absence of catalyst..................................................................................................... 36 2.6 Concluding remarks ....................................................................................... 40 2.6.1 Theoretical modelling.............................................................................. 41 2.6.2 Tar reduction ........................................................................................... 41 2.7 References...................................................................................................... 43

Chapter 3 Mathematical model development .......................................................... 50 3.1 3.2 Introduction.................................................................................................... 50 Reaction rates................................................................................................. 51 3.2.1 Drying...................................................................................................... 51 3.2.2 Pyrolysis .................................................................................................. 52 3.2.3 Heterogeneous char combustion and gasification ................................... 56 3.2.4 Homogeneous gas reactions .................................................................... 57 3.3 Gas-particle interchange ................................................................................ 61 3.3.1 Heat and mass transfer coefficients......................................................... 61 3.3.2 Effective thermal conductivity ................................................................ 63 3.4 3.5 Bed-to-wall heat transfer coefficient ............................................................. 64 Thermophysical and transport properties of solid and gas mixture ............... 66 3.5.1 Solid phase............................................................................................... 66 3.5.2 Gas mixture ............................................................................................. 66 3.6 Conservation of mass..................................................................................... 68 3.6.1 Solid phase component............................................................................ 69

vii

...............2................ 129 4................................7 Kinetics of primary pyrolysis ................................3.3....3 Initial moisture content........................6 Reaction rate profiles..................6 Solution procedure...............................3.............................................................4 Solid densities profiles ..............1 Airflow rate .................................9............................................... 80 3........................................ 101 4................................................................................................. 70 3................................................... 117 4.......................9.......................... 120 4............................................2 Temperature profiles ... 108 4............................................... 119 4..................7 Stability of reaction zones ......................................3........................ 110 4............................................................. 107 4..........................................................2 Source-term linearization .....................................9.. 72 The boundary and initial conditions ....................... 123 4................................................................3.................................... 95 References.... 76 3....................................2.......................................1 Transient behaviour of temperatures and gas compositions...... 96 Chapter 4 Model results and discussions........1 Method of discretization. 131 4........8 Kinetics of secondary pyrolysis...............................6 Heat and mass exchange area ......... 105 4........ 78 3.......................... 91 3...................2 Initial particle size .......................5 Gas composition profiles........................................2 Gas phase species ..............................................................4 Solid-gas heat transfer coefficient ..........................3 Underrelaxation .............................................................................................................2.................. 75 3.... 127 4....6............................7 3........2.............9......................9..............................................................................4 Model discretization ......9.3.......................................................... 114 4........................................ 89 3...... 100 Generalised model predictions............3 Parametric sensitivity analysis of the model.........................................10 3.................................................5 Mass transfer coefficient ............................. 122 4..................... 101 4................... 100 4.............11 Conclusions............3..........5 Adaptive grid method .....9 Conservation of energy ......................................................................3........ 133 4............................................................... 79 3...............2 Introduction......................................... 73 Numerical methods ..........2............2......................................................................3....8 3.1 4.......2.................................3 Velocity profiles ......................................... 133 viii ..........

........ 159 5..................................................3... 165 References.....................................................................................................................................................4 Filter ..........3..................11 Heat loss through reactor wall ........................... 164 5................................6 5... 159 5......... 135 4........................................................2...5 Conclusions.................................................................................2............................................................. 159 5........................................................................................................................2.............................1 Wood blocks...5 Measurement of pressure.............................................1 Gas sampling train....................... 153 5.........3.......................................8 Measurement of wood consumption rate .......... 140 References............................ 164 Summary ................................................... 147 5.................5 5.................. 160 5.................................................3..1 5.......9 Cold gas efficiency .....................3..........................2 Red gum charcoal .. 162 5.....................................................................................2......................................................3 Flare and burner.............................................. 147 5.............................. 146 Experimental set-up ...............................4.... 167 ix .................7 Experimental procedure ...................................................................10 Effective thermal conductivity................ 153 5.....7 Measurement of gas flow rate ..................................................... 161 5......... 160 5...... 144 Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure..6 Suction blower.......4........... 151 5......3.2 Measurement of tar content .... 162 5...... 157 5................5 Air blower.2 Thermal insulation......................................................................................2 Introduction....................3..........3.................................3............................................ 138 4...........4 Measurement of temperature............................... 146 5..................3..................9 Kinetic rate of oxidation of secondary tar ......................................................3 Measurement of gas composition...................3.............................................. 152 5........................................2...........................................................3 Measurement systems and instrumentation ...................................................................................... 138 4.....1 Experimental stratified downdraft gasifier..................................4 4.3......................... 152 5................................................ 151 5................................. 161 5....................4.................................... 153 5.................2...6 Measurement of supplied airflow rate..........................4 Raw materials...........

................................................................2........................5 Energy output ...................................................................2...............................................................2...... 190 References.... 187 6............................. 182 6........3.............................4 6..........2.....2....................................................3................................................6 Cold gas efficiency ...3 Tar profile................................................................... 176 6.................................. 168 6...........6 Gas production rate...............3...................................................................3 Introduction............4 Simulation on two-stage gasification ..3 Comparison of model predictions and experimental results...............................................................................4 Tar content....................... 168 Experimental results............................................................Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation............................................. 168 6....................................................................................3................................................................................................................................................................... 178 6..3.........................................2 Alternative operating procedures for the stratified downdraft gasifier ............. 169 6............................ 193 7...... 185 6.........3.........................3..........................1 7.................... 201 7..... 175 6.................................................... 176 6.................................... 182 6.......1 Material balance and elemental balance........................... 207 7................ 193 Optimum length of reaction zones.............................................................................................. 179 6........ 186 6.1 6...........3 Two different concepts on two-stage gasification..................4 Conclusions.............. 205 7....................2 Temperature......... 198 7................................................................2 Introduction.............................................3. 178 6...2 Gas composition profiles....................................................................1 Temperature profiles .................................................. 192 Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier..... 213 gasifier.4 Fuel consumption .............................................................. 193 Investigation of low tar gas production for the stratified downdraft 7. 173 6...........................5 Conclusions...............2.......................................3 Gas composition ............................1 Performance of the reactor when using wood fuel only...................................................................................................7 Variation of reaction zone movement with air flow rate and wood block size ....3.........5 Air-fuel ratio................................3... 197 x ......2 7.................. 185 6.............3..........

....................... 329 Appendix A xi ..................................... 222 Summary and conclusions related specifically to tar reduction............................................6 Introduction.......... 259 Appendix E Air mass flow measurement using orifice plate with D & D/2 tappings ............................... 217 Chapter 8 Conclusions and recommendations..3 8................. 299 Appendix F Experimental test summaries .............................................................................. 301 Appendix G Photo documentation ................................................................2 8.......... 226 Reference ............... 230 Appendix B Properties of gas species........................................................................................................................ 237 Appendix D Computer code listing .......................... 229 Average particle temperature for use in primary pyrolysis process calculations .................................5 References................. 218 Summary and conclusions for the theoretical study ....................................................................... 225 Recommendations for further research works .......................... 218 8........ 322 Appendix H Soft copy of the computer code on CD .............................................................1 8........... 234 Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations ........................4 8............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 218 Summary and conclusions for the experimental study .........5 8........................................7............

..........List of tables Table 3............. 214 xii ................................................ 152 Table 5..........................................................3 Average properties of red gum wood blocks ................................. 170 Table 6........................1 List of drying................ 196 Table 7........................................ 62 Table 3...................5 Hydrogen balance summary ....................................3 Results from simulation of two-stage gasification concept (at 1000 sec after ignition) ............................... 172 Table 7...................................................................... 100 Table 5................................................................. 171 Table 6.. 197 Table 7........1 Performance summary of experimental stratified downdraft gasifier ............................................................................. devolatilization....... 163 Table 5...4 Oxygen balance summary...............................1 Size and specification of main air blower and suction blower ..............................2 Measured tar content levels from different throatless downdraft gasifier studies ................................. 156 Table 5.................................................................2 Thermophysical data and transport properties of solid fuel ......3 Carbon balance summary............. 171 Table 6..........1 Estimation of optimum reaction zone length based on tar reduction rate.............................. 164 Table 6.............2 Material balance summary......................... heterogeneous and homogenous reaction rate constants used in the mathematical model.. 172 Table 6..... 66 Table 4..........................................4 Average properties of red gum charcoal blocks ......1 Baseline operating parameter values used in the model ......2 Specifications of common vacuum pump and vacuum pump for gas collection....................

.................................................................. 109 Figure 4....... 107 Figure 4........................................... 106 Figure 4...............4 Flow chart for the numerical solution of stratified downdraft gasifier.......................3 Transient behaviour of gas composition profile (a) CO................................... (1989)] .6 The solid and gas velocity profiles (Vs and Vg respectively) along the axis of the gasifier ............... 104 Figure 4..............................List of figures Figure 3........ 75 Figure 3......................................................10 Primary tar..................2 Initial conditions in model reactor...........................3 A generic node point i (non-uniform grid) and the control volume in one dimension ...........7 Solid density profile along the axis of the gasifier (a) over the total reactor length (b) in the domain where rates of change are greatest............. 114 xiii ...................................................2 Transient behaviour of gas temperature profile.................................... 111 Figure 4................................ 103 Figure 4........................................5 The predicted solid (Ts) and gas (Tg) temperature profiles along the axis of the gasifier (a) over the total reactor length (b) in the domain where rates of change are greatest ......1 Pyrolysis mechanism used in the numerical model and product yields [adapted from Boroson et al...................4 Transient behaviour of outlet producer gas properties ... (b) CO2............. and oxygen profiles along the reactor axis ..................................................................................... (c) H2......... 103 Figure 4.............................................................................1 Transient behaviour of solid surface temperature profile..........................9 Minor gas species profiles along the axis of the gasifier (a) over the total reactor length (b) in the domain where rates of change are greatest ......................................................................... (d) H2O................................................. secondary tar................ 113 Figure 4..... 77 Figure 3.......8 Major gas species profiles along the axis of gasifier (a) over the total reactor length (b) in the domain where rates of change are greatest .... 104 Figure 4....................... 94 Figure 4........... 55 Figure 3....

..................... 116 Figure 4.... -ve for downward) ......19 Effects of solid-to-gas heat transfer coefficient (a) on solid (Ts) and gaseous (Tg) temperature profiles (b) on peak temperatures (c) on outlet primary and secondary tar levels (d) on outlet gas composition (e) on reaction zone movement (+ve for upward.......... pyrolysis and char oxidation rates along the axis of the gasifier...............14 Illustration showing downward movement of the reaction zone as a result of an increase in the air supply rate (24 kg/hr)...........13 Heterogeneous gasification reaction rates along the axis of the gasifier................................. 124 Figure 4.....18 Effects of initial moisture content (a) on solid (Ts) and gaseous (Tg) temperature profiles (b) on peak temperatures (c) on outlet primary and secondary tar levels (d) on outlet gas composition (e) on reaction zone movement (+ve for upward......... -ve for downward)..............................Figure 4........16 Effects of air supply rate (a) on solid (Ts) and gaseous (Tg) temperature profiles (b) on peak temperatures (c) on outlet primary and secondary tar levels (d) on outlet gas composition (e) on reaction zone movement (+ve for upward................ 121 Figure 4...17 Effects of initial wood particle size (a) on solid (Ts) and gaseous (Tg) temperature profiles (b) on peak temperatures (c) on outlet primary and secondary tar levels (d) on outlet gas composition (e) on reaction zone movement (+ve for upward.....................15 Illustration showing upward movement of the reaction zone as a result of a decrease in the air supply rate (8 kg/hr) ........ 128 Figure 4.............. 118 Figure 4............................ 116 Figure 4.......... 115 Figure 4.......11 Drying......................................... 118 Figure 4.............................. -ve for downward) ................................20 Effects of mass transfer coefficient (a) on solid (Ts) and gaseous (Tg) temperature profiles (b) on peak temperatures (c) on outlet xiv ........ 126 Figure 4....................12 Gas temperature (Tg) and rates of gaseous and solid phase oxidation reaction along the axis of the gasifier .............................. -ve for downward) ....................

....... 130 Figure 4................................................. -ve for downward).................. 137 Figure 4........................... -ve for downward)........primary and secondary tar levels (d) on outlet gas composition (e) on reaction zone movement (+ve for upward....................................24 Effects of changes in secondary tar oxidation rate (a) on solid(Ts) and gaseous(Tg) temperature profiles (b) on peak temperatures (c) on outlet primary and secondary tar levels (d) on outlet gas composition (e) on reaction zone movement (+ve for upward............... -ve for downward)...... 132 Figure 4. -ve for downward).....21 Effects of heat and mass transfer exchange area (a) on solid (Ts) and gaseous (Tg) temperature profiles (b) on peak temperatures (c) on outlet primary and secondary tar levels (d) on outlet gas composition (e) on reaction zone movement (+ve for upward........................... -ve for downward).................................................25 Effects of changes in effective thermal conductivity (a) on solid (Ts) and gaseous temperature profiles (b) on peak temperatures (c) on outlet primary and secondary tar levels (d) on outlet gas composition (e) on reaction zone movement (+ve for upward.23 Effects of changes in secondary pyrolysis rates (a) on solid (Ts) and gaseous (Tg) temperature profiles (b) on peak temperatures (c) on outlet primary and secondary tar levels (d) on outlet gas composition (e) on reaction zone movement (+ve for upward............................................................................................................. -ve for downward) ..................................................26 Effects of changes in the extent of heat loss through the reactor wall (a) on solid (Ts) and gaseous (Tg) temperature profiles (b) on peak temperatures (c) on outlet primary and secondary tar levels xv ...... 136 Figure 4..............................22 Effects of changes in primary pyrolysis rate (a) on solid (Ts) and gaseous (Tg) temperature profiles (b) on peak temperatures (c) on outlet primary and secondary tar levels (d) on outlet gas composition (e) on reaction zone movement (+ve for upward........... 134 Figure 4....... 139 Figure 4...........

..... 158 Figure 5..............................4 Schematic diagram of the modified middle section of the reactor ........ 154 Figure 5.......... 146 Figure 5.................................................................... ignition started at 400 mm above the grate)...... 175 Figure 6...6 Gas sampling train...........1 Experimental set-up...... 155 Figure 5. 149 Figure 5..... 162 Figure 6..............................3 Temperature profiles at three different air flow rates (average temperature values between 30 min and 40 min after ignition)..4 Outlet gas tar content as a function of air supply rate .. 177 Figure 6............ 150 Figure 5......... -ve for downward) . wood block size 20x20x20 mm) .............7 Comparison of predicted and experimentally measured temperature profiles along the axis of the gasifier (air flow rate: 15........................................11 The 30 mm and 20 mm sized wood blocks .. 160 Figure 5.................................................... with 20 mm blocks)................6 Cold gas efficiency versus air supply rate..........92 kg/hr............ 2002)...................................... 148 Figure 5............10 Constructional arrangement of experimental orifice plate ...................................(d) on outlet gas composition (e) on reaction zone movement (+ve for upward.....................................................................................2 Temperatures measured at three different levels above the ignition port during run 510 (Airflow 7. 151 Figure 5..5 kg/hr........................................8 Modified gas sampling train............................................................... 174 Figure 6......................... 178 Figure 6....................................... 180 xvi ............................................. 177 Figure 6......... 173 Figure 6. 156 Figure 5..........................................2 Picture of experimental stratified downdraft gasifier ...............5 kg/hr.........................5 Schematic diagram of burner set-up........7 The moisture collector and impinger bottle used in experiments......5 Energy output versus dry wood consumption rate .. 141 Figure 5.......................................................3 Schematic diagram of experimental stratified downdraft gasifier ............1 Temperature record for experiment 314 (air flow 16...........9 Schematic showing post-sampling procedures for gravimetric tar measurement (Source: Neeft et al...................

.....6 kg/hr..............................13 Gas production versus air supply rate . small wood blocks) (a) 10-15 min after ignition (b) 30-40 min after ignition. 196 Figure 7.... 201 Figure 7........................Figure 6......................... 187 Figure 6................................................................................................. 184 Figure 6...... 200 Figure 7..................... predicted values are those at 30 min after ignition) .................................. 181 Figure 6... 186 Figure 6.......................1 Cold gas efficiency profiles along the axis of the gasifier ................... 199 Figure 7..............................................4 Volatile matter profile along the gasifier axis ...................................................................................8 Predicted gas outlet temperatures compared with experimental results as a function of air supply rate (experimental points are average values over the 2 minute interval between 29 -31 minutes after ignition... 185 Figure 6....15 Variation of reaction zone movement rate with air supply rate (comparison between model and measured values)....12 Air-fuel ratio (kg/kg d..................6 Experimental procedure that obviates the need to use an initial charge of charcoal ... 183 Figure 6................................... 188 Figure 6.......14 (a) Temperature profiles at two different times (1000 seconds and 3000 seconds respectively after ignition of the charcoal bed) for two different air flow rates (same fuel size) (b) Temperature profiles at the same two times for two different fuel sizes (same air supply rate)........11 Wood fuel consumption versus air supply rate ..............................3 Dynamic behaviour of solid temperature at reactor outlet .............................9 Comparison of model and experimental dry gas composition profiles along the gasifier for two different time intervals (air flow rate 19..........10 Comparison of predicted and experimentally measured condensable tar profiles along the gasifier for different airflow rates under steady state operating conditions... 203 xvii ................................... 189 Figure 7........... 194 Figure 7....................5 Tar profiles along the axis of the gasifier for wood only operation ...............2 Predicted tar reduction rates along the gasification zone and inert char zone ........b) versus air supply rate ..

........9 Two-stage gasification systems proposed by TUD (Denmark) and AIT (Thailand) ............................................................. 209 Figure 7...... 213 xviii ...... primary air flow rate = 15 kg/hr.......................... secondary air supply: 300 mm above grate........ secondary air = 5 kg/hr).............................13 Gas composition profiles along the axis of the gasifier for twostage gasification (a) major gas species profile (b) minor gas species profile (Ignition port: 500 mm above grate.. 208 Figure 7.......... secondary air flow rate = 5 kg/hr) .............. secondary air supply: 300 mm above grate.................. at 1000 sec after ignition (Ignition port: 500 mm above grate for both cases............................................................. at 1000 sec after ignition (Ignition port: 500 mm above grate.. primary air = 15 kg/hr...................14 Tar profile along the gasifier for both single-stage and two-stage units............ secondary air flow rate = 5 kg/hr).... secondary air supply point: 300 mm above grate..7 Changes over time of temperature profiles in the gasifier for the procedure of producing charcoal inside the gasifier .......... secondary air supply: at 300 mm above grate).................. 205 Figure 7.....10 Variation with time of temperature profiles along the axis of the gasifier for the first 1000 sec after ignition (Ignition port: 500 mm above grate.............8 Variations over time of outlet gas tar content and cold gas efficiency for the procedure of producing charcoal inside the gasifier....12 Heterogenous gasification reaction rates for two-stage gasification (Ignition port: 500 mm above grate...... 211 Figure 7.......... two-stage total air supply rate: 20 kg/hr (primary air flow rate = 15 kg/hr.....................Figure 7....... single-stage air flow rate: 20 kg/hr.................. secondary air supply: 300 mm above grate.............................. 204 Figure 7.......................11 Gas and solid phase oxidation rate profiles for the first and second stage.......................................... primary air flow rate = 15 kg/hr......... 210 Figure 7...... primary air flow rate = 15 kg/hr......... 203 Figure 7............... secondary air flow rate = 5 kg/hr)..................... secondary air flow rate = 5 kg/hr)........

W/m. m2/m3 molar concentration of gas species carbon specific heat. kg/m2. J/kg heat transfer coefficient. m/s gas effective radial conductivity. W/m². g/mol mass of single particle.K equilibrium constant for water gas shift reaction mass flux. W/m².K static effective radial conductivity.K mass transfer coefficient. W/m. m diffusivity.K conductivity ratio. m activation energy. W/m². J/kg.Nomenclature A Av C C Cp dp D D E ∆H h h h° hrs hrv H jd jH k k k keff km krg kro KC m" M mp N pre-exponential factor particle surface area per unit volume.K particle diameter. J/mol enthalpy of reaction.K hydrogen dimensionless mass transfer factor dimensionless heat transfer factor intrinsic reaction rate thermal conductivity. m2/s reactor diameter. W/m. J/kg solid radiation coefficient. ks/kg effective thermal conductivity. J/kg specific enthalpy.K absolute enthalpy. kg nitrogen xix . W/m.s molecular weight.K void-to-void radiation coefficient.

void volume/ bed volume ratio of reacting to non-reacting heat transfer coefficient stoichiometric coefficient of char oxidation reaction. mol/mol stoichiometric coefficient. m yield of species i in primary pyrolysis process (mass fraction) yield of species i in secondary pyrolysis process (mass fraction) Greek symbols ∆ έ ε ξ γ ν µ ρ σ Φ Φ ∑ν prefix indicating grid or time spacing (e.6703E-8.K Reynolds number (= dpm″/µ) Source term Schmidt number (=µ/ρDi) time. J/kmol.s density. kg/m.s universal gas constant. K velocity.g. kg/m³.µ/k) reaction rate.s (or) kmol/m³. s temperature. m/s mesh monitor function vertical coordinate. ∆t) emissivity bed void fraction.Nu O P Pr R R Re S Sc t T V W x X1i X2i Nusselt number oxygen gas mixture pressure. (kg/m³) Stephan-Boltzmann constant (=5. W/m2K4) equivalence ratio packing parameter summation of atomic diffusion volumes xx . mol oxidant /mol carbon viscosity. kPa Prandtl number (= Cp.

Subscripts avg bw c g gw m m p1 p2 s sg sw tar1 tar2 v w average value fuel bed-to-reactor wall char gas phase gas-to-reactor wall moisture drying process primary pyrolysis process secondary pyrolysis process solid phase solid-to-gas solid-to-wall primary tar (condensable tar. oxygenates) secondary tar (taken as benzene) volatiles reactor wall xxi .

emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2) will also be low. the carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted would be absorbed by the growth of new biomass plantations. Moreover. 67% of the world’s renewable energy is contributed by biomass (Rogner & Popescu 2000). From ancient times until relatively recently. biomass is widely considered to be a fuel of major potential both for the present time and for the future. A wide range of renewable energy technologies were conceived and developed during the last three decades. or for conversion into electricity. oil and natural gas and is estimated to contribute of the order of 10-14% of the world’s primary energy supply (McKendry 2001). in any plan for sustainable biomass production and use. in contrast to fossil fuels.1 Background Research and development in renewable energy has been receiving increased attention due to worldwide sustainable energy concerns and issues of global climate change. It is presently the fourth largest energy resource after coal. such as methanol or ethanol. The name Biomass was invented in around 1975 to describe all organic materials that originate from plants (Reed 2003). This is because. or converted into a gaseous fuel. especially compared with the emissions from coal-fired combustion. Biomass can be converted for use into a number of energy forms. Among the various kinds of thermal conversion processes. biomass was the principal chemical fuel of man’s activities. Biomass includes standing forests. According to the World Energy Assessment report.Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 1 Introduction 1. has a unique potential for making a positive environmental impact. biomass gasification 1 . Among the renewable energy sources. Biomass fuel. because of the low sulphur content of biomass. Biomass can be burned without emitting large amounts of nitrogen oxides (NOX). It can be used directly through combustion for heat. It can also be transformed into a liquid fuel. energy crops and organic wastes.

Gasification is the process of converting a solid fuel to a combustible gas by supplying a restricted amount of oxygen. offered the following insight into his experience to date (Reed & Gaur 1998): “The typical project starts with new ideas. It quickly lost its competitive edge once petroleum fuels again became widely available. along with the rebirth of thermal gasification of biomass. 75 % of 50 manufacturers offering commercial gasification plants use the downdraft mode (Knoef 2000). came many still unresolved problems.5 MWth) as there is a very big market not only in developed but also developing economies. Another wave of development began in the 1970s. Most of the gasifier projects then quietly disappear. following the drastic increase in world oil prices. trains and electric generators in Europe (Foley. In some cases the cost of cleaning up the experimental site exceeds 2 .1-10% tars. trucks. According to an extensive review of gasifier manufacturers in Europe. The rest of the time and money is spent trying to solve this problem. mainly the efficient and economic removal of tar and stability of reactor operation. either as pure oxygen or from air. USA and Canada.Chapter 1 Introduction has been paid most attention as it offers higher overall conversion efficiencies compared to direct combustion for electricity production (Maniatis 2001). These problems still hinder the penetration of biomass gasification technology into world energy markets (Maniatis 2001). announcements at meetings. However. Reed & Agua 1988). Downdraft gasifiers are attractive for small-scale applications (<1. It is a centuries old technology. construction of the new gasifier: then it is found that gas contains 0. and a growing awareness of possible climatic effects of the continued use of fossil fuels. boats. 1. who spent more than 20 years working with various gasifier systems. that limit its application (Bridgwater 1995.2 Problem statement Tom Reed. which found vital applications during the Second World War when approximately one million gasifiers were used to operate cars. Barnard & Timberlake 1983).

Maniatis and Beenackers (2000) also mentioned that the tar problem is conceived of as one of the most important technical barriers to the penetration of biomass gasification technology into the power market. Brandt. There are a limited number of numerical models of fixed bed biomass gasification available in the literature and most of them are formulated based on very simplified assumptions. Groeneveld 1980) neglect the kinetic mechanisms of pyrolysis and cracking of volatile products and the first three zones of downdraft gasifier (drying. However.Chapter 1 Introduction the cost of the project! Thus ‘tars’ can be considered the Achilles heel of biomass gasification”. Bui. pyrolysis and combustion) are lumped together. the equipment required is bulky and not reliable for long-term operation. This assumption is only acceptable for estimating the major gas components of outlet 3 . Larsen & Henriksen 2000. the elimination of tar by auxiliary systems such as scrubbers is normally expensive. Modelling is a very useful tool for designing a clean and efficient biomass gasification unit. the equilibrium model (in which no kinetic data is applied) can predict the exit gas composition by assuming solid and gas phase reactions reach equilibrium at a fixed reactor temperature (Buekens & Schoeters 1985). among the gasification models developed. and in addition. Susanto & Beenackers 1996). Because of this. The usefulness of coal-oriented models is limited as there are significant differences between coal and biomass due to their different physical properties. As can be inferred from Tom Reed’s remark. For example. those applicable for biomass fuel are less numerous than those for coal. the concept of reducing tar content inside the reactor has become more important and several attempts have been made to reduce tar content by modifying the traditional downdraft biomass gasification system (Bhattacharya. since it increases understanding of the gasification process and reactor optimisation. there are serious environmental problems due to the large quantities of condensate produced. Some of the steady state models (Chen & Gunkel 1988. Therefore modelling of gasification processes has received significant attention over the last few decades. chemical composition and impurities. Hla & Pham 2001. Loof & Bhattacharya 1994.

analysis and validation of such a numerical model are the main concerns of this research. The development. cracking and oxidation processes inside the downdraft gasifier.3 Aim of the study The aim of this research is to analyse.4 Objectives of the study The specific objectives of the research are listed as follows: 1. 4. This is in order to understand the behaviour causing both tar formation and tar reduction inside the gasifier under different operating parameters. 2. For an understanding of the tar formation. This information is then to be used as the basis for proposing a concept for a reactor which will minimize the amount of tar in the producer gas. reaction kinetic rate coefficients and the heat loss coefficient. 1. to understand the behaviour of the reactor under unsteady state conditions. 1. To analyse the sensitivity of the model developed to operational and model parameters such as heat and mass transfer coefficients. 3. a numerical model must include kinetic expressions for those processes. To identify the main factors influencing the final tar content of producer gas by varying the input parameters and model parameters in the simulation. To develop a transient model for a downdraft wood gasifier which enables prediction of the tar content of producer gas along the axis of the reactor. the model has to include the time dependence of the reactor parameters. Besides. 4 . the processes occurring inside a stratified downdraft wood gasifier. To design and fabricate a stratified downdraft gasifier for experimental studies.Chapter 1 Introduction producer gas and cannot be used to predict mechanisms for pyrolysis product formation inside the gasifier. theoretically and experimentally.

a thorough review of experimental work on tar reduction and a detailed understanding of previous numerical modelling works are required.Chapter 1 Introduction 5. 7. To validate the model using the experimental results. and these are presented in the next chapter. 5 . To determine the best operating conditions for a stratified downdraft gasifier that can operate stably over prolonged periods producing low tar gas suitable for use in engine applications. To achieve the objectives of this research. 6. To study the performance of the experimental gasifier under both steady and transient conditions.

631-53. International Institute for Environmental and Development. 74. AACM 2000. vol. no. pp. Maniatis. Fuel. TA Milne & LK Mudge. Buekens. L 1983. Twente University of Technology. 445-60. pp. 1-31. pp. England. AV 1995. 816-9. ‘The co-current moving bed gasifier’. Bioresource Technology. 6 . ‘Multi-stage reactor for thermal gasification of wood’. Loof. ‘A study on a multi-stage hybrid gasifier-engine system’. 18. Enschede. G. Gasifiers: Fuel for siege economies.Chapter 1 Introduction 1. Energy. SC. vol. IEA Bioenergy Gasification Task’. K & Beenackers. ‘Tar Protocols.5 References Bhattacharya. University of Twente. 14. K 2001. ‘Inventory of biomass gasifier manufacturers & installations’. pp. McKendry. Biomass & Bioenergy. Knoef. W 1988. Biomass. vol. P. Final report to European commission. vol. 1-4. Barnard. pp. Enschede. Larsen. pp. Chen. Bui. HJ 1980. Fundamentals of Thermochemical Biomass Conversion. T. RP Overend. 397-404. ‘Energy production from biomass (part 1): overview of biomass’. 5. Foley.V. Biomass Technology Group B. 83. pp. ‘The technical and economic feasibility of biomass gasification for power generation’. H-L 2001. 37-46. U 2000. G & Timberlake. E & Henriksen. The Netherlands. Progress in thermochemical biomass conversion. AG & Schoeters. AV Bridgewater. 619-89. Contract DIS/1734/98-NL.Part II A detailed gasifier Model’. JF 1985. San Shwe Hla & Pham. R & Bhattacharya SC 1994. PhD Dissertation. J & Gunkel. London. vol. 21. P 2001. ‘Progress in biomass gasification: An overview’. eds. vol. pp. ed. ‘Modeling and simulation of Co-current moving bed gasification reactors. vol. 75-98. HAM 2000. Bridgwater. pp. Maniatis. 14. ‘Modelling of biomass gasification’. Biomass and Bioenergy. Brandt. 19. ‘High tar reduction in a two-stage gasifier’ Energy & Fuels. Groeneveld.

D 1988. United Nations Development Programme. Washington. World energy assessment: energy and the challenge of sustainability. 75.woodgas. 1 Gasifier Project and Manufacturers around the World. Biomass Energy Foundation Press. 7 . The Biomass Energy Foundation. viewed 22 August 2003. vol. <http://www. CO: The National Renewable Energy Laboratory and The Biomass Energy Foundation. S 1998. ‘An introduction to energy’.1998. AAC 1996. Handbook of biomass downdraft gasifier engine systems. Golden. ‘A moving-bed gasifier with internal recycle of pyrolysis gas’.com/> Rogner.Chapter 1 Introduction Reed. HH & Popescu. Survey of biomass gasification. Inc. H & Beenackers. Reed. Susanto. pp. J Goldemberg (Chair). New York. Vol. Fuel. ed. A 2000. 1339-1347. Reed TB 2003. TB & Gaur. TB & Agua.

2 Different models of fixed-bed gasification According to Buekens and Schoeters (1985). namely equilibrium models. In steady-state models. the gas composition is calculated assuming a fixed reactor temperature and that gasifier reactions are in equilibrium.Chapter 2 Literature review Chapter 2 Literature review 2. relevant literature on modelling in gasification. gasifier models can be classified into five categories. and on related chemical and physical phenomena such as reaction rates and heat and mass transfer processes. semi-transient models and transient models. in which the time derivative terms are considered to be zero. is reviewed in the first part of this chapter. for both the solid and gas phases. models. the reactor is subdivided into different zones. kinetics free models. steady-state models. gas composition and the temperature profile along the gasifier axis can be estimated by using mass balance and energy balance equations. Analysis of detailed physical and chemical processes inside the gasifier is not possible using these two 8 . Gas composition is calculated from equilibrium data whereas the reaction temperature is calculated for each zone by a separate heat balance. These two models only allow one to predict exit gas compositions and to estimate a fixed reaction temperature. 2.1 Introduction Since one of the main objectives of this study is to develop a transient model for stratified downdraft gasification. In equilibrium models. In kinetics free models. The second part discusses different experimental investigations focused on tar content in producer gas from biomass gasification and various approaches to producing clean producer gas.

To analyse the unsteady behaviour of such a reactor. these expressions take the form of a set of nonlinear partial differential equations. This simplified approach neglects an important factor in determining gasifier performance. pyrolysis and combustion) can be lumped together as a single process. namely the degree of completion of carbonization attained at the end of the pyrolysis and oxidation zones.Chapter 2 Literature review These models result in a set of non-linear ordinary differential equations and algebraic equations. Groeneveld 1980). Except for the very simple model types (equilibrium & kinetics free). Such information requires consideration of the kinetics both of biomass pyrolysis and of oxidation of volatile gaseous products. None of the above models can predict the transient behaviours of the fixed bed gasifier. most of the existing steady state models of downdraft gasification were formulated based on a very simplified approach. pyrolysis and chemical reactions (both heterogeneous and homogeneous). In semi-transient models. However. Transient models are based on mass and energy balance expressions that include the time derivative terms. the formulating of comprehensive steady state and transient gasifier models requires a series of mass and energy balance equations together with information about rates of drying. and output values of these three zones estimated by applying elemental mass balance and energy balance procedures (Chen & Gunkel 1988. namely that the processes occurring in the first three zones of the downdraft gasifier (drying. a set of results from a previous steady-state model is used to calculate the effect on reactor performance of small changes in operating conditions. and complex physical transport processes. a review of areas related to modelling of biomass gasification is presented. such as solids feed rate or blast gas flow rate. but instances where this is done are very limited in wood gasifier models. 9 . though simplifications are usually made. transient models must be applied. In the next section.

poly-aromatic hydrocarbons.Chapter 2 Literature review 2. This is because most drying studies have been carried out on single particles. The gas fraction includes all lower molecular weight products (mainly CO and CO2 and also water) which have a measurable vapour pressure at room temperature (Di Blasi 1993). Fortunately.3 Reaction rates 2. generally the product groups used are char. To make the mathematical modelling of the process manageable these are usually grouped. the decomposition takes place over a temperature range.2 Pyrolysis Once dry. Pyrolysis of biomass can start as low as 200°C and is essentially complete by 500°C (Milne & Evans 1998). 2.1 Drying Drying is the first process undergone by the fuel introduced to the gasifier. Pyrolysis. Depending on the degree of cracking. gas and tar. not particle beds. by definition. any errors introduced by neglecting the effect of particle size in the formulation of fixed bed gasifier models can be disregarded because the characteristic times of moisture evaporation are orders of magnitude shorter than those of char combustion and gasification (Di Blasi 2000). tars may range from light. During pyrolysis. oxygenated hydrocarbons to heavy. the fuel particles in the gasifier heat up and undergo pyrolysis. Drying of moist biomass involves only physical processes such as heat and mass transport. Tars are high molecular weight products that are volatile at the pyrolysis temperature but are liquid at room temperature.3. biomass undergoes a sequence of decomposition reactions that give rise to a wide variety of chemical species. implies decomposition through heating (Hastaoglu & Berruti 1989). formulation of the process for gasifier operating conditions is not straightforward. Although drying seems simple compared to other processes in biomass gasification. 10 .3. Chars are carbon-rich non-volatile residues. There is no strict fixed temperature of pyrolysis.

Therefore. expressed as grams of gas. involving different reaction paths and also the generation of different products. The simplest approach. b and c are the yield coefficients. The different approaches used by researchers in describing the kinetics of pyrolysis reactions are discussed briefly below.2) where A and E are the pre-exponential factor and apparent activation energy respectively. in modelling the results of experimental investigations. overall kinetic expressions have to be used. the rate of devolatilization for one-step global models is expressed as ⎛ −E k = A exp⎜ ⎜ RT ⎝ g ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ (2. and a large variety of pyrolysis models have been presented in the literature. tars and chars formed: ⎯→ Wood ⎯k (a)Gases + (b)Tars + (c)Char (2. taken by many researchers.Chapter 2 Literature review The reactions involved in wood pyrolysis are complex because wood components have different reactivities and yield different product spectra. the detailed kinetics of pyrolysis are still poorly understood (Peters & Bruch 2001).1) where a. condensable species and solid per gram of reacted wood. Many studies have been conducted on the pyrolysis both of wood and of biomass materials in general. Due to the complexity of the reaction processes. These have been extensively reviewed by Di Blasi (1993). The kinetics rate k is normally described using a first-order Arrhenius-type rate expression. Thus. 11 . is to consider wood pyrolysis as an overall one-step reaction process in which a single reaction accounts for the different fractions of gases.

In most such models. The overall rate of reaction is obtained by summing the rates of all parallel reactions (Anthony & Howard 1976). although both are known to be important considerations affecting the final product yield.4c) In an attempt to overcome the deficiencies of the one-step pyrolysis reaction models. In most cases each parallel reaction is treated as a first-order reaction following Arrhenius kinetics. However it is not appropriate to apply one-step kinetic expressions derived from fine particle experimental work.a-2. Models have been developed that account for this by assuming that the overall wood pyrolysis reaction is made up of several parallel one-step reactions each describing the degradation of a different component to char and several gaseous species. Kelbon & Krieger 1985) introduced a multi-step pyrolysis kinetics model in which four reaction steps occurred: first virgin wood decomposes 12 . a group of researchers (Chan.3) Such single-step kinetic studies neglect the effects of secondary reactions and residence time within the particle. Wood ⎯ki Product i ⎯→ (2. as shown below: Cellulose ⎯k1 Products ⎯→ Hemicellulose ⎯k 2 Products ⎯→ Lignin ⎯k 3 Products ⎯→ (2. hemicelluloses and lignin) are assumed to decompose via a series of parallel reactions. The above approaches ignore the fact that wood contains a number of different components that follow different decomposition pathways. to gasifiers where the fuel beds contain a wide range of particle sizes and a variety of secondary pyrolysis reactions can be expected to occur. by a single independent reaction. Therefore.Chapter 2 Literature review A better but more complex approach is to assume in the model that virgin solid fuel decomposes directly to each reaction product i. Where the experimental work on pyrolysis has been conducted using fine particles. the three main components of wood (cellulose. primary products have only a very limited residence time in the heated zone.4. the effect of secondary reactions is not significant and the errors introduced by using a one-step kinetic model are small.

Diebold 1985. Khezami & Capart 2001.5. char and primary tars. Radulovic & Smoot 1993). Rath & Staudinger 2001) there is growing interest in secondary pyrolysis reactions such as the vapour phase cracking of wood pyrolysis tars. Wood ⎯k1 Gas1 ⎯→ Wood ⎯k 2 Tar1 ⎯→ Wood ⎯k 3 Char ⎯→ Tar1 ⎯k 4 (α )Gas 2 + ( β )Tar2 ⎯→ The two-step overall reaction model of Chan. Morf et al. together with ash.000 seconds while for char particle burnout the time is of the order of 10. Liden. the time for devolatilization to take place is of the order of 1. Morf. and then the primary tar decomposes into secondary gases and secondary tars by thermal cracking. all had the same aim.Chapter 2 Literature review into primary gases. judging by the series of recent experimental studies using a two-stage pyrolysis reactor (Fagbemi. Kelbon and Krieger (1985) has been used in a number of subsequent experimental studies (Boroson et al. In fixed-bed gasifiers. Although the experimental processes and methods used in these investigations were not the same. Hasler & Nussbaumer 2002. (2.000 seconds (Hobbs.3. The time required for consumption of a single char particle by oxidation and gasification is generally large compared to that needed for devolatilization. 2001.5. Heterogeneous reactions between gases and solid particles have been conventionally modelled using the following assumptions (Skinner & Smoot 1979): 13 .3 Heterogeneous gas-char reactions The char remaining after wood devolatilization in the pyrolysis zone of a gasifier consists primarily of carbon.d) 2. In addition.a-2. 1989. Berruti & Scott 1988). which was to characterise the thermal conversion of primary pyrolysis products into secondary products during gasification and combustion processes.

However. for simplicity.6) (2. These are listed as follows: (Klm & Joseph 1983) α 2 CH α O β + (γ )O2 ⎯k1 (2 − 2γ − β + ⎯→ )CO + (2γ + β − α − 1)CO2 + ( ) H 2 O 2 2 α (2. In most of the fixed bed gasification models. Use of this small particle kinetic data to describe reactions involving large particles could be expected to produce erroneous results due to size related effects such as intra-particle gradients. (3) The gas-phase products desorb and diffuse away from the particle.7) (2. which means that use of small particle kinetic data is usually unavoidable. The kinetic rates for gas-char reactions have typically been taken from small particle experiments at high temperatures and heating rates. There are normally four heterogeneous reactions that can take place during the high temperature gasification of carbonaceous materials. The consequences of using this data in 14 . large particle oxidation and gasification data are scarce.Chapter 2 Literature review (1) Char particles are considered to be carbon spheres in an essentially infinite gas stream. α=β=0). and then absorbs and reacts with the surface. The other reactions (the so-called char gasification reactions) are endothermic reactions and are relatively slow.8) (2. Since both biomass charcoal and coal usually contain some amount of hydrogen and oxygen in addition to carbon. (2) The gas-phase reactant first diffuses to the solid surface or into the pores in the char. char entering the combustion and gasification zones is assumed to be pure carbon (ie. the validity of this assumption can only be assured by including the concept that the hydrogen and oxygen content of the solid fuel is totally released during pyrolysis.9) CH α O β + CO2 ⎯k 2 2CO + ( β ) H 2 O + ( ⎯→ α 2 − β )H 2 CH α O β + (1 − β ) H 2 O ⎯k 3 CO + (1 − β + ⎯→ CH α O β + (2 − α 2 )H 2 α 2 + β ) H 2 ⎯k 4 CH 4 + ( β ) H 2 O ⎯→ The first reaction is known as char combustion and is an exothermic reaction.

the ash is assumed to crumble slowly and fall away from the char particle with the oxidant being required to diffuse through the film boundary layer only. For the formulation of char oxidation reactions. There are two common char oxidation sub-models. carbon dioxide. Evans & Emmons 1977.5-2 wt% whereas that of coal chars is typically 5-15 wt%. The char-carbon dioxide 15 . In the SP model the ash is assumed to remain intact. The difference between the two models is in the treatment of the ash. an experimental study with large charcoal particles in a CO2 gas environment has shown that the particle gasification proceeds largely by reaction with the outer shell. Both CO and CO2 are formed as primary reaction products. and hydrogen. Rossberg 1956) using the following Arrhenius-type equation: ⎛−E⎞ CO = A exp⎜ ⎜ RT ⎟ ⎟ CO2 ⎝ s⎠ (2. the ash content of charcoals is typically 0. since mass transport tends to be the rate controlling step for fixed-bed combustion and gasification processes. The AS model is only appropriate for low ash content carbonaceous solid fuels like hard wood charcoal. Radulovic & Smoot 1993). The oxidant is required to diffuse through both the film boundary layer and the ash layer. namely the shell progressive model (SP model) and the ash segregation model (AS model). For example. depending on the coal type (Standish & Tanjung 1988). though. The temperature dependence of this ratio has been described by different researchers (Arthur 1951. with the interior of the particle remaining relatively untouched until very high conversions have been reached (Standish & Tanjung 1988). 1995.Chapter 2 Literature review gasifier models may be less important than it first appears. Monson et al. Thus. there is still one major uncertainty. namely the composition of the oxidation product. the principal gas-phase reactants in heterogeneous carbon reactions of the gasification process are oxygen. steam. Of the gases that react with char. oxygen is the most reactive.10) As indicated earlier. Laurendeau 1978. In the AS model. shrinking core-reaction control models using effective internal diffusion may often be adequate for comprehensive fixed-bed modelling (Hobbs. The CO/CO2 ratio increases with increasing reaction temperature.

carbon monoxide 16 . the product gas ends up being diluted with an incombustible gas and with its specific heating value further reduced. 2. The intrinsic rates of these reactions have been investigated by many researchers. common experimental systems have included entrained flow reactors. the results obtained from the TGA and fixed bed gasifier analyses seem the more appropriate for the formulation of fixed bed char combustion and gasification sub-models. the concentrations of hydrogen. The water-gas shift reaction is very fast and proceeds to equilibrium within the gasifier.3. thermogravimetric analysis. Groeneveld & Swaaij 1980. Therefore.4 Homogeneous gas-phase reactions a) Water-gas shift reaction A key gas-phase reaction in gasification processes is that known as the homogeneous water-gas shift reaction. 1994. carbon dioxide. Dasappa et al. It also exchanges a CO2 molecule for a H2O molecule. Evans & Emmons 1977. Standish & Tanjung 1988). where hydrogen and carbon dioxide are produced from carbon monoxide and steam as described in following equation.11) This reaction is slightly exothermic and is an unfavourable reaction as it reduces the heating value of the product gas in two ways. Most of the experimental work on combustion and gasification kinetic reaction rates has been conducted using coal char and only limited information has been found for wood char heterogeneous reactions (for instance. and fixed bed gasifiers.Chapter 2 Literature review and char-water vapour reactions have reaction rates that are of the same order of magnitude. Since the kinetics often depend on the experimental environment. while the char-hydrogen reaction rate is the slowest (Laurendeau 1978). CO + H 2 O ⇔ CO2 + H 2 (2. It exchanges a H2 molecule for a CO molecule with a corresponding reduction in the heat of combustion of 41kJ/gmol. DeGroot & Shafizadeh 1984. Since H2O is easily condensed out of the product gas while CO2 is not so easily removed.

and KC = Equilibrium constant for water gas shift reaction.Chapter 2 Literature review and water can be related throughout the gasification zone by the following equilibrium relationship (Gumz 1950): KC = [CO][H 2 O] [CO2 ][H 2 ] (2. for example. on which most early work was conducted. To convert the reactants to final products may involve only a few steps or as many as several hundred (Turns 2000). which is reaction temperature dependent. global reaction mechanisms are formulated by using a minimum number of elementary steps. gaseous pyrolysis products flow through the hot char combustion zone and may be ignited as long as oxygen is available. Therefore. the location of the pyrolysis zone means that volatile product combustion is of little importance in determining the overall combustion rate and therefore did not need characterising. In updraft mode reactors. In downdraft reactors. many sequential processes can occur involving many intermediate species. This is probably due to the complicated reaction mechanisms involved. When a combustible gas reacts with an oxidising agent. however. 17 .12) where [CO]. means the molar concentration (moles per unit volume) of CO. To include all of the elementary reactions in combustion sub-models is very difficult. and also to the previous lack of need for such information (Thurgood & Smoot 1979). b) Oxidation of devolatilization products Other gas phase reactions of importance in gasifier and combustor models are those involving the oxidation of devolatilization products. These reactions have been paid less attention than gas-char reactions.

In general. c) Oxidation of hydrocarbon As indicated earlier. Tar is not a single substance. but a mixture of oxygenates and heavy hydrocarbons. For global reactions. one of the main pyrolysis products is tar. k. the overall reaction of a mole of fuel with X moles of an oxidizer (say O2) to form Y moles of combustion products can be expressed as ⎯→ Fuel + XO2 ⎯k Yproduct (2.14) where the parameters in brackets are in molar concentrations (moles per unit volume). Simplified reaction mechanisms for the oxidation of devolatilization products (including hydrocarbons) are reviewed below. the rate at which the fuel is consumed can be expressed as d [Fuel ] n m = − kTP a [Fuel ] [O2 ] dt (2. This rate equation states that the rate of disappearance of the fuel is proportional to each of the reactants raised to a power. the reaction orders m and n are not necessarily integers and arise from curve fitting of experimental data. and in general is not constant. The constant of proportionality. a particular global expression in the form of the above equation holds only over a limited range of temperatures and pressures whereas elementary reaction rates can apply over a wide range of temperatures and pressures (Turns 2000). Some of these tar forming molecules combust while passing through the char bed in a downdraft gasifier.Chapter 2 Literature review In the global reaction mechanism.13) From experimental measurements. but rather a strong function of temperature and is usually described by an Arrhenius-type rate expression. is called the global rate coefficient. 18 .

the hydrocarbon oxidation mechanism has been greatly simplified and a global reaction proposed to allow for the partial oxidation of gaseous hydrocarbons. representing the oxidation process of a conventional hydrocarbon fuel going directly to CO2 and H2O: y⎞ ⎛ ⎛ y⎞ C x H y + ⎜ x + ⎟O2 → ( x )CO2 + ⎜ ⎟ H 2 O 4⎠ ⎝ ⎝2⎠ (2. shown below. For instance. dealing with the combustion of these components individually is not practical. ⎛x y⎞ ⎛ y⎞ C x H y + ⎜ + ⎟O2 → ( x )CO + ⎜ ⎟ H 2 O ⎝2 4⎠ ⎝2⎠ (2. This reaction. only partial oxidation was involved.17) The advantages of a single-step process are obvious in that only four chemical species are involved in the formulation. represented as a pseudo-molecule.15) Siminski et al. (1972) proposed an alternative global reaction where the combustion products are CO and H2 rather than CO and H2O. But it has several drawbacks. and the heat release calculation is also quite simple. Therefore oxygenates and other hydrocarbons are often treated as a single substance. CxHyOz (Adams 1980).Chapter 2 Literature review However. Complete oxidation has been investigated by Westbrook and Dryer (1981). For the processes of modelling. which can be important in certain applications. and have correlated kinetic rates for the combustion of heavy hydrocarbons by means of this reaction: ⎛ x⎞ ⎛ y⎞ C x H y + ⎜ ⎟O2 → ( x )CO + ⎜ ⎟ H 2 ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝2⎠ (2. who presented and evaluated one-step and two-step global kinetics for a wide variety of hydrocarbons. A one-step reaction mechanism is the simplest approach.16) In the two previous equations. was assumed to have an infinitely fast forward rate (Hammond & Mellor 1970). by assuming that the reaction products are CO2 and H2O the total heat of reaction is overpredicted and this results in too high a value of the adiabatic flame 19 .

methane combustion is a process that needs to be accounted for in the formulation of downdraft mode reactor models. oxidation to CO2 is predicted to occur much faster than is observed experimentally. with 144 reverse reactions.18) (2.21) 20 . 1989). More realistic is a two-step mechanism. Methane oxidation at combustion temperatures has been studied in more detail than the oxidation of any other hydrocarbon (Thurgood & Smoot 1979). which separates the highly exothermic oxidation of CO to CO2 from the less exothermic oxidation of the hydrocarbon to CO. adapted from the work of Dryer and Glassman (1973) is: ⎛x y⎞ ⎛ y⎞ C x H y + ⎜ + ⎟O2 → ( x )CO + ⎜ ⎟ H 2 O ⎝2 4⎠ ⎝2⎠ ⎛1⎞ CO + ⎜ ⎟O2 → CO2 ⎝ 2⎠ (2. Wang and Rabinowitz 1992). Since the formation of intermediate hydrocarbons and CO is not taken into account.19) d) Oxidation of Methane Methane yields from both primary and secondary pyrolysis are reported to be about 56% of the total dry weight of virgin wood (Boroson et al. A review of its combustion kinetics indicated that the methane combustion mechanism involves 149 elementary steps. To make some sense of this complex system. ⎛ 3⎞ CH 4 + ⎜ ⎟O2 → CO + 2 H 2 O ⎝ 2⎠ ⎛1⎞ CO + ⎜ ⎟O2 → CO2 ⎝ 2⎠ (2. Therefore. involving 33 species (Frenklach.20) (2. by minimizing the number of elementary steps. One such mechanism.Chapter 2 Literature review temperature. a two-step global model for methane oxidation has been constructed using experimental results from a turbulent flow reactor (Dryer & Glassman 1973).

Chapter 2 Literature review e) Oxidation of carbon monoxide Oxidation of carbon monoxide is another very important gas phase reaction that has to be allowed for in the formulation of combustor and gasifier models. Williams and Fine (1973).25 0. at higher combustion temperatures. turbulent flow reactor to develop kinetic rates (Hautman et al. The carbon monoxide-oxygen global reaction rate which was derived from the experimental results and which applies over a temperature range of 840°-2360° K is as follows: d [CO ] ⎧ ⎛ − 15104 ⎞ 1.22) Another expression describing the rates of CO oxidation was developed by Howard.0 0.5 0. was reported as d [CO ] ⎧ ⎛ − 20138 ⎞ 1.93 exp(− 2. both made in a differential flow reactor comprising the second stage of a two-stage combustion system. As discussed in an earlier subsection. who determined the rates of carbon monoxide oxidation in post-flame gases at 1 atm by concentration and temperature measurements. The rate of carbon monoxide oxidation is available from an extensive experimental analysis in which oxidation of aliphatic hydrocarbons was studied in a high temperature. carbon monoxide oxidation is an essential component of mathematical models of fixed bed gasifiers operating in the downdraft mode. Besides.6 exp⎜ ⎟[CO ] [O2 ] [H 2 O ] ⎬7.23) 21 . the reaction sequence in hydrocarbon flames has been recognized for some time to be the rapid oxidation of fuel to carbon monoxide followed by the much slower oxidation of the latter to carbon dioxide.3 × 1014 exp⎜ ⎟[CO ] [O2 ] [H 2 O ] ⎬ dt ⎝ T ⎠ ⎩ ⎭ where the kinetic rate is in (mole/cm³s) (2.5 ⎫ = ⎨− 1014. (2. developed primarily from propane oxidation results.0 0. 1981). solid char is initially oxidized to carbon monoxide rather than carbon dioxide. The rate of the CO oxidation.5 ⎫ = ⎨− 1.48φ ) dt ⎝ T ⎠ ⎩ ⎭ where the rate is expressed in (mole/cm³s) and φ is the initial equivalence ratio. So.

In addition. one of the early experimental analyses of the simultaneous combustion of hydrogen and carbon monoxide showed that the ratio of the velocity constants for these two reactions is kH2/kCO = 2. A difficulty in predicting rates of hydrogen oxidation is that these depend on what other oxidisable components are present. For example. a potential flame temperature from gas oxidation can be higher than 1750 K (Reed & Markson 1983). Therefore.Chapter 2 Literature review The rate expression reported by Hautman et al. 22 . Detailed reviews of H2-O2 kinetics and their elementary reactions can be found in standard combustion books (Borman & Ragland 1998. (1981) investigated the effect on the rate of hydrogen oxidation of the presence of hydrocarbons. Keating 1993. They found.42 − 0.24) where kinetic rate is in (mole/cm³s). showing that hydrogen burns 2. f) Oxidation of Hydrogen The hydrogen-oxygen system is also important as a subsystem in the oxidation of hydrocarbons if a multi-step mechanism is applied. the combustion rate of hydrogen could be calculated from: d [H 2 ] ⎧ ⎛ − 20642 ⎞ 0.86. for their system. In the downdraft gasifier. Hautman et al.56 ⎫ = ⎨− 1013.85 1. But the inclusion of the [C2H4] term implies that this rate expression is dependent on the nature of the hydrocarbons present. Turns 2000).52 exp⎜ ⎟[H 2 ] [O2 ] [C 2 H 4 ] ⎬ dt ⎝ T ⎠ ⎩ ⎭ (2. so its applicability is limited. the rate expression of Williams and Fine (1973) is more reasonable to apply in gasifier models since their correlation covers a wider temperature range.86 times faster than carbon monoxide (Haslam 1923). that in the presence of hydrocarbons. (1981) resulted from experimental investigations which encompassed a temperature range of 960 to 1540 K.

All of the published results have been based on experimental work in which no chemical reactions occurred.4 Heat and mass transfer processes in packed beds The pioneering study of heat and mass transfer in the flow of fluids through packed beds was that of Gamson.1 = − A exp⎜ ⎟[H 2 ] [O2 ] dt ⎝ RT ⎠ (2. and A and E vary as the equivalence ratio alters. From their analyses they developed the following expression: d [H 2 ] ⎛−E⎞ 1 . 2. Radulovic & Smoot 1993).25) where A and E are the pre-exponential factor and activation energy respectively. To overcome this problem and enable the experimentally determined correlations of heat and mass transfer coefficients to be used in the formulation of gasification models.1 1 .Chapter 2 Literature review The global kinetic rates of hydrogen oxidation have also been estimated. using elementary kinetic reactions. Thodos and Hougen (1943). This may be attributable to the fact that fixed-bed gasifiers usually operate outside of the range in which heat and mass transfer coefficients have been adequately measured and correlated.0 (Varma. 23 . from experimental analysis of the combustion of premixed laminar hydrogen-air mixtures of equivalence ratios ranging from 0.5 to 5. The heat and mass transfer coefficients computed from correlations developed for these nonreactive systems appear to exceed the experimentally observed values in reacting gasifiers (Hobbs. a factor called ‘reacting to nonreacting heat transfer ratio’ was introduced in a coal gasification model (Hobbs. This has been followed by a number of other studies during the last six decades. Chatwani & Bracco 1986). Radulovic & Smoot 1992).

Various experimental techniques have been used under both steady-state and unsteady-state conditions. the results have been presented in terms of the jH factor.1 Heat transfer Experimental determinations of heat transfer coefficients have been made for a wide variety of systems involving heat transfer to or from particles. jH hsg mg Pr = Dimensionless heat transfer factor = (Solid-to-gas) heat transfer coefficient. The relationship between jH factor and Reynolds number (Re=Dpmg/µ) was reported as follows: 24 .Chapter 2 Literature review 2. which was introduced by Chilton and Colburn (1934).26) where. who experimentally determined rates of evaporation of water into air streams from spherical and cylindrical porous pellets. hsg Cp g m g jH = (Pr ) 3 2 (2.3. The surface temperature of the wet porous pellets was assumed the same as the wet-bulb temperature of the inlet air and experiments were carried out by varying inlet dry bulb temperatures from 26 to 71°C and sphere particle sizes from 2. In most of the studies. Most of the relevant heat transfer studies reported in the literature have been summarized and comprehensively reviewed by Wakao and Kaguei (1982).4. to 11.6 mm. = Mass velocity of the fluid based on the total (or) superficial bed cross-section measured normal to the mean flow direction = Prandtl number (Cpgµ/k) Cpg = Specific heat of the gas mixture Gamson. Thodos and Hougen (1943). developed jH factor correlations for modified Reynolds numbers in the range of 200 to 3750.

Chapter 2 Literature review j H = 1. the heat transfer coefficient equation proposed by Gupta and Thodos (1963) seems more appropriate for use in modelling of packed bed reactors. In the experimental works of Gamson.064(Re ) j H = 18. Thodos & Hougen (1943) and Acetis and Thodos (1960). no attempt was made to account for the temperature difference between the wetted particles and surroundings which caused radiation heat transfer between the surroundings walls and the particles.575 jH = ε (2.1 jH = (Re ) 0. In their experiments.41 − 0.28) for the modified Reynolds number region of 13 to 2136 covered in their study. Since the source of errors caused by radiation effects was eliminated in their experimental work. Therefore. 25 . Therefore. who modified their experimental system to keep the temperature of the surrounding walls at the same temperature as that of the wetted particles so that radiation effects could be safely neglected.0 for Re < 40 (2. further experimental improvements were made by Gupta and Thodos (1963). They derived the following relationship between the jH factor and Reynolds number: 1 .15 (2.41 for Re > 350 −1. Acetis and Thodos (1960) conducted a series of experiments in which the temperature of the water evaporating from spherical catalyst carriers was not assumed but directly measured and it was found that the temperature of the evaporating surface was the same as the wet-bulb temperature of the inlet air only at high air velocities.29) where ε is the void fraction in the particle bed.1(Re ) −0.06(Re ) −0.27) The validity of the assumption that the surface temperature of the wet porous pellets is equal to the wet bulb temperature of inlet air is questionable at low air velocities. particle surface temperatures were measured directly and the relationship they derived between the jH factor and Reynolds number was as follows: 2.

Re = ⎜ p g ⎟ ⎜ µ ⎠ ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ Very recently (and since the inception of this project) a new forced convection heat transfer correlation covering the flow of gases and liquids through shallow packed beds has been proposed (Bird. which they believed would enable more accurate prediction of particle-tofluid heat transfer coefficients.b) In an attempt to come up with a more comprehensive correlation than those then available.19(Re ) − + 0. Nusselt number and Reynolds number are defined as follows: ⎛ D p mg ⎞ ⎛ hD p ⎞⎛ ε ⎞ ⎟⎜ Nu = ⎜ ⎟ . 2.78(Re ) − 0.4 ⎛ ⎞ Nu = ⎜ 0.34 to 0.4(Re ) 2 + 0.6 ⎞ ⎛ Nu = ⎜ 2 + 1. Re = ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ µ (1 − ε ) ⎟ ⎜ k ⎟⎝ 1 − ε ⎠ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ (2. The Nu-Re relationship applicable over a Reynolds number range from 3 to 3000 proposed by Wakao and Kaguei (1982) is as follows: 1 0 .a.31. Waitaker (1977) developed the Nusselt number correlation shown below.2(Re ) 3 ⎟(Pr ) ⎝ ⎠ (2. For the above equation.33) 26 .31. Wakao and Kaguei (1982) revised and correlated selected reliable data (from both steady-state and unsteady-state measurements) and developed an empirical relationship. 1 2 0 .Chapter 2 Literature review Subsequently.1(Pr ) 3 (Re ) ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ (2.32) ⎛ hD p where Nu = ⎜ ⎜ k ⎝ ⎞ ⎛D m ⎟ .74.381 (2.30) This correlation applies over a Reynolds number range from 3. Stewart & Lightfoot 2002): 2 3 j H = 2.7 to 8000 and a void fraction range from 0. This was derived from heat transfer data obtained from various sources for beds packed with a variety of packings.

relevant solid-to-gas mass transfer studies were first carried out by Gamson.Chapter 2 Literature review Equations 2.33 are empirical relationships derived from heat transfer data obtained from various experimental works for packed beds. a large number of other experimental studies have been carried out on mass transfer coefficients in packed bed systems (Wakao & Kaguei 1982).30. 2.32 and 2. Thodos and Hougen (1943). 2. 27 . = Log mean partial pressure of the non-transferred gases in the gas film = Mean molecular weight of gas stream = Schmidt number (µ/ρD) where ρ = gas mixture density and D = diffusivity A number of empirical relationships between the jd factor and Re have been developed by different researchers for a range of experimental conditions. jd km.2 Mass transfer As in the case of heat transfer. P M Sc (2. 2 k m PM (Sc ) 3 mg jd = where. They obtained a mass transfer coefficient from measurements of the rates of evaporation of water from wet porous particles. Predictions made using the heat transfer correlation of Bird. So the predictions of these equations were compared with the average values of heat transfer coefficients from two experimental correlations (Gupta & Thodos 1963. Stewart and Lightfoot (2002) were close to the experimental values while the other two correlations gave values lower than those observed experimentally. They all predict heat transfer coefficient values of the same order of magnitude. Since their pioneering work.34) = Dimensionless mass transfer factor = (Solid-to-gas) mass transfer coefficient. Acetis & Thodos 1960).4. These mass transfer coefficients are frequently expressed in terms of the jd factor given by Chilton and Colburn (1934).

36) where ε is the void fraction.4 mm in diameter.1(Sc ) 3 (Re ) ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ (2. Porous spheres saturated with a liquid were placed in a matrix of dry glass spheres to produce a dispersed bed. Sc = ⎜ ⎟ ⎜D ρ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ im ⎠ ⎠ 28 . Air was used as a carrier gas which flowed through packed and dispersed beds of these spheres.15 (2.41 − 0.8 to 9. The following jd-Re relationship was obtained: 0. and (3<Re<230) Mass transfer experimental data for a Reynolds number range of from 3 to 3000 was collected from different literature sources by Wakao & Kaguei (1982).6 ⎞ ⎛ Sh = ⎜ 2 + 1. was determined by Petrovic and Thodos (1968). 1. implying that separate measurement of mass transfer coefficients is unnecessary if a jH versus Re relationship is available.357(Re ) −0.35) Subsequently Gupta and Thodos (1963) reported that the ratio jH /jd was approximately unity.37) ⎛ km Dp where Sh = ⎜ ⎜ D ⎝ im ⎞ ⎛D m ⎟ .359 jd = ε (2.Chapter 2 Literature review An early study was that of Acetis and Thodos (1960) who published a jd-Re relationship which applied to both packed and expanded fixed beds and covered the Reynolds number region of 13 to 2136: 0.725 jd = (Re )0. Re = ⎜ p g ⎟ ⎜ µ ⎠ ⎝ ⎞ ⎛ µ ⎞ ⎟ . These were used to develop an empirical Sherwood number correlation for both gas and liquid phase mass transfer in packed beds: 1 0 . The mass transfer coefficient associated with the vaporization of water and heavy hydrocarbons from the surface of porous spheres.

Heat transfer through the gas phase e. 2. (jH = jD = a function of Reynolds number) has been proposed by Bird. Radiation heat transfer between the surfaces of solid particles 2.19(Re ) − + 0. gives similar results to those calculated using Gupta and Thodos’s correlation. the mass transfer coefficient correlation produced by Bird. who re-evaluated and correlated experimental data from a number of sources.381 (2. Thermal conduction through the contact surfaces of solid particles c. using the mass transfer coefficient correlation of Gupta and Thodos (1963) in the fixed bed model seems most appropriate because of the modifications made in their experimental work to minimise possible error sources. based on the Chilton-Colburn analogy.3 Effective thermal conductivities in packed beds Heat transfer between the particles in a high temperature packed bed takes place by a mix of conduction and other heat transfer mechanisms. Thermal conduction through the fluid in the void space f. Stewart and Lightfoot (2002): 2 3 j D = 2. Radiation heat transfer through fluid in the void space g. Thermal conduction through the solid particles b. Stewart and Lightfoot (2002). Thermal conduction through the stagnant fluid near the contact surface d. It is often convenient to combine these heat transfer processes by introducing the concept of an effective thermal conductivity. an empirical mass transfer correlation for packed beds.38) As discussed in the heat transfer section. Heat transfer by lateral mixing of fluid 29 . particularly radiation.Chapter 2 Literature review Very recently.4. Heat transfer through the solid phase a.78(Re ) − 0. Besides. The heat transfer mechanisms involved in the determination of an effective thermal conductivity for a bed of particles can be listed as follows (Kunii & Smith 1960): 1.

mechanism g (heat transfer by lateral mixing of fluid) was not considered. in their formulation. In a bed of particles heat transfer mechanisms 1 and 2 (see above) occur in parallel with each other. Yagi and Kunii 1957): Total heat flux [Keff ∆t / ∆x] Heat flux through solid phase (Mechanism 1) Heat flux through fluid in void space (Mechanism 2) (2. c and d while mechanisms e.Chapter 2 Literature review The effective thermal conductivity in a fuel bed is determined less and less by pure conduction as temperatures increase. At temperatures normally found in gasifiers. This contribution by mechanism g has been allowed for by Froment and Bischoff (1979) in their formulation of an effective thermal conductivity. However. in the case where fluid flows through a particle bed and the Reynolds number is large. Yagi and Kunii (1957) did not include mechanism e. was less important than the other mechanisms and this was neglected too. mechanism e. direct conduction between solid particles in contact. especially for low conductivity solid materials such as wood. 30 . The effective thermal conductivity (keff) can be written as follows (Kunii & Smith 1960. Since both of the research groups (Kunii & Smith 1960.39) = + In their approach to formulation of an effective thermal conductivity. Mechanism a occurs in series with the combined result of parallel mechanisms b. the effect of mechanism g becomes significant. take account of the thermal conduction through the fluid in the void space. radiation becomes the most significant process. The validity of this assumption was confirmed by Kunii and Smith (1960) whose theoretical study of effective thermal conductivities of porous media showed heat transfer mechanism b to be negligible except in a high vacuum. Kunii and Smith (1960) did. however. f and g occur in parallel with each other. They also assumed that mechanism b. Yagi & Kunii 1957) concentrated in their work on beds in which the fluid was stagnant.

Chapter 2 Literature review 2. the free convective heat transfer coefficient from the outer surface of the insulation must be found. Thermal conduction through insulation (if reactor is insulated) 4. it is possible to estimate hwf from mass transfer experiments using a heat and mass transfer analogy. Factors affecting the determination of heat flows via mechanism 1 are discussed below: The gas-wall & solid-wall heat transfer coefficient (hwf) The direct determination of the gas-wall heat transfer coefficient from heat transfer experiments is made difficult by the heat transfer occurring simultaneously between the wall and contacting particles. To estimate the heat loss via mechanism 5. Methods for estimating the heat loss via mechanisms 2-5 can be found in standard heat transfer texts. However. Radiation heat loss to the surroundings from outer reactor wall (or) outer surface of insulation where mechanisms 1.4 Heat loss through the reactor wall The mechanisms that contribute to heat loss through the reactor wall can be listed as follows: 1. Convective heat loss to the surroundings from outer reactor wall (or) outer surface of insulation 5. The corresponding fluid-wall heat transfer coefficient was obtained by 31 . Mechanisms 2 and 3 are controlled by the thicknesses and thermal conductivities of the reactor wall and the surrounding insulation. the emissivity of this outer surface must be known.4. To estimate the heat loss via mechanism 4. Yagi and Wakao (1959) estimated the wall mass transfer coefficient by measuring the dissolution rate of a coated material on the inner wall of a packed tube through which flowed a water stream. Heat transfer from reactor core to inner reactor wall 2. 2 and 3 are in series with the combined result of parallel mechanisms 4 and 5 (Wakao & Kaguei 1982). Thermal conduction through reactor wall 3.

365 hw d p kg ⎛ mg d p = 3. who determined mass transfer coefficients by measuring the vaporization of mercury from the wall into a nitrogen stream. the influence of the tube diameter and of properties of catalytic o reactors is accounted for in the correlation through hw .033 Re Pr (2.Chapter 2 Literature review analogy. 32 .40) while DeWasch and Froment (1971) put forward a rather different correlation: o hw d p hw d p kg = kg + 0. Calderbank and Pogorski (1957) proposed the following correlation to estimate the overall wall heat transfer coefficient 0.41) In the latter correlation. Olbrich (1970) also developed an approach for estimating the solid-wall heat transfer coefficient by considering the ideal case of heat transfer between a plane wall and a contacting hexagonal close packed array of spheres. Other relevant experiments have been carried out by Olbrich and Potter (1972).6⎜ ⎜ εµ ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ (2. side effects which were not accounted for in the work of Yagi and Wakao (1959). Kunii and Suzuki (1968) conducted a similar experiment but in determining their wall heat transfer coefficient made allowance for the average void fraction of the wall region. They considered simultaneous axial and radial gas mixing in the bed voids as well as accounting for the pressure drop across the bed. The overall wall heat transfer coefficient (hw) More data is available on overall rates of heat transfer between the inside reactor wall and reactor contents (both gas and solid) than on individual gas-wall and solid-wall heat transfer processes.

17 by 0.5 Tar in producer gas Tar is the most awkward and problematic parameter in any gasification commercialization effort. 33 .79 (20 ≤ Re ≤ 7600 ).5. “Tar” is defined as follows: “Generic (unspecific) term for entity of all organic compounds present in the producer gas excluding gaseous hydrocarbons (C1 through C6)”. 2.Chapter 2 Literature review Subsequently.05 ≤ ≤ 0.17(Pr/0.42) The average deviation was 14%. In a recent guideline. 2002).3) (2. The best fit correlation for spherical packing was as follows: hw d p kg dp dt = 0. According to that guideline. for constant wall temperature conditions. (0. Li and Finlayson (1977) re-examined experimental data from a number of authors and developed correlations for the asymptotic wall heat transfer coefficient for spherical and cylindrical packings. 2. methods for tar sampling and analysis are standardized (Neeft et al.17 Re 0. However.7)0. All the experiments were done with air. In this section. detailed discussions about tar in producer gas and different methods and approaches for tar removal are presented.33 (Li & Finlayson 1977). so there was no Prandtl number dependence. it was suggested that if working with fluids other than air it would be reasonable to replace the constant 0.1 Tar definition Tar has been defined in different ways by different researchers.

2.4 Tar removal methods outside the gasifier (Secondary methods) Secondary methods (also known as downstream cleaning methods) are the conventional treatments applied to the hot producer gas.3 Tar removal methods Different approaches for tar reduction (or) elimination have been reported in the literature. There is general agreement about the relative order of magnitude of tar production.5. causes some undesirable consequences. electrostatic precipitators and scrubbers) and chemical (catalytic tar cracking) treatments. downdraft and fluidized bed. physical tar removal. 2. Ptasinski & Janssen 2003).5. fluidized beds at 10g/Nm³ and downdraft at 1g/Nm³ (Milne & Evans 1998). In addition. A very crude generalization would place updraft at 100g/Nm³. All the methods available can be categorized into two groups depending on the location where tar reduction is carried out. downdraft the cleanest and fluid beds intermediate.5. Although downstream gas cleaning methods are reported to be very effective in tar reduction. which is mainly done through wet or wet-dry scrubbing. updraft. The following subsections describe both methods with emphasis on the primary method.2 Tar quantities as a function of gasifier type Gasifiers can be divided into three principal types from the point of view of the types of tar each produce: namely. granular filters. Tar reduction can be achieved by both physical (mechanical methods such as use of demisters. with updraft gasifier being the dirtiest. in some cases they are not economically viable. The main problem arising from tar scrubbing is that condensed tar components are merely transferred into another phase (water or solids 34 . either inside the gasifier itself (known as primary methods) or outside the gasifier (secondary methods) (Devi.Chapter 2 Literature review 2.

2.100°C if a catalyst is not used (Donnot. They are not discussed further here since it is primary methods of tar reduction that are the main concern of this study. Temperature is the most important parameter influencing chemical tar conversion processes. Generally. Studies aimed at producing a relatively clean gas by increasing its temperature have been carried out at various temperatures. The chemical tar conversion processes can be divided into four generic categories: thermal.5. enhance phenol formation (Dayton & Evans 1997). which then has to be disposed of in an environmentally acceptable manner. Secondary methods have been widely investigated and are well understood. has been reported to produce fewer refractory tars. the more complete will be the tar removal. 35 . Magne & Deglise 1985). Steam gasification is endothermic and hence sometimes requires a complex design for heat supply to the process. The addition of steam. the higher the temperature and the longer the residence time. Tar can be reduced by thermal cracking at temperatures higher than 800°C (Milne & Evans 1998). and catalytic processes (Milne & Evans 1998). Converting tar completely to lighter combustible gas requires temperatures greater than 1. 1988).Chapter 2 Literature review such as scrubbing lime). partially oxidative. Primary methods consist largely of chemical tar conversions.5 Tar removal methods inside the gasifier (Primary methods) The term “primary methods” encompasses all the processes that either prevent formation of tar or reduce tar levels while the producer gas is still inside the gasifier. over and above that formed from the water and oxygen in the feedstock. and has only a small effect on the conversion of aromatics (Jess 1996). steam. reduce the concentration of other oxygenates (Evans et al. The problems associated with the management of these wastewater or solid residues are described by Milne & Evans (1998).

recycling of the pyrolysis product. superficial velocity. However. split level air supply.gas turbine systems. since catalytic tar conversion is beyond the scope of this study. There are several reports available in the literature on experimental studies of tar reduction by modifying the reactor design. All the modifications introduced have been done to enhance one or more of the above chemical tar conversion processes. The technique appears to be rather too complicated for small power gasifier systems. Catalytic gas cleaning is being considered mostly for large-scale applications of biomass gasification. experimental results showing how the tar content of producer gas is affected by various factors are discussed. Partial oxidation could effectively reduce tars.5.Chapter 2 Literature review When oxygen (or) air is added downstream of the pyrolysis zone.6 Factors influencing chemical tar conversion in the absence of catalyst In this subsection. such as biomass gasifier. the cracking temperature. higher temperatures and greater residence 36 . a) Effect of primary pyrolysis temperature on tar content of raw gas In the pyrolysis reactor. and metallic catalysts such as nickel (Ni). but contact between oxygen and tar is limited in gas producers (Kaupp. the duration of most reported catalyst tests has been quite short. These experimental investigations are discussed in the following section although. thermal cracking of tar takes place to some extent but to accomplish a more efficient decomposition. tar can be preferentially oxidized. at lower temperatures. air supply technique and reactor type. Many types of catalysts have been investigated to reduce tars to lower levels. especially considering the long activity requirements for expensive catalysts such as Ni to be economical (Milne & Evans 1998). Creamer & Goss 1983). Non-metallic catalysts such as dolomites. preheating of supplied air. partial oxidation. 2. have been extensively studied. only experimental investigations of tar reduction not involving catalysts are considered here. These factors include the primary pyrolysis temperature.

It can be generally concluded. A very high temperature will most probably drive the cracking towards very simple components such as CO and H2. higher char conversion and increased risk of sintering (Milne & Evans 1998). that a higher pyrolysis temperature produces a lower tar content in the final raw gas (Jönsson 1985). Bircher & Chisholm 1979). Higher temperatures can be achieved by introducing a secondary air supply to the second stage. with air intakes arranged at two levels in order to have separate reaction zones. while the second zone is designed to be the reduction zone. The first zone is dedicated to the flaming pyrolysis process. the content of hydrocarbons will decrease at high temperatures. 37 . c) Two-stage gasification The two-stage gasifier is of a simple cylindrical shape. (1997) also performed pyrolysis experiments on birch wood in a free-fall reactor to observe the temperature effect on the process and found that increasing temperature promotes the formation of gaseous products at the expense of total tar. there are several other factors that limit the operating temperature. by analysing the results from experimental work using a pyrolysis reactor surrounded by a tube furnace. However. A more than 40% reduction in tar yield was reported when the temperature was raised from 700°C to 900°C. After taking account of these and other critical factors Hallgren (1997) has recommended typical operating temperature ranges for various feed materials. Yu et al. As a consequence of this. The tar vapour is mainly generated in the first zone and subsequently passes through the second zone where it can either be burned or cracked to simpler molecules due to the higher temperature in this zone. Some of the drawbacks that come with increased temperature are a lowering of the gas heating value. b) Effect of cracking temperature on tar content of raw gas It is reported that thermal cracking does not occur if the cracking temperature is lower than the primary pyrolysis temperature (Black.Chapter 2 Literature review times are desirable.

38 . Loof & Bhattacharya (1994) to help in burning of the products from the first stage. largely depends on the stability of the two different reaction zones with their different supplied air levels. that is 40 times less than that obtained with a single stage reactor under similar operating conditions (Bui. if the first-stage air supply is too high. On the other hand. d) Effect of supplied air preheating on tar content By heating the supplied air using six electrical heaters in the form of copper tubes (2000W. the system will not work with two separate reaction zones as planned. Bhattacharya and Dutta (1999) investigated the effect of inlet air temperature on the final tar content of raw gas. adjustment of first-stage air flow rate is a key parameter in maintaining the stability of a two-stage gasification system. Their gasifier was tested with different combinations of primary and secondary air flow rates. as well as raising the reactor temperature to a maximum value that is about 100°C higher than the maximum temperature for a conventional single stage reactor. with and without the preheating option. Loof & Bhattacharya 1994).Chapter 2 Literature review Use of the second air intake has been shown by Bui. Therefore. If the first stage air supply is lower than the flame sustaining limit. The lowest value of the tar content experimentally obtained was 50mg/Nm³. The low tar content obtained was a result of increasing the general temperature profile inside the gasifier due to air preheating. The two-stage gasification system. It was reported that tar in the producer gas was significantly lower in the case where a preheated air supply was used. then it could drive the combustion zone down to the second stage and again. the flame in the first stage extinguishes and the system works as a conventional one-stage gasifier at the secondary air supply level. The high temperature obtained in the second stage of the two-stage reactor made this stage more favourable for tar cracking as well as for gasification reactions. however. 2m long) having internal insulated heating wire.

5 resulted in stable combustion of the recycled gas. is the most important determinant of its performance. It was found that adding oxygen above 700°C resulted in a considerable reduction in the tar content.26 m/s. f) Effect of recycling of the pyrolysis product on tar reduction Susanto (1984) conducted a study of a co-current moving bed gasifier with internal recycle and separate combustion of pyrolysis gas. The combustor was installed in the discharge of the injector and was mounted on the ash grate. This air also acted as the motive gas in the injector for suction of the recycle gas. 1999). g) Effect of superficial velocity on low tar gas production It is reported that the superficial velocity of a gasifier. The air was introduced through a pipe from the top of the gasifier. As the superficial velocity was varied from 0. A significant tar reduction was reported.5 cm diameter was controlled. producing less than 10% char-ash at 1050°C and hot gas temperatures of 1200-1400°C in the flaming pyrolysis zone. Recycle ratios (ratio of recycled gas rate to air flow rate) in the range of 0.05m/s to 0. It was also reported that a higher superficial velocity causes very fast pyrolysis. This conclusion was reached from an experimental investigation in which the gas velocity in an inverted downdraft gasifier with a 7.Chapter 2 Literature review e) Effect of partial oxidation on tar reduction The partial oxidation of biomass tar has been investigated by constructing a two-step experimental oven where biomass pyrolysis and tar destruction could be studied under well-defined conditions (Jensen. from 1. it was found that tar in the gas decreased from 8.3 g/kg. controlling the tar production rate (Reed et al. Larsen & Jorgensen 1996).1 g/Nm³ with recycle.33 to 0. 39 . which is controlled by the supplied air rate.4 g/Nm³ without recycle down to less than 0. which could be rotated.5 to 1.

This limits the size of gasifier and means that a throated gasifier cannot be scaled-up to a larger diameter. If tarry gas is produced from this type of gasifier. Groeneveld (1980) modified the air supply system of a throated gasifier and found that a central air nozzle promotes the combustion of volatiles produced in pyrolysis. a common practice is to reduce the hearth constriction area until a low-tar gas is produced (Reed & Agua 1988). Attempts have been made to get round this problem. There have been some attempts to scale up the traditional throated gasifier and a disastrous increase in tar production has been observed as a result (Goss 1979. air is introduced to the system through nozzles attached to the side of the reactor and located just above a throat. For example. This type of gasifier operates as a plug-flow reactor. A 600 mm internal diameter stratified downdraft gasifier has been operated successfully by the Buck Rogers Co. The stratified downdraft gasifier consists of a cylindrical vessel in which all reaction zones exist and air is introduced to the system from the top of the reactor. Chern & Fan 1985). of Kansas (Walawender. 2. known as the ‘stratified downdraft gasifier’ has been developed during the last two decades (Reed & Agua 1988). The tar content reported from this 600 mm diameter reactor was found to be of the same order of magnitude as that from much smaller stratified downdraft gasifiers (75 mm ID) (Milligan 1994). Since air is supplied to the reactor from the sides. and air and fuel can be assumed to be mixed uniformly. also called a hearth. there are regions towards the middle of the reactor to which little air penetrates and where biomass can pass through unpyrolyzed and also some pyrolysis products can pass through without cracking. Also a new type of gasifier.6 Concluding remarks From the above review.Chapter 2 Literature review h) Effect of air supply technique and reactor type In the traditional downdraft gasifier. Graham & Huffman 1984). a number of conclusions can be reached: 40 .

41 . single or twostep global models constructed by using experimental results are available in the literature. the gas species involved in the water-gas shift reaction can be related by equilibrium relationships throughout the gasification zone. using effective internal diffusion. Both thermal conduction and radiation processes need to be considered for formulation of the effective thermal conductivity in fuel beds.2 Tar reduction 1. any model has to include the time dependence of the reactor parameters. Oxidation of pyrolysis products is important in downdraft gasification and the relevant chemical reaction processes should be included in the numerical model formulation. Correlations giving heat and mass transfer coefficients inside packed beds are available. 2. To understand the behaviour of a gasifier under transient conditions. 7.1 Theoretical modelling 1. 6. For the gasification of biomass material.6. Tar removal by means of external physical processes causes waste treatment problems which are usually costly to manage. However. 8. 4. The available literature on modelling of downdraft gasification is limited and existing steady state models mostly neglect the kinetics of pyrolysis processes.Chapter 2 Literature review 2. is suitable for estimation of heterogeneous gas-char reaction rates inside fixed-bed gasifiers and combustors. Two or multi-step pyrolysis mechanisms should be incorporated into any model since these can account for the thermal conversion of primary pyrolysis products into lighter combustibles. For pyrolysis gas (including hydrocarbons) oxidation. a significant phenomenon in downdraft gasification. 2. The shrinking core-reaction control model. a factor known as the reacting to non-reacting heat transfer ratio should be included in the gasification model. and radiation becomes the dominant process at high temperatures. 5. since these are based on experimental work using non-reactive systems. 3.6.

stratified gasifiers have no problems associated with restriction of throat size. 6. Pre-heating the supplied air is another option for tar reduction.Chapter 2 Literature review 2. 5. Two-stage gasification and partial oxidation are considered to be attractive methods to produce low tar gas for engine applications. a careful adjustment of air supply rates is required to ensure the stability of the two different oxidation zones. 4. Superficial velocity (air supply rate) has to be considered as an important factor in achieving low tar generation. Heat from engine exhaust gas can be utilized to provide the required external heat source but it means that additional heat exchange systems are needed. Steam has only a small influence on the conversion of aromatics in the tar and requires a complex design for steam injection. 3. which controls the rate of thermal cracking of volatiles from the pyrolysis zone. The stratified downdraft gasifier has advantages over throated gasifiers. however. 42 .

AG & Schoeters. LA 1957. KG & Chisholm. 164-78. 19. 1. 35. RP Overend. Israel. Combustion and Flame. 35. JD & Thodos. Boroson. pp. vol. PH & Pogorski. paper presented to ISES 99 Solar World Congress. Mc Graw-Hill. paper presented to the symposium on thermal conversion of solid waste and biomass. Buekens. Adams. SC & Dutta. WA 1989. JP & Peters. vol. AIChE J. J Wiley. TN 1980. vol. Loof. ‘Fluidized bed gasification of solid wastes and biomass’. ‘A simple fuel bed model for predicting particle emissions from a woodwaste boiler’.7 References Acetis. 1003-6. eds. 195-207. SC 1994. 22. RB.I. 619-89. 43 . KA 1979. 4. Anthony. KW 1998. no. 4. Calderbank.. pp. New York. 52. ‘Heat transfer in packed beds’. no. September 10-14. vol. pp. JB. ‘A two-stage gasification of wood with pre-heated air supply: A promising technique for producing gas of low tar content’. pp. JF 1985. G 1960. JB 1976. EN 2002. Combustion Engineering. A 1999.Chapter 2 Literature review 2. Transactions of Institution of Chemical Engineers. ‘Multi Reactor for Biomass Gasification for Power Generation’. Longwell. GL & Ragland. pp. JA 1951.C. Transport phenomena. vol. ‘Product yields and kinetics from the vapor phase cracking of wood pyrolysis tars’. ML. 2nd edn. 225-39. Bhattacharya. Bird. Jerusalem. 1208. Fuel. Trans Faraday Soc. Black. Borman. ‘Flow of gases through spherical packings’ Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. Bircher. R & Bhattacharya. 39. DB and Howard. AIChE Journal. vol. no. ‘Modelling of biomass gasification’. Howard. Stewart.L program Amer Chem Soc Meeting. T. JW. vol. WE & Lightfoot. TA Milne & LK Mudge. 47. pp. The C. 4-9 July. Fundamentals of Thermochemical Biomass Conversion. Washionton D. pp. Bui. ‘Coal devolatilization and hydrogasification’. ‘Reactions between carbon and oxygen’. 397-404. Arthur. 625-56. pp.

Progress in Energy and Combustion Science. GF 1971. 8. A. Chemical Engineering Science. Donnot. 629-34. vol. Tubular reactor’. Colorado Sch Mines. eds. DeWasch. ‘Kinetics of gasification of Douglas fir and cotton wood char by carbon dioxide’ Fuel. Chilton. 71-104. ‘Mass transfer (absorption) coefficients: Prediction from data on heat transfer and fluid friction’. vol. Fuel. vol. 2931-44. WF & Shafizadeh. Chemical Engineering Science. C 1993. vol. August. 223-32. HS & Shrinivasa. 673-82. Biomass and Bioenergy. 63. ‘A review of the primary measures for tar elimination in biomass gasification processes’. Magne. 1183-7. J & Gunkel. ‘Modeling and experimental verification of physical and chemical processes during pyrolysis of a large biomass particle’. 210-6.Chapter 2 Literature review Chan. Canada. Di Blasi. JP 1985. 14. vol. RJ 1997. 26. AP & Froment. 24. 49. Dept Chem Petroleum-Refining Eng. DC & Evans. 19. pp. pp. ‘Flash pyrolysis of tar from the pyrolysis of pine bark’. PJ. pp. Dayton. Ind Eng Chem. C 2000. RP & Chornet. Chen. Devi. P & Deglise. Golden. L. Paul. ‘The gasification of wood-char spheres in CO2-N2 mixture: Analysis and experiments’. 1505-13. Kelbon. Di Blasi. W-CR. DeGroot. ‘Modeling and simulation of Co-current moving bed gasification reactors. vol. pp. 44 . BB 1985. 401-14. ‘A two-dimensional heterogeneous model for fixed bed catalytic reactors’. vol. vol. pp. Chemical Engineering Science. pp. U 1994. Mukunda. Biomass. J Analy Appl Pyrolysis. vol. F 1984. ‘Modelling and simulation of combustion processes of charring and noncharring solid fuels’. ‘The cracking kinetics of depolymerized biomass vapours in a continuous. Proceedings of the 3rd biomass conference of the Americas. 26. vol. X 1985. Diebold. pp. pp. AP 1934. 55. Overend. 75-98.Part II A detailed gasifier Model’. Ptasinski KJ & Janssen FJJG 2003. W 1988. ‘Laboratory gasification studies via partial oxidation of biomass pyrolysis vapours’. ‘Dynamic behaviour of stratified downdraft gasifiers’. & Colburn. Dasappa. pp. TH. M & Krieger. pp. 64. MS Thesis. E. vol. 125-40. 1. pp. S.

HJ 1980. pp.Combustion of Methane’. 45 . RA. pp. 307-13. pp. Applied Energy. Goss. ‘An investigation of the downdraft gasification characteristics of agricultural and forestry residues’. pp. Knight. Fagbemi. The Netherlands. 293-306. RJ. ‘Development of biomass gasification to produce substitute fuels’. OA 1943. Onischak. Groeneveld. no. H & Rabinowitz. vol. HW 1977. W 1950. Chemical reactor analysis and design. 14th Symposium (International) on Combustion. RG & Huffman DR 1984. DD & Emmons. Froment. vol. Gamson. pp. New York. ‘Gasification of char particles with CO2 and H2O’. Frenklach. WPMV 1980. 47-73. vol. ‘Gasification of wood in commercial-scale downdraft gasifiers’. Pacific Northwest Laboratory. Wiley. ‘High-temperature oxidation of CO and CH4’. Chemical Engineering Science. L & Capart. ‘The co-current moving bed gasifier’.. BW. I 1973. 57-66. ‘Optimization and analysis of large chemical kinetic mechanisms using the solution mapping method. 39. G & Hougen. Khezami. Enschede. 9. 1-35. Gumz. Interim report. Evans. 69. KB 1979. California Energy Commission P 500-79-0017. mass and momentum transfer in the flow of gases through granular solids’. JR 1979. AS & Thodos. J Wiley. PNL-6518. SP 1988. vol. AIChE Journal. G 1963. Canada. New York. M & Babu. vol. PhD Dissertation. Wang. Evans. 987-1003.Chapter 2 Literature review Dryer. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science. Richland. Thodos. Groeneveld. American Institute of Chemical Engineers. Gas Producers and Blast Furnaces. Research paper from Forintek Canada Corp. 1. 18. Fire Research. WA. vol. MJ 1992. Gupta. ‘Pyrolysis products from different biomasses: application to the thermal cracking of tar’. GF & Bischoff. 751-4. MJ & Swaaij. 6. Graham. L. FL & Glassman. R 2001. ‘Direct Analogy between mass and heat transfer to beds of spheres’. Twente University of Technology. pp. M. 35. ‘Heat. ‘Combustion of wood charcoal’. pp.

Jönsson. pp. pp. FT & Smoot. Jensen. RT 1923. 68. Larsen. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science. FT & Smoot. JOR3-CT970125. European Commission JOULE III Programme. 67-80. ‘Improved technologies for the gasification of energy crops’ Publishable final report (TPS AB). ‘Tar reduction by partial oxidation’. F 1989. Hobbs. MA & Berruti. ‘Mechanisms and kinetics of thermal reactions of aromatic hydrocarbons from pyrolysis of solid fuels’. JR 1983. vol. vol. ‘The characteristics of rice hulls for the generation of electricity and shaft power on a small (5-30 Hp) scale’. K & Goss. pp. 25. A 1996. Haslam. 15. 14th Symposium (International) on Combustion. DH 1973. Project no. A. O 1985. JB. Fuel. Radulovic. ‘The simultaneous combustion of hydrogen and carbon monoxide’. LD 1992. eds. ML. Creamer. DC & Mellor. 3. vol. LD 1993. 2. 103-17. 19. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. RP Overend. 38. Denmark 24-27 June. Biomass for Energy and the Environment. Combustion Science and Technology.. Proceeding of the 9th European Bioenergy Conference. 679-81. ‘A preliminary investigation of gas turbine combustor modelling’. Hastaoglu. 75. pp. vol. E & Jorgensen. Copenhagen. no. I. Williams. Dryer. Fuel. Howard. vol. 5. 1408-15. pp. Kaupp. ‘Thermal cracking of tars and hydrocarbons by addition of steam and oxygen in the cracking zone’. 219-35. Hammond. ‘Modelling of fixed-bed coal gasifiers’. Combustion Science and Technology. vol. DJ. KH 1996. Fundamentals of Thermal Conversion of Biomass. 1441-8. vol. TA Milne & LK Mudge. FL. no. A 1997. 975-86. 1981. ML. pp. pp. Schug & Glassman. Hobbs. 681-702. AM 1970. PA. vol. ‘A gas-solid reaction model for flash wood pyrolysis’. pp. GC & Fine. Energy Res. 46 . 505-86. ‘Combustion and gasification of coals in fixed-beds’. Radulovic.Chapter 2 Literature review Hallgren. ‘Kinetics of carbon monoxide oxidation in postflame gases’. pp. AIChE Journal. ‘A Multiple-step overall kinetic mechanism for the oxidation of hydrocarbons’. vol. pp. 12. 733-45. 4. Hautman. Jess.

65. vol. 32. T 2002. AV Bridgwater. JB 1994. vol. M & Joseph. NREL/TP-570-25357. Minsk. D & Suzuki. C. Deutch. NM 1978. Neeft. Kunii. Fuel. C-H & Finlayson. Marcel Dekker. Dorrington. pp. HAM. formation and conversion. ‘Characterization of products from biomass tar conversion’. Simell. T 2001.’ Progress in Energy and Combustion Science. Kunii D & Smith JM 1960. 6. paper presented to Symposium on Heat and Mass transfer. pp. 1055-66. pp. Berruti. 150-61. Klm. MA. DS 1988. 81. RJ 1998. JPA. Germane. Combustion and Flame. Golden. Ind Eng Chem Process Des Dev. Morf. Milligan. vol. P.1. 47 . pp. ‘Heat transfer in packed beds-A reevaluation’. CO. ‘Dynamic behaviour of moving-bed coal gasifiers’. Hasler. ‘Heat transfer characteristics of porous rocks’. NREL. AIChE Journal. Chemical Engineering Communication.3). Blackham. PhD Dissertation. ‘Downdraft gasification of biomass’. P. 100. Sjőstrőm. P. AG. ed. Monson. M 1968. pp. 843-53. vol. C & Suomalainen. Chemical Engineering Science. Applied Combustion. U.Chapter 2 Literature review Keating. pp. 212-7.J. Guideline for sampling and analysis of tar and particles in biomass producer gases (Version 3. ‘Heterogeneous kinetics of coal char gasification and combustion. BA 1977. M 2002. M & Nussbaumer. 71-8. ‘A kinetics model for the production of liquids from the flash pyrolysis of biomass’. 669-83. ‘Char oxidation at elevated pressures’. pp. 4. Liden. Brage. S. Zielke. PA. The University of Aston in Birmingham. vol. Milne. Biomass gasifier “tars”: Their nature. pp. 22. G. Li. 221-70. Hugener. Laurendeau. 207-21. Buffinga. Abatzoglou. Hasler. Progress in Thermochemical Biomass Conversion. TA & Evans. Knoef. P & Nussbaumer. USA. vol. no. P. F & Scott. Report no. Inc. AU & Smoot. EL 1993. Energy project EEN5-1999-00507 (Tar protocol). ‘Mechanisms and kinetics of homogenous secondary reactions of tar from continuous pyrolysis of wood chips’. N. LD 1995. Greil. Morf. GJ. B 1983. vol. RC. Hasler.

September. OE 1972. TB & Markson. Peters. pp. ‘A two-phase diffusional model to describe heat transfer processes in a non-adiabatic packed tubular bed’. Reed. TB & Agua. OF 1972. LD 1979. paper presented to 4th Biomass of the Americas Conference. M 1956. ‘Heterogeneous reactions of char and carbon’. RB. S. ‘Mass transfer from the wall in small diameter packed beds’. 1 & 2. 7. Rossberg. Pulverizedcoal combustion and gasification’. Fuel. B & Bruch. vol. Fuel. eds. FJ. ‘Research on methods of improving the combustion characteristics of liquid hydrocarbon fuels’. 481-90. Olbrich. 217-54. pp. pp. 275-80. Z Elecktrochem. 666-72. 101. Reed. Das. Edelman. vol. 27. vol. 149-67. TB. ‘Experimental results concerning the primary reactions in the combustion of carbon’. pp. Siminski. 952-56. 60. eds. 48 . G 1968. R. AFAPL TR 72-74. 42. pp. ‘Superficial velocity. Chemical Engineering Science. vol. vol. Ohio. Economos. LD Smoot & DT Pratt. August. ‘Gasification of single wood charcoal particles in CO2’. ‘A flexible and stable numerical method for simulating the thermal decomposition of wood particles’. Air Force Aero propulsion Lab. pp. 1379-89.Chapter 2 Literature review Olbrich. 1733-43. WE & Potter.The key to downdraft gasification’. Petrovic. Biomass Energy Foundation Press. vols. pp. Reed. Melbourne and Sydney. LJ & Thodos. ‘Mass transfer in the flow of gases through packed beds’. Chemosphere. M 1983. ‘Cracking reactions of tar from pyrolysis of spruce wood’. C & Fortune. J & Staudinger. WE 1970. DA Tillman & EC John. S 1999. FD & Smoot. Chemeca’70: Proceedings of a conference. vol. England. ‘A predictive model for stratified downdraft gasification of biomass’. D 1988. London. Ellis. pp. Walt. Standish N & Tanjung. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals. G 2001. Progress in biomass conversion. Washington. 80. A & Deutch. C 2001. 19-26. pp. Handbook of biomass downdraft gasifier engine systems. Wright. Wright Patterson air Force Base. 64. Butterworth. Skinner. vol. 4. Rath. AFA 1988. VJ.

SR 2000. 3. Yagi. ‘Temperature impact on the formation of tar from biomass pyrolysis in a free-fall reactor’. vol. AIChE Journal. ‘Moving-bed gasifier with internal recycle and separate combustion of pyrolysis gas’. pp. vols. Fundamental principles of heat transfer. pp. 169-82. Westbrook. S & Kunii. ‘Wood chip gasification in a commercial downdraft gasifier. Pergamon Press. Walawender. eds. pp. eds. vol. RP Overend. pp. Combustion and Flame. 27.Chapter 2 Literature review Susanto. Chen G & Sjőstrőm K 1997. Wakao. vol. New York. ‘Heat and mass transfer from wall to fluid in packed beds’. pp. 64. Yagi. ‘Studies of premixed laminar hydrogen-air flames using elementary and global kinetics models’. FL 1981. S 1977. LD Smoot & DT Pratt. 2336. Heat and mass transfer in packed beds. Yu Q. 79-85. 373-81. CK & Dryer. pp. AIChE Journal. Pulverized-coal combustion and gasification’. FV 1986. H 1984. 911-21. S & Wakao. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis. 49 . LD 1979. Fundamentals of Therochemical Biomass Conversion. Gordon and Breach: New York. ‘Simplified reaction mechanisms for the oxidation of hydrocarbon fuels in flames’. McGrawHill. pp. 4041. TA Milne & LK Mudge. Chern. Whitaker. Institute of Technology Bandung. PhD Dissertation. Varma. ‘Volatiles combustion’. WP. New York. Combustion Science and Technology. vol. Thurgood. N & Kaguei. N 1959. AK. 481-9. D 1957. Turns. Brage C. An introduction to combustion: Concepts and application. 2nd edn. AU & Bracco. ‘Studies on effective thermal conductivities in packed beds’. JR & Smoot. 5. 31-43. S 1982. Chatwani. LT 1985. SM & Fan.

and char gasification. the fuel particle size was assumed to remain constant in these zones even though in practice some shrinkage occurs during pyrolysis. This is because many reactions occur simultaneously. In this study. In stratified downdraft gasification. Also. undergoing drying. In the numerical model developed. it is easier to comprehend both conceptually and mathematically. cracking of tars and oxidation of pyrolysis products. it has more facilities for measuring gas composition and temperatures within the bed. It was also assumed that. uniform air and fuel flow along the axis of the gasifier. no scale up problems associated with a throat. at the top of the gasifier. char oxidation.1 Introduction In this chapter.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development Chapter 3 Mathematical model development 3. together with information 50 . in the heterogeneous combustion and gasification zone. The model developed incorporates the phenomena of biomass drying. In the drying and pyrolysis processes. the stratified downdraft gasifier has a number of advantages over the traditional throated gasifier. solid fuel is introduced. In addition. each dominated by different types of reaction. together with air. volatiles oxidation. moisture and volatiles are released from the fuel and the density of the fuel dramatically decreases. pyrolysis. it is hard to determine where along the reactor the boundaries between adjacent zones are located. namely: simple fabrication. pyrolysis. Although the bed can be divided up into reaction zones. As discussed in the previous chapter. It flows downwards through the gasifier. the stratified type of downdraft gasifier was selected for both theoretical and experimental investigation. The model describes the complex physical and chemical processes taking place in the reactor by the use of mass and energy balances. so that it is easier to compare modelling results with empirical observations. the size of the particle decreases as predicted by the shrinking core reaction control model. the formulation and development of a one-dimensional transient model for a stratified downdraft gasifier is presented. therefore.

Hobbs. In this model. 3. Purnomo.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development about rates of chemical reactions and physical transport processes. Details are presented in the following sections. drying was formulated by assuming it follows the Arrhenius type kinetics equation developed by Chan. Radulovic & Smoot 1992) the drying rate is assumed to be kinetically controlled (Bryden 1998.2.2 Reaction rates 3.1) 51 . Aerts & Ragland 1990). Kelbon and Krieger (1985a): ⎛ − Em ⎞ Rm = (1 − ε )Am exp⎜ ⎜ RT ⎟ ρ m ⎟ s ⎠ ⎝ where Rm ε Am Em R Ts ρm = moisture release rate (kg/m³s) = bed void fraction (void volume/bed volume) = pre-exponential factor for drying (s-1) = activation energy for drying (J/mol) = universal gas constant (J/mol/K) = solid surface temperature (K) = density of moisture (kg/m³) (3.1 Drying Drying of the solid fuel is normally formulated in reactor models by one of three different approaches: • it is assumed that moisture from the moist biomass or charcoal (in the case of charcoal gasification) is instantaneously evaporated before it enters the combustion and gasification zone (Basak & Bhattacharya 1987) • • the process of drying is considered as a diffusion limited process (Di Blasi 2000.

Kelbon and Krieger (1985b).5 mm. This involves a complex combination of heat and mass transfer processes that is very hard to model accurately. so kinetic data which can be applied directly to the gasification process of large wood particles is scarce.1. which is a function of wood surface temperature. This meant that a single particle pyrolysis rate expression would have to be used in the present study. This average temperature was used in equation 3. There are many works on modelling of single wood particles during the pyrolysis process but no attempt to model what occurs in a particle bed was found.2 for estimating the primary pyrolysis rate of particle beds. In this model. a series of experiments have been conducted by various researchers and the kinetics rates obtained are available in the literature. however. Kelbon and Krieger (1985b) was used: ⎛ − E p1 ⎞ ⎟ρ R p1 = (1 − ε )A p1 exp⎜ ⎜ RT ⎟ v avg ⎠ ⎝ where (3.2) Rp1 Ap1 Ep1 Tavg ρv = primary pyrolysis rate (kg/m³s) = pre-exponential factor for primary pyrolysis (s-1) = activation energy for primary pyrolysis (J/mol) = average wood particle temperature (K) = density of volatile matter (kg/m³) When wood is decomposed by application of an external heat source. Almost all of the experimental studies and kinetics rates. primary pyrolysis kinetic coefficient and particle size and which was determined using equation 3. was used in this model. a thermal wave moves from the wood particle surface to its centre. 52 . as shown in Figure 3. The expression selected was that of Chan. For the primary wood pyrolysis step.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development 3.2 Pyrolysis A two-step pyrolysis process.2.3. This necessitated calculating an average particle temperature. apply only for finely divided particles or for sample sizes less than 1. the kinetic data obtained for the rapid pyrolysis of large wood particles by Chan.

Kosstrin (1980) and Liden. Kosstrin. dp = particle diameter (m) Equation 3. Rath and Staudinger 2001).3) where. the secondary pyrolysis kinetic data obtained when using two separate experimental reactors seem more appropriate than those obtained when using one reactor. temperature. the Arrhenius 53 . Moreover. A limited number of experimental studies of vapour phase cracking of wood pyrolysis tar are available in the literature including several that are comparatively recent (Boroson. Berruti & Scott 1988. Although all of the kinetic parameters reported relate to unprocessed wood. 2001. (1989) (see above) show very good agreement with those in a recent report (Morf et al. Arrhenius constants determined by Boroson et al. Fagbemi. et al. 1989. Khezami & Capart 2001.3 is derived from the correlation of Reed and Markson (1983) who determined the time required for completion of the flaming pyrolysis process and correlated this with particle size. Therefore. the second to tar cracking under a flow of carrier gas with no packing present. Secondary pyrolysis is the process of cracking of primary tar into lower molecular weight gases and secondary tar. Boroson et al.984d p ⎜T E p1 ⎝ s ( ) ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ (3. the nature of the wood used as well as the experimental processes were not the same for all the investigations. Khezami and Capart (2001) obtained the kinetic rates for thermal cracking of tar (in the range of 400-900°C) formed by the pyrolysis of three different biomass materials (wood. Liden.138d p + 46861.3 are presented in Appendix A. Morf et al. Diebold (1985). Morf et al. 1980. moisture content and oxygen fraction. (1989). Berruti and Scott (1988) used data obtained from a fluidised-bed technique where both the solid and tar decomposition reactions took place simultaneously in the same reactor. 2001). (2001) and Rath and Staudinger (2001) have studied the tar decomposition reaction separately by using a set-up consisting of two distinct reactors. Details of the derivation of equation 3. the first one devoted to solid pyrolysis. coconut shell and straw).Chapter 3 Mathematical model development Tavg = 1 ⎛1 2 ⎜ + R × ln 953. Diebold 1985. Fagbemi.

In addition the composition of secondary tar (hydrocarbon) was taken to be 100% benzene (C6H6). It was established. 1989). a means of modifying the activation energy of Boroson’s data was introduced in this study in order to avoid the overpredicting of tar output by considering only the homogenous tar cracking process.264. and lumping the results. In addition.71O3.4 was taken as: TC = Ts + Tg 2 for for (T s > Tg ) ≤ Tg ) TC = Tg (T s Product yields for primary and secondary pyrolysis were chosen on the basis of literature data (Boroson et al. a formula for the tars (primary tar) which are the product of primary pyrolysis (also known as oxygenates) was derived: C6H10. (1989). 3.4) Tar reduction. the tar cracking temperature in eq. since benzene was the major 54 . that multiplying Boroson’s activation energy values by 0.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development kinetic data provided by Boroson et al. however. (1989) were used in this model for the secondary pyrolysis (primary tar cracking) process: ⎛ − E p2 ⎞ R p 2 = (ε ) M tar1 A p 2 exp⎜ ⎟ ⎜ RT ⎟Ctar1 C ⎠ ⎝ where Rp2 Ap2 Ep2 TC Ctar1 Mtar1 = primary tar cracking rate (kg/m³s) = pre-exponential factor for secondary pyrolysis (s-1) = activation energy for secondary pyrolysis (J/mol) = primary tar cracking temperature (K) = molar concentration of primary tar (kmol/m³) = molecular weight of primary tar (kg/kmol) (3. By carrying out an elemental mass balance using the data provided by Boroson et al.85 yielded final gas tar contents that were in a similar range to observed values. can occur by both homogeneous and heterogenous thermal cracking. Since there is no data available on heterogenous tar cracking mechanisms. by a trial and error method.

) Figure 3.1kg H2 = 1. In this model.1 Pyrolysis mechanism used in the numerical model and product yields [adapted from Boroson et al.62kg CO2 = 6.4O0.264)= 52. 1999).5kg Primary Tar (C6H10. (1989)] Some uncertainty exists concerning the energetics of biomass pyrolysis as over the temperature range concerned both endothermic as well as exothermic processes have been observed to occur (Robert 1970).4kg H2O = 16.4kg * (Note: the gaseous products include Acetylene (C2H2) and Ethane (C2H6) but these have been omitted due to the very small quantities involved.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development component found in tar from downdraft gasifiers when this was analysed by direct mass spectrometry (Milne & Evans 1998).3kg Secondary Tar (C6H6) = 6.4kg CH4 = 5.7kg CO = 3.6 ) = 100kg Primary Pyrolysis Char (C) = 20.8kg CH4 = 0. Dry wood (CH1. The assumption that secondary tar can be represented by benzene (C6H6) has been previously used in a wood particle decomposition model (Peters & Bruch 2001) and a coal particle combustion model (Veras et al.63kg C2H4 = 5.2kg CO2 = 6.65kg Secondary Gases* = 46. the heat of the primary pyrolysis process was assumed to be zero (Bryden & Ragland 1996) and a value of the heat of reaction of 50 kJ/kg was assumed for the secondary pyrolysis process (tar cracking) (Gronli & Melaaen 2000). 55 .71O3.8kg Secondary Pyrolysis Primary Gases* = 26.15kg CO = 27.

⎛ MC Ri = ⎜ ⎜ν j M j ⎝ ⎞ Av ρ j ⎟ ⎟ ⎡⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎠ ⎜ ⎟+⎜ ⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎢⎝ k m ⎠ ⎝ k i ⎣ ⎞⎤ ⎟⎥ ⎟ ⎠⎥ ⎦ (3. was used for the heterogeneous char oxidation and gasification reactions. i = 1-4.5) (3.9) where ⎛ − Ei k i = Ai Ts exp⎜ ⎜ RT ⎝ s Ri Ai Ei MC Mj νj ⎞ ⎟ .9: this is adapted from Hobbs.3 Heterogeneous char combustion and gasification The unreacted shrinking core model. ⎟ ⎠ = heterogeneous reaction rate for reaction i (kg/m³s) = pre-exponential factor for heterogeneous reactions i (m/sK) = activation energy for heterogeneous reactions i (J/mol) = molecular weight of carbon (kg/kmol) = molecular weight of gaseous specie j (kg/kmol) = the stoichiometric coefficient defining the moles of oxidant required per mole of carbon. ν 1 = γ .5-3. H2.7) (3.g.ν 2 = 1.ν 3 = 1. Radulovic and Smoot (1993).Chapter 3 Mathematical model development 3. 3.8.6) (3. eq. e.2.ν 4 = 2 Av ρj km = the specific surface area or the reaction surface area (m-1) = density of gaseous species j (kg/m³) = mass transfer coefficient (m/s) 56 .8) The heterogeneous reaction rates were estimated using eq. H2O. CO2. j = O2. C + (γ )O2 ⎯k1 (2 − 2γ )CO + (2γ − 1)CO2 ⎯→ C + CO2 ⎯k 2 2CO ⎯→ C + H 2 O ⎯k 3 CO + H 2 ⎯→ C + 2 H 2 ⎯k 4 CH 4 ⎯→ (3. 3. in which reaction rate depends on film diffusion and intrinsic chemical reaction rate.

2.4 Homogeneous gas reactions Six homogeneous reactions were considered when developing the model.11) From eq. the specific surface area or the reaction surface area.12) where AC EC = pre-exponential factor for ratio of CO/CO2 (-) = activation energy for ratio of CO/CO2 (J/mol) 3. the ratio of CO/CO2 was calculated from one of the correlations described by Evans and Emmons (1977) who correlated their experimental data for wood char by the following expression: ⎛ − EC CO = AC exp⎜ ⎜ RT CO2 s ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ (3. In this study.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development Av. the stoichiometric coefficient γ can be estimated using ⎛ − EC ⎞ 2 + AC exp⎜ ⎟ ⎜ RT ⎟ s ⎠ ⎝ γ = ⎛ ⎛ − EC ⎞ ⎞ ⎟ 2 + 2⎜ AC exp⎜ ⎟ ⎜ RT ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ s ⎠⎠ ⎝ ⎝ (3.11. is one of the important fuel characteristics where heat and mass transfer to the particles in the bed are concerned. The ratio has been correlated by a first order Arrhenius-type relationship by different researchers for different types of char. This reaction surface area is related to the bed void fraction and the particle diameter as follows: ⎛ 6 Av = ⎜ ⎜dp ⎝ ⎞ ⎟(1 − ε ) ⎟ ⎠ (3. 3.5) and the ratio of CO/CO2 increases with the reaction temperature.10) CO and CO2 are generally the main products of char oxidation (eq. 3. 57 .

The reaction is fairly rapid over carbon surfaces at gasification temperatures and is assumed to be in equilibrium at all locations in the reaction zone. The water-gas shift reaction (eq. These are significant reactions in the downdraft gasification process.15) = reverse water-gas shift reaction rate (kmol/m³s) KC is the equilibrium constant. including the secondary tar (Hydrocarbon).Chapter 3 Mathematical model development The first of these is the well-known water-gas shift reaction while the rest involve the oxidation of volatile gases. 3.13) is an important reaction between major gaseous species and the process is slightly exothermic. CO + H 2 O ← R5 CO2 + H 2 ⎯→ ⎛ − E5 F R5 F = εA5 F exp⎜ ⎜ RT g ⎝ where R5F A5F E5F CCO CH2O = forward water-gas shift reaction rate (kmol/m³s) ⎞ ⎟C CO C H O 2 ⎟ ⎠ (3.s) = activation energy for forward water-gas shift reaction (J/mol) = molar concentration of CO (kmol/m³) = molar concentration of H2O (kmol/m³) The reverse water-gas shift reaction rate was determined using the equilibrium expression as R5 R where R5R ⎛ − E5 F A5 F exp⎜ ⎜ RT g ⎝ =ε KC ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠C CO2 CH2 (3.13) (3. An expression for the forward water-gas shift reaction rate was proposed by Grebenshchikova (1957).14) = pre-exponential factor for forward water-gas shift reaction (m³/kmol. a function of gas phase temperature and can be found from the following correlation (Benson 1981): 58 .

As mentioned in subsection 3. the mixture of products making up secondary tar was grouped and assumed to behave like benzene (C6H6). For the partial combustion of this hydrocarbon group the reaction products were assumed to be CO and H2 (Smoot & Smith 1979): C 6 H 6 + 3O2 ⎯k 6 3H 2 + 6CO ⎯→ (3. CH4.17) 0.5 O2 g (3.18) where R6 A6 E6 CO2 P = hydrocarbon oxidation rate (kmol/m³s) = pre-exponential factor for hydrocarbon oxidation [(m1.2. treating the combustion of individual pyrolysis products (from both primary and secondary pyrolysis) separately is not practical.5)/(kPa0. CO is a major gas component released during the secondary pyrolysis process. was used in this model. 59 .08Tg + 3Tg ln Tg − 2. Williams and Fine (1973).16) The next homogeneous reaction considered here is the partial oxidation of hydrocarbon (secondary tar). C2H4 and H2) released from primary and secondary pyrolysis processes.3 ⎛ − E6 ⎞ ⎟C R6 = εA6 exp⎜ ⎜ RT ⎟ C6 H 6 ⎝ g ⎠ ( ) (C )T P 0. Even though tar is not a single substance. which is a significant reaction in downdraft gasification.5Ks)] = activation energy for hydrocarbon oxidation (J/mol) = molar concentration of O2 (kmol/m³) = gas mixture pressure (kPa) CC6H6 = molar concentration of C6H6 (kmol/m³) The other homogeneous reactions considered in this model were oxidation of gaseous products (CO.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development ⎛ 1 K C = exp⎜ ⎜ RTg ⎝ ⎛ ⎞⎞ ⎜11321 − 31. proposed by Howard. The mechanism for oxidation of carbon monoxide.2.8 E − 4Tg 2 − 91500 ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ Tg ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠⎠ (3.3kmol0.

5s) = activation energy for methane oxidation (J/mol) = molar concentration of CH4 (kmol/m³) The oxidation of ethylene was considered in the study to occur by a mechanism similar to that followed by other hydrocarbons (Smoot & Smith 1979): C 2 H 4 + O2 ⎯k 9 2 H 2 + 2CO ⎯→ ⎛ − E9 ⎞ ⎟C R9 = εA9 exp⎜ ⎜ RT ⎟ C2 H 4 ⎝ g ⎠ (3.5/kmol0.7 O2 (3.24) where R9 A9 = ethylene oxidation rate (kmol/m³s) = pre-exponential factor for ethylene oxidation [(m1.5 O2 g (3.5O2 ⎯k 7 CO2 ⎯→ ⎛ − E7 ⎞ ⎟(CCO )(CO 2 )0.5 (3.3 ( ) (C )T P 0.21) 0.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development CO + 0.5)/(kPa0.23) 0.8 ( ) (C ) 0.20) where R7 A7 E7 = carbon monoxide oxidation rate (kmol/m³s) = pre-exponential factor for carbon monoxide oxidation (m3/kmol.22) where R8 A8 E8 CCH4 = methane oxidation rate (kmol/m³s) = pre-exponential factor for methane oxidation (m1.3kmol0. was used in this model: CH 4 + 1. in which the reaction products are CO and H2O (Dryer & Glassman 1973).s) = activation energy for carbon monoxide oxidation (J/mol) The mechanism for oxidation of methane.5Ks)] 60 .5 C H O R7 = εA7 exp⎜ 2 ⎜ RT ⎟ ⎝ g ⎠ (3.5O2 ⎯k 8 CO + 2 H 2 O ⎯→ ⎛ − E8 ⎞ ⎟C R8 = εA8 exp⎜ ⎜ RT ⎟ CH 4 ⎝ g ⎠ (3.19) ( ) 0.

1. the quite extensive collection of data on forced convection for the flow of gases through packed beds has been critically analysed and correlated.1 O2 (3. 3.3.5O2 ⎯⎯→ H 2 O (3. k 10 H 2 + 0.26) = pre-exponential factor for hydrogen oxidation (m3. Chatwani and Bracco (1986) was used in this study.1 Heat and mass transfer coefficients The solid-gas heat transfer process is characterized by a convective heat transfer coefficient. The global kinetic expression proposed by Varma.6/kmol1. This correlation (see below) was used in the model (Bird.1 ⎛ − E10 ⎞ ⎟C R10 = εA10 exp⎜ ⎜ RT ⎟ H 2 g ⎠ ⎝ where R10 A10 E10 CH2 = hydrogen oxidation rate (kmol/m³s) ( ) (C ) 1. Stewart & Lightfoot 2002): 61 . which has been experimentally determined using various experimental techniques.2s) = activation energy for hydrogen oxidation (J/mol) = molar concentration of H2 (kmol/m³) All of the reaction rate constants used in this model are summarized in Table 3. Recently.3 Gas-particle interchange 3.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development E9 = activation energy for ethylene oxidation (J/mol) CC2H4 = molar concentration of C2H4 (kmol/m³) The last homogenous gas reaction considered in this model is oxidation of hydrogen which is formed during partial oxidation of hydrocarbons (C6H6 and C2H4). under either steady state or unsteady-state conditions.25) 1.

8) CO/CO2 ratio Water Gas shift reaction (Equation 3. Radulovic & Smoot (1992) Evans & Emmons (1977) Grebenshchikova (1957) Smoot & Smith (1979) Howard.4) Boudouard reaction (Equation 3.3kmol0.5/kmol0. devolatilization.10 E2 = 222.830 (J/mol) A2 = 589 (m/sK) 4 -1 5 -1 Chan.230 (J/mol) A7 = 1.23) Hydrogen oxidation (Equation 3.0 × 1011.825 (J/mol) A3 = 5.000 (J/mol) Ap2 = 9.20 × 10 (s ) Ep1 = 113.700 (J/mol) AC = 4.2 Equation 3. Chatwani & Bracco (1986) Equation 3.7 (m1.580 (J/mol) A8= 1.5s) E8 = 202.5)/(kPa0.07 × 10 4.3 × 1011 (m3/kmol.1 List of drying. heterogeneous and homogenous reaction rate constants used in the mathematical model Reaction Mechanism Kinetic rate constants Reference Drying Primary pyrolysis Secondary pyrolysis Char oxidation (Equation 3.42 ×10-3 (m/sK) E4 = 129. Radulovic & Smoot (1992) Yoon.14 Equation 3. (1989) Evans & Emmons (1977) Hobb.279 (J/mol) A6 = 2.185 (J/mol) A5 = 0.4(m3.22 Equation 3.s) E7 = 125.s) E5 = 60. Williams & Fine (1973) Dryer & Glassman (1973) Smoot & Smith (1979) Varma.600 (J/mol) A9 = A9 E6 = E6 A10 =3.9 Equation 3.26 62 .21) Ethylene oxidation (Equation 3.13 × 106 (s-1) Em = 87. Kelbon & Krieger (1985b) Boroson et al.25) Equation 3.514 (J/mol) Equation 3. Kelbon & Krieger (1985a) Chan.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development Table 3.7) Methane formation reaction (Equation 3.7144 (m/sK) E3 = 129.4 Am = 5. Wei & Denn (1978) Hobb.900 (J/mol) Ap1 = 3.55 × 10 (s ) Ep2 = 93.53×108.5Ks)] E6 = 80.6) Water Gas reaction (Equation 3.685 (m/sK) E1 = 74.19) Methane oxidation (Equation 3.700 (J/mol) A4 = 3.1 Equation 3.6/kmol1.11 Equation 3.03 (m³/kmol.13) Hydrocarbon oxidation (Equation 3.17) Carbon monoxide oxidation (Equation 3.24 Equation 3.300 (J/mol) A1 = 0.9 Equation 3.3 EC = 28.18 [(m1.2s) E10 = 30.20 Equation 3.

3.78(Re) −0.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development 2 − ⎛ ⎞ −2 hsg = Cp g m′′ ⎜ 2.28) where km ρg Sc Dg = mass heat transfer coefficient (m/s) = gas mixture density (kg/m³) = Schmidt number (-) = µg/ ρg Dg = gas mixture diffusivity (m²/s) 3.s) = Prandtl number (-) = Cpg µg/kg = gas mixture conductivity (W/mK) Mass flux from a fluid to a solid surface is given by the product of the mass transfer coefficient and the concentration driving force. conduction and radiation. since at the temperatures normally found in gasifiers.19(Re) 3 + 0. a correlation for mass transfer in packed beds can be derived (Bird. This correlation was used in this study: 2 − m′′ ⎛ ⎞ 2 g ⎜ 2. radiation becomes the most significant process.19(Re) 3 + 0. known as the Chilton-Colburn analogy.381 ⎟(Pr) 3 g⎜ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ (3. especially for a low 63 .2 Effective thermal conductivity The two modes of heat transfer.27) where hsg Cpg mg" Re µg Pr kg = solid to gas heat transfer coefficient (W/m²K) = specific heat of gas mixture (J/kgK) = gas mixture mass flux (kg/m²s) = Reynolds number (-) = dpmg"/µg = gas mixture viscosity (kg/m. By applying an empirical analogy.381 ⎟( Sc) − 3 km = ⎟ ρg ⎜ ⎝ ⎠ (3. Stewart & Lightfoot 2002).78(Re) −0. were considered in developing the effective thermal conductivity term.

β=0. (3.9~1 and ϕ = 0.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development conductivity solid material such as wood. ε ⎛ 1 − ε ′ ⎞⎤ 3 ⎡ hrv =Void-to-void radiation coefficient = 4σTg / ⎢1 + ⎜ ⎟⎥ ⎣ 2(1 − ε ) ⎝ ε ′ ⎠⎦ ε′ ⎞ 3⎛ hrs = Solid radiation coefficient = 4σTs ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ 2 −ε′⎠ έ = solid phase emissivity (-) (3. Radulovic 64 .31) ψ depends on the ratio of particle diameter to effective reactor diameter (DeWasch & Froment 1971). Heat losses to the gasifier wall from the solid and gas phases were determined using equations initially proposed by DeWasch and Froment (1971) and modified later by Hobbs. where D is reactor effective diameter in metre. ψ = 0.4 Bed-to-wall heat transfer coefficient The effective bed-to-wall heat transfer coefficient used in this model is calculated using a correlation developed by Froment and Bischoff (1979).30) (3. k eff = k g β (1 − ε ) ⎛ kg γ⎜ ⎜k ⎝ s ⎞ 1 ⎟+ ⎟ ⎛ ⎠ ⎜ 1 d p hrs + ⎜ϕ kg ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ + ε (k g + d p hrv (β )) + ψ Re Pr k g (3.14 ⎛dp 1 + 46⎜ ⎜D ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ 2 . The correlation proposed by Kunii and Smith (1960) was used for this model.29) where keff ks = effective thermal conductivity (W/mK) = thermal conductivity of solid phase (W/mK) γ =2/3.32) 3.1ε .

033k g Pr Re d p −1 (3.44k ro D Gas-to-wall heat transfer coefficient2 Solid-to-wall heat transfer coefficient2 Static effective radial conductivity1 ⎛ d p hrv k ro = k g ε ⎜1 + ⎜ kg ⎝ ⎞ k g (1 − ε ) ⎟+ −1 ⎟ ⎠ ⎛ 1 hrs d p ⎞ ⎜ + ⎟ + 2 ⎜φ kg ⎟ 3k ⎝ ⎠ −4 3 + 0.34) (3.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development and Smoot (1992). are listed below: Bed -to-wall heat transfer coefficient1 hbw = 2.4569(k − 1) 3k ln[k − 0.37) Gas effective radial conductivity ⎡⎛ 1 h d rs p k rs = k s (1 − ε ) / ⎢⎜ + ⎜φ ks ⎢⎝ ⎣ 2 ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ −1 + 2⎤ ⎥ 3k ⎥ ⎦ ( 3.5431(k − 1)] − k (3. The equations for estimating the bed-to-wall heat transfer coefficient.33) (3.3525⎜ ⎟ 2 ⎝ k ⎠ φ= − 0. together with their auxiliary equations.36) Gas effective radial conductivity1 k rg ⎧ ⎛ d p hrv ⎪ = k g ⎨ε ⎜1 + ⎜ kg ⎪ ⎝ ⎩ ⎡ ⎞ ⎛d ⎟ + 0.35) h gw = hbw k rg / k rg + k rs hsw = hbw k rs / k rg + k rs ( ) ) ( (3.14 Pr Re/ ⎢1 + 46⎜ p ⎜ D ⎟ ⎢ ⎝ ⎠ ⎣ 1 ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ 2 ⎤⎫ ⎥⎪ ⎬ ⎥⎪ ⎦⎭ (3.39) where k = Conductivity ratio = ks kg 1 2 3 Froment and Bischoff (1979) DeWasch and Froment (1971) Kunii and Smith (1960) 65 .38) Packing parameter3 ⎛ k −1⎞ 0.

5. The expressions used in this study for predicting temperature dependent thermophysical and transport properties of solid fuel are listed in Table 3.13 + (3.2 Thermophysical data and transport properties of solid fuel Quantity Expression (or) value Source Thermal conductivity (solid particle) (W/mK) Specific heat (solid) (kJ/kgK) Char emissivity (-) = 0. thermal conductivity.2 Gas mixture Expressions for predicting gas-phase physical properties.2.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development 3. 66 . Table 3.1 Solid phase The components of the solid phase specified in this study are biomass.5 Thermophysical and transport properties of solid and gas mixture 3. one needs to know how the physical properties of the solid alter as it changes from its initial state to its final state. These properties are all functions of temperature and composition. Aerts and Baker (1991) Gronli and Mellaaen (2000) 3.85 Koufopanos and Panayannakos (1991) Ragland. including heat capacity. The physical properties of the solid feed can readily be established but. Aerts and Baker (1991) for the purpose of combustion analysis. The physical and transport properties of biomass fuel were extensively reviewed by Ragland.003867 TS = 0.1031 + 0. and diffusivity are required for model formulations. The relationships they developed for predicting specific heat values have been adopted here but information on other properties was obtained from different sources.5. together with the references from which they were obtained. from a modelling perspective. fixed carbon and unbound water.0 x 10-4) TS = 0.

50858 x 10-5 Tg2 – 3. the correlation proposed by Wayne (1983) was adopted here: Thermal conductivity (gas mixture) [W/mK] = (4.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development For estimation of the thermal conductivity of the gas mixture.63930 x 10-8Tg3 (3.s] = (1. taken as 300 K. Schettler and Giddings (1966): 67 .41) where T0 is a reference temperature. Prausnitz and Poling (1987) proposed the following equation for estimating the diffusivity of a dilute component i in a homogenous gas mixture: Dim = (1 − X i ) ∑ (X j ≠i j Dij ) (3.98 x 10-5) x (Tg/T0)⅔ (3.41079 x 102 + 1.77 x 10-4) Tg 0. Prausnitz and Poling (1987) recommended the use of the equation proposed by Fuller. Reid. Polynomial expressions for gas mixture specific heat capacities as functions of gas temperature were adapted from Rogers and Mayhew (1995) by using the values for air since the average molecular weight of the gas mixture is similar to that of air.717 (3.43) where Dij is the binary diffusion coefficient for component i diffusing into component j. For the diffusion coefficient for binary gas systems at low pressures. The general form of these expressions is shown below: Cpg = 9.66918 x 10-1 Tg + 6.42) Reid.40) The temperature dependent gas mixture viscosity used in this model is (White 1979): Viscosity (gas mixture) [kg/m.

as described below.MB = molecular weights of A and B (g/mol) Heats of reaction for both homogenous and heterogeneous reactions were estimated from the absolute enthalpy of reactants and products as shown in the following equation: h f (T ) = 0 reactants ∑h 0 i (T ) − products ∑h 0 j (T ) (3. 3.00143T 1.6 Conservation of mass Mass balance equations were developed for several components.75 2 AB 1 ⎡( v )A 13 + ( v )B 13 ⎤ ∑ ⎢∑ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ 2 (3. 68 .Chapter 3 Mathematical model development D AB = PM 0.45) Absolute enthalpies of gas species were calculated from the empirical coefficients provided by Turns (2000) (also given in Appendix B). These describe how the mass of particular components changes with time and distance along the reactor.44) where DAB T MAB P Σν = binary diffusion coefficient (cm²/s) = temperature (K) = 2[(1/MA)+(1/MB)]-1 = pressure (bar) = summation of atomic diffusion volumes (provided in Appendix B) MA.

46-3.3.48) The first terms on the left hand side of equations (3. The terms on the right hand side of equations (3. The relevant mass balance equation is: (1 − ε ) ∂ρ V ∂ρ m + (1 − ε ) m S = − Rm ∂x ∂t (3.1 Solid phase component Char is consumed by several heterogeneous reactions (eq.205 times the biomass density (this is taken from pyrolysis mechanism and product yield data described in Figure 3. This can be described by: (1 − ε ) ∂ρ V ∂ρ V + (1 − ε ) V S = − R p1 ∂x ∂t (3.47) Changes in the moisture content of the fuel also needed to be characterised.1). movement of liquid water within the pores was not considered and evaporation of water from the particle was assumed not to be influenced by internal diffusion processes.8) and its rate of disappearance is given by (1 − ε ) 4 ∂ρ V ∂ρ C + (1 − ε ) C S = −∑ Ri ∂t ∂x i =1 (3. This assumption eliminates the time dependent char density term and the solid velocity along the gasifier can then be estimated using eq 3. The volatile matter content of wood diminishes during the primary pyrolysis process.48) account respectively for the conversion of char to gaseous matter by 69 .46-3. This assumption is reasonable for moisture levels less than the fibre saturation point in which no free water is available (Bryden 1998).6.46) Char density along the reactor was assumed constant and it can be equated to 0.46 excluding the first term on the right hand side of the equation. In this model.48) are the transient terms and the second terms are convective terms.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development 3.5-3.

H2. C6H10. and for loss of moisture to the gas phase by evaporation. CO2. The general form of the mass balances for gas species can be written as: ε 10 ∂ρ i ∂mi′′ 4 Mi + = ∑ν i R j + ∑ν i M i R j + X 1i R p1 + X 2 i R p 2 + C i R m ∂t ∂x MC j =1 j =5 (3. VS. is only considered for H2O 70 . i = O2. primary tar and secondary tar were considered in this model. O2. m P = ρ C π 6 dp 3 3. Rm. CO. Assuming that no fragmentation. CH2O =1 and for i ≠ H2O balance equation) X1i = (Yield of species i in primary pyrolysis) / (Total yield of volatiles) X2i = (Yield of species i in secondary pyrolysis) / (Total yield of primary tar) Ci=0 (Rate of drying. attrition or agglomeration of particles takes place. These are a function of char particle diameter. which diminishes along the combustion and gasification zone of the reactor as char is consumed. the reduction in the particle diameter can be related to the solid velocity. C2H4.49) where. C6H6.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development heterogenous reactions.50) where. CO. CO2. H2O.264. (Cooper & Hallett 2000) and can be calculated as follows: ∂ ⎛ (1 − ε ) ρ C ⎜ ∂t ⎜ m P ⎝ ⎞ ∂ ⎛ VS ρ C ⎟+ ⎜ ⎟ ∂x ⎜ m ⎠ ⎝ P ⎞ ⎟=0 ⎟ ⎠ (3. N2.71O3. H2. H2O. for loss of volatile matter to the gas phase.6. CH4. CH4. C2H4.2 Gas phase species Ten gas phase species. The rates of mass loss from particles are important when it comes to determining local heat and mass transfer coefficients.

80 p 2 ∂ρ CO + ∂t Carbon dioxide: ε − ∂ρ CO2 ∂t M CO2 MC + ′′ ∂mCO2 ∂x = (2γ − 1) M CO2 MC R1 + M CO2 R5 F + M CO2 R7 − M CO2 R5 R 6. From equation (3.5M O2 R8 (3.50) the differential mass balance equations for the mass balance of each species can be derived: Oxygen: ε ∂ρ O2 ∂t + ′′ ∂mO2 ∂x = −γ M O2 MC R1 − 3M O2 R6 − 0. primary pyrolysis reactions.80 6. and moisture evaporation.63 + R p2 52. On the right hand side.5M O2 R7 − 1. the terms represent respectively the loss and formation of gaseous species involved in gas-char heterogenous reactions.50) is the transient term and the second term accounts for convective transport of gas.40 R2 + R p1 + R p2 79.51) − M O2 R9 − (0. gaseous homogenous reactions.50 p1 52.52) C C C 3.62 +M −M −M R + 2M R +M R R R + R + R CO 8 CO 9 CO 5 R CO 5 F CO 7 79.54) R4 − R10 M H 2 71 .5) M O2 R10 Carbon monoxide: ε ∂m ′′ M M M CO = 2(1 − γ ) CO R + 2 CO R + CO R + 6 M R 1 2 3 CO 6 ∂x M M M (3.80 − M H 2 R5 R − 2 M H2 MC (3.20 27. secondary pyrolysis reactions.80 (3.53) Hydrogen: ε ∂ρ H 2 ∂t + ∂m ′′ 2 H ∂x = M H2 MC R3 + M H 2 R5 F + 3 R 6 M H 2 + 2 R9 M H 2 1.50 52.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development The first term on the left hand side of equation (3.

40 5.65 = − R6 M tar 2 + R p2 + ∂x 52.80 ∂t (3. the overall gas mass balance is required.57) Primary Tar: ε ′′ ∂ρ tar1 ∂mtar1 52. conduction through the medium (including radiative effects).80 (3.56) Ethylene: ε + = − R9 M C2 H 4 + (3.80 + = −R p2 + R p1 ∂x 79.59) In addition to the mass balances for individual species.40 R p2 52.10 R p1 + R p2 79.30 R p1 + Rm + 79.60) 3.50 ∂t (3. convective heat exchange between the solid and gaseous phases.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development Water vapour: ε − ∂ρ H 2O ∂t M H 2O MC + ∂m ′′ 2O H ∂x = 2 M H 2O R8 + M H 2O R10 + M H 2O R5 R 16.50 52. and heat production 72 . They are explicitly coupled by the heat exchange that occurs between the gas and the solid.58) Secondary Tar: ε ′′ ∂ρ tar 2 ∂mtar 2 6.80 5.7 Conservation of energy The energy balance relationships include individual equations for the solid phase and for the gas phase. The relevant differential equation can be written as: ε ∂ρ g ∂t + ∂m ′′ g ∂x = R p1 + Rm + ∑ Ri i =1 4 (3.55) R3 − M H 2O R5 F Methane: ε ∂ρ CH 4 ∂t + ′′ ∂mCH 4 ∂x ∂ρ C2 H 4 ∂t = M CH 4 MC ′′ ∂mC2 H 4 ∂x R4 − M CH 4 R8 + 0. heat transfer due to solid/gas flow. Each energy balance equation consists of 6 terms. namely: transient heat transfer rate.50 (3. heat loss through the reactor wall.

and the fuel (biomass) composition and temperature at the inlet to the reactor. Both the fuel and air inlet temperature were set to be the same as the ambient temperature since the fuel bed was relatively thick and since the rate of radiative heat transfer towards the unreacted biomass at the top was found to be negligible.61) 4 4h − sw (Ts − Tw ) + Rm ∆H m + R p1 ∆H p1 + ∑ R j ∆H j D j =1 Gaseous phase: (ε ) ∂T ∂ ⎟ ⎜ (ρ g hg ) + ∂ (m′g′ hg ) = ∂ ⎛ k g g ⎞ + hsg Av(Ts − Tg ) ⎜ ∂x ⎝ ∂x ⎟ ∂t ∂x ⎠ 10 4h gw (Tg − Tw ) + R p 2 ∆H p 2 + ∑ R j ∆H j − D j =5 (3. The composition of the raw biomass at the reactor inlet was assumed to be the same as that of the incoming fuel. the ash pit temperature was defined as a function of the temperature at the base of the reactor bed.62) 3. for simplicity.8 The boundary and initial conditions Operator determined boundary conditions include the inlet air composition. the 73 . Energy balance differential equations for the solid phase and the gaseous phase are given below: Solid phase: (1 − ε ) ∂T ∂ (ρ s hs ) + ∂ (m ′S′ hs ) = ∂ ⎛ k eff s ⎞ − hsg Av(Ts − Tg ) ⎜ ⎟ ∂t ∂x ∂x ⎝ ∂x ⎠ (3.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development (or extraction) due to all chemical reactions (including drying). Since no significant reaction was observed at the bottom of the reactor. flow rate and temperature. temperatures are still high and radiation to the surroundings has to be allowed for since ash pit temperatures are likely to be lower than that of the base of the char bed due to heat losses. At the bottom of the char bed. In this model. The gas flow rate at the top of the fuel bed was set equal to the air supply rate and the gas composition was taken to be that of air.

were assumed to be uniform along the reactor at the start of the run. Other parameters.63) For the gas phase. since the chemical reactions are temperature dependent and some fraction of the fuel must be assumed to be at the ignition temperature. The top 50 mm of char was assumed to be the combustion initiating fuel. 74 . the initial conditions in the system needed to be specified. it is supplied continuously together with air. Suitable ignition temperatures range from 900 K to 1200 K. The initial conditions in the reactor are illustrated in Figure 3. In this model an intermediate ignition temperature value of 1000 K was specified. It was assumed that wood is only added to the reactor once ignition has occurred and that. This was necessary.64) Zero char loss through the grate is assumed so that Vs. k eff dTs = hrs (Ts − Tashpit ) dx (3. as suggested by Bhattacharya. Siddique and Pham (1999). kg dT g dx = hrv (T g − Tashpit ) (3.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development temperature gradients at the bottom boundary can be defined by the heat lost to the ash pit. such as mole fractions and particle diameter. the solid fuel velocity.2. For the solid phase. can be set to zero at the bottom of the reactor. Before the model could be run. Gas temperatures were set equal to the inlet air temperature. It was assumed that a 500 mm depth of char was present in the reactor. so that the release of large amounts of tar and smoke formed as the bed is warming up can be avoided.

3. 10000K 20 cm 5 cm 70 cm (Effective length of reactor) Unignited char. 4. Void fraction is assumed to remain constant at its initial value. 3. 2 energy balance equations and the equation which relates char particle size to solid velocity) describing the transient one-dimensional downdraft 75 . Gas and solid phases move through the reactor in plug flow (i. it was possible to solve the model equations numerically. With the above assumptions.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development Air Wood Biomass (wood). 10 gas mass balance equations. No pressure difference exists along the reactor. 3000K Ignited char. as described in the next section.e. 5. Particles are of uniform diameter and spherical in shape. 3000K 45 cm Figure 3.9 Numerical methods The sixteen partial differential equations (3 solid mass balance equations.2 Initial conditions in model reactor Other assumptions used in the model are: 1. The gas mixture behaves as an ideal gas. temperatures can be assumed uniform in the radial direction). 2.

and must be solved using a numerical method. To write a discrete form of the second order differential term. it is necessary to select a discretization method.65) This form is also known as the central-difference scheme and is the natural outcome of a Taylor-series formulation (Patankar 1980). In this section. The distances between successive nodes were not necessarily equal. The control volume method proposed by Patankar (1980). The calculation domain was divided into a number of nonoverlapping control volumes such that there was one control volume surrounding each grid point.3).9. and i-½ midway between i-1 and i. the governing equation was integrated over the control volume placed on either side of the point of interest i (Figure 3. In the control volume method. Thus. was used to solve the model equations. the differential equations were examined as they related to the underlying conservation principle. Using linear interpolation functions between the grid points.1 Method of discretization To derive the algebraic equations from the model partial differential equations. the discretization procedures can be described as follows: ⎛ ∂T ⎞ ⎛ ∂T ⎞ − ⎜k ⎟ ⎜k ⎟ ⎝ ∂x ⎠ i + 12 ⎝ ∂x ⎠ i − 12 ∆xi ⎡ ∂ ⎛ ∂T ⎞⎤ ⎢ ∂x k ⎜ ∂x ⎟⎥ = ⎝ ⎠⎦ i ⎣ ⎡ ⎤ 1 ⎢ k i + 12 (Ti +1 − Ti ) k i − 12 (Ti − Ti −1 ) ⎥ = − ⎥ ∆xi ⎢ ∆xi + 1 ∆xi − 1 2 2 ⎣ ⎦ It is convenient to assume that i+½ is located midway between i and i+1. the discrete form becomes: (k i +1 − k i )(Ti +1 − Ti ) (k i − k i −1 )(Ti − Ti −1 ) ⎡ ∂ ⎛ ∂T ⎞⎤ − ⎢ ∂x k ⎜ ∂x ⎟⎥ = ⎝ ⎠⎦ i ∆x ⎛ ∆x ⎣ ⎜ i + 1 + ∆xi − 1 ⎞ ∆xi − 1 ⎛ ∆xi + 1 + ∆xi − 1 ⎞ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ i+ 1 2⎝ 2 2 ⎠ 2⎝ 2 2 ⎠ (3.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development gasifier cannot be solved analytically. step-by-step techniques used for solving the model equations are presented. 76 . 3.

it also has to be discretized in time. 3. The upwind-difference scheme improves the stability when both diffusion and convective terms exist in an equation and the cell Peclet number is larger than 2. That limitation can be overcome by using another scheme for discretization of the convective term while a central difference term is used for discretization of diffusion terms.e. which can be discretized as follows: (m′S′ hS )i − (m′S′ hS )i −1 ⎡∂ ⎤ S ⎢ ∂x (m ′′ hS )⎥ = ∆x i − 1 ⎣ ⎦i 2 (3. low Reynolds numbers). an upwind-difference scheme was used for discretization. a central differencing was used for the second order terms and backward differencing was used for the first order terms. a backward difference approximation was used as follows: 77 .66) Since the model was transient. In an upwind scheme.61 & 3.3 A generic node point i (non-uniform grid) and the control volume in one dimension Using the central-difference scheme to discretize both first and second order differential terms in the diffusion-convection problem is limited to a particular case (i.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development ∆xi Control volume Ti-1 i-1 i-½ Ti i i+½ Ti+1 i+1 ∆xi-½ ∆xi+½ Figure 3.62) represents convective terms. the value of unknown T at an interface is taken to be equal to the value of T at the grid point on the upwind side of the face. In other words. The first order term in energy balance equations (eq. For discretization of the time derivative. In this numerical solution.

68) where φ is the unknown variable being solved for and the symbol φ* is used to denote the previous-iteration value of φ. A linearization method in which a nonlinear term is linearized with respect to the variable being solved was recommended by Patankar (1980) and applied in this model. denotes the previous time level.69) To apply this linearization method. 0. 78 . A fully implicit scheme was used for discretization of space and time. Such nonlinear source terms cause a divergence problem during iterations and must be linearized. there are some basic rules which must be obeyed. Another requirement is that SC must always be positive. These rules must be followed while linearization is being applied to source terms in both energy balance equations and mass balance equations. The final form of the linearized equation can also be written as: S = S C + S Pφ (3.9.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development (ρ g )i − (ρ g )i ⎛ ∂ρ g ⎞ ⎜ε ⎟ ⎜ ∂t ⎟ = ε ∆t ⎝ ⎠i 0 (3. The method can be expressed as: ⎛ dS ⎞ S = S + ⎜ ⎟ (φ − φ * ) ⎜ dφ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ * * (3. that is. The most important rule is that the coefficient SP must always be less than or equal to zero since the physical situation could become unstable if SP were positive. the unknown variables in the spatial discretization were evaluated at the current time level of solution. chemical reaction rates are highly nonlinear functions of temperature and also nonlinear functions of the mass fraction of gaseous species in some cases.2 Source-term linearization In the model equations. 3.67) The superscript.

3 Underrelaxation Because of the strongly nonlinear nature of the equations.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development For the energy balance equations. the source term can be underrelaxed using the relationship S C = (α )S C + (1 − α )S * C (3.62) since all related reactions for the gas phase are exothermic. linearization was done only for the nonlinear reactions in which the unknown gas species being solved for was a reactant since only the terms associated with consumption rates produce a negative SP.61). 3. in the case of mass balance equations. This can cause divergence problems. Thus. There are many ways of performing underrelaxation.9. This process is known as underrelaxation. In the underrelaxation method used in this study. 3. The step-by-step linearization of reaction source terms for solving the mass and energy balance equations is presented in Appendix C. which is less than unity. 3. heat source terms concerned with drying. in the solid phase energy balance equation (eq. 79 . *. it should be noted that only reaction source terms with negative (endothermic) relations gave a negative SP.70) where α is the underrelaxation factor. making it desirable to reduce the extent of the changes in the values of dependent variable between successive iterations. primary pyrolysis and all heterogeneous reactions were linearized while no linearization is required for source terms of the gaseous phase energy balance equation (eq. rapid changes can occur in the magnitude of source terms between successive iterations. denotes the value of the source term from the previous iteration. Similarly. which is a very useful device for strongly nonlinear problems to achieve stability of the solution. and the superscript.

The step-by-step formulations of algebraic equations are presented in Appendix C. For mass balance equations. Usually. both the space and time derivatives were discretized by a backward-difference scheme since all mass balance equations are in a first order differential form.62).71) 80 .3 is the most suitable for use in the computer program developed.46-3.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development In this gasifier model the exponential nature of the kinetic rate equations means that rapid changes in heat release rates can occur. A small value of α improves the stability of the iteration but increases the computing time. the grid spacing. such as the nature of the problem. the solid velocity was estimated as follows: VS i −1 = BVS i + C A (3.9.46. Exploratory tests showed that an α value of 0. underrelaxation was carried out for all source terms related to gas oxidation reactions. and the iterative procedure used. To obviate this problem. A large value of α enables the program to be run faster but it can result in a failure to converge.4 Model discretization This subsection presents the algebraic equations in their final form. after discretization. a suitable value of α can be found by experience and from exploratory computations for the particular problem (Patankar 1980). of the model partial differential equations (eq. as discussed in subsection 3.1. Char: By eliminating the transient char density terms of equation 3. There are no general rules for choosing the best value of α. which was carried out together with linearization and underrelaxation. the number of grid points. 3.9. 3. leading to instabilities in the computation. The optimum value depends upon a number of factors.

the volatile matter density of the solid fuel can be estimated by ρV i = where A= ∆x i − 1 ∆t 2 Bρ V i −1 + C A (3. ρmi = Bρ m i −1 + C A (3.48.73) 81 .Chapter 3 Mathematical model development where A = (1 − ε ) ρ c B = (1 − ε ) ρ c C = (R1 + R2 + R3 + R4 ) ∆xi − 1 i 2 It should be noted that solid velocity was calculated working from the bottom to the top of the reactor whereas other parameters were estimated working from the top to the bottom. Volatile matter: After discretization was carried out on eq. 3.72) + (V S )i + (k p1 )i ∆xi − 1 2 B = (VS )i −1 C= (ρ V )i0 ∆xi − 1 ∆t 2 Moisture content: Moisture density of biomass fuel was calculated via a discrete form of equation 3.47.

Chapter 3 Mathematical model development where A= ∆x i − 1 ∆t 2 + (VS )i + (k m )i ∆xi − 1 2 B = (VS )i −1 C= (ρ m )i0 ∆xi − 1 ∆t 2 Particle diameter: The particle diameter of the solid fuel in each horizontal “slice” through the reactor can be determined by the following equation discretized from eq. these equations needed to be rewritten in terms of molar fractions. gaseous mass balance equations can be written in the general form φi = Bφ i −1 + C A (3.75) where φ is the molar fraction of the gaseous species concerned. This was done using the ideal gas law: ρj = pjM j RTg (3. p j = PY j and Y j = mole fraction of species j 82 .74) ( ) ( ) By following a similar approach to that used for the solid mass balance equation. 3.76) where. ⎡ ⎤3 ⎢ ⎡ ⎥ ⎢ ⎢∆xi − 1 + (Vs )i ∆t ⎤ ⎥ ⎥ 2 ⎦ ⎥ =⎢ ⎣ ⎢ ⎛ ∆xi − 1 ⎞ ⎛ (V ) ∆t ⎞ ⎥ 2 ⎟ ⎢⎜ + ⎜ s i −1 ⎟ ⎥ ⎜ d 3 0 ⎟ ⎜ d 3 i −1 ⎟ ⎥ ⎢⎝ ⎠⎦ ⎝ i ⎠ ⎣ 1 (d )i (3.49. Since all of the reaction rate equations were originally derived in terms of mass concentrations.

5 6 ∆xi − 1 + H 2 * (0.51.5YH .5 P 1.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development Reaction rate equations rewritten with molar fraction terms are presented in Appendix C. 3.5 g P Y 1. Given below are the equations used in the model for each gaseous species and the total gas mixture.77) ⎞ ⎛ ⎟ + ⎜ m′′ M O2 ⎟ ⎜ g Mg ⎠i ⎝ ⎞ M ⎟ + (γ ) O2 ⎟ MC ⎠i ⎛ Av M C ⎜ ⎜ RT g ⎝ P∆xi − 1 ⎞ 2 ⎟ ⎟ ⎡⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞⎤ ⎠ ⎜ ⎟+⎜ ⎟ ⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎥ ⎣⎝ k m ⎠ ⎝ k1 ⎠⎦ * (1.05) M O2 R10 ∆xi − 1 O2 7 i− 1 ⎟ 2 2 2 ⎠i 0 Carbon monoxide: (YCO )i where ⎛ (ε ) PM CO ∆xi − 1 2 A=⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ = B (YCO )i −1 + C A (3. Oxygen: (YO 2 )i where ⎛ (ε ) PM O2 ∆xi − 1 2 A=⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ = B(YO 2 )i −1 + C A (3.3.8YC06.8 0.78) ⎞ ⎛ ⎟ + ⎜ m ′′ M CO ⎟ ⎜ g Mg ⎠i ⎝ 2 ⎞ ⎟ + M CO (ε )k 5 P 2Tg− 2YH O ∆x 1 i− 2 ⎟ 2 ⎠i 0 0 + M CO (ε )k 7 P 2Tg− 2YO2.1) M R * ∆x + (0.8) M O2 R8 ∆xi − 1 * YO2 2 + (3) M O2 (ε )k 6Tg−0.6) M O2 R7 ∆xi − 1 * YO2 2 + + M O2 (ε )k 9T − 0.5 C6 H 6 ∆xi − 1 + 2 * (0.60).3) M O2 R8 ∆xi − 1 + (0. These were obtained by discretization of the model partial differential equations (eq.25 ∆xi − 1 O 83 .55) M O2 R10 ∆xi − 1 2 Y * O2 ⎛ M O2 B = ⎜ m ′′ ⎜ g M g ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ i −1 ⎛ (ε )YO2 PM O2 ∆xi − 1 2 C =⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ ⎞ * * ⎟ + (0.

50 52.80) 84 .62 2 ⎟ + R p1 ∆x i − 1 + R p 2 ∆x i − 1 + 2(1 − γ ) CO R1 ∆x i − 1 C =⎜ ⎜ ⎟ 2 2 2 29.80 MC RTg ∆t ⎝ ⎠i M M + (2) CO R2 ∆x i − 1 + CO R3 ∆x i − 1 + M CO R5 R ∆x i − 1 + 6 M CO R6 ∆x i − 1 2 2 2 2 MC MC + M CO R8 ∆x i − 1 + 2 M CO R9 ∆x i − 1 2 2 Carbon dioxide: (YCO 2 )i where = B(YCO 2 )i −1 + C A (3.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development ⎛ M B = ⎜ m ′′ CO g ⎜ Mg ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ i −1 0 ⎛ (ε )YCO PM CO ∆x i − 1 ⎞ M 3.20 27.79) ⎛ (ε ) PM CO2 ∆xi −1 ⎞ ⎛ M ⎟ + ⎜ m′′ CO2 A=⎜ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ g M RTg ∆t g ⎝ ⎠i ⎝ ⎛ − E5 F A5 F exp⎜ ⎜ RT g ⎝ + M CO2 ε KC ⎛ M CO2 B = ⎜ m ′′ g ⎜ Mg ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ i −1 0 ⎞ M CO2 ⎟ + ⎟ MC ⎠i ⎛ Av M C ⎜ ⎜ RT g ⎝ P∆xi − 1 ⎞ 2 ⎟ ⎟ ⎡⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞⎤ ⎠ ⎜ ⎟+⎜ ⎟ ⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎥ ⎣⎝ k m ⎠ ⎝ k 2 ⎠⎦ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ P 2T − 2Y ∆x g H2 i− 1 2 ⎛ (ε )YCO2 PM CO2 ∆xi − 1 ⎞ M CO2 6.80 6.50 52.80 MC ⎠i ⎝ + M CO2 R5 F ∆xi − 1 + M CO2 R7 ∆xi − 1 2 2 Hydrogen: B(YH 2 )i −1 + C A (YH 2 )i = (3.40 2 ⎟ C =⎜ R p1 ∆xi − 1 + R p 2 ∆xi − 1 + (2γ − 1) + R1 ∆xi − 1 ⎟ ⎜ 2 2 2 RTg ∆t 79.

1M H 2 R10 ∆xi − 1 * YH 2 2 ⎛ (ε )YH 2 PM H 2 ∆xi − 1 2 C =⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ 2 ⎞ M H2 ⎟ + 1.63 R ∆x + R3 ∆xi − 1 + M H 2 R5 F ∆xi − 1 + 3R6 M H 2 ∆xi − 1 p2 i− 1 ⎟ 2 2 2 2 52.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development where ⎛ (ε ) PM H 2 ∆xi − 1 2 A=⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ ⎞ ⎛ ⎟ + ⎜ m′′ M H 2 ⎟ ⎜ g Mg ⎠i ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ P 2T − 2Y g ⎞ M ⎟ + 2 H2 ⎟ MC ⎠i ⎛ Av M C ⎜ ⎜ RT g ⎝ P∆xi − 1 ⎞ 2 ⎟ ⎟ ⎡⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞⎤ ⎠ ⎜ ⎟+⎜ ⎟ ⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎥ ⎣⎝ k m ⎠ ⎝ k 4 ⎠⎦ ⎛ − E5 F A5 F exp⎜ ⎜ RT g ⎝ + M H2 ε KC ⎛ M H2 B = ⎜ m ′′ g ⎜ Mg ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ i −1 CO2 ∆xi − 1 + 2 * 1.81) ⎞ ⎛ ⎟ + ⎜ m ′′ M H 2O ⎟ ⎜ g Mg ⎠i ⎝ ⎞ M H 2O ⎟ + ⎟ MC ⎠i ⎛ Av M C ⎜ ⎜ RT g ⎝ P∆x i − 1 ⎞ 2 ⎟ ⎟ ⎡⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞⎤ ⎠ ⎜ ⎟+⎜ ⎟ ⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎥ ⎢⎝ k m ⎠ ⎝ k 3 ⎠⎥ ⎣ ⎦ + M H 2O (ε )k 5 F P 2Tg− 2YCO ∆x i − 1 2 ⎛ M H 2O ⎞ ⎟ B = ⎜ m ′′ ⎜ g M ⎟ g ⎠ i −1 ⎝ ⎛ (ε )YH 2O PM H 2O ∆xi − 1 ⎞ 16.80 MC ⎠i 2 2 0 * * + 2 R9 M H 2 ∆xi − 1 − M H 2 R10 ∆xi − 1 + (1.50 ⎝ ⎠i + 2 M H 2O R8 ∆xi − 1 + M H 2O R10 ∆xi − 1 2 2 85 .30 2 ⎟ C =⎜ + R m ∆x i − 1 + R p1 ∆xi − 1 + M H 2O R5 R ∆xi − 1 ⎜ ⎟ 2 2 2 RTg ∆t 79.1) M H 2 R10 ∆xi − 1 Water vapour: (YH 2O )i where ⎛ (ε ) PM H 2O ∆x i − 1 2 A=⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ = B(YH 2O )i −1 + C A (3.

80 ⎠i 0 ⎛ (ε )YC2 H 4 PM C2 H 4 ∆xi − 1 2 C =⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ Primary tar: B(Ytar1 )i −1 + C A (Ytar1 )i = (3.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development Methane: (YCH 4 )i where ⎛ (ε ) PM CH 4 ∆xi − 1 2 A=⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ ⎛ M CH 4 B = ⎜ m ′′ g ⎜ Mg ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠i = B(YCH 4 )i −1 + C A (3.82) ⎞ ⎛ ⎟ + ⎜ m ′′ M CH 4 ⎟ ⎜ g Mg ⎠i ⎝ * ⎞ (1.50 2 2 2 52.2M C2 H 4 R9 ∆xi − 1 p2 i− 1 ⎟ 2 2 52.80 MC ⎠i Ethylene: (YC 2 H 4 )i = where ⎛ (ε ) PM C2 H 4 ∆xi − 1 2 A=⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ B(YC 2 H 4 )i −1 + C A (3.10 ⎟ + 0.40 R ∆x R p 2 ∆xi − 1 + R4 ∆xi − 1 p1 1 + i− ⎟ 79.1) M CH 4 R8 ∆xi − 12 ⎟ + * ⎟ YCH 4 ⎠i ⎛ (ε )YCH 4 PM CH 4 ∆xi − 1 2 C =⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ * + (0.2 C2 H 4 9 ∆x 1 i− ⎟ 2 YC*2 H 4 ⎠i ⎛ M C2 H 4 B = ⎜ m′′ ⎜ g M g ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠i−1 ⎞ * ⎟ + 5.84) 86 .1) M CH 4 R8 ∆xi − 1 2 ⎞ M CH 4 5.40 R ∆x + 0.83) ⎞ ⎛ ⎟ + ⎜ m′′ M C2 H 4 ⎟ ⎜ g Mg ⎠i ⎝ ⎞ M R* ⎟ + 1.

80 ⎠i 0 ⎛ (ε )Ytar 2 PM tar 2 ∆xi − 1 2 C =⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ Total gas: mg i = where A =1 B =1 Bmg i −1 + C A (3.2) M tar 2 R6 ∆x 1 * i− ⎟ 2 Ytar 2 ⎠i ⎛ M B = ⎜ m′′ tar 2 ⎜ g M g ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ i −1 ⎞ * ⎟ + 6.80 R ∆x p1 i− 1 ⎟ 2 79.85) ⎞ ⎛ ⎟ + ⎜ m′′ M tar 2 ⎟ ⎜ g Mg ⎠i ⎝ * ⎞ ⎟ + (1.2 M tar 2 R6 ∆xi − 1 p2 i− 1 ⎟ 2 2 52.50 ⎠i 0 Secondary tar: B(Ytar 2 )i −1 + C A (Ytar 2 )i where ⎛ (ε ) PM tar 2 ∆xi − 1 2 A=⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ = (3.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development where ⎛ (ε ) PM tar1 ∆xi − 1 2 A=⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ ⎞ ⎛ ⎟ + ⎜ m′′ M tar1 ⎞ + ⎛ (ε ) PT −1 k ∆x ⎞ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ g p2 i− 1 ⎟ ⎜ g Mg ⎟ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎠i ⎝ ⎠i ⎛ M ⎞ B = ⎜ m′′ tar1 ⎟ ⎜ g M ⎟ g ⎠ i −1 ⎝ ⎛ (ε )Ytar1 PM tar1 ∆xi − 1 2 C =⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ + 52.65 R ∆x + 0.86) ⎛ (ε ) PM g ∆xi− 1 ⎞ ⎛ (ε ) PM g ∆xi− 1 ⎞ 2 ⎟ 2 ⎟ −⎜ C = (R p1 + Rm + R1 + R2 + R3 + R4 )∆xi− 1 + ⎜ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ 2 RTg ∆t RTg ∆t ⎝ ⎠i ⎝ ⎠i 0 87 .

Chapter 3 Mathematical model development For energy balance equations. 3.87) ⎛ (K ) + (K ) ⎞ ⎛ (K ) + (K ) ⎞ (1 − ε ) eff i +1 eff i ⎟ ⎜ eff i eff i −1 ⎟ ( ρ mCpm + ρbioCpbio + ρ char Cpchar )i + ⎜ ⎜ 2∆x ∆x ⎟ + ⎜ 2∆x ∆x ⎟ ∆t ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ i i i+ 1 i− 1 2 2 ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ (1 − ε )( ρ mCpm + ρbioCpbio + ρ char Cpchar )i (vs )i 4(hsw )i + + (hsg Av )i + D ∆xi− 1 Ai = 2 ⎛ (K ) + (K eff i +1 eff Bi = ⎜ ⎜ 2∆x ∆x ⎜ i i+ 1 2 ⎝ )⎞ ⎟ i ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎛ (K ) + (K ) ⎞ (1 − ε )( ρ Cp + ρ Cp + ρ Cp ) (v ) eff i eff i −1 ⎟ m m bio bio char char i −1 s i −1 Ci = ⎜ ⎜ 2∆x ∆x ⎟+ ∆xi− 1 ⎜ ⎟ i i− 1 2 2 ⎝ ⎠ (1 − ε ) ((ρ mCpm + ρ bio Cpbio + ρ char Cpchar )Ta )i + (1 − ε ) ((ρ mCpm + ρ bio Cpbio + ρ char Cpchar )Ts )i0 − ∆t ∆t (1 − ε )((ρ m Cp m + ρ bio Cpbio + ρ char Cp char )vsTa )i (1 − ε ) ((ρ mCpm + ρ bio Cpbio + ρ char Cpchar )Ta )i0 + − ∆t ∆xi − 1 2 Di = (1 − ε )((ρ m Cp m + ρ bio Cpbio + ρ char Cp char )vsTa )i −1 4 + (hsg AvTg ) + (TW hsw )i ∆xi − 1 D 2 + Rm ∆H m + R p1∆H p1 + ∑ (R j ∆H j )i 4 j =1 88 . discretization was carried out by using a central difference scheme for the second order terms and a backward difference scheme for the first order terms as discussed in subsection 3. After linearization and underrelaxation were carried out. the solid and gas phase energy balance differential equations (eq.1.9.61 & 3.62) became: Solid phase: Ai (Ts )i = Bi (Ts )i +1 + Ci (Ts )i −1 + Di where (3.

which are 89 . The step-by-step solution procedures of TDMA are available in Patankar (1980).88) were solved by applying the Thomas algorithm. 3. The tridiagonal-matrix algorithm is a very powerful and convenient equation solver whenever the algebraic equations can be represented in the form of three diagonals of the matrix along which all the nonzero coefficients line up.5 Adaptive grid method The reaction rates of homogenous gas phase oxidation processes included in this numerical model were controlled by the chemical kinetics expressions.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development Gas phase: Ai (Tg )i = Bi (Tg )i +1 + Ci (Tg )i −1 + Di where ⎛ (K ) + (K ) ⎞ ⎛ (K ) + (K ) ⎞ (m Cp ) 4(hgw )i g i g i −1 ⎟ g i g i +1 ⎟ g g i +⎜ +⎜ + + (hsg Av ) + ⎜ 2∆x ∆x ⎟ ⎜ 2∆x ∆x ⎟ D ∆xi − 1 ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ i i i− 1 i+ 1 2 2 2 ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ (3. which is also known as TDMA (TriDiagonal-Matrix Algorithm).9.87 & 3.88) Ai = ε ∆t (ρ Cp ) g g i ⎛ (K ) + (K ) ⎞ g i g i +1 ⎟ Bi = ⎜ ⎜ 2∆x ∆x ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ i i+ 1 2 ⎝ ⎠ ⎛ (K ) + (K ) ⎞ (m Cp ) g i g i −1 ⎟ g g i −1 Ci = ⎜ + ⎜ 2∆x ∆x ⎟ ∆xi − 1 ⎜ ⎟ i i− 1 2 2 ⎝ ⎠ Di = ε ∆t (ρ g Cp g Ta )i + ε ∆t (ρ g Cp g Tg )i − 0 ε ∆t (ρ g Cp g Ta )i + 0 (m Cp T ) (m Cp T ) g g a i + (hsg Av Ts )i + 4(hgw )i Tw D ∆xi − 1 − g g a i −1 2 ∆xi − 1 2 + (R p 2 ∆H p 2 )i + (R5 F ∆H 5 F )i + (R5 R ∆H 5 R )i * ⎛ 10 ⎞ ⎛ 10 ⎞ + (α )⎜ ∑ R j ∆H j ⎟ + (1 − α )⎜ ∑ R j ∆H j ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ j =6 ⎠i ⎝ j =6 ⎠i Discretization equations for the energy balance equations (eq. 3.

which is an efficient method to resolve the sharp gradients accurately while avoiding wasting computer time by over-resolving the smooth-solution regions.e. if an equal grid size method were used. whereas a coarse grid was used outside the combustion zone. a global static rezone method based on the equidistribution principle was used. Because of this. (3. the arc-length. it would be necessary to use very small grids along the whole length of the reactor and a very lengthy computation time would be required. Varieties of adaptive mesh methods are available in the literature. This procedure is known as adaptive gridding. This problem can be overcome by using computational grids whose nodes are highly nonuniformly distributed in space: a small mesh spacing was imposed within the oxidation zone. where the gradients of variables are not as steep. a new grid can be computed satisfying xi +1 ∫ W = constant xi where W is the mesh monitor function. based on the local truncation errors. In the numerical solution used in this study. since it moves upward or downward according to the input operational parameters. by applying the equidistribution principle. This resulted in a very narrow zone of sharp gradients the length of which was of the order of millimetres while the effective reactor thickness was of the order of metres.89) The mesh monitor function can be defined by different approaches (i. In the static rezone method. then to retain the accuracy and stability of the solution.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development exponential functions. the curvature and the combined arc-length and curvature). In this study. In addition. There are two main parts of the global static rezone: the first part is to find a new grid using the old (current) grid and the old solution. an arc-length monitor was used. the reaction front cannot be located at the same position in the transient condition. and the second part is to interpolate the solution from the old grid to the new one. this can be defined as 90 .

e.) The simplest one consists in linearly interpolating the variables on each mesh of the old grid. particle diameter. Once the new grid is known.89 and 3. CO2. primary tar and secondary tar. j ) ⎤ ⎥ (xi +1 − xi )2 ⎥ ⎦ i +1. There exist several ways of projecting the old solution onto the new grid (i. This rather rough procedure naturally introduces a certain loss of information (Larrouturou 1986). which is comprehensively discussed by Hyman and Naughton (1983). linear interpolation. is recommended for problems with very steep wave fronts. CH4. The monotone cubic Hermite interpolation. which was introduced by Fritsch and Carlson (1980). molar fractions of O2. this later interpolation method was used in this study for estimating the solution at new grid points. 3. monotone cubic Hermite interpolation. It was not necessary to use all of the partial differential equations of the gasifier model to estimate the mesh monitor. CO. 3. solid velocity. it remains to define the values of the variables at the new points. In this numerical solution.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development ⎡ 1 Wi = ⎢1 + ⎢ N ⎣ ∑ j =1 N (U 2 − U i.9. H2O. mass flux of total gas mixture. and quintic Hermite interpolation.6 Solution procedure The sixteen unknowns (densities of moisture and volatile matter. So. temperature of solid phase and gas phase) 91 . only gas temperature was used to find the mesh monitor since the steep gas temperature gradients were the most important parameters causing the thin combustion zone. j 1 2 (3. conservative interpolation.90) where N is the number of partial differential equations and U is the value of the variable concerned. C2H4. The new mesh satisfying eq. H2.90 was determined using the inverse interpolation method. cubic Hermite interpolation.

these have to be known to solve the mass balance equations.71-3. The detailed iteration procedures were as follows: 1. void fraction) and reactor dimensions (effective length and diameter of the reactor). density. Keff. The computation started at the top of the reactor since all boundary values except VS were defined at the top of the reactor. After setting the initial conditions. such as reaction rates and mass transfer coefficients. For the solid velocity. which can be determined only if the solid temperature at each grid point is known. Another such parameter is the effective thermal conductivity. The local velocities of the solid were estimated starting from the bottom of the reactor by using heterogeneous reaction rates. 2. the solution had to be obtained by a trial and error method with iterative steps. The local particle diameters of the solid from the top of the reactor were determined by using the estimated local velocities. 3.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development were solved for by using the 16 algebraic linear equations (eq.77-3. 3. 3. The boundary and initial conditions were set as discussed in section 3. the solution of the algebraic linear equations is not straightforward because of the presence of several parameters which are dependent on each other.88) derived from the governing mass and energy balance partial differential equations. but for calculating the solid temperature the value of Keff is required. Even after linearization has been carried out. For example. the calculation started from the grate where VS was equal to zero. the other operational parameters needed to be defined. These were air supply rate. 92 . the reaction rate is a function of the solid and gas temperatures but these temperatures themselves are dependent on the amount of heat released in the reactions. moisture content. biomass fuel properties (initial particle diameter. Therefore. calculations started using the defined initial temperature profiles for the temperature dependent properties.74. Before computation started.8.

A small time step improves the accuracy of the transient solution but increases the computing time. 8. 7. The computational algorithm used to obtain the solution is shown in Figure 3. 93 . The range of suitable time steps determine for this model was between 1 and 4 seconds. Since a static rezone procedure was employed. Tests show that a 3 second time step was the most suitable for use in the computer program developed. before starting the calculation for next time step. A large time step enables the program to be run faster but it could result in a failure to converge. 6. as these were required for solving energy balance equations. The computations were then stopped for that current time step. Then. 9.4 as a flow chart. and variables were also redefined on the new mesh. The mass balance equations (solid phase) were solved and the moisture density and volatile matter density in each control volume calculated. The new grid and new temperature profiles were used as the starting values for this new time step. the process then returned to step 1 using the new temperature values and repeated the process. The size of the time step used in this model was determined by trial and error. After a considerable number of iterations. The other temperature dependent properties. such as wall heat loss coefficient and effective conductivity were calculated. the preset convergence criterion. A copy of the computer code in FORTRAN 90 that is used in implementing the discretized model equations is listed in Appendix D. calculation for the next time step commenced. the difference between the old temperature profile and new temperature profile diminished to less than 0. The solid and gas temperatures were calculated by solving energy balance equations with TDMA. The new solid and gas temperature profiles were compared with previous ones to check how close they were to one another. a new mesh was computed using the old mesh and old solutions.01%.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development 4. 5. The molar fraction of the 9 different gas species was estimated starting with the computation of the total mass flux since it appears in every mass balance equation.

4 Flow chart for the numerical solution of stratified downdraft gasifier 94 . mass transfer coefficients no Calculate solid velocities (from bottom to top) (Tnew-Told)/Tnew < 10-4 yes Calculate particle diameters (from top to bottom) Find the new mesh and define the solutions on new grid points Solve for mass balance equation (solid phase): Find moisture & volatile matter densities no time = output time yes Solve for mass balance equations (gas phase): Estimate the molar fraction of gas species Write up of results 1 End Figure 3.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development Start 1 Enter input data Solve for energy balance equations by TDMA: Calculate the solid and gas temperatures Start calculation for next time step Calculate the values of heat transfer coefficient and effective conductivity Calculate reaction rates.

the effect of reaction temperature on the ratio of (CO/CO2) for heterogeneous char combustion. The factors taken into account in this model were temperature differences between the gas and solid surface. As well as this. The model describes the complex physical and chemical processes taking place in the reactor by the use of mass and energy balances. It also included the oxidation of volatile gases and secondary tars (hydrocarbon). was applied. The model is. these were linearized to achieve a converged solution. was used to solve the model governing equations. the particle shrinkage during heterogeneous reaction. which slows down the changes from iteration to iteration. The discretization equations were derived from the partial differential equations by applying the fully implicit scheme for time and the upwind scheme for space. capable of predicting the primary and secondary tar profile along the gasifier as well as the gas composition profile and temperature profile along the axis of the gasifier.10 Conclusions A transient model has been developed for a stratified downdraft wood gasifier by applying a two-step pyrolysis mechanism in which primary tars (oxygenates) are initially formed and then cracked into secondary tars (hydrocarbons) and other combustible gases. underrelaxation. Since the reaction source terms were highly nonlinear. to avoid the rapid temperature changes in the iterative solution of strongly nonlinear equations. The control volume method proposed by Patankar (1980). Temperature dependent thermophysical and transport properties of the solid and gas mixture were applied in this model.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development 3. To solve the very steep temperature and mole fraction gradients at the oxidation zone. which included the importance of radiation at a high reactor temperature. therefore. together with information about rates of chemical reactions and physical transport processes. the adaptive method (static rezone method) was used to produce computational grids whose nodes are highly non-uniformly distributed in space. The results and sensitivity analysis of the model developed are described in the following chapter. 95 . and the effective thermal conductivity.

Fundamentals of thermochemical biomass conversion. W-CR. ML. Chemistry of coal utilisation.. J & Hallett. New York. GF 1971. 269-75. John Wiley. pp. 219-36. RP Overend et al. ‘Product formation in the pyrolysis of large wood particles’. vol. eds. HE 1981. JP & Peters. pp. Chan. Howard. no. ‘Product yields and kinetics from the vapor phase cracking of wood pyrolysis tars’. 64.55. fixed bed combustor’. vol. 3. no. Bryden. 285-96. Bird. SC 1987.11 References Basak. 96 . 193-216. Siddique AHM. ‘A two-dimensional heterogeneous model for fixed bed catalytic reactors’. vol. Stewart. Bryden. Kelbon. ed. KW 1996. ‘A numerical model for packed-bed combustion of char particles’. Longwell. Kelbon. WA 1989.The International Journal. ‘A study on wood gasification for lowtar gas production’. PhD Dissertation. KM 1998. M & Krieger. ‘Numerical modeling of a deep. Energy and Fuel. 24. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Chan. vol. 26. vol. vol. WLH 2000. pp. pp. 1. JB. KM & Ragland. 629-34. Energy. Fuel. vol. BB 1985a. 2nd edn. MA Elliott. Applied Energy. 26. BB 1985b. J Wiley. 4451-60. Transport phenomena. pp. 10. EN 2002. Chemical Engineering Science.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development 3. WE & Lightfoot. AP & Froment. 1505-13. & Pham H-L 1999. Bhattacharya SC. AIChE Journal. Cooper. 1208. ‘Modeling and experimental verification of physical and chemical processes during pyrolysis of a large biomass particle’. Benson. pp. W-CR. ‘Performance of a down-draft charcoal gasifier’. pp. Chemical Engineering Science. M & Krieger. 2nd supplementary volume. ‘Computational modeling of wood combustion’. Boroson. AK & Bhattacharya. DeWasch. 35. RB. pp.

Hobbs. JB. vol. LD 1992. 38. RE 1980. pp. Dryer. L & Capart. vol. Howard. ML. 975-86. Fritsch. Chemical reactor analysis and design. R 2001. Mines. C 2000. 2. Fagbemi. ‘Study of the kinetics of the conversion of carbon monoxide by steam in the pressure of ash from Lisichansk Coal’. ‘A new method for prediction of binary gasphase diffusion coefficients’. 14th Symposium (International) on Combustion. Fire Research. Petroleum-Refining Eng. vol. Tubular reactor’. 97 . DH 1973. 293-306. Applied Energy. pp. MG & Mellaaen. pp. 505-86. KB 1979. 2. ‘Modelling of fixed-bed coal gasifiers’. Chem. 681-702. vol. pp. JC 1966. pp. EN. Di Blasi. 14th Symposium (International) on Combustion. 987-1003.Comparison of experimental measurements with model predictions’. pp. Wiley. JP 1985. Chemical Engineering Science. pp. GC & Fine. PD & Giddings. 58. 18-27. Radulovic. pp. Energy & Fuels. FL & Glassman. FT & Smoot. M. 791-800. no. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science. I 1973. ‘Monotone piecewise cubic interpolation’. vol. New York. 1. MC 2000. ‘The cracking kinetics of depolymerized biomass vapours in a continuous. ‘Pyrolysis products from different biomasses: application to the thermal cracking of tar’. GB 1957. L. (Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Translation UCRL-TRANS-10900).. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry. ‘Dynamic behaviour of stratified downdraft gasifiers’. FT & Smoot. Williams. ML. Fuller.S Thesis. AIChE Journal. vol. ‘Kinetics of carbon monoxide oxidation in postflame gases’. Evans. Colorado Sch. 57-66. ‘Mathematical model for wood pyrolysis. Radulovic. 238-46. 17. 2931-44. ‘Combustion of wood charcoal’. ‘Combustion and gasification of coals in fixed-beds’. pp. Hobbs. 69. vol. DD & Emmons. 54-57. Dept. 5. GF & Bischoff. vol. pp. ‘High-temperature oxidation of CO and CH4’. HW 1977. Schettler. pp. no. Khezami. 19. Golden. Froment. no. FN & Carlson. 55. 14. 5. Gronli. Siam J Numer Anal. LD 1993. Grebenshchikova.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development Diebold. Podzemnaya Gazifikatsiya Uglei: no.

98 . Kosstrin. Kunii. vol. vol. Morf. pp. 415-35. thermal and heat transfer effects’. formation and conversion. T 2001. DJ & Ragland.1. CA & Panayannakos. New York: McGraw-Hill. SV 1980. JM 1960. JM & Naughton. ‘Properties of wood for combustion analysis’. Progress in thermochemical biomass conversion. ‘Modelling of the pyrolysis of biomass particles: Studies on kinetics. 150-61. Koufopanos. Aerts. Pantankar. pp. Purnomo. pp. ‘Pressurized downdraft combustion of wood chips’. 105- 21. AV Bridgwater. Colorado. ed. pp. pp. Hasler. vol. pp. 481-90. KW 1990. ‘Characterization of products from biomass tar conversion’. Proceedings of specialists workshop on fast pyrolysis of biomass. ‘A flexible and stable numerical method for simulating the thermal decomposition of wood particles’. 69. C 2001. Aerts. Hugener. Liden. B & Bruch. pp. P. vol. 907-15. 65. B 1986. CO: National Renewable energy Laboratory. Bioresources Technology. M & Nussbaumer. no. ‘A kinetics model for the production of liquids from the flash pyrolysis of biomass’. Golden. Berruti. Static rezone methods for tensor-product grids. ‘Heat transfer characteristics of porous rocks’. TA & Evans. The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering. ‘Direct formation of pyrolysis oil from biomass’. Report LA-UR-83-3245. Los Alamos. pp. DS 1988. RJ 1998.S Department of Energy. AJ 1991. NM. D & Smith. 161-8. 1025-32. 6. 19-22 October. Lectures in Applied Mathematics. 207-21. Chemosphere. Numerical heat transfer and fluid flow. 24. vol. H 1980. pp. ‘Adaptive numerical methods for unsteady flame propagation’. F & Scott. 37. Ragland. Biomass gasifier “tars”: Their nature. KW. The combustion Institute. AIChE Journal. Larrouturou. P.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development Hyman. Copper Mountain. Chemical Engineering Communication. MJ 1983. Los Alamos National Laboratory. 71-78. DJ & Baker. vol. Milne. 42. Peters. Twenty-third International Symposium on Combustion. N 1991. the U. AG.

J & Denn. pp. 2nd edn. vol. White. Yoon. LD Smoot & DT Pratt. ‘Volatiles combustion’. pp.Madison. pp. Carvalho JR. Rogers. Combustion and Flame. Combustion and Flame. GFC & Mayhew. DA Tillman & EC John. vol. pp. J & Staudinger. pp. Chatwani. H. McGraw-Hill. G 2001. pp. The properties of gases and liquids. eds. RC. SR 2000. ‘Overlapping of the devolatilization and char combustion stages in the burning of coal particles’. 14. AK. FV 1986. ‘Studies of premixed laminar hydrogen-air flames using elementary and global kinetics models’. 567-79. pp. MM 1978. Roberts. Smoot. M 1983. 4. McGrawHill. 64. TB & Markson. 5. 169-82. Reid. 5th edn. PJ 1979. 24. LD & Smith. Pulverized-coal combustion and gasification. M 1999. JM & Poling. 261-72. Fluid Mechanics. UK. Turns. vol. Wayne. 885-903. PhD Thesis. 1379-89. FM 1979. Veras. Reed. WS 1983. AF 1970. McGraw-Hill. Fuel. vol. CAG.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development Rath. ‘A review of kinetics data for the pyrolysis of wood and related substances’. Department of mechanical engineering. Thermodynamic and transport properties of fluids: SI Units. Combustion and Flame. New York. Black Well. ‘Cracking reactions of tar from pyrolysis of spruce wood’. 2336. Varma. Progress in biomass conversion. New York. 99 . AIChE Journal. ‘A predictive model for stratified downdraft gasification of biomass’. 116. YR 1995. vol. AU & Bracco. University of Wisconsin. Prausnitz. ‘A model for moving-bed coal gasification reactors’. Saastamoinen. An introduction to combustion: Concepts and application. J. RE 1987. no. eds. Oxford. 4th edn. ‘Analysis of single particle wood combustion in convective flow’. vol. 217-54. 80. JA & Aho. Wei.

1 Baseline operating parameter values used in the model Quantity Particle diameter (mm) Apparent density of fuel (kg/m³) Moisture content of the fuel (%db) Inner diameter of reactor (mm) Effective length of the reactor (mm) Reactor pressure (kPa) Inlet air temperature (K) Ignition temperature (K) Ignition depth (mm) Air supply rate (kg/hr) Fuel bed initial void fraction (-) Value 20 950 10 206 700 101. The selected operating parameters. These parameter values are shown in Table 4. which also formed the base case for the sensitivity analysis. the performance of the transient model developed is presented and discussed in detail.1. the general characteristics of the model output are described. In this chapter.1 Introduction Chapter Three described the development of a model that is capable of predicting the transient performance of a stratified downdraft gasifier over different ranges of operating conditions. to run the computer program the operating parameters must be defined.46 100 .Chapter 4 Model results and discussions Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 4.325 300 1000 50 15 0. and gas and solid surface temperature profiles along the gasifier axis under transient conditions. The model can predict the gas composition. Table 4. firstly. primary and secondary tar contents. and then the sensitivity of the model to small changes in parameter values is analysed. As discussed in the previous chapter. There are two main sections in this chapter. were chosen to be as close as possible to the experimental conditions.

profiles of solid phase components (unbound water and volatile matter). 101 .7.2.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 4.2. in all cases this was sufficient to achieve steady state operation. pyrolysis of the lower part of the wood bed is by this time taking off quite rapidly. temperature profiles stabilise and the gasifier starts producing combustible gas. computer simulations were employed to develop plots showing how a variety of parameters varied along the reactor as a function of time (Figure 4. gasification reaction rates in this zone are very low. The volatiles released in this process burn readily and. a 50mm deep section of the char bed was assumed to be ignited and char oxidation was therefore the dominant heat source. all of the results presented were generated by the model for the same operating period. After sufficient time has elapsed for the entire char bed to heat up.2 Generalised model predictions Using the input operating parameter values shown in Table 4. gas composition profile. However. first over the computational effective reactor length (the 700 mm stretch above the level of the grate) and then over a more limited domain in the area where rates of change with distance are highest. and reaction rates profile under steady state conditions are presented. The stability of the reaction zone is also evaluated by varying the specified rate at which inlet air is supplied.1. While the char below the combustion zone is heating up.1 Transient behaviour of temperatures and gas compositions At the beginning of a simulation.15). This latter condition is known as the steady operating mode of the reactor. Some figures are given as paired plots. velocity profiles. To obtain comparable results for the different ranges of model and operating parameter inputs. the transient behaviour of temperature and gas composition under warm up conditions is discussed first. namely 30 minutes of operation. Most of the heat released from this combustion zone is initially utilized to heat up the lower part of the char bed but some is used to devolatilize the wood particles above the combustion zone. above the ignition zone. This phenomenon is discussed in detail in subsection 4.1 to Figure 4. the combustion zone moves upwards. then the predicted solid and gas temperature profiles. 4. In this section. as a result. As is shown later. with each showing the same quantity.

the heat released during gas phase oxidation also contributes to heating up the lower part of the char bed by convective gas-to-solid heat transfer. It then increases as the gas absorbs heat released during the char oxidation reaction. the gas temperature is initially lower than the solid temperature. the amounts of CO and H2 along the gasification zone increase while the amounts of CO2 and H2O decrease correspondingly. Heat released from oxidation of volatiles is utilized to produce more volatile matter from the pyrolysis zone and this continues till pyrolysis is complete. as would be expected. Initially. Since there are no gas phase oxidation reactions at the beginning of the start up period. are very low. Before the reactor reaches a steady operating condition.2 shows the predicted changes of gas phase temperature with time. Figure 4. This phenomenon is also known as flaming combustion in the case of a combustor and flaming pyrolysis in the case of a downdraft gasifier. this is because the concentrations of the two main combustible components. Figure 4. 102 .3 presents the predicted changes in gas composition along the axis of the gasifier during the period from start up to achievement of a steady state. the gas temperature increases very rapidly to a peak level. the rate of the heterogeneous gasification reaction is not high enough to produce self-burning producer gas. carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Once gas phase oxidation reactions of pyrolytic decomposition products (volatile gases and secondary tar) begin.1. An important aspect of flaming pyrolysis is the rapid evolution of large volumes of a highly combustible gas having a potential flame temperature > 1500°C for air and > 2500°C for oxygen (Reed & Markson 1983). while the char bed below the ignition level is being heated up by heat released in the oxidation zone. As temperatures in the gasification zone increase over time. The gas temperature was initially assumed to be the same as the inlet air temperature.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions The predicted changes with time (from ignition to steady operating condition) of temperatures in the solid phase are shown in Figure 4. then.

outlet gas composition changes over time are presented together with the changes in the corresponding higher heating value of the producer gas (dry basis). the heating value of the produced gas is very poor at the beginning but increases over time till it reaches a steady value. not unexpectedly.1 Transient behaviour of solid surface temperature profile 1800 1600 30 sec 90 sec 300 sec 600 sec 900 sec 1200 sec 1500 sec Gas Temperature (K) 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 600 400 200 0 1800 sec Distance from grate (mm) Figure 4. It can be seen that.4.2 Transient behaviour of gas temperature profile In Figure 4. Model results show that it takes about 20-25 min to reach a steady condition.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 1600 Solid surface temperature (K) 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 600 400 200 0 30 sec 90 sec 300 sec 600 sec 900 sec 1200 sec 1500 sec 1800 sec Distance from grate (mm) Figure 4. 103 .

(b) CO2.3 (d) Figure 4.3 (c) Distance from grate (mm) Fig 4.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 18 16 14 CO (vol %) 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 600 400 18 16 14 12 CO2 (vol %) 10 8 6 4 2 t=0 t = 30 min t=0 t = 30 min 200 0 0 600 400 200 0 Distance from grate (mm) Fig 4.3 (a) Distance from grate (mm) Fig 4. (c) H2. (d) H2O 25 Gas composition (vol %) 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 Time (min) 20 25 30 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Higher heating value (MJ/Nm³) CO CO2 H2 H2O HHV Figure 4.3 (b) 16 14 12 H2O (vol %) H2 (vol %) 10 8 6 4 2 0 600 400 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 t=0 t = 30 min t=0 t = 30 min 200 0 600 400 200 0 Distance from grate (mm) Fig 4.4 Transient behaviour of outlet producer gas properties 104 .3 Transient behaviour of gas composition profile (a) CO.

5 (b)). The increase in solid temperature causes an increase of gas temperature through convective solid-to-gas heat transfer. which are the products of primary and secondary pyrolysis. When the gas temperature is hot enough to initiate oxidation of volatile gases and secondary tars. having peaked at the end of the oxidation zone. This peak in the gas temperature occurs slightly further down the gasifier than the peak in the solid temperature. the solid temperature starts to decrease.2 Temperature profiles Figure 4. due to utilization of the remaining oxygen in gas phase oxidation reactions. the gas temperature ceases to rise any further. Differences between the solid and gas temperatures were substantial only in the combustion zone and tended to become smaller in the reduction zone. Solid temperatures lead gas temperatures over the first few millimetres of this zone of rapid change and then gas temperatures lead over the rest of the reactor length.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 4.2.5 shows the predicted steady state temperature profiles for the set of baseline operating parameters. the predominantly endothermic reactions of char with steam and carbon dioxide that are characteristic of the gasification zone start to increase in importance. the gas temperature increases very rapidly. once all the volatiles have been oxidised. Gas temperatures. now decrease. This happens mainly because exothermic surface oxidation reactions cease. The length of the region over which the gas phase temperature increased from ambient to its maximum (about 1700 K) was found to be similar to the value computed for the solid phase. The increase in solid temperature from ambient levels to a peak of around 1450 K was predicted to occur in a zone only about 20 mm long (Figure 4. 105 . Also. the solid surface temperature increases very sharply at the point where the highly exothermic char oxidation reaction starts. These results show that as one moves down the gasifier. Then. Beyond its peak. mainly due to heat loss to the solid phase and reactor walls.

5 (b) Figure 4.5 The predicted solid (Ts) and gas (Tg) temperature profiles along the axis of the gasifier (a) over the total reactor length (b) in the domain where rates of change are greatest 106 .5 (a) 1800 1600 1400 Temperature (K) 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 650 Ts Tg 600 550 500 Distance from grate (mm) Fig 4.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 1800 1600 1400 Temperature (K) 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 700 Ts Tg 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Distance from grate (mm) Fig 4.

the gas velocity is the same as the air inlet velocity.6.02 0.4 0.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 4.6 The solid and gas velocity profiles (Vs and Vg respectively) along the axis of the gasifier 107 . Along the unreacted biomass particle bed.0 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Distance from grate (mm) Figure 4.0 0.6 Velocity of gases mixture (m/s) 0.06 0. This velocity drops to zero at the grate since there was assumed to be no char loss through the grate. The solid velocity at the top of the reactor is constant.08 0. The predicted superficial gas velocity profile along the gasifier shows a very different pattern.14 0.2 0.10 0. however.2. Its peak occurs close to the maximum gas temperature point and thereafter the gas velocity gradually decreases as gas phase temperatures fall along the rest of the gasifier. and expansion due to the increase of the gas phase temperature. In the char oxidation and gasification zones.12 0. It then increases rapidly due to the large amount of gas released by drying. the heterogeneous gas-char reactions. This was not expected to have any significant impact on what was predicted to happen lower down in the gasifier. because one of the assumptions made in developing the model was that particle shrinkage due to moisture evaporation and primary pyrolysis processes could be neglected. the particle size reduces and causes the fuel velocity to decrease.3 Velocity profiles The predicted solid and gas velocity profiles along the gasifier are shown in Figure 4.04 0. 0. volatilisation.00 1.8 Velocity of solid (mm/s) Vs Vg 0.

wood was treated as a mixture of three solid species. This is not unreasonable because. volatile matter and char (which was assumed to be pure carbon). however. it has units of kg/m³.2). in particles 20-30 mm in size. This result may or may not be physically accurate. For the gasifier model. The model allows for this by estimating the rate of the primary pyrolysis process of the whole wood block using an equivalent temperature which is considerably less than the outer surface temperature of the wood blocks (see subsection 3. which is about 350 K higher than the temperature required to complete the devolatilization of finely divided virgin wood.) Figure 4. heat takes a while to move from the surface of wood particles to the particle interior. namely unbound water. From Figure 4. it was acceptable because times required to complete the drying process are orders of magnitude shorter than those for char combustion and gasification (Di Blasi 2000). (In this subsection. Also shown is the solid surface temperature profile.2. in the drying and pyrolysis zones along the axis of the gasifier. From Figure 4.7(b) it can be observed that moisture is predicted to start vaporizing and evaporate completely within a very narrow region only 3-4 mm in length. it can be seen that pyrolysis of wood particles is predicted to occur over the solid surface temperature range from 850 to 1300 K. The density of char was assumed constant along the gasifier as discussed in chapter three. unbound water and volatiles.7 shows the predicted changes in density of two solid phase components.2. This is because solid surface temperatures in the drying zone increase steeply and the model for drying was formulated by simply applying an Arrhenius type equation without considering diffusion effects. 108 .7. the term density is used to refer to the mass of the component under consideration that is present in unit mass of reactor volume.4 Solid densities profiles In this study.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 4.

7 Solid density profile along the axis of the gasifier (a) over the total reactor length (b) in the domain where rates of change are greatest 109 Solid surface temperature (K) Solid surface temperature (K) unbound water density volatile matter density solid temperature 1400 .Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 800 1600 600 Solid density (kg/m³) 1200 1000 800 400 200 600 400 0 200 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Distance from grate (mm) Fig 4.7 (b) Figure 4.7 (a) 800 1600 1400 600 Solid density (kg/m³) 400 200 unbound water density volatile matter density solid temperature 1200 1000 800 600 400 0 200 640 630 620 610 600 Distance from grate (mm) Fig 4.

Chapter 4 Model results and discussions

4.2.5 Gas composition profiles Figure 4.8 and Figure 4.9 show the predicted gas composition profile along the reactor under steady state conditions. Figure 4.8 shows that the volume percent of oxygen drops rapidly as the air enters the drying and volatilization zone. This does not mean that oxygen is being consumed in these zones. In fact the amount of oxygen remains almost the same, but due to dilution by water vapour and primary pyrolysis volatiles, the concentration of oxygen in the total gas is reduced. When the solid surface temperature reaches a temperature of around 900 K, oxygen begins to be consumed in heterogenous char oxidation reactions, causing the solid temperature to increase further. At this stage, heat produced during solid phase combustion reactions is transferred to the gas phase by convection, increasing the gas temperature. Once the gas temperature is high enough for homogenous oxidation of combustible volatiles to begin, the rest of the oxygen is consumed very rapidly. Figure 4.8 (b) illustrates how rapidly the oxygen volume percent decreases from 21 to zero. This plot can be divided into 3 parts, each with a different gradient: the first drop is largely attributable to mass transfer from the solid phase to the gas phase as a result of drying and primary pyrolysis processes; the second is largely attributable to oxygen consumption during char oxidation reactions; and the last is associated with gas oxidation reactions. Since gas phase oxidations occur very rapidly and are completed over just a few millimetres of the oxidation zone, the last gradient of the oxygen content plot is very steep. Carbon monoxide is the main combustible component in the producer gas. The model predicts that the volume percentage of CO initially increases along the reactor because of CO evolution during pyrolysis processes, especially secondary pyrolysis. Whilst free oxygen is present most of the CO produced in the pyrolysis zone is subsequently lost by oxidation to CO2. This accounts for the small peak of CO within the combustion zone shown in Figure 4.8 (b). A similar result has been reported for a char combustor model (Cooper & Hallett 2000). Once the char gasification zone is reached, CO levels build up again as a result of the reaction of char with H2O and CO2.

110

Chapter 4 Model results and discussions

25

20

Gas composition (vol %)

15

O2 CO

CO2
10

H2O H2

5

0 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

Distance from grate (mm)
Fig 4.8 (a) 25

20

Gas composition (vol %)

15

O2 CO

CO2
10

H2O H2

5

0 650 600 550 500 450 400

Distance from grate (mm)
Fig 4.8 (b)

Figure 4.8 Major gas species profiles along the axis of gasifier (a) over the total reactor length (b) in the domain where rates of change are greatest

As would be expected, hydrogen concentrations are predicted to be very low in the oxidation zone. Although hydrogen is formed during oxidation of C6H6 and C2H4, temperatures are so high that in the presence of free oxygen it is instantaneously oxidized to water. The content of hydrogen in the gas mixture, therefore, only increases

111

Chapter 4 Model results and discussions

once oxygen levels are depleted. The final hydrogen content in the producer gas is determined by the extent of char reactions with H2O in the char gasification zone. Initially CO2 is formed by combustion of char. Further amounts of CO2 are then produced by combustion of CO and, as shown in Figure 4.8, CO2 levels reach a maximum quite close to the point where the gas temperature is at its maximum. Then, in the gasification zone, CO2 concentrations decrease monotonically due to its reaction with char to produce CO, finally levelling out at a more-or-less constant value. Initial H2O concentrations in the gas phase depend upon the moisture content of the biomass fuel. Figure 4.8 shows H2O levels building up due to the evaporation of moisture and being augmented by the water formed when hydrogen formed in primary pyrolysis processes is oxidised. Concentrations of H2O, like those of CO2, decrease in the gasification zone; this occurs as a result of the heterogeneous reaction of carbon with water vapour. Other, minor, gaseous components include methane and ethylene, products of tar cracking; Figure 4.9 shows that these are partially oxidized in the combustion zone with only small amounts being found in the final producer gas. Also shown in Figure 4.9 are the predicted levels of primary tars (oxygenates), the major products of the primary pyrolysis reaction. The initial mass of these tars is more than half that of the initial biomass fuel but most primary tars are rapidly cracked into lower molecular weight gases and secondary tars (C6H6). These products are mostly oxidized in the combustion zone. However, as shown, not all primary tars are cracked before the gases leave the combustion zone. Much of this residual tar decomposes below the combustion zone, producing secondary tars that cannot be oxidized since no oxygen is available. This behaviour is more clearly shown in Figure 4.10, which shows that cracking of primary tars still continues in the oxygen depleted zone beyond the point where the peak gas temperature occurs. This helps explain why small amounts of tar are still present in the gas produced from the conventional stratified downdraft gasifier.

112

Chapter 4 Model results and discussions

6 5

Gas composition (vol %)

4 3 2 1 0 CH4 C2H4

primary tar C6H6

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Distance from grate (mm)
Fig 4.9 (a)

6 5

Gas composition (vol %)

4 3 2 1 0 CH4 C2H4

primary tar C6H6

650

600

550

500

Distance from grate (mm)
Fig 4.9 (b)

Figure 4.9 Minor gas species profiles along the axis of the gasifier (a) over the total reactor length (b) in the domain where rates of change are greatest

113

Chapter 4 Model results and discussions

25

20

Gas composition (vol %)

15

O2

primary tar
10

C6H6

5

0

640

620

600

580

560

540

Distance from grate (mm)

Figure 4.10 Primary tar, secondary tar, and oxygen profiles along the reactor axis

4.2.6 Reaction rate profiles Figure 4.11 to Figure 4.13 show how the rates of the main process reactions are predicted to change along the gasifier. As mentioned in subsection 4.2.2, the predicted drying front is steep, most probably as a consequence of the highly simplified description of the drying process in the model (intrinsic kinetic rate only), which does not take account of intra-particle temperature and moisture gradients. As Figure 4.11 shows, once drying is complete the primary pyrolysis reactions begin, followed by the secondary pyrolysis reactions in which primary tar is cracked to combustible gases including secondary tar. Figure 4.11 shows that secondary pyrolysis occurs over a greater distance and extends further downstream than the other reaction processes illustrated. This reflects the fact that, as discussed earlier, the cracking of the primary tar is not completed by the end of the oxidation zone and small amounts of secondary tar are still produced beyond this point. In Figure 4.12, the gas and solid phase oxidation reaction rate profiles are presented together with the gas temperature profile. Figure 4.12 shows that char oxidation reaches its peak quite quickly and then decreases as one moves down to the point where gas
114

Chapter 4 Model results and discussions

phase oxidation reactions commence. Rates of oxidation of volatile products show a major peak at the end of the oxidation zone where gas temperatures increase sharply. However, hydrogen and secondary tar oxidation reactions are shown to start at a lower gas temperature than CO oxidation and take place over a greater distance due to their greater reactivity. The total rate of hydrogen oxidation, however, is lower than other oxidation rates because of the smaller amounts released by the primary and secondary pyrolysis processes compared with CO and secondary tar. CO reaction rates are markedly higher since the amount of CO released by pyrolysis processes is significantly higher than the amounts of other gaseous components. As would be expected, predicted oxidation reaction rates decline to zero once oxygen is totally consumed.

1.8 1.6 Volumetric rate (kg/m³/s) 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 630 620 610 600 590 580 Drying x 0.1 Primary pyrolysis x 0.05 Secondary pyrolysis x 0.1 Char oxidation

Distance from grate (mm)

Figure 4.11 Drying, pyrolysis and char oxidation rates along the axis of the gasifier

Figure 4.13 shows how the rates of heterogeneous char gasification reactions are predicted to vary along the gasification zone. Among the heterogeneous gasification processes, steam gasification was found to have the highest rate; this is because large amounts of water vapour are released during drying and the primary pyrolysis processes. The methane formation reaction (Carbon-H2 reaction) rate was found to be very low since the reaction is much slower than the other heterogeneous reactions (Hobbs, Radulovic & Smoot 1992). It is evident that the char gasification reactions occur over longer distances in the reactor than other reactions.

115

Chapter 4 Model results and discussions

1.6 1.4 Volumetric rate (kg/m³/s) 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 625 620 615 610 605 600 C6H6 oxidation CO oxidation x 0.1 H2 oxidation Char oxidation

1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 Distance from grate (mm) Gas temperature (K)

Tg

Figure 4.12 Gas temperature (Tg) and rates of gaseous and solid phase oxidation reaction along the axis of the gasifier

0.14 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 600 525 Distance from grate (mm) 450 Carbon-H2O reaction Carbon-CO2 reaction x 10 Carbon-H2 reaction x 500

Figure 4.13 Heterogeneous gasification reaction rates along the axis of the gasifier

Volumetric rate (kg/m³/s)

116

Chapter 4 Model results and discussions

4.2.7 Stability of reaction zones In the downdraft stratified biomass gasifier, the reaction front moves slightly upwards while the reactor is heating up due to heat losses to the reactor wall and a low gasification rate. After it reaches a steady condition, three operating modes are possible (Earp et al. 1990): 1. Gasification dominant, where the rate of char formation by pyrolysis is slower than the rate of char consumption and as a result the reaction zone moves downwards. 2. Pyrolysis dominant, where the rate of char formation by pyrolysis is faster than the rate of char consumption and as a result the reaction zone rises up. 3. Stable operation, where the rate of char deposition by pyrolysis is equal to the rate of char depletion and, as a result, the reaction zone is stable. This is the optimum mode of operation since the gasifier can be run for long periods with a relatively constant output compared to operation in other modes. There is only one particular air to fuel ratio that will permit a stable reaction zone (Earp 1988) and a small change in any operating parameter may cause the zone to move in one direction or the other (Reed & Markson 1985). The upward movement of the front is similar to the movement of a flame front in a flame speed experiment involving a premixed gas mixture. In both cases the front moves into an unburnt zone; in the latter case this is a premixed fuel-air gaseous mixture, while in the gasifier it is a zone containing unburnt char and air (Dassappa & Paul 2001). The air supply rate to the reactor was found to be one of the more sensitive parameters affecting the stability of the reaction zone. An increase in the airflow rate to the gasifier increased the oxygen supply and hence the bed temperature and char consumption rates. As a result, reaction zones moved downwards towards the grate. When the air supply rate to the gasifier was reduced, the oxidation and gasification zone temperatures decreased, the rate of char consumption was observed to be lower than the char production rate by pyrolysis, and, as a result, the reaction zone rose up. This is illustrated in the model outputs shown in Figure 4.14 and Figure 4.15.

117

Chapter 4 Model results and discussions

2000

20 min

25 min 30 min Ts

Temperature (K)

Tg 1500

1000

500

600

580

560

540

520

500

Distance from grate (mm)

Figure 4.14 Illustration showing downward movement of the reaction zone as a result of an increase in the air supply rate (24 kg/hr)

1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 640 620 600 580 560 540 520 500 Distance from grate (mm) 30 min 25 min 20 min Ts Temperature (K) Tg

Figure 4.15 Illustration showing upward movement of the reaction zone as a result of a decrease in the air supply rate (8 kg/hr)

118

Chapter 4 Model results and discussions

The range of air supply rates for which a stable mode of operation can be achieved was found to be between 19 and 20 kg/hr for the base case (parameters defined in Table 4.1) giving a specific gasification rate of 290-296 kg/m2hr (dry basis). This result is close to the value found in experimental work on an open core gasifier in which the specific capacity for stable operation was found to be 271 kg/m2hr (DAF basis) (Milligan 1994).

4.3

Parametric sensitivity analysis of the model

Values of parameters used in the numerical model were determined using empirical correlations taken from various independent experimental reports in the open literature. Therefore it was felt important to investigate the effect on model predictions of varying the values of these parameters so that the sensitivity of the model to particular parameters could be established. In this study, a parametric sensitivity analysis was carried out to explore the effects of variations in operating and model parameters on the temperatures profile, gas composition, final tar content and stability of the reaction zones. The parametric sensitivity analysis was broken down into two parts dealing respectively with operating parameters and model parameters. The effects of three operating parameters were investigated, namely airflow rate, initial particle diameter and moisture content. The effects of eight model parameters were also examined, namely solid-gas heat transfer coefficient, mass transfer coefficient, heat and mass exchange area for heterogeneous reaction, kinetic rate coefficients of primary pyrolysis, kinetic rate coefficients of secondary pyrolysis (tar cracking), kinetic rate coefficients of secondary tar oxidation, effective thermal conductivity and heat loss to the reactor wall. The parametric studies were conducted by changing the value of one specific parameter while all the other model parameters were kept constant at the base level given in Table 4.1. An airflow rate of 15 kg/hr was selected as the base value for the sensitivity analysis. It should be noted, in the graphical presentation of sensitivity analysis results, that primary tar content is shown in units of mg/Nm³ while secondary tar content is shown as a volume percentage of the total gas mixture. The reason for this is that only

119

both primary and secondary tar outlet levels drop at higher air supply rates (see Figure 4. As discussed in a previous subsection (4. Figure 4.2.7). all of the values of reaction front movement presented are those calculated for the case where steady state conditions have been achieved (i.e.16 (c)). 120 .16 shows the effects of variations in airflow rate on gasifier behaviour. this is attributed to higher thermal cracking rates at higher gas phase temperatures. This is attributed to a more rapid increase in gas phase oxidation rates than in solid phase oxidation rates as temperatures rose. As a result. Therefore. Increasing the air supply rate means a greater oxygen supply to the system and a higher heat release from both the heterogeneous and homogenous oxidation reactions and an increased peak temperature for both the solid and gas phases in the combustion zone. reaction zone movement is not constant throughout the reactor warming up stage. and stability of the reaction zones.1 Airflow rate Air supply rate to the gasifier is one of the most important operating parameters. Levie & Graboski 1987). tar content. only some of the secondary tars are present in the condensed tar due to their volatility (Reed. Figure 4.16 (b) shows that peak gas phase temperatures increased faster than peak solid phase temperatures as the air supply rate was increased. 4. to obtain comparable results for the different ranges of model and operating parameter inputs used in the sensitivity analysis.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions in the case of primary tar can the quantities of tar present be determined with any accuracy (by collection and weighing). for the period between 25 minutes and 30 minutes after ignition). strongly influencing the temperature profiles.3.

16 (e) Figure 4.2 0.010 14 kg/hr 16 kg/hr 18 kg/hr 20 kg/hr 16 Compostion (vol%) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CO CO2 H2O Gas species H2 CH4 12 kg/hr 14 kg/hr 16 kg/hr 18 kg/hr 4.7 0.16 (b) 4.16 Effects of air supply rate (a) on solid (Ts) and gaseous (Tg) temperature profiles (b) on peak temperatures (c) on outlet primary and secondary tar levels (d) on outlet gas composition (e) on reaction zone movement (+ve for upward.4 Secondary tar (vol%) 4.16 (c) 18 Reaction zone velocity (mm/sec) 0.6 0.3 0.000 -0. -ve for downward) 121 .16 (a) Primary tar (Condensable) 1900 1800 Primary tar (mg/Nm³) 1700 1600 Peak Ts 1500 1400 1300 1200 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Air supply rate (kg/hr) Peak Tg 200 180 160 Temperature (K) 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Air supply rate (kg/hr) 0.010 0.1 0 Secondary tar (Non-condensable) 0.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 1800 Temperature (K) 1500 1200 900 600 300 640 15 kg/hr 13 kg/hr 17 kg/hr Ts Tg 620 600 580 560 540 520 500 Distance from grate (mm) Fig 4.020 0.040 0.16 (d) 4.050 0.5 0.030 12 kg/hr 0.

At higher air supply rates. Of particular interest is that changes in the concentration of CO in the outlet gas at different air flow rates are not significant.16 (e)). In the pyrolysis zone. which leads to a higher solid velocity and causes the reaction zone to move downwards towards the grate (see Figure 4. Increases in the solid temperature (Ts) would be expected to increase the rate of heterogeneous gasification reactions and therefore the CO level.16(d). as Figure 4. lower CH4 levels are observed because of the higher CH4 oxidation rates at higher temperatures. However.2. As discussed in section 4. as a result the quantity of water vapour found in the final gas outlet would be expected to decrease and the concentration of H2 to increase. Thus. the char consumption rate increases. which increases the rate of oxidation of CO released in the pyrolysis processes.3. The main reason for this is that increasing the airflow rate also increases nitrogen concentrations in the gas.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions The composition of the outlet producer gas as a function of air supply rate is presented in Figure 4. The other gaseous component that changes significantly is methane. the rate at which heat from the particle surface penetrates to the particle core is faster in the case of a smaller particle.17. At higher air supply rates. the rate of volatiles production is greater for a small particle than for a larger particle. air supply rate controls the stability of the reaction zones. In the 122 .2 Initial particle size The predicted sensitivity of system output parameters to changes in initial wood particle diameter is shown in Figure 4.16 (d) shows. Higher solid phase temperatures also increase the heterogeneous water-gas reaction rates.7. the predicted drop in H2O level appears more significant than the increase in H2 level as air flow rates rise. this is offset by the higher gas temperature. this has the effect of emphasising the decrease in the volume percentage of H2O and retarding the increase in the volume percentage of hydrogen. Varying the particle diameter affects heat and mass transfer coefficients and therefore has an influence both on primary pyrolysis processes and on the heterogeneous gas char reactions. However. 4.

As particle sizes decrease. This results in more combustible gas species being consumed within the oxidation zone when larger char particles are present. a smaller char particle diameter increases the total surface area per unit volume and decreases mass transfer resistances. 4. As a result. and higher exit CO2 concentration are predicted for larger solid fuel particles (see Figure 4. 8.18 for five fuel moisture contents. These effects are illustrated in Figure 4.17 (d). char oxidation rates fall and more oxygen is utilized for gas phase combustion. 123 . thereby promoting both char oxidation and gasification. lower primary and secondary tar outputs are observed in the case of large wood particles. higher solid temperatures are needed to attain particular levels of carbon conversion in the gasification zone than are required in the case of smaller particles. Because of the lower specific surface areas in beds of larger particles.3. Predicted exit gas compositions as a function of initial wood particle size are presented in Figure 4. smaller particles enhance char combustion rates and lead to higher solid peak temperatures. At larger particle sizes.3 Initial moisture content The effect of increasing fuel moisture content on the phenomena occurring within the reaction region is shown in Figure 4. As a result. this can be attributed to the faster pyrolysis rate (Figure 4. CH4 is also present in decreasing amounts as particle sizes increase. (b) and (c). 5. As a result.17 (e)). 12 and 15% (dry basis). 10. lower exit CO and H2 concentrations.17 (a).Chapter 4 Model results and discussions combustion and gasification zones. leading to increases in gas phase temperatures. reaction zones show a tendency to move upwards.17 (d)).

6 0.060 0.17 (c) 20 16 Compostion (vol%) Reaction zone velocity (mm/sec) 0.040 0.17 (a) Primary tar (Condensable) 2000 1900 1800 Primary tar (mg/Nm³) Temperature (K) 1700 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 15 20 25 30 Peak Ts Peak Tg 250 200 150 0.010 0.000 15mm 20mm 25mm 30mm 18 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CO CO2 H2O Gas species H2 CH4 15 mm 20 mm 25mm 30 mm 4.050 0.070 0.1 0 0.3 100 50 0 15 20 25 30 Initial particle diam eter (m m ) 0.2 0.4 Secondary tar (vol%) 300 Secondary tar (Non-condensable) 0.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 1800 Temperature (K) 1500 1200 900 600 300 700 650 15 mm 20 mm 25 mm Ts Tg 600 550 500 450 400 Distance from grate (mm) Fig 4.17 Effects of initial wood particle size (a) on solid (Ts) and gaseous (Tg) temperature profiles (b) on peak temperatures (c) on outlet primary and secondary tar levels (d) on outlet gas composition (e) on reaction zone movement (+ve for upward. -ve for downward) 124 .17 (b) 4.7 Initial particle diam eter (m m ) 4.5 0.020 0.17 (e) Figure 4.030 0.17 (d) 4.

The CO2 concentration appears not to be affected by changes in fuel moisture content even though the CO oxidation rate increases. and the local gas temperature. The effect of fuel moisture content increases is to slow the upward movement of the reaction zones in the gasifier. Figure 4. as shown in Figure 4. a slight decrease in both the primary and secondary tar content of the gas is found at higher initial moisture contents (Figure 4. Figure 4. This is likely to be a result of the increased amount of H2O in the gas phase.18 (a). as shown in Figure 4. 125 . due to the higher gas temperatures and consequent higher hydrogen oxidation rate. As discussed above. this can be attributed to the higher peak gas temperatures and the higher associated CH4 oxidation rates.18 (e). This presumably contributes to the observed increase in gas phase H2O content as the wood moisture content increases. higher moisture contents lead to an increase in CO oxidation rates.18 (d) shows that changing the moisture content also causes slight changes in the levels of all gas phase components.18 (c)). It also increases the hydrocarbon (secondary tar) combustion rate and.18 (d) also shows a slight decrease of hydrogen at higher moisture content levels. At higher wood moisture contents. The CO oxidation reaction rate depends in part on the water vapour concentration (eq.18 (b) shows that changing initial moisture content does not affect the peak solid temperature but that a slight increase in peak gas temperature occurs at higher moisture content levels. drying of the wood is expected to be complete before temperatures high enough for char combustion to begin are reached. 3. which affects volume percentage calculations.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions As discussed earlier. and the reaction zones move downwards.19) and a higher water vapour concentration increases the CO combustion rate. Therefore. a lower CH4 level is observed. increases in wood moisture content favour the char gasification processes involving water vapour. This rather unexpected result seems to be linked to CO oxidation processes. as a result. Figure 4. and a slight decrease in gas phase CO level results. the associated heat release rate.

18 (a) Primary tar (Condensable) 1800 1700 Temperature (K) 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 5 8 10 12 15 Peak Ts Peak Tg Primary tar (mg/Nm³) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 5 8 10 12 15 Secondary tar (Non-condensable) 0.7 0.b) 4.040 0.015 0.18 Effects of initial moisture content (a) on solid (Ts) and gaseous (Tg) temperature profiles (b) on peak temperatures (c) on outlet primary and secondary tar levels (d) on outlet gas composition (e) on reaction zone movement (+ve for upward.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 1800 Temperature (K) 1500 5% 10 % 15 % Ts 1200 900 600 300 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 Tg Distance from grate (mm) Fig 4.045 0.1 0 Secondary tar (vol%) Initial m oisture content (%d.2 0.010 0.18 (e) Figure 4.18 (d) 4.6 0.18 (b) 4.020 0.18 (c) 18 Reaction zone velocity (mm/sec) 0. -ve for downward) 126 .4 0.035 0.5 0.000 8% 10% 12% 15% 16 Compostion (vol%) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CO CO2 H2O Gas species H2 CH4 8% 10% 12% 15% 4.3 0.005 0.030 0.025 0.b) Initial m oisture content (%d.

127 . For the present study a base case value of 0. the solid-gas heat transfer coefficient for a nonreacting system exceeds that for a reacting system.6 was selected by comparison with results from experimental work (see Chapters 5 and 6 for details). The effects of changing ξ on the model outputs are shown in Figure 4. Because of this. The ratio of reacting to non-reacting heat–transfer coefficient (ξ) has been introduced as a means of doing this (Cho & Joseph 1981. A reduction in the value of ξ leads to a decrease in the heat transfer rate from the solid phase to the gas phase.19 (b)).19. Therefore the initially calculated heat transfer coefficient needs to be modified for use in the gasifier model.3. and reaction zones move towards the bottom of the bed (Figure 4.19 (c)). According to Dzhapbyev. a smaller ξ results in a more prolonged gas combustion process and consequently a lower peak gas phase temperature (Figure 4. More oxygen is consumed in char oxidation reactions and so less is available for hydrocarbon oxidation reactions. however. Radulovic & Smoot 1996). a higher heat transfer rate and a higher peak gas phase temperature are achieved and increases occur in the solid temperature along the gasification zone (not the peak solid temperature) (Figure 4. Miropol’skii and Mal’kovskii (1986). a higher primary and secondary tar content is observed at smaller values of ξ (Figure 4.19 (e)).Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 4. So. Miropol’skii and Mal’kovskii (1986). The trend of increasing H2O and CO2 and decreasing H2. A higher value of ξ leads to higher gas temperatures and more rapid gas phase combustion reactions in the oxidation zone as a result. the basic solidgas heat transfer coefficient used in this model was one formulated for a non-reacting surface.19 (a)) and hence in heterogeneous gas-char reaction rates.19 (d)). solid velocities increase.02 to 1. the factor (ξ) that accounts for the reactive nature of the fixed bed can have a value ranging from 0. As a result.4 Solid-gas heat transfer coefficient Heat transfer coefficients derived for a reacting surface are scarce. CO and CH4 with increasing ξ is a direct consequence of this increase in gas phase reaction activity (Figure 4.0. Ghani.19 (a) & Figure 4. Since oxidation of volatile gases depends on gas phase temperature. As reported by Dzhapbyev. By increasing ξ.

4 Secondary tar (vol%) Reacting to non-reacting heat transfer coefficient ratio (-) Reacting to non-reacting heat transfer coefficient ratio (-) 4.6 ξ = 0.000 ξ = 0.19 (a) Primary tar (Condensable) 2000 1900 1800 Primary tar (mg/Nm³) Temperature (K) 1700 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 0.030 0.19 (b) 4.8 0.9 0.19 Effects of solid-to-gas heat transfer coefficient (a) on solid (Ts) and gaseous (Tg) temperature profiles (b) on peak temperatures (c) on outlet primary and secondary tar levels (d) on outlet gas composition (e) on reaction zone movement (+ve for upward.5 0.010 0.7 0.5 0. 6 ξ = 0.6 0.2 0.8 ξ = 0.020 0.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 1800 Temperature (K) 1500 1200 900 600 300 700 650 ξ = 0.1 0 Secondary tar (Non-condensable) 0.035 0.19 (e) Figure 4.3 0.7 ξ = 0.8 ξ = 0.7 ξ = 0.7 0.7 0.005 0.015 0.6 0.025 0.9 Peak Ts Peak Tg 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0.19(c) 18 Reaction zone velocity (mm/sec) 0.19 (d) 4.6 0.9 16 Compostion (vol%) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CO CO2 H2O Gas species H2 CH4 ξ = 0. -ve for downward) 128 .5 Ts Tg 600 550 500 450 400 Distance from grate (mm) Fig 4.9 4.8 0.6 ξ = 0.5 0.7 ξ = 0.

In this study. In contrast.20 (d)). The effects of varying the mass transfer coefficient value on the system outputs are presented in Figure 4. The mass transfer coefficient strongly affects the rates at which gaseous reactants diffuse to the fuel surface and react with the fuel. 129 . Kubota and Wen (1970) describe the wide divergence between different correlations at low Re and also showed that the actual mass-transfer coefficient in solid-gas fixed beds becomes considerably smaller than the theoretical coefficient at low Re values. was therefore selected as a maximum mass transfer coefficient value to use in the simulation for the base case. if mass transfer rates increase (due to an increase in the mass transfer coefficient value).3. direct application of existing empirical correlations to determine the rate of the diffusion-controlled combustion reactions in the gasifier resulted in unrealistic temperature values. which was found to give results closely matching those obtained experimentally. Thus a lower mass transfer coefficient leads to decreased heterogeneous gas-char reaction rates.20 (c)). and larger quantities of CO and CH4 are present in the exit gas.20. 1986. gas temperatures drop.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 4. with the result that the gas temperature increases (Figure 4. This is especially true at low values of the Reynolds number (as occur in the case of packed beds of small particles at high temperature). This leads to a greater proportion of the oxygen being consumed in reactions with volatile products. A reduced mass transfer rate results in heterogeneous char oxidation reactions slowing down in comparison with gas phase combustion reactions. and both primary and secondary tar levels decrease (Figure 4. A slight increase in H2 levels is also observed (Figure 4.045 m/s. Di Blasi 2000). the amounts of combustible components consumed in the oxidation zone fall.5 Mass transfer coefficient There is always some uncertainty associated with the use of empirical mass transfer correlations derived from experimental data obtained in equipment different from one’s own. use of a limiting maximum value of the mass-transfer coefficient has been recommended (Bhattacharya et al. A value of 0.20 (b)). Kato. To overcome this problem.

050 m/s 0.040 0.045 0.045 0.20 (c) 18 Reaction zone velocity (mm/sec) 0.1 0 0.20 (e) Figure 4.040 m/s 0.20 (a) Primary tar (Condensable) 1900 1800 Primary tar (mg/Nm³) 1700 1600 Peak Ts 1500 1400 1300 1200 0.20 (b) 4.035 0.010 0.020 0.000 0.04 0.050 m/s 0.6 0.4 0.04 0.045 0.7 0.5 150 100 0.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 1800 Temperature (K) 1500 1200 900 600 300 700 0.2 50 0.045 m/s 0.005 0.055 Peak Tg 200 250 Secondary tar (Non-condensable) 0.025 0.3 0.045 m/s 0.055 m/s 16 Compostion (vol%) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CO CO2 H2O Gas species H2 CH4 0.05 0. -ve for downward) 130 .04 m/s 0.040 m/s 0.05 m/s Ts Tg 650 600 550 500 450 400 Distance from grate (mm) Fig 4.030 0.045 m/s 0.20 Effects of mass transfer coefficient (a) on solid (Ts) and gaseous (Tg) temperature profiles (b) on peak temperatures (c) on outlet primary and secondary tar levels (d) on outlet gas composition (e) on reaction zone movement (+ve for upward.05 0.015 0.055 m/s 4.050 0.20 (d) 4.055 Secondary tar (vol%) Temperature (K) 0 Maxim um m ass transfer coefficient (m /s) Maxim um m ass transfer coefficient (m /s) 4.

Chapter 4 Model results and discussions Since gas temperatures are lower in the case where mass transfer rates increase.3. Therefore a sensitivity analysis was carried out to assess the effect of changes in heat and mass exchange area. an increase in gas temperature (Figure 4. As a result.21 (e)). The model also neglects the loss of effective surface area when particle surfaces are in contact. and CH4 in the outlet gas due to the higher combustion rates at higher gas phase temperatures (Figure 4. H2. there is nevertheless a decrease in overall gas-char reaction rates and reaction zones move upwards (Figure 4.20 (e)). Reducing the heat and mass transfer exchange area also decreases char consumption rates and. particles are not spherical and char particles do break up into smaller pieces.21 (b)). as a result.21 (d)).6 Heat and mass exchange area In this model. reaction zones tend to move upwards (Figure 4.21. however. A reduction in heat and mass transfer exchange area reduces the extent of heterogeneous reactions.21 (c)).2. despite the higher value of the mass transfer coefficient. The effects of varying the heat and mass transfer exchange area (Av) are presented in Figure 4. 4. As also happens when the mass transfer coefficient is reduced. In reality. This was done by multiplying the base case area by factors ranging from 0. This results in more oxygen being consumed in volatiles combustion processes.8 to 1. 131 . and a decrease in primary and secondary tar levels in the outlet gas (Figure 4. decreasing the heat and mass exchange area decreases the proportions of CO. the biomass particles were taken to be spherical in shape and the effect of char particles breaking up was not accounted for. solid temperatures along the gasification zone (not peak temperatures) also decrease. The effect of this is to increase the particle surface area per volume above the value assumed in the model.

035 0.0 Av x 1.9 Av x 1.9 Av x 1.2 4.21 (b) 18 Reaction zone velocity (mm/sec) 0.005 0.5 0.1 1.3 0.0 Ts Tg Av x 0.21 (d) 4.2 Heat and m ass transfer exchange area m ultiplication factor (-) Peak Ts Peak Tg 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0.025 0.010 0.8 Distance from grate (mm) Fig 4.2 Secondary tar (Non-condensable) 0.1 1.9 1.0 1.030 0.2 16 Compostion (vol%) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CO CO2 H2O Gas species H2 CH4 Av x 0.2 Av x 1.8 0.1 0 Secondary tar (vol%) Heat and m ass transfer exchange area m ultiplication factor (-) 4.1 Av x 1.0 Av x 1.6 0.000 Av x 0.21 (e) Figure 4.21 Effects of heat and mass transfer exchange area (a) on solid (Ts) and gaseous (Tg) temperature profiles (b) on peak temperatures (c) on outlet primary and secondary tar levels (d) on outlet gas composition (e) on reaction zone movement (+ve for upward.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 1800 Temperature (K) 1500 1200 900 600 300 640 620 600 580 560 Av x 1.2 0.8 0.21 (c) 4.0 1.4 0.040 0.9 1. -ve for downward) 132 .21 (a) Primary tar (Condensable) 1800 1700 Primary tar (mg/Nm³) Temperature (K) 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 0.1 Av x 1.015 0.020 0.

except that in this case. An increase in primary pyrolysis rates produces more primary tar within a given time and completion of tar cracking is hindered. As discussed in subsection 4.0.7 Kinetics of primary pyrolysis As described in chapter 3. Secondary pyrolysis involves the cracking of primary tar into secondary tar and other combustible gases.22 (d)). increasing the secondary pyrolysis reaction rate directly reduces the amount of primary tar. the primary pyrolysis process is one of the main factors affecting the stability of the reaction zone.7.22 (e)).23 (c) shows.2. the factor ranged in value from 0. 4.22 (c)). reaction zones move upwards (Figure 4. The effect of varying primary pyrolysis reaction rates was explored in a similar way to that in which the sensitivity analysis for the heat and mass exchange area was carried out. 133 .Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 4.5 to 2. Thus a higher tar content in the gas results at higher primary pyrolysis rates (Figure 4. as Figure 4. A slight decrease in both gas and solid temperatures is observed at higher primary pyrolysis rates. as a consequence. Primary pyrolysis is the process in which primary tars (oxygenates) are released from virgin wood. a faster pyrolysis rate leads to the reactor running in a pyrolysis dominant mode and.3. No significant changes in gas composition result from changing the value of the primary pyrolysis reaction rate (Figure 4.0.8 Kinetics of secondary pyrolysis The effect of changes in the rate coefficients for the secondary pyrolysis process on the model output parameters are shown in Figure 4.23. in this model rate coefficients for the primary pyrolysis reactions were derived from experimental results obtained during the rapid pyrolysis of large wood particles.3.5 and 2.22 (b)). probably because of the lower secondary tar oxidation rate reducing the peak gas temperature (Figure 4. Changes in the rate coefficients were made by multiplying the pre-exponential factor in the rate equation by values ranging between 0. Thus.

5 Ap1 x 1.020 0.2 0.5 2.5 Ts Tg 600 580 560 Distance from grate (mm) Fig 4.0 4. -ve for downward) 134 .5 Ap1 x 1.5 Ap1x 2.5 2.22 (a) Primary tar (Condensable) 1800 80 1700 Temperature (K) 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 0.0 1.015 0.5 1.010 0.5 1.0 0.0 16 Compostion (vol%) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CO CO2 H2O Gas species H2 CH4 Ap1 x 0.22 (e) Figure 4.22 Effects of changes in primary pyrolysis rate (a) on solid (Ts) and gaseous (Tg) temperature profiles (b) on peak temperatures (c) on outlet primary and secondary tar levels (d) on outlet gas composition (e) on reaction zone movement (+ve for upward.0 Ap1 x 1.0 Ap1 x 1.035 0.0 Ap1 x 1.5 Ap1 x 0.22 (b) 4.22 (c) 18 Reaction zone velocity (mm/sec) 0.000 Ap1 x 0.3 0.040 0.4 0.045 0.030 0.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions Ap1 = pre-exponential factor in primary pyrolysis rate equation 1800 Temperature (K) 1500 1200 900 600 300 640 620 Ap1 x 1.0 Peak Ts Peak Tg Primary tar (mg/Nm³) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.0 1.6 0.005 0.5 Ap1x 2.22 (d) 4.5 Secondary tar (vol%) Secondary tar (Non-condensable) Prim ary pyrolysis rate m ultiplication factor (-) Prim ary pyrolysis rate m ultiplicaton factor (-) 4.025 0.1 0 0.

An analysis of the sensitivity of the model to changes in this rate was carried out by multiplying the pre-exponential factor in the rate equation by values ranging from 0. the consumption of more oxygen in gas combustion reactions and increases in gas phase temperatures (Figure 4. 4. This suggests that secondary tar oxidation is not a rate limiting step in the process.24.23 (b)). 135 . Increases in secondary pyrolysis rates lead to higher gas phase oxidation rates.3.23 (d)). As Figure 4. reduced char combustion rates and a tendency for reaction zones to move upwards (Figure 4.23 (e)). The results of the analysis are presented in Figure 4.2.8 to 1.9 Kinetic rate of oxidation of secondary tar In the model. The effect of changes in secondary pyrolysis rates on gas composition was insignificant (Figure 4. changing secondary tar oxidation rates seems to have no significant effect on model operation.24 shows.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions Increasing the secondary pyrolysis reaction rate also leads to the formation of more combustible gases. the amount of secondary tar in the outlet gas is determined mainly by the rate of secondary tar oxidation.

2 Peak Ts Peak Tg Primary tar (mg/Nm³) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0.025 0.4 0.23 (e) Figure 4.8 620 600 580 560 Distance from grate (mm) Fig 4.2 Ts Temperature (K) 1500 1200 900 600 300 640 Tg Ap2 x 0.020 0.0 1.8 Ap2 x 1.23 (c) 18 Reaction zone velocity (mm/sec) 0.23 (d) 4. -ve for downward) 136 .6 0.030 0.1 Ap2 x 1.23 (b) 4.2 Secondary tar (Non-condensable) 0.1 1.8 Ap2 x 1.3 0.1 0 Secondary tar (vol%) Secondary pyrolysis rate m ultiplication factor (-) Secondary pyrolysis rate m ultiplication factor (-) 4.9 1.000 Ap2 x 0.0 Ap2 x 1.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions Ap2 = pre-exponential factor in secondary pyrolysis rate equation 1800 Ap2 x 1.1 1.005 0.0 1.2 4.8 0.5 0.8 0.23 (a) Primary tar (Condensable) 1800 1700 Temperature (K) 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 0.23 Effects of changes in secondary pyrolysis rates (a) on solid (Ts) and gaseous (Tg) temperature profiles (b) on peak temperatures (c) on outlet primary and secondary tar levels (d) on outlet gas composition (e) on reaction zone movement (+ve for upward.1 Ap2 x 1.015 0.9 1.035 0.2 0.010 0.0 Ap2 x 1.2 16 Compostion (vol%) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CO CO2 H2O Gas species H2 CH4 Ap2 x 0.0 Ap2 x 1.

5 2.015 0.0 0 0.24 (a) Primary tar (Condensable) 1800 50 1700 Temperature (K) 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 0.0 A6 x 0.0 1.0 4.6 Secondary tar (Non-condensable) Tar oxidation ratem ultiplication factor (-) Tar oxidation rate m ultiplication factor (-) 4.24 Effects of changes in secondary tar oxidation rate (a) on solid(Ts) and gaseous(Tg) temperature profiles (b) on peak temperatures (c) on outlet primary and secondary tar levels (d) on outlet gas composition (e) on reaction zone movement (+ve for upward.5 1.4 Secondary tar (vol%) 0.0 A6x 1.24 (c) 18 Reaction zone velocity (mm/sec) 0.5 A6 x 2.5 2.0 1.5 0.24 (e) Figure 4.035 0.030 0.020 0.5 A6 x 1.5 A6 x 1.2 0.005 0.0 A6x 1.0 16 Compostion (vol%) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CO CO2 H2O Gas species H2 CH4 A6 x 0.5 Ts Temperature (K) 1500 1200 900 600 300 640 Tg 620 600 580 560 Distance from grate (mm) Fig 4.5 1.24 (d) 4.010 0.0 Peak Ts Peak Tg Primary tar (mg/Nm³) 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0.5 A6 x 2.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions A6 = pre-exponential factor in secondary tar oxidation rate equation 1800 A6 x 1.5 A6 x 1.1 0. -ve for downward) 137 .24 (b) 4.025 0.3 0.000 A6 x 0.

the inner wall temperature was assumed to vary linearly with solid and gas temperatures over time. 4.3.25 (d)).11 Heat loss through reactor wall In this study. conduction of heat upwards in the bed increases and pyrolysis occurs at a faster rate (Figure 4. To restore stable operation under such conditions the input air flow rate would have to be increased. and a higher amount of H2O is found in the outlet gas.25 (c)).25 (a) & Figure 4. as a result. which depends on the thickness and type of materials in the reactor wall and insulation. a lower amount of CO and H2.25.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 4. the rates of the heterogeneous gasification reactions are reduced and. an empirical correlation suggested in the literature (Froment & Bischoff 1979) was used to find the bed-to-wall heat loss coefficient. As a result.3. Total heat loss through the reactor wall is directly controlled by the bed-to-wall heat transfer coefficient and by the reactor inner wall temperature. Also. An analysis of the sensitivity of the model outputs to changes in effective thermal conductivity (Keff) is presented in Figure 4.10 Effective thermal conductivity The effective thermal conductivity for the gasifier fuel bed was derived from a complex model as explained in subsection 2. At a higher effective thermal conductivity. more heat from the oxidation zone is transferred to the upper part of the reactor bed while the solid and gas phase temperatures in the combustion zone fall (Figure 4. Since the solid temperature falls in the case of a higher effective thermal conductivity. Under such conditions the reaction zones rise up the gasifier.4. a larger amount of CH4 is present due to less CH4 combustion in the oxidation zone (Figure 4. In this model.3 (Kunii & Smith 1960). 138 . All model outputs except for gas composition were found to be sensitive to variations in the effective thermal conductivity. rates of tar cracking decrease and the gas has a higher tar content (Figure 4.25 (e)). At higher effective thermal conductivity levels.25 (b)).

0 1.6 Secondary tar (vol%) Secondary tar (Non-condensable) Effective conductivity of solid pahse m ultiplication factor (-) Effective conductivity of solid pahse m ultiplication factor (-) 4.5 2.5 2.25 (b) 4.5 keff x 2. -ve for downward) 139 .0 keff x 1.4 0.010 0.25 Effects of changes in effective thermal conductivity (a) on solid (Ts) and gaseous temperature profiles (b) on peak temperatures (c) on outlet primary and secondary tar levels (d) on outlet gas composition (e) on reaction zone movement (+ve for upward.5 1.5 1.7 0.0 Peak Ts Peak Tg 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0.000 keff x 0.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 1800 Keff x 1.3 0.0 0.030 0.0 18 16 Compostion (vol%) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CO CO2 H2O Gas species H2 CH4 keff x 0.050 0.2 0.25 (e) Figure 4.5 keff x 1.0 Keff x 0.5 keff x 2.0 keff x 1.0 4.5 Ts Tg Temperature (K) 1500 1200 900 600 300 640 620 600 580 560 540 520 500 Distance from grate (mm) Fig 4.060 Reaction zone velocity (mm/sec) 0.0 1.020 0.5 0.040 0.5 Keff x 1.5 keff x 1.1 0 0.25 (d) 4.25 (c) 0.25 (a) Primary tar (Condensable) 1900 180 1800 Primary tar (mg/Nm³) Temperature (K) 1700 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 0.

were very low at the beginning and gradually increased to a stable value. as might be expected. When the heat loss is small.26. The concentrations of carbon monoxide and hydrogen.0 times the base case value.26 (e) the effect of a reduction in heat loss is to move the reaction zones downwards. In the case where heat losses are reduced.26 (b)). Therefore the peaks of all of the gas phase oxidation reaction rates are located at the end of the oxidation zone where the gas temperature increases sharply.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions The effect of varying the heat loss through the reactor wall was explored by running the model using bed-to-wall heat transfer coefficient values (hbw) ranging from 0. The results obtained are presented in Figure 4. As shown in Figure 4. a lower rate of heat loss from the fuel bed to the wall increases the gas phase temperature while a higher heat loss rate has the opposite effect (Figure 4. 4. solid surface temperatures are higher than gas temperatures but gas temperatures rise rapidly and exceed solid surface temperatures through the rest of the gasifier. The hydrogen content of the producer gas was mainly determined by steam-carbon reactions in the char gasification zone.4 Conclusions The predictions of the transient model developed for a stratified downdraft biomass gasifier are given in this chapter.5 to 2. This shows that.26 (d)).26 (c)). a low primary tar content is predicted because of the higher gas temperature and the almost complete cracking of the primary tar that this causes. These results show that solid surface temperatures increase very sharply once the initial char oxidation reaction begins. elevated H2 and CO levels and lower H2O and CO2 levels are predicted due to the higher steam and CO2 gasification rates which accompany higher solid temperatures along the gasification zone (Figure 4. Under these conditions a very clean gas is produced (Figure 4. At steady state.26 (a) & Figure 4. The model showed that 20-25 min was required to reach a steady operating condition. At the start of the combustion zone. some CO was present in the gas leaving the oxidation zone and its concentration increased in the gasification zone. the two main combustible components. 140 .

49 Secondary tar (Non-condensable) Peak Ts Peak Tg Bed to w all heat transfer coefficient m ultiplication factor (-) Bed to w all heat transfer coefficient m ultiplication factor (-) 4.0 1.8 1.56 0.51 0.26 (a) Primary tar (Condensable) 1900 350 1800 300 Primary tar (mg/Nm³) 1700 Temperature (K) 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 0.5 Temperature (K) 1500 1200 900 600 300 700 Ts Tg 650 600 550 500 450 Distance from grate (mm) Fig 4.58 0.54 0.2 16 Compostion (vol%) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CO CO2 H2O Gas species H2 CH4 hbw x 0.000 hbw x 0.040 0.5 4.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 1800 hbw x 1.5 hbw x 0.005 0.0 hbw x 1.5 hbw x 0.57 Secondary tar (vol%) 0.26 (b) 4.0 1.025 0.2 hbw x 1.8 hbw x 1.035 0.26 Effects of changes in the extent of heat loss through the reactor wall (a) on solid (Ts) and gaseous (Tg) temperature profiles (b) on peak temperatures (c) on outlet primary and secondary tar levels (d) on outlet gas composition (e) on reaction zone movement (+ve for upward.030 0.52 0.020 0.8 hbw x 1.5 0.8 1.26 (d) 4.0 250 200 150 100 50 0 0.26 (c) 18 Reaction zone velocity (mm/sec) 0.5 2.55 0.5 2.0 hbw x 1.010 0.53 0.015 0.0 hbw x 1.0 0.5 0.045 0.26 (e) Figure 4. -ve for downward) 141 .5 0.

Within this zone the solid surface temperature rises very steeply. an increase in the inlet air flow rate was found to lead to a decreased upward movement of the reaction zone. assuming that the fuel bed below the ignition ports was initially full of charcoal. gas composition and reaction zone stability has been carried out. At a certain stage. a systematic analysis of the effect of varying individual operating and model parameters on predictions of temperature profile. Increasing the initial moisture content of the fuel has a negative effect on the quality of the outlet producer gas. The stability of the reaction zones was also investigated and for stable operation it was found that the specific gasification rate needed to be 290-296 kg/m2hr (dry basis) which is in agreement with experimental results obtained on an open core biomass gasifier (Milligan 1994). for a smaller char particle size. Using a larger particle size was found to significantly increase the gas phase temperature and to reduce both primary and secondary tar output. a further increase in the inlet air rate leads to the reaction zone changing direction and moving downwards. Over the wide range of air inlet rates investigated. This makes it important for the long term operability of the reactor for the airflow rate to be fixed at a value ensuring stable operation.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions Drying and the primary pyrolysis process were observed to start and be completed within a distance of a few millimetres just above the oxidation zone. 142 . In order to obtain a detailed understanding of model sensitivity. gasification was possible at lower temperatures than those necessary for a bed of larger particles to achieve the same extent of carbon conversion in the gasification zone. Since most of the primary tars are cracked into secondary tars at the high temperatures present in the oxidation zone. Model results also predict an average range of tar content between 20 to 200 mg/Nm³ for the range of input parameters used in the model simulation. A higher air supply rate increased both solid and gas phase temperatures and reduced the outlet gas tar content. due to the higher rates of mass transfer achievable. However. and vice versa. outlet gas tar content. more secondary tars (hydrocarbons) than primary tars (oxygenates) are found in the outlet gas from the gasifier.

gas temperatures increase faster. a higher proportion of the oxygen present is used to oxidize the volatile gases. However. By reducing the heat loss through the wall. Increasing the secondary pyrolysis rate has the effect of reducing the primary tar content of the outlet gas. The sensitivity analysis provided a good understanding of the effects of operating and model parameters on the performance of a stratified downdraft gasifier. Temperatures. 143 .Chapter 4 Model results and discussions As the solid-to-gas heat-transfer coefficient is increased. the tar content of the outlet gas can be reduced. Changing the mass transfer coefficient affected the location and maximum temperature of both the solid and gas phases. Decreasing either the mass transfer coefficient or the exchange area favoured gas oxidation and reduced the quantity of the outlet tar. The model was found to be insensitive to changes in the rate of tar oxidation. experimental procedures. and the gas temperature increases. Both primary tar and secondary tar content were found to be sensitive to the ratio of the reacting to non-reacting solid-to-gas heattransfer coefficient. however. tar content and reaction zone stability were all significantly affected by variations in effective thermal conductivity. The validation of the developed model could not be done using experimental data in the literature since those focus on temperature profiles and outlet gas composition and there is no experimental data available on tar profiles along the downdraft gasifier. the reaction zone moves downwards due to increases in heterogeneous reaction rates. the model developed still needed to be validated against experimental data. experimental results and a comparison between model predictions and experimental results are presented. where details of the experimental set up. This investigation is described in the following chapters. It was therefore necessary to conduct an experimental investigation on a stratified downdraft gasifier for the purpose of model validation. An increase in the primary pyrolysis rate leads to the reactor operating in a “pyrolysis dominant” mode and the reaction zone moves upwards.

pp. Ser. Chemical Engineering Science. 2. Dudukovič. 105.. ‘Heat transfer characteristics of porous rocks’.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 4. pp. ‘Gasification of biomass in a downdraft reactor’. AIChE Journal. CEP Symp. Dev. K. 55. vol. vol. Kato. ‘Gasification of char particles in packed beds: analysis and results’.1. J & Hallett. DM 1988. 4451-60. DM. Biomass for Energy and Industry. B 1986. 2931-44. eds. MU. S & Paul. Reyes-Nunez. 71-8.5 References Bhattacharya. G Grassi. AL & Mal’kovskii. Chem. vol. Earp.. GD & Bridgwater. ‘Modelling of fixed-bed coal gasifiers’. ‘An improved model for fixed-bed coal combustion and gasification: sensitivity analysis and applications’. Radulovic. 75. Hobbs. UK. vol. 33. H & Wen CY 1970. Earp. PJ 2001.. Dev. Cooper. 25. Ind. VJ 1986. PhD Thesis. 1213-26. pp. K. 25. B 1981. 144 . Dzhapbyev. Miropol’skii. Di Blasi. pp. no. p. pp. Ghani. no. pp. vol. ‘Heterogeneous model for moving-bed coal gasification reactors’. ML. vol. vol. 20. Eng. EC Conference 9-13 Oct 1989. Lisbon. Ind. ‘Dynamic behaviour of stratified downdraft gasifiers’. p. A. Fuel. Birmingham. D & Smith. PT & Smoot. 10. 159. Chemical Engineering Science. Cho. Elsevier Applied Science. Kubota. B & Joseph. Chem. vol.. 6. no. Radulovic. 1053-72. AV 1990. 38. LR. International Journal of Energy Research.87. 681-702. AIChE Journal. G Gosse and G dos Santos. YS & Joseph. WLH 2000. Process Des. FT & Smoot. 55. Kunii. 66. Evans. vol. ‘Experimental and modelling studies in fixed-bed char gasification’. no. LD 1996. vol. L. JM 1960. pp. Aston University. ‘Mass and energy balances over an open-core downdraft gasifier’. London. 3. Thermal Engng. 988-96. 314-8. vol. Salam. pp. ‘Investigation of unsteady heat transfer in a packed bed of spheres swept by gas’. no. 5. Process Des. LD 1992. Eng. Dasappa. ‘A numerical model for packed-bed combustion of char particles’. C 2000.

M 1983. 145 .Chapter 4 Model results and discussions Milligan. JB 1994. ‘Downdraft gasification of biomass’. Reed. Fundamentals of Thermochemical Biomass Conversion. eds. M 1985. The University of Aston in Birmingham. TA Milne & LK Mudge. 4. MS 1987. Reed. pp. DA Tillman & EC John. ‘Fundamentals development and scale up of the air oxygen stratified downdraft gasifier’. 951-65. TB & Markson. Progress in biomass conversion. pp. Levie. TB. 217-54. PhD Dissertation. TB & Markson. Reed. Solar Energy Research Institute. ‘Biomass gasification reaction velocities’. eds. SERI/PR-234-2571. RP Overend. vol. ‘A predictive model for stratified downdraft gasification of biomass’. B & Graboski.

The experimental set-up. P12 flue gas Orifice meter Stratified Downdraft Gasifier Rotameter Thermocouple connections To gas sampling train Control Valve Air from main blower T1 Suction blower Figure 5. a producer gas burner and a gas sampling train.1.Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure 5.G . The overall schematic of the gasifier system is shown in Figure 5.1 Experimental set-up 146 L. measurement systems.1 Introduction Experiments were carried out in a stratified downdraft biomass gasifier using wood blocks as a biomass fuel. raw materials and experimental procedure are described in this chapter. a wood fuel ignition system.P. The main components of the experimental set-up consisted of an air supply unit. a stratified downdraft gasifier.

The bottom section contained a grate located at a distance of 1500 mm below the top of the reactor tube.2. The top section. Before the experimental work could be continued.3 and also pictured in Figure G. was fabricated from 6 mm thick mild steel tube with a 206 mm inner diameter. The grate was designed so that it could be rotated for the purpose of cleaning. consisted of an inlet section shaped like an inverted funnel mounted above the reactor main cylindrical body. Twelve 25 mm OD stainless steel tubes were attached at three different levels in the middle part of the reactor for the purpose of ignition. groups of four 12 mm OD stainless steel tubes were inserted into the reactor at 50 mm intervals along the reactor down to the level of the grate. pictured in Figure 5.2 Experimental set-up 5. described in Figure 5. presumably due to the very high temperatures in this zone. These tubes were used for the purposes of temperature measurement and gas sampling and were located symmetrically around the reactor circumference.2. some damage to the reactor wall of the middle section was observed. major 147 . No reaction was expected for 700 mm below the inlet so that the lower section acted in practice as a fuel storage bunker. In the middle section.Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure 5. The gasifier. which was cylindrical in shape.1 Experimental stratified downdraft gasifier A small scale stratified downdraft gasifier (40. After three experimental runs had been carried out. The part immediately below the grate served as a gas solid separator. A horizontal 50 mm (ID) diameter pipe attached to the gasifier below the grate served as the producer gas outlet. Several small holes (about 10mm diameter) were found to have developed just below the ignition ports.75 kW thermal input). The reactor can be divided into three sections. gasifier components and auxiliary equipment is shown in Appendix G. Appendix G.2 and shown schematically in Figure 5. A range of photographs of the assembled gasifier. through which air was supplied to the reactor. was designed and fabricated for the purpose of the experimental work. and below that an ashbin was fitted.3.

The temperature measuring ports and ignition ports were located such that the original spacing was maintained.D 340mm).3 in Appendix G.D 356mm X I. A new middle section was fabricated using mild steel tube (O.4 and the step-by-step fabrication process of the new middle section is illustrated in Figure G. A detailed schematic diagram of the modified middle section is shown in Figure 5. Figure 5.Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure repairs had to be carried out to the reactor.2 Picture of experimental stratified downdraft gasifier 148 . A 67 mm thick layer of bonded castable (Tufcast 1700QT) insulation was applied to the inside surface of the gasifier so that the effective internal diameter of the new middle section was the same as that of the top and bottom sections.

Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure 80 mm cover 300 mm 160 mm Top Section 6 mm thick 12 mm ports located 50mm apart.for temperature measurement Ignition ports (25 mm stainless steel. 100 mm apart) 1500 mm and gas sampling C C Reactor wall DETAIL A 206 mm Middle Section 700 mm 600 mm 12 mm Φ12 mm 65 mm 120 mm Ф 20 mm bar SECTION CC Inner Dia 206mm Grate DETAIL A Gas Outlet Port 50 mm pipe 200 mm 100 mm 100 mm Ash pit 100 mm 170 mm Bottom Section Supports 100 mm Figure 5.3 Schematic diagram of experimental stratified downdraft gasifier 149 .

Mild steel 25 mm 50 mm 50 mm 225 mm 12 mm stainless steel tubes (every 50 mm along the reactor) Castable (Tufcast 1700QT) 206 mm 25 mm stainless 350 mm steel tube 100 mm 100 mm 800 mm 25 mm Figure 5.Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure Castable insulation (Tufcast 1700QT) 45° 100 mm 80 mm 6 mm thick flange 422 PCD.4 Schematic diagram of the modified middle section of the reactor 150 .

Flue gas 100 mm stainless steel tube 30 mm Φ holes Pilot flame Air L. A pilot flame from the L.2 Thermal insulation To prevent excessive heat loss from the reactor wall.P. The pilot flame from the L. two layers of ceramic fibre blanket of thickness 25 mm were also wrapped around them.Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure 5.P.G torch was used both for ignition of fuel inside the gasifier and for ignition of producer gas downstream of the reactor.5 Schematic diagram of burner set-up 151 .G torch was injected through one side of the burner.2.G torch was turned on throughout the reactor warm up process to ensure the complete combustion of the very low calorific value producer gas formed during the reactor start-up stage. more details of which are shown in Figure 5.G Smoke from suction blower Producer gas Figure 5. air was introduced through the other sides of the burner. 5.5. two layers of a ceramic fibre blanket of thickness 25 mm were wrapped around the reactor.P. was used to flare the producer gas.3 Flare and burner A L. while the producer gas entered through the bottom of the burner. To prevent the condensation of tar and moisture along the gas-sampling pipes.2.P. A stainless steel burner.

375 1430 1. Outlet pressure and ∆p (kPa) Suction blower (Rotary Blower Unit) Motor power (kW) Speed (rpm) Amps (A) Voltage (V) 0. This enabled some air to be discharged to the atmosphere preventing pressure build up and overloading of the blower motor. The capacity of the air blower was much higher than the required air supply rate for some experimental runs. external power is required for moving the air and producer gas through the gasifier.5 Air blower In the gasification process.65 2500 25.6 101.6. 5.Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure 5.1. Therefore a by-pass valve was attached to the blower. 128.6 152 .2.6 18. Particle removal from the sample gas was undertaken with a cotton wool filter installed in a 35mm steel housing. 27. The filter was replaced with a new one after each experimental run to avoid blockage and no trace of condensate was observed in the used filters. The filter housing was heated and also insulated with a ceramic fibre blanket to avoid condensation of tar and moisture inside it. In the experimental set-up. which was connected at the entrance of the gas sampling line.2. Table 5.2 400/415 15. flow rate (m³/min) Inlet pressure. a blowing system was employed and a rotary piston compact blower was used for that purpose.1 Size and specification of main air blower and suction blower Main air blower (Rotary Piston Compact Blower Unit) – Roots Compressor Type Shaft power (kW) Motor power (kW) Max speed (rpm) Air vol. The detailed specifications of the main air blower are presented in Table 5. which may be done by sucking or blowing.4 Filter The particulates (mainly fine char particles and some ash) in the producer gas sample had to be removed before moisture and tar collection.

producer gas flow rate. gas composition at five different levels in the reactor. tar collection and volume measurement.6 Suction blower In this experiment. Figure 5.2. for which motor specifications are presented in Table 5.3.2. 5. 2002). and which consisted of 3 modules. five impinger bottles and a water bath with two chambers.1. temperatures at each of 16 different levels in the reactor. the suction blower was switched off and only the main blower was used. The moisture collector and impinger bottles were connected in series so that the outlet of one bottle was joined to the inlet of the next. In the preconditioning module. inlet airflow rate. A rotary blower.Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure 5. the gas-sampling set-up and instrumentation are discussed in detail. ignition of solid fuel inside the gasifier was achieved by sucking in the flame from a torch. 5. using a small blower. was used for that purpose. 153 . The measured parameters for the experiments included: tar content of the producer gas at five different levels in the reactor. namely. After ignition of the solid fuel. and wood consumption rate.6 shows the modular sampling train. The tar collection module consisted of a moisture collector.1 Gas sampling train In this experiment. which was set up according to the guideline. gas preconditioning and particle removal. inlet air pressure. This module also included a stainless steel airtight (sealed) lock. Fine particles in the sample gas were removed by a heated filter which is described in detail in section 5. producer gas from five different levels in the gasifier was sampled using a recently proposed standard gas-sampling procedure guideline (Neeft et al. which was held in front of the air suction ports.4. the temperature of the producer gas was maintained within a temperature range of 300-350°C using electric heating tape.3 Measurement systems and instrumentation In this section.

The main purpose of this module was to cool down the sample gas gradually from 20°C to –15/-20°C. pressure and temperature sensors and a volume flow meter. The detailed dimensions of the moisture collector and impinger bottles used in the experiment are shown in Figure 5.6 Gas sampling train 154 . The volume measurement module consisted of a gas suction pump. P T MODULE 1 Electric Heating Filter Rotameter Airtight lock Flow Control Valve Condensate Collection Cooling Water (T= 20°C) MODULE 2 Salt/ice/water mixture (T = -15/-20°C) Dry Gas Meter To gas sampling container Vacuum Pump MODULE 3 Figure 5. The glass tube of the moisture collector was made the same size as the heated stainless steel sampling tube (12 mm OD) so that these two could be joined without any leakage by using a stainless steel tube union.7. The moisture collector and three of the impinger bottles were placed in one chamber of a water bath at 20°C. A control valve was also attached at the inlet to the flow indicator to adjust the sample flow rate.Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure The moisture collector was empty and each of the five impinger bottles contained approximately 50 ml of absorbing solvent (isopropanol). a flow indicator. Two other impinger bottles were placed in the other chamber which contained a cooling mixture of salt. ice and water.

Therefore 5 sets of modules 1. for which details are described in Table 5.5). 2 & 3 were set up.5 mm Rubber seal 24/29 Din=32mm s = 3 mm 285 mm (a) Moisture collector (b) Impinger bottle Figure 5.2. was also used to transfer the gas from each sampling line to the sampling containers. A common water bath and a common vacuum pump were used for these 5 trains. A direct drive high vacuum pump was used as the common vacuum pump and its specifications are presented in Table 5.7 The moisture collector and impinger bottle used in experiments The sampling line was kept as short as possible for all sampling points. A schematic of the modified gas sampling train set-up is shown in Figure 5. A small vacuum pump. In this study. 155 . gas samples needed to be collected from 5 different levels in the reactor. A sampling train such as that described above is designed to process gas only from one designated point in the reactor at any given time.Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure ½ in OD tube Conical ground joints 24/29 Din = 5mm s =1.8 and photographs of the set-up are also presented in Appendix G (Figure G.2.

2 220/240 50 0.9/2.Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure Electric heating Producer gas Airtight lock Producer gas Moisture collector Impinger bottles Flow Control Valve Rotameter Dry Gas Meter P T To gas sampling container via small vacuum pump Filter P T Producer gas P T Common vacuum pump Producer gas P T P T Producer gas Cooling Water (T= 20°C) Salt/ice/water mixture (T = -15/-20°C) Figure 5.375 1430 4.325 1.2 Specifications of common vacuum pump and vacuum pump for gas collection Common vacuum pump (Direct drive high vacuum pump) Motor Power (kW) Speed (rpm) Amps (A) Voltage (V) Vacuum pump for gas collecting Maximum vacuum (kPa) Amps (A) Voltage (V) Frequency (Hz) 101.8 Modified gas sampling train Table 5.3 230/240 156 .

Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure

5.3.2 Measurement of tar content Gravimetric tar measurement enables quantitative measurement of the mass of the portion of a tar sample that is not amenable to GC analysis (Brage & Sjőstrőm 2002). The procedure, described below, is that laid down in a recently proposed standard (Neeft et al. 2002). Figure G.7 in Appendix G illustrates some of the equipment used. After tar collection was complete, the solvent, water and tar mixture collected from the impingers and condenser were mixed in one flask(A). The specified amount (50-100 ml) of solvent was used during rinsing of the moisture collector, impingers and connectors. Due to the solubility of tar in the solvent, the tars can be assumed to be equally distributed through the solvent (S Paasen 2003, pers. comm., 20 January). About 100 ml of the tar solution was poured into a 250 ml flask pre-weighed to an accuracy of 1 mg. The weight of the flask plus tar solution was measured to determine the weight of the solution. The flask was connected to a rotary evaporator and evaporation was started with the water bath at 55°C and the vacuum pressure controller set at 100 mbar. The rate at which drops were falling from the cold finger was checked to ensure the rate was around 1-2 drops per second. Once almost all the solvent had evaporated, the rate of drop fall was decreased to 1 drop per 4 seconds. The evaporation was continued for a further 15 minutes. When no further traces of water were observed, the vacuum was released by letting in air and the rotation of the flask was stopped. The flask was removed from the heated water bath and dried. The flask and tar were then left for 5 minutes before the flask was weighed. The amount of gravimetric tar was determined as follows: The concentration of gravimetric tar in producer gas (mg/Nm³) where W0 = Weight of empty flask(A) (g) W1 = Weight of empty flask(A) + tar solution (g)
=

(M

f

− M0) V

×

(W1 − W0 ) × 1000 (M 1 − M 0 )

(5.1)

157

Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure

M0 = Weight of empty 250 ml flask (g) M1 = Weight of 250 ml flask + 100 ml of tar solution (g) Mf = Weight of tar containing 250 ml flask after evaporation (g) V is the sample gas volume in m³ at normal conditions, which is the difference between the initial and final readings of the gas meter during the sampling procedure, corrected for the actual pressure and temperature of the sampled gas at the dry gas meter. Figure 5.9 summarizes the post sampling procedure of gravimetric tar measurement.

Sampling from gasifier Empty and rinse with solvent Solvent + water + tar Solvent + water + tar Solvent + water + tar

MOISTURE COLLECTOR

IMPINGERS

solvent added

Empty and rinse with solvent

SAMPLING LINES AND CONNECTORS

Rinse with solvent

Weigh residue

Rotary evaporate bulked sample (100ml)

Bulked solvent sample

Calculate concentration of gravimetric tar

Recover solvent

Figure 5.9 Schematic showing post-sampling procedures for gravimetric tar measurement (Source: Neeft et al. 2002)

158

Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure

5.3.3 Measurement of gas composition The gas composition was measured by (Varian 3700) gas chromatograph (GC) using discrete samples taken periodically from the gas-sampling stream. 400ml PVC gas sample containers (see Figure G.6) were used for batch sampling. The sample containers were first thoroughly flushed with a small positive pressure of sampling gas and later filled with it so that air could not leak in before analysis. Next, 5-10 ml of gas sample was extracted through the rubber seal of the gas sample container with a hypodermic syringe for injection into the gas chromatograph. A thermal conductivity detector was used to analyse the gas composition and was able to measure the volume fraction of H2, CO, CH4 and CO2 by integrating the area under the peak in the curve and comparing it with that for a calibration gas of known composition.

5.3.4 Measurement of temperature Chromel-Alumel (K-Type) thermocouples [these are capable of measuring to within ±8°C accuracy over the temperature range of the combustion zone (900-1200 °C)] were used to measure temperatures at 16 different levels along the experimental reactor and also the outlet gas temperature. Copper-Constantan (T-Type) thermocouples were used to measure the sampling gas temperature and inlet air temperature. These thermocouples were connected to a data logger (DataTaker 500) which recorded the temperature values every 3 seconds.

5.3.5 Measurement of pressure Inlet air pressure and the pressure drop across the orifice plate meter were measured by using pressure transducers which were also connected to the data logger; this recorded the sensor outputs every 3 seconds. For the measurement of inlet air pressure, a Setra pressure transducer [Model 206. 25 PSIG (0.15% accuracy)], which can measure a range of gauge pressure between 0 and 25 psi (0 and 172 kPa) was used. Pressure drop through the orifice plate was measured by a Setra pressure transducer [Model 264. 25 WG (1.0% accuracy)], which can measure differential pressure in the range 0-25 in H2O (0-6.2 kPa).

159

Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure

5.3.6 Measurement of supplied airflow rate Air supply rate to the gasifier is one of the most important input operating parameters and it was necessary to measure this accurately and continuously. Airflow rate was measured by an orifice meter consisting of a washer-shaped plate with a central hole of diameter d that was placed in the centre of the air pipeline. The positions of the upstream and downstream pressure tappings, together with detailed dimensions of the orifice plate used in the experiment, are shown in Figure 5.10. By knowing the upstream pressure and temperature, and the differential pressure across the orifice plate (as mentioned in sections 5.3.4 & 5.3.5), the airflow rate can be calculated using a standard method (British Standards Institution 1965), details of which are presented in Appendix E.

D D

D/2

d
D = 28.65 mm t d = 12.27 mm t = 1.6 mm

Figure 5.10 Constructional arrangement of experimental orifice plate

5.3.7 Measurement of gas flow rate When a gas is cool and clean, its flow rate can be directly measured by flow measurement devices such as rotameters, Pitot tubes, orifice meters, venturi meters, etc. However, in this experiment, hot producer gas was flared without prior cooling. Therefore, the total gas flow rate was not measured directly but indirectly estimated by means of a nitrogen balance across the gasifier, assuming the nitrogen content of wood to be negligible.

160

Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure

Producer gas flow rate (Nm³/hr) =

Air supply rate (Nm³/hr) x N2 Vol fraction in air N2 Vol fraction in producer gas

(5.2)

By knowing the volume fraction of major gas species (H2, CO, CH4 and CO2) in the final producer gas, the balance could be assumed to be N2 since levels of O2 and other gases such as hydrocarbons would be negligible at the reactor outlet.

5.3.8 Measurement of wood consumption rate Average wood consumption rate was estimated by measuring the fuel volume consumed during the experiments. Wood was normally loaded up to the top of the reactor at the start of an experiment and the height of the fuel layer from the reactor top after the experimental run was measured to calculate the wood consumption rate as follows: Wood bulk Wood consumption rate (kg/hr) = density (kg/m³) Reactor crossx section area (m²) x Length of wood column consumed (m) (5.3)

Duration of experiment (hr)

5.3.9 Cold gas efficiency If the producer gas is used as a fuel in an internal combustion engine, the sensible heat of the gas is not utilized. The conversion efficiency estimated based on the energy in the cold gas is called the cold gas efficiency and it is defined as follows: Cold gas efficiency (%) where Energy carried by producer gas = Energy supplied to gasifier VFgas CRwood VFgas x NHVgas CRwood x NHVwood (5.4)

=

= volumetric flow rate of producer gas (Nm³/hr) = consumption rate of the wood blocks (kg d.b /hr)

NHVgas = net heating value of producer gas (MJ/Nm³) NHVwood = net heating value of the wood (MJ /kg d.b)

161

Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure

5.4

Raw materials

The raw materials used for the stratified downdraft gasification study were mainly wood blocks, with some charcoal used for the reactor warming up process.

5.4.1 Wood blocks Red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) wood sticks of square cross-section were purchased from a local red gum wood supplier in two different sizes: as 20mm x 20 mm x 1800 mm long and 30 mm x 30 mm x 1800 mm long. Since the wood sticks were only available in green wood condition, the original average moisture content was found to be as high as 45% db. Therefore, purchased wood sticks were dried in a kiln for about 10 days and the average moisture content was decreased to 13% db. The dried wood sticks were cut into two different cubic block sizes (20 x 20 x 20 mm and 30 x 30 x 30 mm) using a band saw. The wood blocks were stored in drums for experimental use. Pictures of samples of the two different sized wood blocks are shown in Figure 5.11. The measured properties of the red gum wood blocks are presented in Table 5.3.

Figure 5.11 The 30 mm and 20 mm sized wood blocks

162

Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure

Table 5.3 Average properties of red gum wood blocks

Characteristic Gross Heating Value (MJ/kg) Apparent density (kg/m³) Small Blocks Size (mm) Bulk Density (kg/m³) (20 mm cube) Void fraction, (-) (20 mm cube) Moisture content (% w.b) Larger Blocks Size (mm) Bulk Density (kg/m³) (30 mm cube) Void fraction, (-) (30 mm cube) Moisture content (% w.b) Proximate Analysis (wt % d.b) Volatile Matter Fixed Carbon Ash Ultimate Analysis (wt % d.b) C H O N S Ash

Value 20.04 951

Test Method (*) ASTM - D 2395-83

20 x 20 x 20 527 0.45 9.7 ASTM - E 871-82 ASTM - E 873-82

30 x 30 x 30 485 0.49 12.2 ASTM - E 871-82 ASTM - E 873-82

75.95 23.92 0.13

ASTM - E 872-82 ASTM - E 870-82 ASTM - D 1102-82

52.90 5.30 41.63 0.01 0.03 0.13

**HRL – Method 1.4 HRL – Method 1.4 HRL – Method 1.4 AS 1038.6.3.3 HRL – Method 1.6

* Calculated from values of ultimate analysis. (Reed & Agua 1988).
**

HRL is the NATA registered laboratory that analysed the wood sample.

163

Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure 5. E 873-82 E 871-82 13. Since the size of the charcoal blocks available from the market was bigger than the size required in this study.b) Volatile Matter Fixed Carbon Ash Value 20-30 244 5.2 Red gum charcoal Suitably sized charcoal is required for initial start-up of the gasifier to avoid the formation of large amounts of tar within the reactor under warm-up conditions. these were manually broken into smaller pieces to facilitate the feeding and burning. Table 5.58 86. To achieve a uniform size. The measured properties of the red gum charcoal blocks are presented in Table 5. 164 . The rest of the reactor was then filled up with wood blocks.5 Experimental procedure At the beginning of the first run. Bags of red gum wood charcoal were purchased from a local charcoal supplier.b) Proximate Analysis (wt % d.4. The selected charcoal pieces were stored in drums for experimental use.52 E 872-82 E 870-82 D 1102-82 5.06 ASTM Standards Test Method No. the gasifier was filled with sized charcoal up to the ignition level (the air suction port) to avoid tar formation during start-up. broken charcoal blocks were sieved to obtain the 20–30 mm fraction.90 0. the top cover was closed and a suction blower was started up in order to suck in a flame from a torch held in front of the four air suction ports.4.4 Average properties of red gum charcoal blocks Characteristic Size (mm) Bulk Density (kg/m³) (20 mm cube) Moisture content (% w. After loading the fuel.

the outlet gas was sampled and the composition and tar content of the producer gas were measured as discussed in section 5. The inlet airflow rate was measured using an orifice meter. The experimental run continued until the wood blocks had burned down to the level of the ignition ports. The volume fractions of H2. Details of the experimental conditions are given in the next chapter (Chapter 6). 5. Then air at the desired rate was supplied to the top of the reactor. Temperatures at 16 different levels along the reactor were measured by K-type thermocouples. A stainless steel burner was attached downstream of the system to flare the producer gas. It required about 10-15 minutes to achieve steady operation. CO. this took 1. Air was supplied to the gasifier by a rotary piston compact blower. For each of a series of predetermined airflow rates. CH4 and CO2 165 . Producer gas from five different levels of the reactor was sampled through a gas sampling train which was slightly modified from a standard gas sampling system. which was held in front of air suction ports. Ignition of solid fuel inside the gasifier was achieved by sucking in a flame from a torch. The tar content of sampled gas from the five different levels was determined by a standardized gravimetric tar measurement method. Experimental runs were carried out for various rates of air supply for both the two different sizes of wood blocks.0 hours depending on the rate of air supplied. combustion was well developed inside the gasifier and the suction ports were closed. using a small blower. by which time the heating value of the producer gas was high enough for self-burning without a pilot flame.3. The setting up of the experimental rig and the carrying out of experimental runs were conducted in strict accordance with CSIRO occupational health and safety regulations.Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure After 1-2 minutes of ignition time. Tar collection and gravimetric measurements were carried out in accordance with the safety precautions laid down in the sampling guideline (Neeft et al.6 Summary A stratified downdraft gasifier of a small scale (206 mm ID) was designed and fabricated for the purpose of this experimental study. 2002).0 to 2.

Two different sizes of red-gum wood blocks were used as fuel. The performance of the gasifier was determined for various rates of inlet air supply. Suitably sized red gum charcoal was also used as ignition initiation fuel. In the following chapter the results of the experimental work on the stratified downdraft gasifier are described and the results obtained are discussed. Total gas flow rate was calculated by carrying out a nitrogen balance across the gasifier and the average wood consumption rate was estimated by measuring the fuel volume consumed during the experiments.Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure in the gas samples were measured by gas chromatography. 166 .

<vanpaasen@ecn. Simell. Buffinga. N. TB & Agua. Brage.nl>. D 1988. Neeft. Orifice Plates. 20 January. C & Sjőstrőm. Biomass Energy Foundation Press. Energy project EEN5-1999-00507 (Tar protocol). Greil. Sjőstrőm. Washington. Zielke. 1042 : Part 1 : 1964. C. Dorrington. email. Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN). The Netherlands. British Standards Institution 1965. Nozzles and Venturi Tubes. report related to the project Tar Guideline (project no EEN5-00507). C & Suomalainen.S. GJ. K 2002. MA. SVB van 2003. Abatzoglou. P. B. Guideline for sampling and analysis of tar and particles in biomass producer gases (Version 3. Paasen. HAM.3). S. PA. U. ‘An outline of R&D work supporting the tar guideline’. Reed. M 2002. Methods for the measurement of fluid flow in pipes: Part1. Knoef. Handbook of biomass downdraft gasifier engine systems.Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure 5. JPA. 167 .7 References Brage. Deutch. Hasler.

2 Experimental results A total of 19 experimental runs was conducted. 6.1 Introduction As discussed earlier. A numerical model was constructed. Unlike earlier stratified downdraft gasifier studies. Validation of this model could not be done using previously published experimental data since there are no experimental data available on tar profiles along a downdraft gasifier either for a traditional (with throat) or a stratified (without throat) reactor. as described in Chapter 5.27. The predictions of this model. the detailed development of which is discussed in Chapter 3. together with details of a sensitivity analysis carried out to test the effect of changes in different operating and model parameters on model predictions.5. Normally.6 kg/hr) and the size of the wood blocks (20 mm or 30 mm cubes). under a range of operating conditions.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation 6. that have largely focused on temperature profiles and gas compositions. It was therefore necessary to conduct an experimental investigation on a stratified downdraft gasifier constructed specifically for the purpose of model validation. at the start of a run the bed was loaded up 168 . the objective of this project was to improve our understanding of how stratified downdraft gasifiers work. In addition. the model developed in this project was designed also to provide information on tar formation and reduction within the body of a gasifier using wood as a fuel. there is very limited experimental data on gas composition profiles along the reactor axis. Details of the experimental set-up and experimental procedures are presented in Chapter 5 while this chapter presents the experimental results and model validation procedures. were described in Chapter 4. Conditions varied between runs were: the air supply rate (7.

601) was carried out using small wood blocks only and no initial charge of charcoal.5 show that good elemental balance closures were also achieved over the full range of input rates and operating conditions. More detailed information for individual runs is given in Appendix F. i. Details of the overall and elemental mass balances for all experimental runs are presented in Table 6. material balances closed to within 3%.2 shows that for 14 out of the total 20 experimental runs. carbon and hydrogen were conducted in a similar way. the gas composition profile.3% and this indicates that considerable reliance can be placed on the accuracy of the experimental measurements. Table 6. 169 . reactor cold gas efficiency and reaction zone velocity. The average value of mass balance closures for all experimental runs was found to be 99. air to fuel ratio. Another 5 runs had closures within 5% and the last run closed to within 6%. fuel consumption.2 to Table 6. gas production rate. During experiments. These results are summarised in Table 6.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation to the level of the ignition port with charcoal.1. Material and elemental balance closures are important indicators of the quality of experimental results since mass has to be conserved across the gasifier. 6. the main parameters measured or calculated were: temperature profiles along the gasifier.5.e. The inputs comprised the inlet air and moist wood while the outputs comprised the dry gas and condensate.2. the tar profile. Table 6. To determine the effect of this procedure (which was introduced to avoid excessive tar formation during the reactor warm up) an additional experimental run (Run no.1 Material balance and elemental balance The reliance that can be placed on experimental data is determined by the accuracy and completeness of the measurements obtained. by determining the ratio of the total outputs of each individual element to the total inputs of that element.3 to Table 6. Elemental balances for oxygen. Material balance closure over the entire period of experimental run was calculated by dividing the total mass output by the total mass input (and multiplying by 100 if it was to be expressed as a percentage).

28 15.6 113.12 1.88 15.68 15.49 48.60 13.4 167.56 16.65 8.22 1.0 88.93 19.2 27.24 18.20 49.43 2.23 1.85 15.08 1.34 1.1 69.96 49.09 4.8 Run numbers were assigned by dates when experiments were conducted.92 16.95 50.22 Dry gas outlet composition (vol%) H2 14.10 1.82 19.60 27.76 16.56 12.8 Energy out (MJ/hr)b 81.74 17.93 4.95 Energy in (MJ/hr)c 135.65 46.7 64.85 27.30 1.0 101.43 14.72 6.32 22.00 12.32 9.70 1.51 2.1 159.36 17.17 11.18 13.15 CH4 1.0 106.76 15.26 1.04 1.00 9.11 12.83 Gasa LHV (MJ/ Nm³) 4.22 1.22 1.31 1.29 18.05 2.15 3.5 97.95 4.65 50.3 70.49 1.28 1.42 1.61 7.2 MJ/Nm³ for H2.58 9.10 49.23 14.6 131.23 1.78 7.22 18.00 CO 19.71 11.02 47.3 225.46 12.24 1.83 Outlet gas Tb (°C) 468 488 460 473 464 483 397 580 393 407 488 424 526 471 514 596 441 501 437 438 Gas flow (Nm³/ hr) 17.4 21.53 1.1 91.0 90.25 1.61 1.96 2.9 104.25 1.11 5.53 1.57 2.53 N2 52.28 13.79 17.23 8.6 60.68 CO2 12.39 34.70 43.9 66.4 Cold gas η (%) 59.8 74.50 24.49 16.00 49.30 18.01 17. 13.9 85.79 19. Run no 510 means that an experiment carried out on 10th of May (2003)].71 47.28 10.3 63.17 17.03 5.46 12.66 12.50 10.04 2.44 21.29 15.6 17.71 11.79 18.16 12.56 16.73 4.87 4.29 6.9 22.51 12.46 1.6 83. Input and output energy of the experimental gasifier was calculated by using the LHV of wood fuel and LHV of producer gas respectively.47 4.53 12.15 9.1 20.23 1.12 10.95 13.48 12.83 17.48 1.5 128.94 1.34 10.90 19.4 57.21 1.45 18.8 102.2 118.94 4.46 10.31 7.33 15.46 3.4 54.29 7. (Reed &Agua 1988) Outlet temperatures of producer gas were average values of measured data between 30 -40 min after ignition.1 MJ/Nm³ for CO and 37.7 63.08 26.06 18.4 63.3 129.71 16.39 4.12 1.89 2.11 10.4 116.98 18.6 190. [i.21 1.06 9.21 13.44 1.78 7.03 11.48 2.00 14.33 4.60 13.9 179.9 162.1 137.98 18.44 1.57 1.6 117.8 71.3 23.72 46.21 Flow rate (kg/hr) 14.30 14.97 4.00 1.45 13.97 2.11 6.1 19.96 5.32 4.5 80.96 50.6 119.22 1.82 AF ratio (-db) 2.92 20.39 11.6 73.6 134.93 Tar (mg/ Nm³) 58 34 47 37 22 20 50 16 61 65 48 35 88 45 23 62 28 33 59 964 wood rate (kg/hr) 8.9 70.04 15.9 19.51 14.48 16.23 1.27 13.38 49.8 64.99 47.29 11.42 1.5 217.31 15.05 19. LHV of producer gas was calculated from the gas composition by using the value of 11.3 74.00 17.27 1.22 2.6 22.21 17.59 1.31 21.24 12.99 18.33 1.87 4.09 19.9 16.00 15.9 70.3 120.61 27.30 32.34 1.90 17.7 75.64 size (mm) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 20 MC (%wb) 9.21 1.41 2.50 1.5 24.7 21.95 18.54 9.20 6.2 209.0 98.99 12.91 2.6 62.94 1.07 46.31 7.8 P (kPa) 1.25 6.10 ρ (kg/m³) 1.e.91 5.09 2.83 18.58 12.22 2.43 1.24 23.9 22.22 1.4 20.50 58.47 11.96 2.2 68.50 18.09 49.29 1.22 1.83 4.68 5.97 14.4 131.7 23.75 18.91 18.51 25.10 5.40 2.8 61.85 4.03 7.65 47.18 1.3 21.80 16.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation Table 6.15 7.0 64.21 1.1 68.5 22.37 9.48 22. 170 .22 1.03 5.4 76.7 32.3 89.09 15.97 2.15 4.54 17.33 8.94 4.46 1.02 19.73 7.1 MJ/Nm³ for CH4.2 23.80 17.1 Performance summary of experimental stratified downdraft gasifier wood block Run no* 311 314 318 320 502 504 506 508 510 513 515 517 522 524 525 527 528 531 604 601 * a b c Inlet air T (°C) 21.78 2.02 2.63 12.96 18.

36 8.16 4.59 0.2 95.64 1.98 1.46 16.56E-10 1.64 16.91 6.2 103.04 0.13 20.23 3.31 15.16 1.92 20.19 1.99 1.04 3.52E-04 1.11 6.63 0.15 12.51 (%) 82.77 8.53 81.75 12.16 3.19 98.43 6.52 18.2 99.24 1.11 5.21 13.71 1.09 2.42 22.09 3.11 81.25E-02 0.60 13.60 27.33E-10 1.60 98.48 10.83 37.30 0.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation Table 6.19 1.22 Inputs (kg/hr) Dry wood Moisture Total Gas 7.43 6.74 8.9 97.22 7.48 6.25 0.25 0.8 101.61E-10 1.48 22.2 100.11 2.42 2.32 2.86 4.38 93.45E-10 1.08 0.76 1.21 6.65E-04 1.0 95.64 5.05 6.17 2.96 38.81 20.71E-10 2.37 16.40E-03 2.34 88.62 6.36 4.49 0.84 4.38 30.3 2.05 34.05 0.43 6.0 99.42 0.51 0.24 110.77 11.39 5.51 22.32 22.06 30.99E-04 1.29 0.92 3.17 0.06 3.3 98.08 6.17E-04 1.15 3.24 0.42 17.16 Average closure (%) Standard deviation σ <95% mean Outputs (kg/hr) Tar H2O 1.24 171 .18 1.31 2.59 1.5 103.79 22.20 0.77 2.3 100.68 3.3 100.80 95.41 39.43 86.34 10.10 3.17 41.10 11.22 6.53 88.19 2.85E-10 1.35 4.21 2.46E-04 0.08 8.25 21.36 2.38 26.85 2.95 7.95 3.25 0.06 0.03 92.09E-03 1.66 100.84 Table 6.1 100.12 5.60 19.13E-09 1.11 6.55 3.91 19.16 3.7 95.80 20.13 2.28 15.19 2.46 37.48E-10 2.36E-10 2.44 0.63E-04 0.50 24.34 91.11 5.00 3.6 96.54 5.67E-04 0.66E-09 Average closure (%) Standard deviation σ <95% mean Closure Total 3.91 Total 21.88 19.95 3.97 0.19 32.12 3.79 20.63 12.81 28.24 0.94 6.4 98.54E-10 1.09 1.27 2.50 2.95 0.09 19.11E-03 2.02 20.61 6.3 Carbon balance summary Run no 311 314 318 320 502 504 506 508 510 513 515 517 522 524 525 527 528 531 604 601 Carbon inputs from wood (kg/hr) 3.28E-09 1.45 2.57 91.27 0.88 26.73E-10 1.58 0.65 20.83 6.68 41.57 16.2 Material balance summary Run no 311 314 318 320 502 504 506 508 510 513 515 517 522 524 525 527 528 531 604 601 Air 14.67 22.98 31.57 16.08 3.8 102.36 1.4 102.27 0.56 17.05 82.25 21.62 22.8 101.39 3.75 0.87 22.58 0.37 1.13 16.43 30.27 1.86 1.73 7.27 13.60E-04 1.26 2.93 33.36 1.47 0.99E-10 1.21 5.00E-03 1.12 4.99 6.19 5.76E-10 1.78 17.78 19.77E-04 2.54 87.17 0.78 Carbon outputs (kg/hr) from from From from CO CO2 CH4 tar 1.94 5.55 20.01E-10 3.37 5.85 15.62 4.47 0.71 11.73 5.76 0.38 23.41 85.3 99.76 9.43 1.90 0.21 6.10 4.24 1.04 15.77E-04 1.53 12.20 1.41 3.02 2.88 0.08 5.82 15.84 4.75 1.10 1.75 1.80 16.48 34.96 3.83E-10 2.45 13.31 32.86 90.16E-04 1.73 3.11 3.62E-10 3.96 23.69 2.04 0.68 2.58 25.90 2.62 1.85 20.89 92.24 6.40 0.14 3.51E-04 1.48E-10 2.71 11.31 3.75 22.36 0.12 5.72 0.26E-03 1.36E-04 1.50 10.33 0.95E-04 0.91 107.02 17.20E-10 2.62 0.08 Closure (%) 94.74 27.

62 84.17 0.85 106.07 0.64 0.15E-05 0.32 8.20 0.16 0.19 2.65 103.58E-04 0.10 0.30 0.05 5.95 2.88 2.26 0.04 3.09 2.62 0.08 0.69 110.57 0.08E-05 0.87 3.87 172 .17E-04 2.29 0.04 9.13 6.73 103.11E-05 0.75 99.65 101.32 0.58 6.27 4.99 116.30 2.36 0.22 0.0 9.15E-05 0.93E-05 0.78 8.42 6.14 0.85 2.62 1.29 1.09 3.25 0.03 5.39 0.25 0.03 5.69 114.33 101.61 5.67E-04 0.41 6.92 94.34 6.04 5.25 10.28 6.62 2.76E-05 0.77 13.21 0.71 0.35E-04 1.33 0.07 0.05 0.91 4.68 9.62 95.06 1.42 0.04 7.13 2.11 0.19 2.17E-04 1.62 102.29 11.47 0.20 0.12 0.00E-04 0.88 5.32 10.05 4.07 4.50 4.06 0.85 7.34E-04 0.96 97.63 0.37 0.59 3.55 0.47 2.09 0.79 4.12 3.60 3.45 0.04 6.71 0.92 10.42 (%) 93.84 0.24E-04 1.55 0.09 4.07 1.90E-04 0.71 0.58 3.34 3.66 3.34 3.08 1.96 2.84E-04 0.24 0.41 0.79 5.03 6.41 112.88 5.23 0.45 2.81 Average closure (%) Standard deviation σ <95% mean Closure Total 6.34 0.28 0.07 0.43 0.23 0.73 0.46 1.48 0.44 0.37 0.19 1.26 102.89 2.34 0.14 2.70 0.77 2.94 100.30E-04 2.36 Table 6.11 0.32 2.06 0.20 2.48 3.10 0.51 0.60 105.44 1.65 2.67 2.97 1.94 4.46 0.37 0.78 2.61 0.81E-05 0.10 Average closure (%) Standard deviation σ <95% mean Total 0.63 0.99 1.30 0.81 6.42 97.27E-05 0.98 93.68 7.57 99.95E-05 0.39 2.52E-04 1.86 5.34 0.84 2.10 0.88 3.50 102.36 0.32E-04 1.77 3.41 0.99 1.29 0.11 0.20 94.03 2.10 0.09 0.07 9.49 0.74 105.90 6.96 2.94 12.30 6.33 2.81 2.28 0.70 5.06 0.02 110.02 4.66E-05 0.14 4.64 0.11 0.77E-04 1.42E-05 0.67 7.39 0.87 9.05 2.50 5.05 6.38 0.00 104.27 93.44E-05 0.82E-03 0.11 4.16 3.81 0.08 0.5 Hydrogen balance summary Run no 311 314 318 320 502 504 506 508 510 513 515 517 522 524 525 527 528 531 604 601 Hydrogen inputs (kg/hr) Hydrogen outputs (kg/hr) from from from from From From Total CH4 Tar H2O wood Moisture H2 0.94 0.70 6.75 0.38 0.75 0.59 6.90 3.65E-05 0.53 2.65 3.49 12.46 0.78 0.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation Table 6.09 0.34 1.34 0.45 97.52E-04 0.37 88.10 0.57 95.28 0.55 2.68 6.27 5.70 3.57 0.87E-04 1.05 5.34 0.29 0.17 0.81 2.08 0.55 3.02 3.39 0.10 5.47 4.83 0.39 4.72 6.98E-05 0.40 0.19 0.05 92.4 Oxygen balance summary Run no 311 314 318 320 502 504 506 508 510 513 515 517 522 524 525 527 528 531 604 601 Oxygen inputs (kg/hr) Oxygen outputs (kg/hr) from dry from from From from from from Total Moistur tar H 2O wood air CO CO2 3.54 0.86 101.96 2.07 2.42 0.53 3.45 0.64 3.15 0.86 7.69 5.99 1.14 0.04 8.38 0.87 3.60 0.35 1.08 4.28 2.51 0.98 101.13 0.15 0.81 7.31 0.12 3.32 0.06 8.50E-04 0.88E-10 1.68 124.44 0.72 2.06 3.12 0.16 0.43 0.31 Closure (%) 84.76 0.82 3.02 10.64 102.85E-04 0.20 1.12 0.21 0.46E-04 1.30 2.48 0.46 0.98 5.57 3.28 0.41 0.66 2.73E-05 0.22 0.78 6.42 0.12 0.40 4.89 98.13 0.33 2.94 10.69 5.65 8.44 0.37 107.51 5.55 5.34 0.16 0.69E-04 0.62 0.99 2.76 1.69E-04 0.05 5.16 3.49E-05 0.83E-05 0.57 0.98 90.10 0.65 3.57 2.65 95.35 0.34 0.67 4.65 96.57 5.50 0.04 4.13 0.

2 Temperature At the beginning. as the reactor warms up.92 kg/hr. Figure 6.1 shows a representative set of changes over time of temperatures at four different locations in the gasifier. It was observed that only after the temperature at the grate level reached 350-400 °C.2. was the outlet producer gas able to burn by itself without the LPG flare. The Figure shows clearly how the rate of temperature change at the base of the reactor is high initially and then the temperature levels off at its steady state value about 15-20 minutes after ignition starts. The temperature at the fuel ignition level is at a high value except at the very beginning of the run. with 20 mm blocks) 173 .1 Temperature record for experiment 314 (air flow 16. These fluctuations are attributed to a combination of small reaction zone shifts and to changes in the micro-environment around the thermocouple as the solid bed moves down past it. 1400 400 mm above grate (ignition level) 1200 1000 800 150 mm above grate 600 400 200 750 mm above grate 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 50 mm above grate Temperature (°C) Time (sec) Figure 6. Temperatures near the top of the gasifier (750 mm above the grate) were observed to stay about 10-20 °C higher than the ambient temperature throughout the experimental run and therefore no physical or chemical changes would be expected in the fuel bed at that level.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation 6. but fluctuates within the range of 950-1270 °C. the heat from the burning char goes to heating up the bottom char bed and the reactor itself (mainly the thick refractory wall). Under these conditions rates of gasification are insignificant to small. both of which absorb a large proportion of the heat produced at this stage.

the rate of upward movement of the reaction zone was estimated to be 0.5 kg/hr. the value of the peak temperature increases with increases in the airflow rate.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation Temperature profiles measured in run 510 at three different levels above the ignition port are presented in Figure 6.2. From the distance between corresponding sections of the profiles at different times the rate of reaction zone movement can be estimated. From the profiles shown in Figure 6. 14. Air supply rates for the three curves shown were 10.6 kg/hr and the temperatures shown are averages over the period 30 to 40 minutes after ignition. The profiles show temperatures increasing rapidly at the beginning of the combustion zone and then gradually decreasing in the gasification zone. It is evident that in this run the reaction zone moved upwards in the reactor. as would be expected.2.7.063 mm/s. It can be seen that. 174 .3).3 shows how temperatures vary along the gasifier once steady gas producing conditions have been reached.8 & 19. 150 mm above ignition level 250 mm above ignition level 350 mm above ignition level 1200 1000 Temperature (°C) 800 600 400 200 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Time (sec) Figure 6. This pattern is similar to that predicted by the model (model validation is discussed in detail in the next section (section 6.2 Temperatures measured at three different levels above the ignition port during run 510 (Airflow 7. ignition started at 400 mm above the grate) Figure 6.

3.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation Figure 6. a higher airflow rate slows down the upward reaction front movement.7 kg/hr 14.8 kg/hr 19.3. The results show nitrogen to be the dominant constituent of the outlet gas (46-58 vol %).3 Gas composition Gas samples were taken from five different levels of the reactor at two different times during each experimental run and analysed by gas chromatography as discussed in Section 5. The outlet gas compositions were relatively consistent over the range of operating airflow rates used. The concentration of CO2 was in the range of 11-17 vol%. This is discussed in more detail in Section 6.2. This illustrates the effect of airflow rate on movement of the reaction zone.3 Temperature profiles at three different air flow rates (average temperature values between 30 min and 40 min after ignition) 6. Of the combustible gas components.3. 1400 1200 Temperature (°C) 1000 800 600 400 200 0 800 600 400 200 0 10. CO has the highest concentration (16-21 175 . As predicted by the numerical model.3 also shows that peak temperatures for the three different airflow rates occur at different points along the reactor even though ignition was started at the same level (400 mm above ignition) in all cases.6 kg/hr Distance from grate (mm) Figure 6.

4 as a function of air supply rate for both wood block sizes.3. and not unexpectedly.2. A similar result was also obtained in an experimental study in which a 600 mm internal diameter stratified downdraft gasifier was operated using wood chips and wood pellets (Walawender. the initial loading of charcoal rather than wood into the gasifier below the level of the ignition ports ensured no tar formation occurred below the combustion zone. From Figure 6. as predicted by the model. Secondly. Chern & Fan 1987). since air was introduced to the system at the top of the reactor rather than from the sides of the reactor.0-1. 6. it can be seen that tar content generally decreased as the air supply rate increased. total energy output increased linearly with the increase in fuel consumption. For this run the tar content was almost 1000 mg/Nm³. 6.4. which was about 15 times higher than that for an experimental run at a similar air supply rate for which a charcoal bed was used. A small fraction of CH4 (1.2.5 Energy output The total energy output (determined from the outlet gas composition and flow rate.2 MJ/Nm³.4 Tar content Tar contents of gas samples from five different levels in the gasifier were determined by following the procedures described in subsection 5.1 shows that outlet gas tar contents for all experimental runs (except run 601) were less than 100 mg/Nm³. The positive effect of the charcoal bed was well illustrated by what happened in run no 601 in which wood fuel only was used and there was no initial char bed. This can be attributed to two factors.3 to 5. As can be seen from the figure. Tar content in the outlet producer gas is shown in Figure 6.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation vol%) followed by H2 (14-19 vol%). 176 . and expressed in MJ/hr) is plotted against dry wood consumption rate in Figure 6.2. which is about 20 times less than the tar content found in gas from a traditional downdraft wood gasifier. Net heating values of the outlet gas ranged from 4. there was uniform distribution of air across the reaction zone. Firstly. Table 6.5.7 vol%) was also present.

5 Energy output versus dry wood consumption rate 177 .4 Outlet gas tar content as a function of air supply rate 180 160 Total energy output (MJ/hr) 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 4 6 8 10 12 14 20 mm blocks 30 mm blocks Dry wood consumption rate (kg/hr) Figure 6.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation 100 Outlet tar content (mg/Nm³) 80 60 20 mm blocks 40 30 mm blocks 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Air supply rate (kg/hr) Figure 6.

air to fuel ratio. average cold gas efficiency was found to be 70 %. wood consumption rate. 178 . Within the range of air supply rates (7. As shown in Figure 6. given the extent of scatter in the results.5 kg/hr. and reaction zone movement) were then compared. A slight increase in cold gas efficiency with increases in air supply rate is suggested by the results but.6 Cold gas efficiency Cold gas efficiency is plotted against the air supply rate in Figure 6. further work would be needed to confirm this apparent trend. the numerical model was run using the same operational input parameters as those used in the experimental runs.6 kg/hr) tested.2.3 Comparison of model predictions and experimental results To compare the model predictions with experimental results.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation 6. gas production rate. similar values of cold gas efficiency were achieved for most of the runs. gas composition profiles.27. 100 Cold gas efficiency (%) 80 20 mm blocks 30 mm blocks 60 40 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Air supply rate (kg/hr) Figure 6.6. tar profile.6. The predicted and experimentally measured values of various gasifier performance parameters (transient and steady temperature profiles.6 Cold gas efficiency versus air supply rate 6.

temperatures measured inside the reactor using the thermocouples inserted through the reactor wall are more likely to reflect solid surface temperatures or intermediate temperatures rather than true gas phase flame temperatures (Barriga & Essenhigh 1980).7. Resolution of this problem will have to wait until temperature sensors better suited to measuring the temperatures in the gas spaces of a moving packed bed are available. the values of the peak gas temperature predicted by the model are higher than the experimentally measured values and experimentally measured temperatures rise to their peak values more gradually than those predicted by the model. causing the reaction zone to move upwards.3. especially at the time of reactor start up. The numerical model predicts that within the first ten minutes after initial ignition heat released from the ignited char will cause the gasification zone temperature to increase. Since gasification zone temperatures over the initial warm-up period are not high enough for gasification rates to be significant. in the model oxidation of volatiles released from the pyrolysis zone is described by a kinetic expression alone. The trend of the experimental temperatures over time is quite similar to that predicted by the model. The model predicts that temperatures in the gasifier will increase sharply in the oxidation zone.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation 6. measured transient temperature profiles are compared with the temperature profiles predicted by the model. and the bed of particles in the reaction zone is continually moving. 179 . The effect of this is that the model predicts complete oxidation of the volatiles within too short a length of the reactor. In addition. After 15-20 minutes of ignition. and then decrease more gradually along the gasification zone. too rapid attainment of the adiabatic flame temperature. Two reasons can be put forward to explain this discrepancy. the rate at which the gasification zone heats up is predicted to slow and the temperature profiles to stabilise. peak. since mass transfer effects are very difficult to include. However. Temperature gradients within the gas spaces are large. and therefore too sharp an increase in the gas temperature. Firstly. The second reason relates to the difficulties involved in obtaining accurate measurements of true flame temperatures in the gaseous oxidation zone within a packed bed of particles. the pyrolysis rate is predicted to be higher than the gasification rate.1 Temperature profiles In Figure 6.

5 kg/hr. It can be seen that there were no significant differences in gas outlet temperature for the two different wood block sizes.8 shows the gas temperature at the reactor outlet (which was measured with thermocouple T1 in Figure 5. This is because a higher air supply rate 180 .Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation 1800 1600 1400 Temperature (K) 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 800 600 400 Distance from grate (mm) 200 0 Model Experimental Ts (2 min) 2 min 5 min 10 min 15 min 20 min Tg (2min) Ts (5 min) Tg (5 min) Ts (10 min) Tg (10 min) Ts (15 min) Tg (15 min) Ts (20 min) Tg (20 min) Figure 6.7 Comparison of predicted and experimentally measured temperature profiles along the axis of the gasifier (air flow rate: 15.1 (Chapter 5)) as a function of air supply rate for both wood block sizes. wood block size 20x20x20 mm) Figure 6. while gas temperature tends to increase with an increase in air supply rate.

This discrepancy is largely attributable to the fact that the gas outlet temperature predicted by the model is the temperature at the level of the grate while the experimental gas outlet temperature was that measured inside a gas outlet pipe located about 250 mm downstream from the level of the grate (see Figure 5. 700 Outlet gas tem perature (°C) 600 20 mm blocks 500 400 300 200 5 10 15 20 25 30 30 mm blocks Model (20 mm) Model (30 mm) Air supply rate (kg/hr) Figure 6. which also raises the gas outlet temperature. The predicted gas outlet temperatures. especially at higher airflow rates. Even though attempts to minimise heat losses downstream of the grate were made by wrapping the pipe in insulation.8 also compares the experimental results with model predictions. however.1). The figure shows that the outlet temperature predicted by the model increased over the range of air supply rates shown by an amount similar to that by which the experimental results increased. some loss of heat was inevitable.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation leads to higher gas temperatures in the combustion zone. It was not possible to insert a thermocouple at the level of the grate since clearance was required for rotation of the grate. predicted values are those at 30 min after ignition) 181 . Figure 6.8 Predicted gas outlet temperatures compared with experimental results as a function of air supply rate (experimental points are average values over the 2 minute interval between 29 -31 minutes after ignition. were generally higher than the experimentally measured values.

6. In Figure 6.3 Tar profile As described in Chapter 5. This is attributed to the fact that predicted temperatures distributions rose more sharply than experimental ones. For CO2. H2 and CH4. this was not possible since there was no online gas analyser available.504 is compared with compositions predicted by the model. The model predicted a much more rapid rate of increase in the levels of these gases and attainment of steady state values well upstream of the point where this occurred in the experimental runs.1. the amount of tar in the sample from this sampling point was taken to be representative of gas 182 . there was a greater difference between model predictions and experimental data.3. However. Both sets of samples were collected during the period of steady state operation (more than 30 min after ignition). For CO.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation 6. It can be seen that the model was able to predict gas composition profiles reasonably well. The top sampling point was located either 50 mm or 150 mm above the ignition level depending on where the ignition was started.3. however.9. the experimental data confirmed the model prediction that CO2 levels would increase to a peak in the combustion zone and then decrease slightly in the gasification zone. During the experimental runs it would have been ideal to carry out online measurement of gas composition at different points along the gasifier.9.3. gas samples were collected over two different intervals from five different levels in the gasifier. Predicted and observed steady-state values were in good agreement. tar contents of gas samples drawn from five different levels in the gasifier were measured. Gas compositions during the gasifier start up period were determined for two runs (Run 504 and Run 531). Therefore gas compositions were determined by taking gas samples and analysing them using gas chromatography as described in Chapter 5. as discussed in subsection 6. For most of the experimental runs.2 Gas composition profiles Comparisons between the model predictions and experimentally measured values of gas compositions (dry basis) along the gasifier axis are presented in Figure 6. the data from experimental run no.

6. small wood blocks) (a) 10-15 min after ignition (b) 30-40 min after ignition 183 .6 kg/hr.9 (a) 25 Gas composition (vol %) 20 15 10 5 0 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 CO (model) H2 (model) CO2 (model) CH4 (model) CO (experimental) H2 (experimental) CO2 (experimental) CH4 (experimental) Distance from grate (m m ) Fig. The last sampling port enabled the tar content of the producer gas at the gasifier outlet to be determined.9 Comparison of model and experimental dry gas composition profiles along the gasifier for two different time intervals (air flow rate 19. The gases sampled from the other three sampling ports (each 100 mm apart along the gasifier below the top sampling port) enabled the tar profile through the gasification zone to be determined. 25 Gas composition ( vol %) 20 15 10 5 0 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Distance from grate (m m ) CO (model) H2 (model) CO2 (model) CH4 (model) CO (experimental) H2 (experimental) CO2 (experimental) CH4 (experimental) Fig.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation phase tar content in the pyrolysis zone.9 (b) Figure 6. 6.

Both sets of results show the tar content in the pyrolysis zone to be much higher than that in the gasification zone and outlet gases.92 kg/hr Fig.48 kg/hr experimental model experimental model 4000 Tar content (mg/Nm³) Tar content (mg/Nm³) 4000 3000 3000 2000 2000 1000 1000 0 600 400 200 Distance from grate (mm) 0 0 600 400 200 Distance from grate (mm) 0 Fig. experimental model experimental model 4000 Tar content (mg/Nm³) Tar content (mg/Nm³) 4000 3000 3000 2000 2000 1000 1000 0 600 400 200 Distance from grate (mm) 0 0 600 400 200 Distance from grate (mm) 0 Fig. 6.10 (b) for air flow rate = 15. Tar levels in the gasification zone are orders of magnitude less than that in the pyrolysis zone. The highest level of tar (2500-4000mg/Nm³) occurs in the pyrolysis zone and this decreases rapidly as the gas passes through the oxidation zone. 6.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation Figure 6.50 kg/hr Fig. Not unexpectedly.10 (c) for air flow rate = 16.10 shows predicted and experimentally measured tar profiles along the gasifier for four different airflow rates.10 Comparison of predicted and experimentally measured condensable tar profiles along the gasifier for different airflow rates under steady state operating conditions 184 . 6. 6.10 (d) for air flow rate = 19.60 kg/hr Figure 6.10 (a) for air flow rate = 13. the lowest tar level occurs in the outlet gas samples.

Wood fuel consumption rate (kg/hr) 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 20 mm blocks 30 mm blocks Model (20 mm) Model (30 mm) Air supply rate (kg/hr) Figure 6. The figure shows that varying the air supply rate has no significant effect on the air-fuel ratio.3. and the gasification rate also increases since a higher amount of CO2 and H2O is released from the combustion zone.4 Fuel consumption Predicted and experimentally observed wood fuel consumption rates are presented in Figure 6.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation 6.3. In line with expectations. Figure 6. This is consistent with the finding.11 as a function of air supply rate. it was found that the wood fuel consumption rate was directly dependent on the amount of air supplied to the gasifier.12 shows the predicted effect of airflow rate on the air-fuel ratio (the ratio of mass of air supplied to the mass of fuel consumed) together with that calculated from experimental results. A higher air supply rate increases the rate of combustion because more oxygen is available to react with both char and volatile gases. discussed in subsection (6.5 Air-fuel ratio Figure 6. that the rate of fuel consumption is a linear function of air supply 185 .11 shows that model predictions agree very well with the experimental data.4).3.11 Wood fuel consumption versus air supply rate 6.

3. In other words. the agreement between predicted and observed air-fuel ratios is very good. In the case of the larger wood particle size the model predicts an air-fuel ratio higher than that for the smaller wood blocks.b) versus air supply rate 6. 1994). For the 20 mm cubes. however.b) 3 20 mm blocks 2 30 mm blocks Model (20 mm) Model (30 mm) 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Air supply rate (kg/hr) Figure 6. as reported by other authors (Barriom. The fact that the observed air-fuel ratio for the 30 mm blocks lies below the predicted value and close to that for the 20 mm cubes suggests that the 30 mm blocks are cracking or breaking up into smaller pieces in the gasifier to a greater extent than allowed for in the model. the air-fuel ratio is a parameter which cannot be controlled by the operator but which is controlled by the gasifier itself and by the properties of the fuel.12 Air-fuel ratio (kg/kg d.13 shows predicted and experimentally measured gas production rates as a function of air supply rate.6 Gas production rate Figure 6. This is as expected given that the 30 mm cubes have a lower specific surface area than the 20 mm cubes. Fossum & Hustad 2001. 4 Air: fuel ratio (kg/kg d. The figure shows that there is a linear increase in gas 186 . García-Bacaicoa et al. This would be consistent with the observations of Salazar (1987) who observed a greater incidence of cracking as the diameter of the cylinders of Eucalyptus delegatensis he was pyrolysing was increased above 20 mm.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation rate.

However.14 (b) shows a similar pair of temperature profiles for two different wood block sizes and the same air flow rate.e.3. movement of the reaction front was in an upwards direction.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation production rate as the air supply rate increases.7 Variation of reaction zone movement with air flow rate and wood block size By measuring temperature profiles along the gasifier at different times after ignition it is easy to establish if the reaction zone is changing position within the gasifier. 40 Gas production rate (Nm³/hr) 30 20 mm blocks 20 30 mm blocks Model (20 mm) 10 Model (30 mm) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Air supply rate (kg/hr) Figure 6.7 kg/hr) the reaction zone moved in the other direction. Figure 6. 187 .3 kg/hr.13 Gas production versus air supply rate 6. in the case where the airflow rate was considerably higher (24.14 (a) show that in the first case. Figure 6. where the airflow rate was 11. downwards.3. The profiles in Figure 6. The model predicts a higher gas production rate when 20 mm blocks are used than when 30 mm blocks are used but there is no significant difference between the observed gas production rates for 20 mm and 30 mm blocks at the same air flow rate. The likely reasons for this divergence between model predictions and experimental results were discussed in subsection 6. i.14(a) shows temperature profiles measured at two different times for two different airflow rates but the same wood block sizes.5.

30 mm block) Distance from grate (mm) Distance from grate (mm) Figure 14.14 (a) Temperature profiles at two different times (1000 seconds and 3000 seconds respectively after ignition of the charcoal bed) for two different air flow rates (same fuel size) (b) Temperature profiles at the same two times for two different fuel sizes (same air supply rate) ir The same effect of air supply rate on reaction front movement was observed in model predictions.(b) Figure 6. 20 mm blcok) 1400 1200 1000 Temperature (°C) 800 600 400 200 0 1000 sec 3000 sec Distance from grate (mm) Distance from grate (mm) Figure 14.7 kg/hr.3 kg/hr.3 kg/hr. at lower air supply rates the predicted direction of reaction zone movement was upwards and. 20 mm block) 1400 1200 1000 Temperature (°C) 800 600 400 200 0 800 600 400 200 0 1000 sec 3000 sec (11. As discussed in the sensitivity analysis of the model (Chapter 4). as 188 . 20 mm block) 200 0 800 600 400 200 0 800 600 400 200 0 (24.3 kg/hr.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation 1400 1200 1000 Temperature (°C) 800 600 400 (11.(a) 1400 1200 1000 Temperature (°C) 800 600 400 200 0 800 600 400 200 0 (11.

14 (b).15 which compares predicted and observed rates of reaction zone movement for a range of airflow rates. further increases in air supply rate reverse the direction of movement.06 0. when big wood blocks (30mm) are used at the same air flow rate the reaction front moved downwards. Relatively good agreement was obtained between model predictions and experimental results. When using small wood blocks (20mm) at an airflow rate of 11.3 kg/hr. 0.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation the air supply rate increased. A similar effect of fuel particle size on zone movement rate and direction is predicted by the model. as discussed in the section on sensitivity analysis in Chapter 4.04 0. The effect of wood block size on reaction front movement is shown in Figure 6. Beyond a certain limit (in this study this is about 20 kg/hr). This is well illustrated in Figure 6. it is evident that the reaction front moves upwards.02 Experimental model 0.08 Upward zone movement rate (m m/sec) 0.00 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Air flow rate (kg/hr) Figure 6.15 Variation of reaction zone movement rate with air supply rate (comparison between model and measured values) 189 . However. causing the reaction zone to move downwards towards the grate and the reactor operates in the gasification dominant mode. the rate of zone upward movement decreased.

This discrepancy between predicted and measured temperatures is in part attributable to the difficulties in measuring gas temperatures in a moving packed bed and partly due to the nature of the kinetic expressions used to characterise gas phase combustion reactions. At the beginning of an experimental run. The observed rate of increase in gas temperature in the combustion zone was slower than that predicted by the model while the peak gas temperature predicted by the model was higher than that found experimentally. temperatures rapidly increased at the ignition level of the charcoal bed and heat released from the combustion zone went largely to heating up the bottom char bed.7 vol%) was also present in the producer gas. the section of the gasifier below the ignition ports was filled with charcoal rather than with wood. 190 . Of the combustible gas components. CO was present in the highest concentration (16-21 vol%) followed by H2 (14-19 vol%). It took about 20 minutes to reach a steady operating condition.2 MJ/Nm³. Experimental results showed that the outlet gas temperature increased (within the range of 400°C to 600°C) with an increase in air supply rate and a similar trend was observed in model predictions.0-1. Such tar contents are about 20 times less than the tar content found in the gas from traditional downdraft wood gasifiers.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation 6. For all experimental runs where a charcoal bed was used during start up. If. The combustion zone temperature was dependent on the air supply rate and under steady operating conditions lay in the range of 1000-1300°C. Net heating values of the outlet gas were in the range of 4. prior to ignition.5 to 27.3-5. tar contents of less than 100 mg/Nm³ were obtained. A small fraction of CH4 (1. An average cold gas efficiency of 70% was observed. a significant reduction in the tar content of the outlet producer gas was achieved. The gasifier was run successfully at a fairly wide range of airflow rates (7.6 kg/hr) with corresponding energy outputs ranging from 54 to 168 MJ/hr.4 Conclusions A small scale stratified downdraft gasifier (206 mm ID) was run using two different sizes of red gum wood blocks and the effect of air supply rate on reactor behaviour was studied for the purpose of validating the model described and discussed in Chapters 3 and 4.

Air-fuel ratio was not affected by changes in air supply rate. Wood fuel consumption rate and gas production rate were both observed to increase linearly with an increase in air supply rate. 191 . there was good agreement between exit gas compositions predicted by the model and those obtained experimentally. A higher airflow rate favoured the downward movement of reaction zones as did the use of larger wood block sizes. The value of the specific gasification rate for which stable operating conditions were achieved was predicted by the model to be in the range of 290-296 kg/hr/m² (dry basis) and this agreed very well with the range of 290-308 kg/hr/m² determined from experimental results. The rate of increase in the concentrations of two combustible components (H2 and CO) along the gasifier was observed to occur more gradually during experimental runs than was predicted by the model. As expected. Good agreement between predicted and measured tar contents was obtained in the gasification region. however. the gravimetric tar content of the gas was found to be highest in the pyrolysis zone and reduced dramatically while passing through the oxidation zone.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation The model was able to predict reasonably well the gas composition profiles at different times after start up.

607-27. D 1988. CM 1987. 229-35. Paper 80. 48. J & Salvador. Chern. ed. WP. M & Hustad. ‘Influence of operating parameters on the performance of a wood-fed downdraft gasifier. ML 1994. ASME Meeting. ‘The influence of particle size and shape on the mechanisms of decomposition of wood during pyrolysis’. Washington. M. pp. Bilbao. LK Donald. A & Essenhigh.WA/HT-32. pp. Energy from Biomass and Wastes X. ‘A mathematical model of a combustion Pot: Comparison of theory and experiment’. 217-54. Chicago. Australia. Reed. Progress in Thermochemical Biomass Conversion’ ed. Walawender. ‘Scale-up of downdraft moving bed gasifier (25-300 kg/h) – design. experimental aspects and results’ Bioresource Technology. García-Bacaicoa. AV Bridgwater. RH 1980. PhD Dissertation. P. TB & Agua. Handbook of biomass downdraft gasifier engine systems. 192 . LT 1987. JE 2001. R. Biomass Energy Foundation Press. SM & Fan.5 References Barriom. Fossum. pp. Barriga.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation 6. Salazar. Arauzo. ‘A small-scale stratified downdraft gasifier coupled to a gas engine for combined heat and power production’. vol. The University of Melbourne.

2 Optimum length of reaction zones One of the important steps in optimizing gasifier operation is to establish how long the reaction zones should be. In this chapter use is made of the model developed in this project and the experimental results obtained in this study and by other researchers to determine the best operating conditions for a stratified downdraft gasifier. producing a low tar content gas. Besides. The model was also able to predict how the tar content of the gas changed along the gasifier and the stability of the reaction front. i. Generally good agreement was obtained between predicted and experimentally measured trends and values. but at the same time it leads to increased heat losses to the surroundings and lower temperatures in the gasification zone. 193 . Generally. conditions under which it can operate stably for a long time. The model developed was able to predict reactor behaviour under both start-up and steady state operating conditions. 7.Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier 7. In this section. Reaction zone length has significant effects on gas phase reactions and how far they proceed towards completion. a longer reaction zone leads to higher cold gas efficiencies and better tar cracking. with a longer reactor it takes more time to reach steady conditions since a larger charcoal bed needs to be heated up.1 Introduction Previous chapters describe a theoretical and experimental investigation of the stratified downdraft wood gasifier. and also on the extent of tar reduction. the effect of changes in the length of the reaction zone was investigated by analysing the cold gas efficiency profile and tar profile along the axis of the gasifier.e.

An increase in efficiency was observed closer to the grate level. 100 Cold gas efficiency (%) 80 60 Air flow rate 40 13. At that level (250 mm above the grate).09 kg/hr model (15 kg/hr) 20 0 500 400 300 200 100 0 Distance from grate (mm) Figure 7.1 where the cold gas efficiency predicted using the model rises to its final value much more quickly than the efficiencies calculated from the experimental data. and below the level of 250 mm there was no further significant improvement.1 presents several cold gas efficiency profiles. This discrepancy is reflected in Figure 7. the cold gas efficiency predicted at that level by the model was 99.1 Cold gas efficiency profiles along the axis of the gasifier 194 . at least from the standpoint of cold gas efficiency. As was discussed in the previous chapter.92 kg/hr 22.Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier Figure 7. these efficiencies were calculated using values predicted by the model and also values measured experimentally at different airflow rates. Experimental observations showed that gas sampled at a point 550 mm above the grate was of very low quality. although predicted and experimentally measured final gas compositions were similar. which results in a very low cold gas efficiency of about 20%. the average measured cold gas efficiency was found to be 97% of the cold gas efficiency at the reactor outlet. Therefore.5 kg/hr 16. At a level of 350 mm above the grate a satisfactory fuel gas was produced. predicted rates of formation of CO and H2 were much faster than those observed experimentally.3% of the cold gas efficiency at the reactor outlet. since there is so little change between the 250 mm level and the grate. Similarly. 250 mm above the grate can be taken as the practically optimum end point for the reaction zones. having an average CO and H2 content of 6%.

The figure shows that tar reduction still continued along the gasification and inert char zone. The amount of tar removed per unit length of reactor diminishes steadily as one moves down the gasifier. A value of 0. Figure 7. From this it can be inferred that a reaction zone length of around 375 mm is sufficient to provide desired cold gas efficiency levels under a variety of operating conditions. This depth also needs to be checked against the tar content profile along the gasifier axis. and since predicted and experimentally measured tar profiles were in good agreement.Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier For the three different airflow rates referred to in Figure 7. Therefore. As discussed in the previous chapter. An average level of 625 mm above the grate was taken as the starting point for the reaction zones. However. tar profiles in this air flow rate range were used in selecting the optimum reaction zone length.20.5 kg/hr.2 shows predicted tar reduction rates along the gasification zone and inert char zone under stable operating conditions at the above airflow rates. a reaction zone depth selected solely with reference to cold gas efficiency is not appropriate where tar minimization is desirable. experimental measurements showed that the temperature rose from ambient levels to reaction temperature (higher than 700°C) at a point between 600 mm and 650 mm above the grate. the model predicts that the stratified downdraft gasifier should operate stably over the limited range of air flow rates between 19.025 mg/mm was felt to be an appropriate cut-off value for the tar reduction rate and this value was used in establishing the optimum end point for the reaction zones from a tar minimization point of view. The starting point of the reaction zone was defined as the level where 195 . the tar profile predicted by the model was used to determine the optimum reaction zone length. The model predictions also showed that tar reduction continued below the 250mm level for a wide range of air supply rates.0 kg/hr. Therefore.1. The average value of the tar content measured at a point 250 mm above the grate was found to be about twice that found in the outlet producer gas. it is not enough just to accept the optimum reaction zone depth determined on the basis of cold gas efficiency. Since experimentally measured gas compositions and gravimetric tar measurements were only available for five different levels.

0 Starting point of reaction zone (mm above the grate) 593 589 Starting point where tar reduction rate lower than 0. It was found that 425 mm is a suitable length for reaction zones where tar minimization is concerned.2 0.1 0.5 Tar reduction rate (mg/mm) 0. 0.0 kg/hr 0.1 presents estimates of optimum reaction zone length for the two airflow rates bounding the region of stable operation.025 mg/mm 176 157 Optimum reaction zones length (mm) 417 432 425 Average optimum reaction zones length (mm) 196 .6 0.3 0.4 Air flow rate 19.2 Predicted tar reduction rates along the gasification zone and inert char zone Table 7.Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier the solid temperature reached 1000 K and char oxidation could be expected to start in earnest.0 400 300 200 100 0 Distance from grate (mm) Figure 7.5 20.5 kg/hr 20. This length is greater than that determined from cold gas efficiency considerations.1 Estimation of optimum reaction zone length based on tar reduction rate Air flow rate (kg/hr) 19. Table 7.

the tar content level in gas produced in this study when using wood blocks only (no initial charcoal bed) is compared with results from other experimental throatless downdraft gasifier studies.Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier 7. This shows that when working with stratified downdraft wood gasifiers operating in the conventional way one cannot be assured of producing gas with a tar content low enough for power applications.4-12. Loof & Bhattacharya (1994) Air was supplied from sides Wood chips (6. Table 7. the stratified downdraft type of gasifier was selected for study in this project since it has a number of advantages over the traditional throated gasifier.7 mm) Hard wood chips (14 mm) Red gum hard wood blocks (20 mm) 206 964 600 776-2.2 shows that tar contents found in all these experimental studies are beyond the acceptable limit for engine applications. the tar content needs to be lower than 100 mg/Nm³ and preferably less than 50 mg/Nm³ (Knoef 2000 & Stassen 1995).445 75 522 Milligan. Thus. Table 7. For the producer gas to be acceptable as a fuel for an internal combustion engine. it is necessary to investigate the factors which influence final tar content in order to establish how tar contents can be reduced.2 Measured tar content levels from different throatless downdraft gasifier studies Fuel type & size (mm) Reactor Diameter (mm) Wood blocks (10-15 mm) 200 3.2.3 Investigation of low tar gas production for the stratified downdraft gasifier As discussed in chapters 2 & 3. In Table 7. Of particular importance is that the scale up problems associated with the throated gasifier can be largely eliminated. Evans & Bridgwater (1997) Walawender.600 Bui. Chern & Fan (1985) This study _ Tar content (mg/Nm³) Source Remarks _ _ 197 .

This shows how the solid temperature at the level of the grate predicted by the model varies with time for the cases where an initial charcoal bed is and is not used. In their experimental set-up. In addition. Loof & Bhattacharya (1994) is higher than those reported by others. About 15 minutes after ignition. The effect of this radially non-uniform distribution of temperatures in the gasifier is that some wood particles pass through the combustion zone without completing devolatilization and therefore evolve tarry materials downstream of the combustion zone. The figure shows that when no charcoal is used the gasifier can 198 .Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier From Table 7.3. it can be seen that the tar content reported by Bui. air was introduced to the reactor through nozzles which were located circumferentially around the reactor. the oxygen in air supplied from the sides of the reactor is not uniformly distributed through the fuel since combustion tends to take place predominantly in the area close to the air nozzles and temperatures fall away as one moves towards the centre of the fuel bed. excessive smoke release from the stack was observed within the first 15 minutes after ignition since the volatiles released were not being completely oxidised in the burner.2. The effect of loading the lower part of the gasifier with charcoal rather than wood is well illustrated by Figure 7. some of the pyrolysis products passing down the centre of the gasifier will not be fully cracked. This is probably due to the nature of their air supply system.3. 7. This problem will be aggravated in larger diameter gasifiers where temperatures at the centre of gasifier will be much lower than those near the walls. no more visible smoke was emitted and after a further 15 minutes a steady condition was reached where the producer gas was able to burn by itself without the LPG flare. Generally. This helps confirm the superiority of a top air supply system over a side air supply system for the downdraft gasifier. When the experimental work using wood blocks only was carried out.1 Performance of the reactor when using wood fuel only As has already been discussed the stratified downdraft gasifier operating just with wood fuel cannot produce gas with a tar content low enough for engine applications. the reactor was operating like an inverted updraft gasifier. At this stage.

for wood only operations. pyrolysis is the dominant process during the reactor start up period. However.4 presents predicted volatile matter density profiles along the axis of gasifier at various times during the first 2 hours of gasifier operation. 900 Solid temperature at grate level (K) 800 700 600 500 wood only 400 300 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 with charcoal bed Time after ignition (min) Figure 7. This is because much of the heat transferred to the solid particles is used to provide the energy needs of the endothermic wood decomposition reactions. In other words.) Figure 7. In the latter case. there is a much slower rate of increase in solid temperatures in that section of the bed below the ignition port. it is helpful to know how long it takes before carbonization of that part of the fuel bed below the ignition port is complete. and a longer time is needed for the solid temperature to reach its final steady value. From a practical point of view.Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier be expected to take 15 to 20 minutes longer to reach a steady operating temperature than when an initial charge of charcoal is used. for wood only operations devolatilization is the dominant process during the early part of the reactor warming up stage. in the case of the wood only operation. (This is because tar levels in the gas are likely to remain high until carbonisation is complete.4 that the rate of 199 . no significant reactions occur during the start up phase and most of the heat released in the combustion zone goes to raise the sensible heat content of the charcoal bed. It can be inferred from Figure 7.3 Dynamic behaviour of solid temperature at reactor outlet As discussed above.

However.5 that the high tar levels are attributable to the processes occurring in the lowest part of the bed. for wood only operations the low temperatures in the lowest part of the bed mean that volatile matter continues to evolve 200 . devolatilization is largely complete except in the bottommost 100 mm of the bed. Even after two hours of operation a small amount of volatile matter is still being evolved within the zone 100 mm above the grate showing that completion of devolatilization has still not been achieved. Figure 7.4 Volatile matter profile along the gasifier axis This failure to achieve complete devolatilization significantly affects the final tar content of the gas. Within the combustion and gasification zones tar levels soon drop off to a level similar to those observed when charcoal is used. After one hour of operation. Also shown are the tar profiles predicted by the model for the period 125 to 150 minutes after ignition.5 shows tar levels along the axis of the experimental gasifier measured at steady operating condition during run no 601. 800 Density of volatile matter (kg/m³) 600 20 min 40 m in 60 min 400 80 min 100 min 120 min 200 0 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Distance from grate (mm) Figure 7. It is evident from Figure 7.Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier devolatilization in the lower part of the gasifier is reasonably fast in the first hour of operation. in which no initial charcoal charge was used. The figure shows that the final tar content is about 20 times higher than the average values of the tar content for the case when an initial charcoal charge was used.

However. There are two ways of getting round this problem. The first is to charge the lower part of the gasifier with charcoal to the height of the ignition port during the first experimental run only.3. run the gasifier until all the wood has been consumed or converted to charcoal.Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier over a long period of time and since it cannot be cracked efficiently at these low temperatures it is carried out in the final gas stream.5 Tar profiles along the axis of the gasifier for wood only operation These observations show that to achieve effective tar reduction within the gasifier tar formation in the region downstream of the oxidation zone needs to be avoided as far as possible.2 Alternative operating procedures for the stratified downdraft gasifier Despite its advantages. They also show that running the gasifier for a number of hours will not necessarily achieve low enough tar levels in the gas. This was not the procedure followed during the experimental 201 . and then use this residual charcoal in the next run. 7. 4000 125 min 130 min 135 min 140 min 145 min 150 min experimental Tar content (mg/Nm 3) 3000 2000 1000 0 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Distance from grate (mm) Figure 7. using an initial charge of charcoal in the gasifier has been shown to overcome these problems and yield gas with a tar level that is acceptable for use in engines. using a gasifier operating procedure that employs an initial charge of charcoal in the lower part of the fuel bed has the drawback that suitably sized charcoal pieces have to be available when needed.

7 shows that the temperature profiles at 105 minutes and 120 minutes after start up are practically coincident indicating that increasing the air flow rate had been successful in achieving stable operation. The model was run assuming the reactor was initially operated at a low airflow (6 kg/hr) under which condition reaction zones were predicted to move upwards at an average velocity of 0.167 kg/m²sec] to achieve stable operation. the gasifier was unloaded after each run so that the tar sampling pipe could be cleaned by blowing pressurized air through it.Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier runs undertaken in this project.see section 7. Figure 7. The proposed procedure was simulated using the model developed in this project and the results are shown in Figure 7. A new charge of charcoal was then loaded before the next run. in real world applications. the gasifier can be initially run as a charcoal producing unit rather than as a gas producer and then switched to gas production.7 and Figure 7. Figure 7. the charcoal remaining from a previous run should be able to be used directly in subsequent runs without the gasifier having to be emptied and a new charcoal charge loaded.7 shows how the temperature profile along the gasifier axis varies with time under the proposed procedure. However. air is introduced from the top of the reactor at a very low airflow rate (5-7 kg/hr) [0.2) the air flow rate is increased to 19-20 kg/hr [0. 3) The reaction front will move upwards. As discussed in previous chapters. Using this approach.6 shows a schematic diagram of the proposed operating procedure.058 kg/m²sec]. 202 . The proposed operating procedure is as follows: 1) Fill the gasifier with wood blocks and ignite the bottommost 50-100 mm of bed. After a 90 minute period the reaction front was predicted to reach the required zone height and the airflow rate was increased to a value which is suitable for stable operation. and when it reaches a point 400-450 mm above the grate (the desirable reaction zone height .158-0. 2) After ignition is well under way. In this study.058 mm/sec. Figure 7.8. by supplying air at a low flow rate the gasifier can be made to run in a pyrolysis dominant mode and the reaction front will move upwards.042-0. A second approach is to use the gasifier itself to produce the charcoal needed.

7 Changes over time of temperature profiles in the gasifier for the procedure of producing charcoal inside the gasifier 203 .Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier Air 0.6 Experimental procedure that obviates the need to use an initial charge of charcoal 2000 1800 1600 120 min ∆t = 15 min 15 min Temperature (K) 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 500 Ts Tg 400 300 200 100 0 Distance from grate (mm) Figure 7.167 kg/m²sec Wood Wood blocks Wood blocks Combustion front Char Ignited fuel bed bed 50 – 100 mm 400 450 mm Wood blocks Combustion front Char bed 400 450 mm Initial conditions Reaction front moves upward Reaches required zone height Increase in air supply rate Stable operation Figure 7.042-0.042-0.058 kg/m²sec Wood Air 0.058 kg/m²sec Wood Air 0.158-0.

204 Cold gsa efficiency (%) 69 . However. After the airflow rate is increased to normal operating levels.Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier 3500 3000 70 Tar content (mg/Nm 3) 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 66 Tar Efficiency 68 67 65 Time (min) Figure 7.8 Variations over time of outlet gas tar content and cold gas efficiency for the procedure of producing charcoal inside the gasifier Figure 7. It can be seen that high amounts of tar are predicted to be present in the outlet gas during the period when airflow rates are low. to a value less than 10 mg/Nm³. coupled with the problem of how to deal with the tar rich gas produced over the initial period.8 shows the variation over time of outlet gas tar content and cold gas efficiency when the gasifier was run so as to produce the required charcoal bed inside the gasifier. This occurs because the solid and gas phase peak temperatures are not high enough for effective tar cracking and also because the initial bed height is less than that required for good tar reduction to be achieved. makes the practical usefulness of this procedure rather doubtful. as the gas composition alters. An increase in cold gas efficiency also occurs at this time. The model predictions appear to confirm that under the proposed procedure the stratified downdraft gasifier can be brought to a point where it is running stably and producing a low tar content producer gas. predicted solid and gas phase temperatures increase rapidly and the tar content is dramatically reduced. the time required to reach a steady operating condition is rather long and this.

9 Two-stage gasification systems proposed by TUD (Denmark) and AIT (Thailand) Gasification unit Charcoal bed Secondary air Low tar content gas Low tar content gas (b) Concept of two-stage gasifier (AIT. Thailand) conducted their work with a single reactor. tar Reduction zone (Second stage) Two-stage gasifier Primary air (a) Concept of two-stage gasifier (TUD. Denmark) Figure 7. The first group (TUD. Biomass Partial oxidation of pyrolysis gas Pyrolytic gases + charcoal Biomass Pyrolysis unit Air. and then operated at an appropriate air flow rate.3. Attempts have also been made to produce a low tar content gas by modifying gasifier designs. Thailand) 205 .3 Two different concepts on two-stage gasification As discussed above. Two research groups have investigated the use of what they have termed “two-stage gasification”.9. producer gas with a low tar content and which is suitable for engine applications can be produced in a stratified downdraft gasifier as long as the gasifier is initially filled with charcoal to the height of the ignition port. Denmark) studied a system involving two separate reactors while the other (AIT. The underlying principles of the systems developed by both groups are illustrated in Figure 7.Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier 7. steam Flaming pyrolysis zone (First stage) Products gases.

However. As well as this. The behaviour of this two-stage gasification system (AIT) was simulated using the model and the results are discussed in the next subsection. To transport the charcoal produced in the pyrolysis unit to the gasifier unit. it was possible to use the model developed in this study to investigate the performance of their system theoretically. Henriksen and Christensen (1994) suggested that the sensible heat content of the exhaust gas from the engine could be made use of to replace the electrical heating system in a future commercial plant. which is acceptably low. Bui. an external steam producing system is also required to provide the steam to the gasifier unit. The main modification introduced by the second group is the use of a secondary air intake as well as the usual primary one. Since pyrolysis is carried out in a separate unit and the tars partially oxidized before entering the gasifier unit. (Bentzen et al. is much simpler. Loof and Bhattacharya (1994) reported that the tar content of the gas from their gasifier was as low as 50 mg/Nm³. the tar content of the gas from this system was below 25 mg/Nm³. Brandt. a conveyor such as a piston feeder or a screw conveyor is needed.Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier The concept put forward by the first group involves a separate initial pyrolysis unit coupled with a downdraft char gasifier (Bentzen et al. The addition of secondary air to the reduction zone not only introduces additional oxygen but also causes an increase in temperature in this zone. about 40 times less than that in the gas from a single-stage reactor under similar operating conditions. Henriksen & Christensen 1994). the complexity of this system makes it far less attractive than the stratified downdraft gasifier operated using an initial charge of charcoal. Due to the relative simplicity of the reactor used by the second group. This has the effect of reducing tar levels considerably. 206 . The two-stage gasifier proposed by the second group. 2001). 2001. both to make and to operate. and an electrical heating system was used for this purpose. Larsen & Henriksen 2000. at AIT. The pyrolysis unit must be air tight and needs to be heated externally.

a marked difference from the single. the model was modified such that air was supplied simultaneously at two different levels in the gasifier.9 (b). the combined primary and secondary airflow rate was set at 20 kg/hr and different combinations of primary and secondary air flows tried. rather smaller peak. the values of the operating parameters used in the two-stage gasifier simulation were the same as the baseline parameter values for the single stage gasifier (Table 4. the effect of changing the level at which secondary air was introduced was also explored.10 shows how the solid and gas temperature profiles are predicted to vary with time along the two-stage gasifier. The temperature profiles at the ignition port level are quite similar to those of the single-stage reactor which was discussed in Chapter 4. Since the introduction of secondary air leads to higher temperatures in the region close to the grate. as indicated in Figure 7.1). the rate of increase in fuel bed temperatures at the level of the grate is faster than that observed in a single-stage unit. In addition. Since an air supply rate of 19-20 kg/hr enabled stable operating conditions to be achieved in a single stage reactor. overall gasification rates in the two-stage unit increase faster during the reactor warming up period. Except in the case of the air supply rate.4 Simulation on two-stage gasification To simulate the two-stage gasifier concept. and the model predicts that gas produced in a two-stage gasifier reaches the desired heating value within a shorter time than gas from a singlestage unit. As a result.3. As is the case with the first peak. 207 . the gas phase temperature at the point where the second peak occurs is higher than the corresponding solid temperature. In the simulation it was assumed that secondary air could be uniformly distributed across the gasifier at the level where it was introduced. (a) Temperature profiles Figure 7. with both solid and gas phase temperatures increasing to a second.stage profile occurs at the level where secondary air is introduced. Fuel was assumed to be ignited through an ignition port located 500 mm above the grate and primary air was supplied through the top of the reactor. However.Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier 7.

with the injected oxygen reacting almost instantaneously. secondary air supply: 300 mm above grate.11 (a) shows how the oxidation rates of various gaseous components are predicted to vary along the first stage combustion zone. It should be noted that the scale on the X axis of Figure 7. 208 . Here both solid and gas phase oxidation rates are predicted to take off and peak at the same level. CO oxidation rates show a higher peak than the other gaseous oxidation rates.11 (b). secondary air flow rate = 5 kg/hr) (b) Reaction rates profile Figure 7. The implication of this is that very high rates of reaction occur at the level where secondary air is introduced. As shown in Figure 7. covering a distance of just one millimetre. primary air flow rate = 15 kg/hr. patterns in the second stage are very different. Char oxidation reaches its peak 15 to 20 mm further up the gasifier than the gas phase oxidation reactions.Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier 1800 1600 1400 Ts (15 sec) Tg (15 sec) Ts (45 sec) Tg (45 sec) Ts (75 sec) Tg (75 sec) Ts (120 sec) Tg (120 sec) Ts (210 sec) Tg (210 sec) Ts (360 sec) Tg (360 sec) Ts (690 sec) Tg (690 sec) Ts (1000 sec) Tg (1000 sec) 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Temperature (K) 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 Distance from grate (mm) Figure 7. Patterns of behaviour similar to those in a single stage system are observed.11 (b) is a very expanded one.10 Variation with time of temperature profiles along the axis of the gasifier for the first 1000 sec after ignition (Ignition port: 500 mm above grate. In addition rates of char oxidation are significant over a greater distance than the gas phase reactions.

8 299.Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier 1.8 0.4 299.11 (b) Solid and gas phase oxidation reaction rates in the second stage Figure 7.8 0.6 1.2 C6H6 oxidation x 0.6 0.0 0.6 299. secondary air = 5 kg/hr) 209 .0 580 570 560 550 540 Distance from grate (mm) Fig.0 299.0 H2 oxidation x 0.4 0. 7.2 299.2 1.04 1.2 0.2 0. 7.11 Gas and solid phase oxidation rate profiles for the first and second stage. primary air = 15 kg/hr.2 C2H4 oxidation x 0.6 1.02 Char oxidation x 20 Oxidation rate (kg/m³/s) 300.4 0. secondary air supply: 300 mm above grate.1 H2 oxidation Char oxidation Oxidation rate (kg/m 3/s) 1.0 Distance from grate (mm) Fig.4 1.4 C6H6 oxidation CO oxidation x 0.6 0.11 (a) Solid and gas phase oxidation reaction rates in the first stage 1.02 CO oxidation x 0. at 1000 sec after ignition (Ignition port: 500 mm above grate.0 0.

13. This is attributable to the lower concentrations of CO2 and water present and to the fact that the solid phase temperature in the second stage is lower than that in the first stage.12 0.02 0.10 0. secondary air flow rate = 5 kg/hr) (c) Gas composition profile The gas composition profiles for two-stage gasification are shown in Figure 7. Figure 7.08 0. However.13(a) that better gas quality was achieved by introducing secondary air. gasification rates in this second stage are lower than those in the first stage. primary air flow rate = 15 kg/hr.Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier Figure 7.06 0.04 0.13 (a) also shows that the secondary O2 supplied is consumed very rapidly due to the high gas temperatures and the consequent high gas phase oxidation rates.12 Heterogenous gasification reaction rates for two-stage gasification (Ignition port: 500 mm above grate. The further slow 210 .00 H2O gasification CO2 gasification x 10 H2 gasification x 500 Char gasification rate (kg/m³/s) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Distance from grate (mm) Figure 7.12 shows how the rates of heterogeneous gasification reactions are predicted to vary along the axis of the reactor. secondary air supply: 300 mm above grate. with concentrations of H2 and CO in particular increasing substantially immediately downstream of the second air supply point. As well as the expected peaks below the main oxidation zone there is a secondary set of peaks just below the point where the secondary air is introduced. 0. It can be seen from Figure 7.

secondary air flow rate = 5 kg/hr) 211 . secondary air supply point: 300 mm above grate. 7.13 (b) Figure 7.Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier increase in CO and H2 levels downstream of the secondary air supply point can be attributed to heterogenous gasification reactions involving CO2 and H2O formed at the point of secondary air injection. primary air flow rate = 15 kg/hr.13 (a) 6 5 Gas composition (vol%) 4 3 2 1 0 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 CH4 C2H4 primary tar C6H6 Distance from grate (mm) Fig.13 Gas composition profiles along the axis of the gasifier for two-stage gasification (a) major gas species profile (b) minor gas species profile (Ignition port: 500 mm above grate. 7. 25 Gas composition (vol%) 20 O2 15 CO CO2 H2 H2O 5 10 0 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Distance from grate (mm) Fig.

(d) Condensable tar profile In Figure 7. It can be seen from Table 7. Table 7. The second reason is that at higher temperatures. proportionally less H2 is consumed in gas phase oxidation reactions and a higher cold gas efficiency results. smaller amounts of tar and higher cold gas efficiencies are predicted. As a result.13 (b) shows the predicted variation in concentrations of minor gas species. it is not unexpected that above the secondary air supply level the tar content in the two-stage unit is predicted to be higher than that in the single-stage unit. Methane levels also fall but to a much smaller extent. the primary tar profile for two-stage gasification is shown compared to that for a single stage gasifier without secondary air supply. as shown in Figure 7.3 that as the amount of secondary air is increased. the tar cracking rate increases dramatically due to the increase in temperature at this point. final gas phase tar levels in the two-stage unit end up well below that for gas from the single-stage system.14. once the secondary air input level is reached in the two stage unit. A rapid decrease in concentration of C6H6 and C2H4 is evident at the point where the secondary air is introduced.) However. the gas temperature is higher and more of the oxygen utilized is consumed in gas phase oxidation reactions.14. Since the primary air supply rate in the two-stage gasification unit is less than the (primary) air supply rate for the single-stage system.3 presents the results obtained from a simulation of the two-stage gasifier for different primary air and secondary air combinations but the same total air supply rate of 20 kg/hr. higher air supply rates lead to higher solid and gas phase temperatures and consequently tar-cracking rates increase. There are two reasons for this: the first is that when secondary air is supplied at a point closer to the primary reaction zones. the lower is the predicted final tar content and the higher the cold gas efficiency. 212 . (As discussed in Chapter 4. The total amount of air supplied was kept the same for the single-stage (20 kg/hr of primary air) and two-stage systems (15 kg/hr of primary air and 5 kg/hr of secondary air).Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier Figure 7. It was also observed that the closer to the oxidation zone the secondary air is introduced.

First an attempt was made to establish what was the best reaction zone length to use.14 Tar profile along the gasifier for both single-stage and two-stage units. from a tar reduction point of view. a longer reaction zone was necessary since tar reduction still continued beyond a 375 mm zone length.Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier 4000 Tar content (mg/Nm³) 3000 Single stage 2000 Two-stage 1000 0 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Distance from grate (mm) Figure 7. secondary air flow rate = 5 kg/hr).4 Conclusions The dynamic model developed in this study was used to investigate and establish under what operating conditions a stratified downdraft gasifier can operate stably and produce a low tar gas which is acceptable for engine applications. The 213 . single-stage air flow rate: 20 kg/hr. secondary air supply: at 300 mm above grate) 7. A reaction zone length of 375 mm was found to be adequate from a cold gas efficiency stand point since measured and predicted cold gas efficiency values at this point were 97% and 99. at 1000 sec after ignition (Ignition port: 500 mm above grate for both cases.3% respectively of values considerably further downstream. the effects on both these two parameters of variations in reaction zone length were determined. Since reaction zone length affects both final tar content and cold gas efficiency. two-stage total air supply rate: 20 kg/hr (primary air flow rate = 15 kg/hr. However.

26 10.34 14.36 78.33 68.3 Results from simulation of two-stage gasification concept (at 1000 sec after ignition) Primary air Supplied rate (kg/hr) Secondary air Location [distance above grate (mm)] H2 CO CH4 CO2 H2O Gas composition (vol %) Final tar content (mg/Nm³) Cold gas Efficiency (%) Supplied rate (kg/hr) 19 18 17 16 15 19 18 17 16 15 19 18 17 16 15 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 200 300 400 12.46 14.10 14.32 2.025 mg/mm.04 15.65 11.23 70.26 49.66 43.77 31.66 25.52 15.26 2.16 11.51 16.23 14.75 68.40 18.50 69.87 13.19 91.14 15.98 17.65 14.33 13.21 18.94 2.39 12.55 14.03 16.86 12.09 75.20 2.53 11.13 9.41 72.80 12.82 67.89 13.25 19.39 32.Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier required zone length was determined by assuming that gains in gas quality would be insignificant once tar reduction rates fell to less than 0.82 10.73 12.66 15.44 11.81 2.07 17.94 16.74 2.29 2.82 2.50 14.32 13.15 64.44 64.16 2.21 15.27 58.16 49.45 73.54 13.28 2.42 13.25 2.82 11.45 13.39 15.77 Operating the reactor with wood fuel only was observed to have considerable disadvantages.91 12.49 11.01 11. Table 7. This was predicted to have a 214 .50 14.57 12. The model predicted that complete devolatilization of the fuel bed under the ignition level would not be achieved even after two hours of operation since a small fraction of volatile matter was still being evolved in the region up to 100 mm above the grate.75 72.52 75.24 12. A large amount of smoke formed within the first 15 minutes of ignition and it took 15 to 20 minutes longer for the gasifier to reach a state where producer gas of an acceptable heating value was being produced.28 13.90 17.27 13.28 14.39 13.41 15. This gave a zone length of 425 mm.34 66.55 11.35 13.87 2.30 13.69 15.34 76.37 13.63 77.39 98.16 2.74 63.47 17.67 11.17 2.30 65.81 2.72 12.80 2.23 12.

In two-stage gasification a secondary oxidation zone is created by introducing secondary air to the reactor at a level below the primary oxidation zone. the reactor can be operated using the charcoal left over from the previous run. not primary air. In the simulation of two-stage gasification it was assumed that distribution of secondary air was uniform across the gasifier cross-section. By following this procedure. This is perhaps a dubious assumption since it has been the difficulties associated with supplying air to gasifiers through ports on their sides that has necessitated the use of throated gasifiers in the past. This leads to local increases in both solid and gas phase temperatures. Higher cold gas efficiencies are predicted to be achieved by the supplying the secondary air at levels close to the ignition port level. requires that sufficient charcoal of a suitable quality be available on site. Since it is secondary air. at least in theory. be produced inside the gasifier by appropriately controlling the air flow rate: in this approach the wood bed is ignited at the level of the grate and an initially low air flow rate used. However. and substantial tar reduction is achieved at the second stage. achieving 215 . A charcoal bed can also. the air flow rate is increased to a level where stable operation occurs. under these conditions the reaction front moves upward. Avoiding devolatilization below the oxidation zone can be simply achieved by charging the gasifier with charcoal prior to each run.Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier significant effect on final tar content and this was confirmed by experimental results that showed that the final tar content of the producer gas was about 20 times higher than the average values of tar content measured when an initial charge of charcoal was used. that is being introduced. There is also the problem of what to do with the tar rich gas produced during the initial period. a low tar gas can be produced under stable operating conditions. To avoid having to load charcoal before every run. more than an hour is required to generate a charcoal bed of the required depth and to achieve stable operation. Once the front reaches the required level. This. It was concluded that avoiding tar formation in the region downstream of the oxidation zone is very important for producing a tar free gas. The concept of two-stage gasification was investigated using the dynamic model developed in this study. however.

improvements in tar levels in the gas should still be achievable in smaller diameter units.Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier uniform distribution of air is not as important as it is in single-stage gasifier and even if relatively little of the injected air reaches the centre of the bed. 216 .

Stassen. Helm. 39-54. Bridgwater AV& Boocock DGB. Henriksen. A global review’. P. ‘Wood chip gasification in a commercial downdraft gasifier. Grassi. ‘Multi-stage reactor for thermal gasification of wood’. Elsevier Science Ltd. RP Overend. Beenackers. eds. pp. T. Energy. eds. Knoef. Larsen. pp. G. AV 1997. Pergamon. agriculture and industry. 397-404. U. Chartier. Proceedings of the 1st world conference on biomass for energy and industry. Oxford. D. AACM. ‘Optimised two-stage gasifier’. ‘Gasification of straw in a two-stage 50 kW gasifier’.5 References Bentzen. S. U 2000. TA Milne & LK Mudge. 217 . Milligan. 816-9. SC 1994. Developments in Thermochemical Biomass Conversion. U. Hindsgaul. A & Chiaramonti. AACM & Grassi. O 1994. LT 1985. pp. 1568-78. Proceedings of the 8th European conference on biomass for energy.Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier 7.1. ‘The UNDP/WB monitoring program on small scale biomass gasifier (BTG’s experience on tar measurements)’ Biomass & Bioenergy. JB. 5-9 June 2000. Bui. DC. Beenackers. Evans. eds. pp. P. Brandt. Energy sector management assistance programme. ‘High tar reduction in a two-stage gasifier’ Energy & Fuels. U & Christensen. vol. HE 1995. 175-85. Loof. PH. vol. ‘UNDP/WB small-scale biomass gasifiers for heat and power’. vol. Spain. Chern. SM & Fan. 911-21. WBTP 296-Washington. HAM 2000. R & Bhattacharya. Kyritsis. Henriksen. Walawender. pp. held in Sevilla. 1-4. Fundamentals of Thermochemical Biomass Conversion. pp. ‘Results from a transparent open-core downdraft gasifier. vol. pp. WP. environment. P 2001. eds. E & Henriksen. GD & Bridgwater. JD. 19. C & Brandt. 14. 18.K.

primary tar (C6H10.Chapter 8 Conclusions and recommendations Chapter 8 Conclusions and recommendations 8. and bound and absorbed moisture) and the ten gaseous species [O2. char.2 Summary and conclusions for the theoretical study A dynamic model for the stratified downdraft wood gasifier.1 Introduction In this project theoretical and experimental studies have been carried out on a stratified downdraft gasifier using red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) wood blocks as a fuel. particle shrinkage during heterogeneous reactions. There were thirteen reactions considered in the model including those for drying and pyrolysis processes. The model describes the complex physical and chemical processes taking place in the reactor by the use of mass and energy balances. pyrolysis. N2.71O3. together with information about rates of chemical reactions and physical transport processes. cracking of tars and oxidation of pyrolysis products. oxidation of volatile gases and secondary tars. Several significant contributions have been made towards increasing our understanding of wood gasification and towards solving some of the associated problems. two-step pyrolysis processes. has been developed. In this chapter the major conclusions of the theoretical and experimental investigations are summarized and recommendations for future research are presented. H2O.264) and secondary tar (C6H6)]. Balance equations were written for the three solid phase components (biomass. CO2. which incorporates the phenomena of wood drying. The main features taken into account by this model were temperature differences between the gas and solid surface. the effect of reaction temperature on the ratio of (CO/CO2) during heterogeneous char 218 . CH4. H2. 8. C2H4. CO.

A two-step pyrolysis mechanism used in the model incorporated a primary pyrolysis step in which biomass decomposed to primary tar. and a secondary pyrolysis step in which primary tar cracked into secondary tar and combustible gases. the quality of the producer gas is very poor. CO and H2. In the sensitivity analysis. the combustion zone temperature increases rapidly but the charcoal bed temperature at the level of the grate remains at ambient or near ambient temperatures for quite a while afterwards. This was done to avoid the excessive tar formation and smoky gas release that would otherwise occur during the reactor warming up stage. volatile gases and char. and the effective thermal conductivity. In this study. but it 219 . a parametric sensitivity analysis was carried out to understand the effects of changes in operating and model parameters on model performance. An important initial condition assumed in most simulation runs using this model was that prior to a run commencing. This happens because temperatures are not high enough for the two main combustible gases. The amount of H2 and CO in the producer gas increases gradually with time. The heterogeneous reactions of char combustion and gasification were described by a chemical reaction rate expression that included the resistances due to external mass transfer and to intraparticle diffusion of the gaseous reagents. the gasifier was charged with charcoal up to the ignition port level. to be formed in significant quantities. the effects of varying three operating parameters and eight model parameters were investigated. In this way the simulation showed that a substantial warming up time is required before temperatures throughout the inert charcoal bed reach the levels at which gasification processes can take place at the required rate. the heterogeneous gasification reactions which produce these gases proceed only at a very slow rate until a gasification zone temperature higher than 800°C is reached. which enables the importance of radiation at high reactor temperatures to be properly accounted for. 2) During the period immediately after ignition. The major conclusions of this theoretical investigation can be summarized as follows: 1) When the reactor is started by igniting the fuel at the top of the charcoal bed.Chapter 8 Conclusions and recommendations combustion.

which shows that reactions involving CH4 occur to only a limited extent in this zone. Any hydrogen formed during pyrolysis processes is completely consumed in the combustion zone and so the hydrogen content of the producer gas results from char-H2O reactions in the char gasification zone. 3) At the front end of the combustion zone solid surface temperatures were higher than gas temperatures but gas temperatures rise rapidly further down the combustion zone due to the large amount of heat released by gaseous phase oxidations. Here cracking of the primary tar continues.Chapter 8 Conclusions and recommendations was found to take 20 to 25 minutes to achieve steady operating conditions. 4) The superficial gas velocity. Decomposition of condensable tar is not complete within the gasifer and a small amount is present in the outlet producer gas. 6) At steady state conditions. pyrolysis and combustion zone. giving mostly secondary tar (hydrocarbon). thereafter increases rapidly along the drying. 7) Primary tar release occurs over a relatively narrow pyrolysis zone in the reactor. Much of this tar is cracked into combustible gases and burnt while passing through the hot combustion zone but some passes uncracked into the gasification zone. This occurs both because of mass transfers from the solid phase to the gas phase and also because of increases in gas phase temperatures. 5) The drying zone is typically short in a stratified downdraft gasifier. 220 . being of the order of only a few millimetres long due to the steep solids temperature rise in the upper part of the gasifier. More secondary tar than primary tar (oxygenate) is found in the outlet gas. A virtually constant value of CH4 is found along the gasification zone. whilst the same as the inlet air velocity at the top of the gasifier. some CO is present in the gas leaving the oxidation zone but its concentration increases substantially in the gasification zone. Under such conditions the heating value of the producer gas was about 5 MJ/Nm³. and gas temperatures exceed solid surface temperatures throughout the rest of the gasifier.

Smaller amounts of tar are predicted for a larger wood particle size due to an increase in gas phase temperature. 11) The magnitude of the solid-gas heat and mass transfer coefficient has significant effects on gas phase temperatures and outlet tar content. 221 . Once otherwise steady operating conditions are attained. For higher solid-gas heat transfer coefficients or lower mass transfer coefficients. the oxidation rate of volatiles was enhanced. and brings about increased gas and solid temperatures which in turn enhance the cracking of primary tar and the oxidation of secondary tar. tar content and the stability of the reaction zones. Once the air flow rate exceeds a certain critical value. A higher air supply rate promotes oxidation rates. These differences occur in the case of larger particles since the pyrolysis rate is lower (due to slower rates of heat transport to the particle core) and the gasifier operates in a gasification dominant mode. By increasing the air flow rate. with the reaction zones stationary. strongly affecting temperatures. At low air flow rates. a poorer quality producer gas is predicted: CO and H2 concentrations decrease while the CO2 concentration increases. when the specific gasification rate is in the range of 290-296 kg/hr/m². the reaction zone usually moves upwards since the pyrolysis process is dominant at that stage and gasification rates are very low. 10) Wood particle size affects the composition of producer gas significantly. 9) The air flow rate to the gasifier was confirmed to be a most important operating parameter. the upward movement of the reaction zones can be slowed down. With an increase in particle size. three modes of operation are possible. increasing the gas peak temperature and decreasing the amount of tar in the outlet producer gas. the gasifier operates in the pyrolysis dominant mode and the reaction zone moves upwards.Chapter 8 Conclusions and recommendations 8) During the reactor warming up period. The gasifier was predicted to operate stably. the gasifier starts to operate in the gasification dominant mode and the reaction zones start to move downwards.

Chapter 8 Conclusions and recommendations 12) Changing the heat and mass transport exchange area affects the tar content in the outlet gas. a higher air supply rate is required to maintain a stable reaction zone. 8. and both the composition of the gas and its tar content were measured. 15) The model predicts that a reduced tar content of the producer gas is achievable by the effective use of insulation.3 Summary and conclusions for the experimental study To characterize the performance of a stratified downdraft gasifier in practice and to validate the developed computer model. The major conclusions of this experimental investigation can be summarized as follows: 1) The overall material balance for the experimental stratified downdraft gasifier closed very well for all experimental runs. the amounts of tar in the outlet gases decrease and the reaction zone moves upwards. Reasonably good elemental mass balance closures were also achieved. 222 . A higher tar formation rate and a lower tar cracking rate result in a higher tar content in the producer gas. For high wall heat loss (insufficient insulation). a small scale stratified downdraft gasifier (206 mm ID) was run using two different sizes of red gum wood blocks as fuel. Temperatures at 16 different levels in the reactor were measured. gas from five different levels in the reactor was sampled. A larger heat and mass exchange area increases the final tar content. both solids and gas temperatures decrease. A total of 19 experimental runs was carried out over a range of air supply rates. 13) The kinetics of tar formation and tar cracking directly control the final tar content of the gas. 14) At a higher effective thermal conductivity.

followed by H2 (14-19 vol %). As predicted in the numerical model. 3) The experimental gasifier could be operated over a fairly wide range from 7. This is attributable to the difficulties involved in experimentally measuring the true flame temperature within the gas spaces of a packed bed. in the model gas phase oxidation reactions were characterized using only the intrinsic kinetic rate. The combustion zone temperature increased with an increase in airflow rate and peak values were in the range of 1000°-1300°C.Chapter 8 Conclusions and recommendations 2) A substantial reduction in the tar content of the outlet gases could be achieved by initially filling the gasifier with charcoal up to the ignition port level. which is about 40 times less than the tar content found in gas from a traditional downdraft gasifier. 6) A discrepancy between the predicted gas temperatures and measured values within the combustion zone was observed. 7) Gas composition profiles along the reactor were measured during the reactor warm up phase and during steady state operation. It was found that the concentration of 223 . and neglecting mass transfer effects. However (see point no 10 below).6 kg/hr with a corresponding energy output ranging from 54-168 MJ/hr. long term stable operation is only possible within a limited range of air flow rates. Also.7 vol %) were also present. It was found that 20 to 25 minutes was required to reach a steady temperature profile. This leads to a situation where complete oxidation is predicted to occur within a very limited zone length in the reactor and overestimates the gas phase temperature. 5) The variation over time of the measured temperature profile along the axis of the gasifier agreed reasonably well with model predictions. CO had the highest concentration (16-21 vol %). Small amounts of CH4 (1. 4) The producer gas composition did not vary significantly over the range of air flow rates used. Of the combustible gas components.5 to 27. The average measured tar content of the outlet gas for all experimental runs using an initial charcoal bed was found to be 44 mg/Nm³.0-1. outlet gas temperature also increased at a higher air flow rate.

The specific gasification rate under stable operating conditions (reaction zones stationary within the gasifier) was in the range of 290-308 kg/m²hr (dry basis) and this agreed well with model predictions. the experimentally observed CO and H2 formation rate along the gasification zone was found to be more gradual than that predicted by the model (for the same reasons as those discussed in point no 6 above). 9) Wood consumption rate and gas production rate increased linearly with increases in air flow rate. however. experimental results showed that the air flow rate is the main operating parameter controlling gasifier stability. 224 . Model predictions of gas composition at two different times (during reactor warm up and steady operating conditions) agreed satisfactorily with experimental values. Overall.Chapter 8 Conclusions and recommendations the two main combustible components (CO & H2) of the outlet producer gas were low initially and increased over time reaching their final steady values after around 20 to 25 minutes. heat transfer and mass transfer processes in the gas spaces of packed beds at high temperatures mean that some discrepancies remain between predicted and observed changes in the gasifier combustion zone. The air-fuel ratio was found to be constant and independent of air supply rate. This value was assumed representative of the amount of tar in the pyrolysis zone. The average tar content in the outlet producer gas was around 80 times less than that in the gases in the pyrolysis zone. Higher airflow rates favoured the gasification dominant mode of operation as did the use of a larger wood block size. there was an encouragingly good level of agreement between the results of model simulations and experimental measurements. deficiencies in our understanding of combined kinetic. The average tar content along the gasification zone was found to be 25 times less than in the pyrolysis zone. However. 8) The tar content of gas samples from five different levels in the reactor was measured and it was found that the amount of tar in the gas from sampling ports located 650 mm and 550 mm above the grate was as high as 4000 mg/Nm³. 10) As the model predicted. Model predictions of wood consumption and gas production rates agreed very well with experimental values.

225 . 1) A reaction zone length of 375 mm. There is also the problem of what to do with the high tar content gas produced during the charcoal-forming stage. 3) Avoidance of devolatilization and the associated tar formation can be simply achieved by initially charging the gasifier with charcoal to the ignition port level. be produced inside the gasifier by operating the gasifier initially at a low air flow rate and then increasing the air flow rate to its normal operating level. for which a 97 % cold gas efficiency at the reactor outlet was observed in experimental results.4 Summary and conclusions related specifically to tar reduction The model developed has been used to predict suitable operating conditions for a stratified downdraft gasifier that can operate stably over prolonged periods producing low tar gas. It was inferred from this that to produce a low tar gas tar formation needs to be avoided in the region downstream of the oxidation zone. The requirement to have extra charcoal on hand for every run can be eliminated by using the charcoal left over from the previous run. and these predictions have been confirmed experimentally. The required charcoal bed could also. appears to be an optimum reaction zone length for the stratified downdraft gasifier on the basis of cold gas efficiency considerations. the model predictions suggest that more than an hour would be required to produce a charcoal bed of sufficient depth (425 mm).Chapter 8 Conclusions and recommendations 8.3% efficiency in model results. This is attributable to incomplete devolatilization of the fuel in the region of the gasifier below the ignition level. from a tar minimization point of view. However. a longer reaction zone length of 425 mm is a more suitable length for the stratified downdraft gasifier studied in this project. especially in the region less than 100 mm above the grate. even after two hours operation. 2) Operating the reactor with wood fuel alone produced an outlet gas with a final tar content that was about 20 times higher than the average tar content value measured when using an initial charge of charcoal. This problem persisted. and a 99. in theory. However.

However. the kinetic expressions for the heterogeneous reactions (both for oxidation and gasification) used in this model were obtained from fine particle experiments where intraparticle heat and mass transfer processes are of very limited importance. provided that the secondary air can be distributed effectively across the gasifier cross-section. The major finding was that the stratified downdraft gasifier using an initial charge of charcoal can produce a product gas with a tar content low enough to be acceptable for use in engine applications.5 Recommendations for further research works The model developed is able to predict the dynamic behaviour of a stratified downdraft gasifier. as well as significant tar reduction. including the one undertaken in this project. For instance. The secondary air was found to create a secondary oxidation zone and a local increase in both solid and gas phase temperatures was predicted.Chapter 8 Conclusions and recommendations 4) The dynamic model developed was used to simulate the behaviour of a two-stage gasifier in which air was introduced at two different levels in the reactor. 8. Recommendations for further research work are as follows: 1) The kinetic coefficients used in modelling studies. The conditions employed in such experiments differ significantly from real gasification conditions. further research needs to be carried out in order to improve the modelling of the biomass gasification process and to increase our understanding of the gasification process and reactor optimisation. are generally obtained from experimental investigations in which reaction rates are determined by thermogravimetric analysis. This is not the case with larger particles for which intraparticle heat and mass transfer processes cannot be ignored (Salazar 1987). Effects of 226 . and the model predictions generally agreed well with experimental observations. Further reduction of tar content appears achievable by introducing secondary air at a suitable point downstream of the primary oxidation zone. including the changes in tar content with time along the gasifier.

and the resulting kinetic data integrated into gasification models. Instead of temperature gradients within particles being allowed for an equivalent temperature for the whole particle was estimated as a function of surface temperature and particle diameter and used in kinetic expressions. the size of particle was assumed to be the same both before and after the pyrolysis process. Only once single particle processes are well characterized. In this study. a sub-model needs to be developed in which heat transport and mass transport processes within the particle are accounted for. all of the kinetic rates expressions for tar reduction were derived from homogenous tar cracking studies and no data were available for heterogenous tar cracking mechanisms. it is highly desirable that the need for this simplified assumption should be overcome by the determination of heterogeneous tar cracking data in which the effects of hot particle size are also considered. in the modelling of primary pyrolysis processes a major simplifying assumption was made. However.Chapter 8 Conclusions and recommendations particle size and biomass charcoal properties on oxidation and gasification reaction rates therefore need fuller investigation so that representative “apparent” kinetic rates can be found. will predictions of reactor performance be improved sufficiently to eliminate the discrepancies between model predictions and experimental observations referred to earlier. 2) Tar reduction can occur by both homogeneous and heterogenous thermal cracking. a correction factor approach was applied. To correctly estimate rates of formation and evolution of volatile gases (including tar) in the pyrolysis zone. This sub-model should be able to be incorporated into the main gasifier program and this will result in a more precise devolatilization rate in the pyrolysis zone. 227 . However. 4) In the dynamic model developed. to avoid the overpredicting of tar content. 3) In this study. Therefore an experimental correlation which covers different sizes and different temperature ranges needs to be developed so that particle shrinkage due to pyrolysis can be properly included in model formulations. experimental studies have shown that particle size is reduced during the pyrolysis process (Salazar 1987). However.

should be explored. the performance of a two-stage gasifier should be investigated. 8) By modifying the existing experimental set-up. To avoid the inaccuracies inherent in the use of an arbitrary correction factor further experimental research is needed on reactive fixed beds to investigate the influences of reaction processes on the interphase heat and mass transfer. better air supply methods. which are able to uniformly distribute the secondary air across the gasifier cross section without disturbing the solid fuel flow. 6) The dynamic model developed in this study has been shown to be able to predict separate solid and gas phase temperature profiles. 7) In the model. 9) For two-stage gasification. gas phase oxidation reactions were modelled using reaction rate expressions for combustible gases that were determined under conditions where oxygen availability was higher than in a gasifier. In this study. a somewhat arbitrary correction factor had to be used to convert solid-gas heat transfer coefficients obtained for a non-reacting surface to ones applicable to a reacting surface. However. 228 . More reliable gas phase oxidation kinetic coefficients are required to avoid the overestimation of gas peak temperatures. heat and mass transfer between the solid surface and the gas phase occurs under strongly reactive conditions.Chapter 8 Conclusions and recommendations 5) Solid-to-gas heat and mass transport processes are very important in modelling studies of gasification. To compare the temperature profiles from modelling further work to develop a temperature measurement system capable of better determining solid and gas temperatures along the gasifier is highly desirable. no specific experimental techniques appear to be available to measure separately the temperatures of the solid and gas phases in a packed bed of particles at high temperatures. since in real gasification processes.

Chapter 8 Conclusions and recommendations 8. ‘The influence of particle size and shape on the mechanisms of decomposition of wood during pyrolysis’. 229 . PhD Dissertation.6 Reference Salazar. Australia. The University of Melbourne. CM 1987.

moisture content and oxygen fraction.61D ) t fp = (A.1) where tfp ρ M D T = time required to complete the flaming pyrolysis process (sec) = apparent density of fuel (kg/m³) = moisture content (wt fraction -) = diameter of fuel (m) = surface temperature (K) FO2 = oxygen volume fraction (-) Equation (A.6 × 0.1) can be rewritten as (3.Appendix A Average particle temperature for use in primary pyrolysis process calculations Appendix A Average particle temperature for use in primary pyrolysis process calculations In the transient model developed.4 FO 2 ) (A.2) 230 . Details of the derivation are presented below: Reed and Markson (1983) proposed the following equations to estimate the time required for completion of the flaming pyrolysis process: t fp = (3.4 FO 2 ) 80.481E − 2)ρ (1 + 1. temperature.61D ) exp(2201T ) (1 + 3. Average particle temperature was estimated by an equation derived from the correlation of Reed and Markson (1983) who determined the time required for completion of the flaming pyrolysis process and correlated this with particle size.481E − 2)ρ (1 + 1.6 D(1 + 80.6 × 0.6 D(1 + 80.76M ) exp(2201T ) (1 + 3.76M )80. the primary pyrolysis rate was estimated by using an average particle temperature in the primary pyrolysis kinetic rate equation.

fine particle) tD1 = 1 ⎛ −E ⎞ A exp⎜ ⎟ ⎜ RT ⎟ ⎝ D1 ⎠ (A.61D1 ) ⎦ ⎣ 80. the time required to complete the pyrolytic decomposition of a particle of diameter D can be estimated: tfp = ρ ⎛ −E A exp⎜ ⎜ RT ⎝ D ⎞ ⎟ρ ⎟ ⎠ = 1 ⎛ −E A exp⎜ ⎜ RT ⎝ D ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ (A.6) where TD = average temperature of particle in K (Assuming D1 ≤ 1 mm.5.3) For fine particles.5) From equation A.6 D1 (1 + 80. and for different diameters D1 and D2 t D1 t D2 ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎣ 80. FO2 & T.4 & A.6 × 0.61D2 ) ⎦ (A.7) TD1 = average temperature of fine particle which is assumed to be equal to surface temperature of particle (K) From equation (A.Appendix A Average particle temperature for use in primary pyrolysis process calculations For the same ρ. ⎛−E⎞ Kinetic rate of primary pyrolysis (kg/m³s) = Aexp⎜ ⎟ρ ⎝ RT ⎠ (A. M.3) the time required to complete the pyrolytic decomposition of a particle of diameter D2 (sec) is: 231 .6 × 0.6 D2 (1 + 80.4) where A E R = pre-exponential factor for primary pyrolysis (1/sec) = activation energy for primary pyrolysis (J/mol) = universal gas constant (J/mol/K) Rate of primary pyrolysis (kg/m³s) can be also written as Rp = ρ t fp (A.

A.8) Since D1 = 0. (TD2) by using equation A.9) Substituting tD1 (eq.984 D2 ) ⎝ D1 ⎠ (A.138D2 + 46861.6 × 0.12) where TD1 is the temperature for a fine particle which is assumed as the surface temperature of a wood particle 232 .984 D2 ) ⎝ D 2 ⎠ ⎝ D1 ⎠ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ R ⎜ ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎜ T ⎟ = ⎜ T ⎟ + E ln(953.001 m.8 becomes t D 2 = t D1 × D2 (1 + 80.61D2 ) = t D1 × (953.6 × 0.984 D2 ) 0.11) Therefore.Appendix A Average particle temperature for use in primary pyrolysis process calculations tD2 = t D1 × D2 (1 + 80.984 D2 ) ⎝ D 2 ⎠ ⎝ D1 ⎠ TD 2 = 1 ⎛ 1 ⎞ R ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ T ⎟ + E ln(953.138D2 + 46861.984 D2 ) ⎛ −E ⎞ A exp⎜ ⎟ ⎜ RT ⎟ ⎝ D1 ⎠ (A.001(1 + 80.10) tD2 can be estimated from the equivalent (average) temperature for D2.7) in equation A.61 × 0.984 D2 ) ⎛ −E ⎞ ⎛ −E ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎜ RT ⎟ = ⎜ RT ⎟ − ln(953.138D2 + 46861.138D2 + 46861.6 × 0.001) (A.984 D2 ) = ⎛ −E ⎞ ⎛ −E ⎞ A exp⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ RT ⎟ A exp⎜ RT ⎟ ⎝ D1 ⎠ ⎝ D2 ⎠ ⎛ −E ⎞ exp⎜ ⎟ ⎜ RT ⎟ ⎛ −E ⎞ ⎝ D1 ⎠ ⎜ ⎟= exp⎜ ⎟ ⎝ RTD 2 ⎠ (953. 1 1 × (953.138 D2 + 46861.138D2 + 46861.61D2 ) D1 (1 + 80. t D2 = 1 × (953.6 × 0.8.6 t D2 = 1 ⎛ −E ⎞ A exp⎜ ⎟ ⎜ RT ⎟ ⎝ D2 ⎠ (A. equation A.138D2 + 46861.61D1 ) (A.

M 1983.984 D ) ⎟ E ⎠ (A.138D + 46861. Progress in biomass conversion. TB & Markson. 4. ‘A predictive model for stratified downdraft gasification of biomass’. the general form of the equation to estimate the average temperature of the particle with diameter D can be written using equation A. vol.13) where Tavg = average wood particle temperature (K) TS R E D = solid surface temperature (K) = universal gas constant (J/mol/K) = activation energy for primary pyrolysis (J/mol) = particle diameter (m) Reference Reed. 233 . eds. DA Tillman & EC John.12 as follows: Tavg = 1 ⎛ 1 ⎜ ⎜T ⎝ S ⎞ R ⎟ + ln(953.Appendix A Average particle temperature for use in primary pyrolysis process calculations Therefore. 217-54. pp.

0 26. Prausnitz & Poling 1987) Atomic and structural diffusion volume increments C H O N 15.9 2.9 13.12 18.11 4.Appendix B Properties of gas species Appendix B Properties of gas species Table B1 Atomic Diffusion Volumes (Reid.3 19.5 16.1 234 .7 18.54 Diffusion volumes of molecules H2 N2 O2 Air CO CO2 H2O 6.31 6.

03140168E-01 0.14268350E+05 -0.05581944E-07 0.68524262E-10 4.54884907E-05 a4 2.06354696E-04 -0.05633828E-06 -0.53215420E-14 -5.04837314E+06 0.03025078E+02 0.03262451E+02 0.1258842E-06 -0.04453623E+02 0.15827519E-14 -0.02989921E+06 -0.26136365E-09 a5 a6 -1.08350340E+04 0.02991423E+02 0.02672145E+02 0.16690333E-13 -0.14310539E+05 -0.10052490E+04 h = a1T + a 2T 2 + a 3T 3 + a 4T 4 + a 5T 5 + a 6 (Turns.09231578E-10 -0.05750000E+02 235 .12009964E-09 0.07000644E-02 0.85438496E-06 -1.09475434E-09 0.06391618E-13 -0.88033398E+03 -6.02275724E+02 0.03386842E+02 0.10185813E-09 0.05630827E-05 -0.98573864E-02 a3 -1.14426885E-02 0.06968581E-07 0.02474951E-10 -0.03212936E+02 0 a2 0.08730260E-05 -0. 2000) Species C T(K) 1000-5000 300-1000 a1 1.11274864E-02 a3 -0.05756150E-05 a4 0.12784105E-05 -0.02393996E-08 0.08249441E-02 0.15119409E-02 0.91227177E-03 2.03697578E+02 0.11364354E-14 -0.03881755E-04 -0.10409113E-04 -0.03020811E+06 -0.10125209E+04 -0.Appendix B Properties of gas species Table B2 Curve-fit coefficients for absolute enthalpy of selected gas species 0 a a a a ⎛ ⎞ h = ⎜ a1T + 2 T 2 + 3 T 3 + 4 T 4 + 5 T 5 + a 6 ⎟ R (Turns.03298124E+02 0. 2000) 2 3 4 5 ⎝ ⎠ Species CO CO2 H2 H2O O2 T(K) 1000-5000 300-1000 1000-5000 300-1000 1000-5000 300-1000 1000-5000 300-1000 1000-5000 300-1000 a1 0.08143015E-05 -0.09922072E-01 0.08974359E-13 -6.13138773E-08 a5 a6 -0.01775281E-09 0.03474982E-01 0.04134872E-11 -0.23870304E+01 5.06135197E-02 0.08768554E-11 -0.04896696E+06 -0.06910951E-13 -0.12339301E+04 -0.59755420E+00 a2 6.02506588E-10 -0.02117280E-10 -0.03056293E-01 0.06866686E-07 -0.

702E+00 1. Advanced thermodynamics engineering. McGrawHill. Boca Raton. K & Puri.Appendix B Properties of gas species 0 0 B C ⎡ 2 3 h = h ref + ⎢ A(T − Tref ) + T 2 − Tref + T 3 − Tref 2 3 ⎣ ( ) ( )⎤ R (Annamalai and Puri.064E-03 C -2. The properties of gases and liquids. Reid. 4th edn. SR 2000. McGraw-Hill. RC. Turns.15 K References Annamalai.424E+00 -0. FL: CRC Press.081E-03 14.206E+00 B 9.164E-06 -4. New York. 2001) ⎥ ⎦ Species CH4 C2H4 C6H6 href0 (J/mol) (Thrns.394E-03 39. IK 2001. 2000) -74831 +52283 +82927 A 1. 2nd edn. An introduction to combustion: Concepts and application. JM & Poling.392E-06 -13. RE 1987. 236 . Prausnitz.301E-06 where Tref =298.

62) is presented. shows the grid-point cluster for the one-dimensional problem used for discretization. the model partial differential equations are discretized as follows: 237 .46-3. the step-by-step development of algebraic equations from the model partial differential equations in Chapter 3 (eq.Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations In this section. The following diagram. which is the same as Figure 3.3. 3. ∆xi Control volume Ti-1 i-1 i-½ Ti i i+½ Ti+1 i+1 ∆xi-½ ∆xi+½ Figure C1 A generic node point i (non-uniform grid) and the control volume in one dimension Applying the methods and procedures (Pantakar 1980) described in Chapter 3.

equation 3. 3.46 becomes (1 − ε ) 4 ∂ρ CVS = −∑ Ri ∂x i =1 whence (1 − ε ) ρ c ∂V S = −(R1 + R2 + R3 + R4 ) ∂x (1 − ε ) ρ c (VS ) i − (VS ) i −1 i = −(R1 + R2 + R3 + R4 ) ∆xi − 1 2 (1 − ε ) ρ c (VS ) i −1 − (1 − ε ) ρ c (VS ) i = (R1 + R2 + R3 + R4 ) ∆xi − 1 i 2 This can be rewritten in the form … VS i −1 = where A = (1 − ε ) ρ c B = (1 − ε ) ρ c BVS i + C A C = (R1 + R2 + R3 + R4 ) ∆xi − 1 i 2 Volatile matter: The mass balance equation (eq. After eliminating the transient char density terms. which means that the time dependent char density term in equation 3.Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations C. an expression for the solid velocity Vs can be developed.1 Mass balance equations (solid phase) Char: By assuming constant char density along the reactor.46 can be eliminated.47) can be discretized as follows: 238 .

Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations (1 − ε ) (ρV )i − (ρV )i0 ∆t − + (1 − ε ) (ρV VS )i − (ρV VS )i −1 ∆xi − 1 2 = −(R p1 )i (ρV )i ∆xi − 1 ∆t 2 (ρV )i0 ∆xi − 1 ∆t 2 + (ρ V )i (V S )i − (ρ V )i −1 (V S )i −1 = − ((1 − ε )k p1 ρ V )i ∆xi − 1 2 (1 − ε ) This can be rewritten in the form … ρ V i = where A= ∆xi − 1 ∆t 2 Bρ V i −1 + C A + (VS )i + (k p1 )i ∆xi − 1 2 B = (VS )i −1 C= (ρV )i0 ∆xi − 1 ∆t 2 Moisture : The mass balance equation (eq. 3.48) can be discretized as follows: (1 − ε ) (ρ m )i − (ρ m )i0 ∆t − + (1 − ε ) (ρ mVS )i − (ρ mVS )i −1 ∆xi − 1 2 = −(Rm )i (ρ m )i ∆xi − 1 ∆t 2 (ρ m )i0 ∆xi − 1 ∆t 2 + ( ρ m )i (VS )i − (ρ m )i −1 (VS )i −1 = − ((1 − ε )k m ρ m )i ∆xi − 1 2 (1 − ε ) This can be rewritten in the form … ρ m i = where A= ∆xi − 1 ∆t 2 Bρ m i −1 + C A + (VS )i + (k m )i ∆xi − 1 2 B = (VS )i −1 C= (ρ m )i0 ∆xi − 1 ∆t 2 239 .

3. In this case.Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations Particle Diameter The solid fuel particle diameter in each horizontal slice of differential thickness ∂ x within the gasifier can be determined by discretizing eq.2 Mass balance equation (gaseous phase) The mass balance equations for the gaseous phase contain nonlinear terms. Linearization is carried out on equations written in terms of the molar fractions of the particular species involved.49. as shown below: ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ∂ ⎜ (1 − ε ) ⎟ ∂ ⎜ (1 − ε )V s + ∂t ⎜ π 3 ⎟ ∂x ⎜ π 3 d ⎜ ⎜ d ⎟ ⎝ 6 ⎠ ⎝ 6 ⎞ ⎟ ⎟=0 ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ∂ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ∂ ⎛ Vs ⎞ ⎜ ⎟+ ⎜ ⎟ =0 ∂t ⎝ d 3 ⎠ ∂x ⎝ d 3 ⎠ ⎛ Vs ⎞ ⎛ Vs ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎜ 3 ⎟ −⎜ 3 ⎟ ⎜ 3 ⎟ −⎜ 3 ⎟ ⎝ d ⎠ i ⎝ d ⎠ i ⎝ d ⎠ i ⎝ d ⎠ i −1 + =0 ∆t ∆xi − 1 0 2 ⎛ (Vs ) ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎜ 3 ⎟ ∆xi − 1 − ⎜ 3 ⎟ ∆xi − 1 + ⎜ 3 i ⎜ d 2 2 ⎝ d ⎠i ⎝ d ⎠i i ⎝ 0 ( ) 0 i ⎛ (V ) ⎞ ⎞ ⎟∆t − ⎜ s3 i −1 ⎟∆t = 0 ⎟ ⎜ d ⎟ i −1 ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ( ) ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ (V ) ⎜ 3 ⎟∆xi − 1 + ⎜ s3 i ⎜ d ⎟ ⎜ d 2 i ⎠ i ⎝ ⎝ ( ) ( ) ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎟ ∆t = ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ d3 ⎠ ⎝ ( ) ⎞ ⎛ (Vs )i −1 ⎞ ⎟ ∆x ⎜ ⎟∆t 1 +⎜ ⎟ i − 2 ⎝ d 3 i −1 ⎟ ⎠ ⎠ ( ) ( ) ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ (V ) ⎞ 1 ⎡ ⎟ ∆x ∆xi − 1 + (Vs )i ∆t ⎤ = ⎜ + ⎜ s3 i −1 ⎟∆t 3 0 ⎟ i− 1 ⎜ d ⎟ ⎥ ⎜ d3 2 2 ⎦ ⎣ d i⎢ i −1 ⎠ ⎝ i ⎠ ⎝ ( ) ( ) (d )i ⎡ ⎤3 ⎢ ⎡ ⎥ ⎢ ⎢∆xi − 1 + (Vs )i ∆t ⎤ ⎥ ⎥ 2 ⎦ ⎥ =⎢ ⎣ ⎢ ⎛ ∆xi − 1 ⎞ ⎛ (V ) ∆t ⎞ ⎥ 2 ⎟ ⎢⎜ + ⎜ s i −1 ⎟ ⎥ ⎜ (d 3 )0 ⎟ ⎜ (d 3 )i −1 ⎟ ⎥ ⎢⎝ ⎠⎦ ⎝ i ⎠ ⎣ 1 C. before 240 . 3.68. which need be linearized using eq.

14) becomes: 241 . all of the reaction rate equations need to be converted to the molar fraction form by using the ideal gas law: ρj = pjM j RTg (or) C j = pj RTg where.9) become: ⎛ AM Heterogeneous char oxidation …. p j = PY j and Y j = mole fraction of species j After applying the ideal gas law. By applying the ideal gas law. R1 = ⎜ v C ⎜ (γ )RT g ⎝ ⎛AM R2 = ⎜ v C ⎜ RT g ⎝ ⎞ PYO2 ⎟ ⎟ ⎡⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞⎤ ⎠ ⎜ ⎟+⎜ ⎟ ⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎥ ⎣⎝ k m ⎠ ⎝ k1 ⎠⎦ ⎞ PYCO2 ⎟ ⎟ ⎡⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞⎤ ⎠ ⎜ ⎟+⎜ ⎟ ⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎥ ⎣⎝ k m ⎠ ⎝ k 2 ⎠⎦ Boudouard reaction …… Water gas reaction …… ⎛AM R3 = ⎜ v C ⎜ RT g ⎝ ⎞ PYH 2O ⎟ ⎟ ⎡⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞⎤ ⎠ ⎜ ⎟+⎜ ⎟ ⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎥ ⎣⎝ k m ⎠ ⎝ k 3 ⎠⎦ ⎛AM Methane formation reaction …… R4 = ⎜ v C ⎜ 2 RT g ⎝ ⎞ PYH 2 ⎟ ⎟ ⎡⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞⎤ ⎠ ⎜ ⎟+⎜ ⎟ ⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎥ ⎣⎝ k m ⎠ ⎝ k 4 ⎠⎦ Similarly. the heterogeneous gas-char reaction rate equations (eq. the gas phase homogenous reactions are changed to their molar fraction form. 3.Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations discretizing the differential equations. the forward water-gas shift reaction rate equation (eq. 3.

3.5 is changed to 1.2 which makes the slope steeper.88 × 10 9 kmolK 2 .Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations ⎛ − E5 F R5 F = (ε ) A5 F exp⎜ ⎜ RT g ⎝ ⎞ 2 −2 ⎟ P Tg YCO YH O 2 ⎟ ⎠ kmolK 2 m 3 kPa 2 s where A5 F = 4.5 where. A7 = 1. 3.8 Sec Since YC6H6 is nonlinear in the above equation.34 × 10 − 4 The reverse water-gas shift reaction rate equation (eq.18) for hydrocarbon oxidation becomes: ⎛ − E6 R6 = (ε ) A6 exp⎜ ⎜ RT g ⎝ ⎞ −0.8 0.2 R * 6 * 6 The rate equation for carbon monoxide oxidation (3.5 2 2O ⎟ ⎠ where. Thus. denotes the previous-iteration values.5 ⎟Tg P YC H YO 2 6 6 ⎟ ⎠ kmolK 0. In the above linearization. The steeper slope results in stable iteration even though it also leads to slower convergence.5 R * 6 * 6 YC6 H 6 − YC*6 H 6 YC*6 H 6 The superscript.20) becomes: ⎛ − E7 R7 = (ε ) A7 exp⎜ ⎜ RT g ⎝ ⎞ 2 −2 0 ⎟ P Tg YCO YO0. m 3 kPa 2 s 242 . A6 = 6858 3 m kPa1. the factor 0. *. R6 = R + 0.5YH . the final form of the hydrocarbon oxidation equation (used for the secondary tar balance) is: YC6 H 6 − YC*6 H 6 YC*6 H 6 R 6 = R + 1 .5 1.15) becomes: ⎛ − E5 F A5 F exp⎜ ⎜ RT g ⎝ =ε KC ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ P 2T − 2Y g R5 R CO2 YH 2 The rate equation (eq. The equation becomes …. linearization is performed with respect to YC6H6.

8 R * 8 * 8 * YO2 − YO2 * YO2 In the above two linearizations. R7 = R + 0.5 −1. the final form of the methane oxidation equation (used for the methane balance) is: R8 = R + 1.2 R * 7 * 7 * YO2 − YO2 * YO2 The rate equation for oxidation of methane (3.22) becomes: 1.7 R8 * YCH 4 − YCH 4 * YCH 4 Linearizing with respect to YO2 . * * R8 = R8 + 0.5 s ⎝ g ⎠ Since YCH4 and YO2 are nonlinear in the above equation. Thus. linearization is performed with respect to YO2. The equation becomes …. A8 = 2.5 is also changed to 1.Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations Since YO2 is nonlinear in the above equation.5 ⎟ P Tg YCH 0.2 to make the slope steeper and thus achieve stable iteration. the factor 0. R8 = R + 0.5 ⎛ − E8 ⎞ 1. Linearizing with respect to YCH4 .2 to make the slope steeper and achieve stable iteration.1 and 1.8 are changed to 1.09 × 1010 kmolK . the factors 0.7 and 0. linearization is performed with respect to YCH4 and YO2.5 R * 7 * 7 * YO2 − YO2 * YO2 In the above linearization. R8 = (ε ) A8 exp⎜ 4 ⎜ RT ⎟ m 3 kPa 1.8 where. Thus. the final form of the carbon monoxide oxidation equation (used for the oxygen balance) is: R 7 = R + 1 .1R * 8 * 8 * YCH 4 − YCH 4 * YCH 4 243 .7YO 2 0.

5 is also changed to 1.2 m 3 kPa 2.2 ⎟Tg P (YH 2 )1.18.2 R * 9 * 9 YC2 H 4 − YC*2 H 4 YC*2 H 4 The rate equation for hydrogen oxidation (3.2 to make the slope steeper. linearization is performed with respect to YH2 and YO2.2 2. A9 = 6858 3 m kPa 1. Thus.1R * 10 * 10 244 . 3.2 s where A10 = 8.1 (YO 2 )1. the rate equation for ethylene oxidation (eq. R10 = R + 1.5 where.4 × 10 6 Since YH2 and YO2 are nonlinear in the above equation.5 R * 9 * 9 YC2 H 4 − YC*2 H 4 YC*2 H 4 Similarly in the case of C6H6.8 0. Linearizing with respect to YH2 .24) can be transformed to ⎛ − E9 R9 = (ε ) A9 exp⎜ ⎜ RT g ⎝ ⎞ −0. 3. the final form of the ethylene oxidation equation (used for the ethylene balance) is: R9 = R + 1.5 ⎟Tg P YC H YO 2 2 4 ⎟ ⎠ kmolK 0.1 ⎟ ⎠ kmolK 2.8 s Since YC2H4 is nonlinear in the above equation.1R * 10 * 10 * YH 2 − YH 2 * YH 2 * YO2 − YO2 * YO2 Linearizing with respect to YO2 . linearization is performed with respect to YC2H4.26) becomes: ⎛ − E10 R10 = (ε ) A10 exp⎜ ⎜ RT g ⎝ ⎞ − 2. R9 = R + 0.5 1. the factor 0.Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations Thus. R10 = R + 1.2 R * 8 * 8 * YO2 − YO2 * YO2 Using a process similar to that used for eq. The equation becomes …. the final form of the methane oxidation equation (used for the oxygen balance) is: R8 = R + 1.

5 1.5 P 1. the mass balance differential equations (gaseous phase) are discretized as follows: Oxygen: The mass balance equation for oxygen (eq.5 6 YO 2 H ⎟ ⎡⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞⎤ ⎠ ⎜ ⎟+⎜ ⎟ ⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎥ ⎣⎝ k m ⎠ ⎝ k1 ⎠⎦ * ⎤ ⎡ * Y − YO * O − 1.5 ⎥ − M O2 (ε )k 9Tg P YC6 H 6 YO 2 ⎥ ⎦ * ⎡ * YO2 − YO2 * − 0.2 R7 2 * 2 YO2 ⎢ ⎣ ⎤ − 0.5M O R7 2 2 ⎟ MC ⎠ − 1.51) is discretized as shown below: M O2 ⎞ M ∂ ∂ ⎛ ⎟ = −γ O2 R1 − 3M O R6 − 0.5M O2 ⎢ R8 + 1.5M O2 ⎢ R10 + 1.1R10 * YO2 ⎢ ⎣ ⎤ ⎥ ⎥ ⎦ This can be rewritten in the form … (YO 2 )i = B(YO 2 )i −1 + C A 245 .5M O R7 C O2 M O 2 + ⎜ m ′′YO2 g 2 2 ∂t ∂x ⎜ Mg ⎟ MC ⎝ ⎠ − 1.5M O2 R10 ε ( ) ε ⎞ ∂ ⎛ M O2 ∂ ⎛ YO2 P ⎜ M O 2 ⎟ + ⎜ m′′YO2 g ⎟ ∂x ⎜ Mg ∂t ⎜ RTg ⎝ ⎝ ⎠ ⎞ M ⎟ = −γ O2 R1 − 3M O R6 − 0.Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations After converting the reaction rate equations to molar fraction forms and after linearization has been done.5M O2 ⎢ R7 + 1. 3.5M O2 R8 − M O2 R9 − 0.5M O2 R10 ⎛ (ε )YO2 PM O2 ⎜ ⎜ RTg ⎝ ⎞ ⎛ (ε )YO2 PM O2 ⎟ −⎜ ⎟ ⎜ RTg ⎠i ⎝ ∆t ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠i 0 + ⎛ M O2 ⎜ m′′YO ⎜ g 2 M g ⎝ ⎞ ⎛ M O2 ⎟ − ⎜ m′′YO ⎟ ⎜ g 2 M g ⎠i ⎝ ∆xi − 1 2 ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ i −1 = −γ M O2 ⎛ Av M C ⎜ M C ⎜ RTg ⎝ ⎞ PYO2 ⎟ − 3M O2 (ε )k 6Tg−0.5M O2 R8 − M O2 R9 − 0.2 R8 2 * 2 ⎥ YO2 ⎥ ⎢ ⎦ ⎣ * ⎡ * Y − YO * O − 0.8YC06.8 0.

6M O2 R7 ∆xi − 1 2 Y * O2 + * 1.20 27.20 27.Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations where ⎛ (ε ) PM O2 ∆xi − 1 2 A=⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ ⎞ ⎛ ⎟ + ⎜ m′′ M O2 ⎟ ⎜ g Mg ⎠i ⎝ ⎞ M ⎟ + γ O2 ⎟ MC ⎠i ⎛ Av M C ⎜ ⎜ RT g ⎝ P∆xi − 1 ⎞ 2 ⎟ ⎟ ⎡⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞⎤ ⎠ ⎜ ⎟+⎜ ⎟ ⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎥ ⎣⎝ k m ⎠ ⎝ k1 ⎠⎦ 2 + 3M O2 (ε )k 6T + M O2 (ε )k 9T − 0.8 0.5 g P Y 1.05M O2 R10 ∆xi − 1 O2 7 i− 1 ⎟ 2 2 2 ⎠i 0 ⎛ (ε )YO2 PM O2 ∆xi − 1 2 C =⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ Carbon monoxide: The mass balance equation for carbon monoxide (eq.1M R * ∆x + 0.49) is discretized as shown below: ⎞ ⎟ = 2(1 − γ ) M CO R1 + 2 M CO R2 + M CO R3 ⎟ MC MC MC ⎠ 3.5 g P Y 1.80 ⎞ ⎛ (ε )YCO P ⎞ ⎛ ⎛ (ε )YCO P ⎜ ⎜ m′′YCO M CO M CO ⎟ − ⎜ M CO ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ RT ⎟ ⎜ g Mg g ⎠i ⎝ ⎠i ⎝ ⎝ RTg + ∆t = 2(1 − γ ) 0 ε ⎞ ∂ ⎛ M ∂ ⎛ YCO P ⎜ M CO ⎟ + ⎜ m′′YCO CO g ⎟ ∂x ⎜ Mg ∂t ⎜ RTg ⎝ ⎝ ⎠ ⎞ ⎛ ⎟ − ⎜ m′′YCO M CO ⎟ ⎜ g Mg ⎠i ⎝ ∆xi − 1 2 ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ i −1 M CO M M R1 + 2 CO R2 + CO R3 + 6 M CO R6 + M CO R8 + 2 M CO R9 + M CO R5 R MC MC MC 0 0 − M CO (ε )k 5 F P 2Tg− 2 YCO YH 2O − M CO (ε )k 7 P 2Tg− 2YCO YO2. 3.3M O2 R8 ∆xi − 1 + 0.5YH .25 + O ( ) 3.62 R p1 + R p2 + 6 M CO R6 + M CO R8 + 2 M CO R9 + M CO R5 R − M CO R5 F − M CO R7 + 29.5 C6 H 6 ∆xi − 1 + 2 * 0.55M O2 R10 ∆xi − 1 2 Y * O2 ⎛ M O2 B = ⎜ m′′ g ⎜ Mg ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ i −1 ⎞ * * ⎟ + 0.8 0.62 R p1 + R p2 29.80 246 .8M O2 R8 ∆xi − 1 Y * O2 − 0.50 52.50 52.5 C6 H 6 ∆xi − 1 + 2 * 0.

5YH .53) is discretized as shown below: ε + ∂ρ CO2 ∂t + ′′ dmCO2 dx = (2γ − 1) M CO2 MC R1 + M CO2 R5 F + M CO2 R7 − M CO2 MC R2 + 6.80 R p1 79.80 247 .40 R p 2 − M CO2 R5 R 52.80 ⎝ ⎠i M M + 2 CO R2 ∆xi − 1 + CO R3 ∆xi − 1 + M CO R5 R ∆xi − 1 + 6 M CO R6 ∆xi − 1 2 2 2 2 MC MC + M CO R8 ∆xi − 1 + 2M CO R9 ∆xi − 1 2 2 Carbon dioxide: The mass balance equation for carbon dioxide (eq.50 52.25 + O ( ) 3.80 This can be rewritten in the form … where (YCO )i = B(YCO )i −1 + C A ⎛ (ε ) PM CO ∆xi − 1 2 A=⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ ⎞ ⎛ ⎟ + ⎜ m′′ M CO ⎟ ⎜ g Mg ⎠i ⎝ 2 ⎞ ⎟ + M CO (ε )k 5 P 2Tg− 2YH O ∆x 1 i− 2 ⎟ 2 ⎠i 0 + M CO (ε )k 7 P 2Tg− 2YO02.62 R p1 + R p2 29.Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations ⎞ ⎛ (ε )YCO P ⎞ ⎛ ⎛ (ε )YCO P ⎜ ⎜ m′′YCO M CO M CO ⎟ − ⎜ M CO ⎟ ⎜ RT ⎟ ⎜ RT ⎟ ⎜ g Mg g g ⎠i ⎝ ⎠i ⎝ ⎝ + ∆t = 2(1 − γ ) 0 ⎞ ⎛ ⎟ − ⎜ m′′YCO M CO ⎟ ⎜ g Mg ⎠i ⎝ ∆x i − 1 2 ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ i −1 M CO M M R1 + 2 CO R2 + CO R3 + 6 M CO R6 + M CO R8 + 2 M CO R9 + M CO R5 R MC MC MC 0 0 − M CO (ε )k 5 P 2Tg− 2 YCO YH 2O − M CO (ε )k 7 P 2Tg− 2YCO YO2. 3.50 6.62 2 ⎟ C =⎜ R p1 ∆xi − 1 + R p 2 ∆xi − 1 + 2(1 − γ ) CO R1 ∆xi − 1 + ⎜ ⎟ 2 2 2 RTg ∆t MC 29.50 52.20 27.5YH .20 27.25 ∆xi − 1 O ⎛ M B = ⎜ m′′ CO g ⎜ Mg ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ i −1 0 ⎛ (ε )YCO PM CO ∆xi − 1 ⎞ M 3.

80 6.40 R p1 + R p 2 − M CO2 R5 R 79.80 ⎛ (ε )YCO2 PM CO2 ⎜ ⎜ RTg ⎝ ⎞ ⎛ (ε )YCO2 PM CO2 ⎟ −⎜ ⎟ ⎜ RTg ⎠i ⎝ ∆t ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠i 0 + ⎛ M CO2 ⎜ m′′YCO g 2 ⎜ Mg ⎝ M CO2 ⎛ Av M C ⎜ M C ⎜ RTg ⎝ ⎞ ⎛ M CO2 ⎟ − ⎜ m′′YCO g 2 ⎟ ⎜ Mg ⎠i ⎝ ∆xi − 1 2 ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ i −1 = (2γ − 1) M CO2 MC R1 + M CO2 R5 F + M CO2 R7 − ⎞ PYCO2 6.80 ⎛ − E5 F A5 F exp⎜ ⎜ RT g ⎝ − M CO2 ε KC ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ P 2T − 2Y g CO2 YH 2 This can be rewritten in the form … (YCO 2 )i = where ⎛ (ε ) PM CO2 ∆xi −1 ⎞ ⎛ M ⎟ + ⎜ m′′ CO2 A=⎜ g ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ RTg ∆t Mg ⎝ ⎠i ⎝ ⎛ − E5 F A5 F exp⎜ ⎜ RT g ⎝ + M CO2 ε KC ⎛ M CO2 B = ⎜ m ′′ g ⎜ Mg ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ i −1 0 B(YCO 2 )i −1 + C A P∆xi − 1 ⎞ 2 ⎟ ⎟ ⎡⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞⎤ ⎠ ⎜ ⎟+⎜ ⎟ ⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎥ ⎣⎝ k m ⎠ ⎝ k 2 ⎠⎦ ⎞ M CO2 ⎟ + ⎟ MC ⎠i ⎛ Av M C ⎜ ⎜ RT g ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ P 2T − 2Y ∆x g H2 i− 1 2 ⎛ (ε )YCO2 PM CO2 ∆xi − 1 ⎞ 6.40 2 ⎟ C =⎜ R p1 ∆xi − 1 + R p 2 ∆xi − 1 + ⎟ ⎜ 2 2 RTg ∆t 79.50 52.80 6.80 ⎟ R + ⎟ ⎡⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞⎤ 79.50 p1 ⎠ ⎜ ⎟+⎜ ⎟ ⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎥ ⎣⎝ k m ⎠ ⎝ k 2 ⎠⎦ + 6.40 R p2 52.80 ⎠i ⎝ M CO2 + (2γ − 1) R1 ∆xi − 1 + M CO2 R5 F ∆xi − 1 + M CO2 R7 ∆xi − 1 2 2 2 MC 248 .Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations ε − ⎞ ∂ ⎛ M CO2 ∂ ⎛ YCO2 P ⎜ M CO2 ⎟ + ⎜ m ′′YCO2 g ⎟ ∂x ⎜ ∂t ⎜ RTg Mg ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ M CO2 MC R2 + ⎞ M ⎟ = (2γ − 1) CO2 R1 + M CO R5 F + M CO R7 2 2 ⎟ MC ⎠ 6.50 52.

80 ⎦ This can be rewritten in the form … (YH 2 )i = where ⎛ (ε ) PM H 2 ∆xi − 1 2 A=⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ ⎞ ⎛ ⎟ + ⎜ m′′ M H 2 ⎟ ⎜ g Mg ⎠i ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ P 2T − 2Y g B(YH 2 )i −1 + C A P∆xi − 1 ⎞ 2 ⎟ ⎟ ⎡⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞⎤ ⎠ ⎜ ⎟+⎜ ⎟ ⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎥ ⎣⎝ k m ⎠ ⎝ k 4 ⎠⎦ ⎞ M ⎟ + 2 H2 ⎟ MC ⎠i ⎛ Av M C ⎜ ⎜ RT g ⎝ ⎛ − E5 F A5 F exp⎜ ⎜ RT g ⎝ + M H2 ε KC ⎛ M H2 B = ⎜ m′′ g ⎜ Mg ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ i −1 CO2 ∆xi − 1 + 2 * 1.54) is discretized as shown below: ∂ρ H 2 ∂t ∂m′′ 2 H ∂x ε + = M H2 MC R3 + M H 2 R5 F + 3R6 M H 2 + 2 R9 M H 2 − M H 2 R5 R − 2 M H2 MC R4 − R10 M H 2 + 1.1R10 * YH 2 ⎞⎤ ⎢ ⎣ ⎟⎥ ⎟ ⎠⎦ ⎤ 1.63 R p2 52. 3.80 ⎛ (ε )YH 2 PM H 2 ⎜ ⎜ RTg ⎝ ⎞ ⎛ (ε )YH 2 PM H 2 ⎟ −⎜ ⎟ ⎜ RTg ⎠i ⎝ ∆t ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠i 0 + ⎛ M H2 ⎜ m′′YH g 2 ⎜ Mg ⎝ ⎞ ⎛ M H2 ⎟ − ⎜ m′′YH g 2 ⎟ ⎜ Mg ⎠i ⎝ ∆xi − 1 2 ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ i −1 = M H2 MC R3 + M H 2 R5 F + 3R6 M H 2 + 2 R9 M H 2 M H 2 ⎛ Av M C ⎜ −2 M C ⎜ RTg ⎝ ⎞ PYH 2 ⎟ ⎟ ⎡⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎠ ⎜ ⎟+⎜ ⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎣⎝ k m ⎠ ⎝ k 4 ⎛ − E5 F A5 F exp⎜ ⎜ RT g ⎝ − M H2 ε KC ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ P 2T − 2Y g CO2 YH 2 * ⎡ * YH 2 − YH 2 * − M H 2 ⎢ R10 + 1.63 R p2 ⎥+ ⎥ 52.Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations Hydrogen: The mass balance equation for hydrogen (eq.1M H 2 R10 ∆xi − 1 2 Y * H2 249 .80 ε ∂ ⎛ YH 2 PM H 2 ⎜ ∂t ⎜ RTg ⎝ − M H 2 R5 R ⎞ ∂ ⎛ M H2 ⎞ M H2 ⎟= ⎟ + ⎜ m ′′YH R3 + M H 2 R5 F + 3 R 6 M H 2 + 2 R9 M H 2 g 2 ⎟ ∂z ⎜ M g ⎟ MC ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ M H2 1.63 −2 R4 − R10 M H 2 + R p2 MC 52.

3.50 ∂ ⎛ YH 2O PM H 2O ⎜ ∂t ⎜ RTg ⎝ ⎛ (ε )YH 2O PM H 2O ⎜ ⎜ RTg ⎝ ⎞ ⎛ (ε )YH 2O PM H 2O ⎟ −⎜ ⎟ ⎜ RTg ⎠i ⎝ ∆t M H 2O MC ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠i 0 + ⎛ M ⎜ m′′YH O H 2O g 2 ⎜ Mg ⎝ ⎞ ⎛ M ⎟ − ⎜ m ′′YH O H 2O g 2 ⎟ ⎜ Mg ⎠i ⎝ ∆xi − 1 2 ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ i −1 = 2M H 2O R8 + M H 2O R10 − + 16.50 R3 − M H 2O (ε )k 5 F P 2Tg− 2YCO YH 2O + Rm This can be rewritten in the form … (YH 2O )i = B(YH 2O )i −1 + C A where ⎛ (ε ) PM H 2O ∆xi − 1 2 A=⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ ⎞ ⎛ ⎟ + ⎜ m ′′ M H 2O ⎟ ⎜ g Mg ⎠i ⎝ ⎞ M H 2O ⎟ + ⎟ MC ⎠i ⎛ Av M C ⎜ ⎜ RT g ⎝ P∆x i − 1 ⎞ 2 ⎟ ⎟ ⎡⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞⎤ ⎠ ⎜ ⎟+⎜ ⎟ ⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎥ ⎢⎝ k m ⎠ ⎝ k 3 ⎠⎥ ⎦ ⎣ + M H 2O (ε )k 5 F P 2Tg− 2YCO ∆xi − 1 2 ⎛ M H 2O B = ⎜ m′′ g ⎜ Mg ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ i −1 250 .1M H 2 R10 ∆xi − 1 Water vapor: The mass balance equation for water vapor (eq.63 R ∆x R3 ∆xi − 1 + M H 2 R5 F ∆xi − 1 p2 1 + i− ⎟ 2 2 2 52.55) is discretized as shown below: ε ⎞ ∂ ⎛ ⎞ M M ⎟ + ⎜ m′′YH O H 2O ⎟ = 2 M H O R8 + M H O R10 − H 2O R3 g 2 2 2 ⎟ ∂x ⎜ MC Mg ⎟ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ 16.30 − M H 2O (ε )k 5 F P 2Tg− 2YCO YH 2O + Rm + R p1 + M H 2O R5 R 79.80 MC ⎠i 2 2 2 0 * * + 3R6 M H 2 ∆xi − 1 + 2 R9 M H 2 ∆xi − 1 − M H 2 R10 ∆xi − 1 + 1.Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations ⎛ (ε )YH 2 PM H 2 ∆xi − 1 2 C =⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ 2 ⎞ M H2 ⎟ + 1.30 R p1 + M H 2O R5 R 79.

80 ⎠ ε ⎛ (ε )YCH 4 PM CH 4 ⎜ ⎜ RTg ⎝ ⎞ ⎛ (ε )YCH 4 PM CH 4 ⎟ −⎜ ⎟ ⎜ RTg ⎠i ⎝ ∆t ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠i 0 + ⎛ M CH 4 ⎜ m ′′YCH ⎜ g 4 M g ⎝ ⎞ ⎛ M CH 4 ⎟ − ⎜ m ′′YCH ⎟ ⎜ g 4 M g ⎠i ⎝ ∆xi − 1 2 ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ i −1 = M CH 4 MC ⎡ * Y −Y * CH 4 R4 − M CH 4 ⎢ R8 + 1.80 ⎥ 79.40 5.10 R p1 + R p2 ⎥+ 52.Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations ⎛ (ε )YH 2O PM H 2O ∆xi − 1 ⎞ 16.10 ⎟= R4 − M CH 4 R8 + R p1 + R p2 ⎟ MC 79.80 2 2 MC ⎠i ⎛ (ε )YCH 4 PM CH 4 ∆xi − 1 2 C =⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ * + 0.50 ⎦ This can be rewritten in the form … (YCH 4 )i = where ⎛ (ε ) PM CH 4 ∆xi − 1 2 A=⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ ⎞ ⎛ ⎟ + ⎜ m′′ M CH 4 ⎟ ⎜ g Mg ⎠i ⎝ B(YCH 4 )i −1 + C A * ⎞ 1. 3.50 p1 i − 12 52.1M CH 4 R8 ∆xi − 1 2 ⎟ + * ⎟ YCH 4 ⎠i ⎛ M CH 4 B = ⎜ m′′ g ⎜ Mg ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠i ⎞ M CH 4 5.1M CH 4 R8 ∆xi − 1 2 251 .40 5.50 ⎠i ⎝ + 2 M H 2O R8 ∆xi − 1 + M H 2O R10 ∆xi − 1 2 2 Methane: The mass balance equation for methane (eq.1R8 * YCH 4 ⎢ ⎣ * CH 4 ⎤ 0.30 2 ⎟ C =⎜ + R m ∆x i − 1 + R p1 ∆xi − 1 + M H 2O R5 R ∆xi − 1 ⎟ ⎜ 2 2 2 RTg ∆t 79.10 ⎟ + 0.40 R ∆x + R p 2 ∆xi − 1 + R4 ∆xi − 1 ⎟ 79.56) is discretized as shown below: ∂ ⎛ YCH 4 PM CH 4 ⎜ RTg ∂t ⎜ ⎝ ⎞ ∂ ⎛ M CH 4 ⎟ + ⎜ m ′′YCH g 4 ⎟ ∂x ⎜ Mg ⎠ ⎝ ⎞ M CH 4 0.50 52.

Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations Ethylene: The mass balance equation for ethylene (eq.50 Mg ⎟ ∂t ⎜ RTg ⎠ ⎠ ⎝ ⎝ ε 252 .40 R ∆x + 0. 3.40 ⎟= R − R9 M C2 H 4 ⎟ 52.2 C2 H 4 9 ∆x 1 i− ⎟ 2 YC*2 H 4 ⎠i ⎛ (ε )YC2 H 4 PM C2 H 4 ∆xi − 1 2 C =⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ ⎞ * ⎟ + 5.57) is discretized as shown below: ∂ ⎛ YC2 H 4 PM C2 H 4 ⎜ ∂t ⎜ RTg ⎝ ⎞ ∂ ⎛ M ⎟ + ⎜ YC H m′′ C2 H 4 ⎟ ∂x ⎜ 2 4 g M g ⎠ ⎝ ⎞ ⎛ (ε )YC2 H 4 PM C2 H 4 ⎟ −⎜ ⎟ ⎜ RTg ⎠i ⎝ ∆t * C2 H 4 ε ⎞ 5.58) is discretized as shown below: ⎞ ∂ ⎛ Ytar1 PM tar1 ⎞ ∂ ⎛ ⎟ + ⎜ Ytar1 m ′′ M tar1 ⎟ = − R p 2 + 52. 3.80 R p1 ⎜ g ⎟ ∂x ⎜ 79.80 ⎠i 0 Primary Tar : The mass balance equation for primary tar (oxygenate) (eq.40 ⎟+ R ⎟ 52.80 p 2 ⎠ 0 ⎛ (ε )YC2 H 4 PM C2 H 4 ⎜ ⎜ RTg ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠i + ⎛ M ⎜ YC H m ′′ C2 H 4 g ⎜ 2 4 Mg ⎝ ⎞ ⎛ M ⎟ − ⎜ YC H m ′′ C2 H 4 g ⎟ ⎜ 2 4 Mg ⎠i ⎝ ∆xi − 1 2 ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ i −1 = ⎛ * Y −Y * C H − M C2 H 4 ⎜ R9 + 1.80 p 2 ⎠ This can be rewritten in the form … (YC 2 H 4 )i = where B(YC 2 H 4 )i −1 + C A ⎛ (ε ) PM C2 H 4 ∆xi − 1 2 A=⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ ⎛ M C2 H 4 B = ⎜ m′′ g ⎜ Mg ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠i−1 ⎞ ⎛ ⎟ + ⎜ m ′′ M C2 H 4 ⎟ ⎜ g Mg ⎠i ⎝ ⎞ M R* ⎟ + 1.2M C2 H 4 R9 ∆xi − 1 p2 i− 1 ⎟ 2 2 52.2 R9 2 4 * ⎜ YC2 H 4 ⎝ ⎞ 5.

50 ⎠i 0 B(Ytar1 )i −1 + C A ⎞ ⎛ ⎟ + ⎜ m ′′ M tar1 ⎞ + ⎛ (ε ) PT −1 k ∆x ⎞ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ g p2 i− 1 ⎟ ⎜ g Mg ⎟ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎠i ⎠i ⎝ Secondary Tar : The mass balance equation for secondary tar (hydrocarbon.80 R p 2 ⎠ This can be rewritten in the form … (Ytar 2 )i = where B(Ytar 2 )i −1 + C A 253 .80 R ∆x p1 i− 1 ⎟ 2 79.65 R p 2 ⎟ 52.80 ⎠ ε ⎛ (ε )Ytar 2 PM tar 2 ⎜ ⎜ RTg ⎝ ⎞ ⎛ (ε )Ytar 2 PM tar 2 ⎟ −⎜ ⎟ ⎜ RTg ⎠i ⎝ ∆t * tar 2 ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠i 0 + ⎛ ⎜ Ytar 2 m ′′ M tar 2 g ⎜ Mg ⎝ ⎞ ⎛ ⎟ − ⎜ Ytar 2 m ′′ M tar 2 g ⎟ ⎜ Mg ⎠i ⎝ ∆xi − 1 2 ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ i −1 = ⎛ * −Y * Y − M tar 2 ⎜ R6 + 1.80 R p1 79.59) is discretized as shown below: ∂ ⎛ Ytar 2 PM tar 2 ⎜ RTg ∂t ⎜ ⎝ ⎞ ∂ ⎛ ⎟ + ⎜ Ytar 2 m ′′ M tar 2 g ⎟ ∂x ⎜ Mg ⎠ ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ = − R6 M tar 2 + 6.Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations ⎞ ⎛ ⎛ ⎛ (ε )Ytar1 PM tar1 ⎞ ⎛ (ε )Ytar1 PM tar1 ⎞ ⎞ ⎜ Ytar1 m′′ M tar1 ⎟ − ⎜ Ytar1 m′′ M tar1 ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ −⎜ ⎜ g g ⎜ ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎜ RTg RTg Mg ⎟ ⎜ Mg ⎟ ⎠i ⎝ ⎠i ⎝ ⎠i ⎝ ⎝ ⎠ i −1 + = ∆t ∆xi − 1 2 0 ((ε ) PT −1 g k p 2Ytar1 − ) 52.2 R6 tar 2 * ⎜ Ytar 2 ⎝ ⎞ 6. 3.50 This can be rewritten in the form … (Ytar1 )i = where ⎛ (ε ) PM tar1 ∆xi − 1 2 A=⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ ⎛ M ⎞ B = ⎜ m ′′ tar1 ⎟ g ⎜ Mg ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ i −1 ⎛ (ε )Ytar1 PM tar1 ∆xi − 1 2 C =⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ + 52. benzene) (eq.65 ⎟+ ⎟ 52.

80 ⎠i 0 ⎛ (ε )Ytar 2 PM tar 2 ∆xi − 1 2 =⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ Total gas : The mass balance equation for total gas (eq.60) is also discretized as shown below: ∂ ⎛ PM g ⎜ ∂t ⎜ RTg ⎝ ⎞ ∂ ⎟ + (m′′ ) = R p1 + Rm + R1 + R2 + R3 + R4 ⎟ ∂x g ⎠ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠i 0 ε ⎛ (ε ) PM g ⎜ ⎜ RT g ⎝ ⎞ ⎛ (ε ) PM g ⎟ −⎜ ⎟ ⎜ RT g ⎠i ⎝ ∆t + (m′′ ) − (m′′ ) g i g i −1 ∆x i − 1 = R p1 + Rm + R1 + R2 + R3 + R4 2 This can be rewritten in the form … mg i = where A =1 B =1 Bmg i −1 + C A ⎛ (ε ) PM g ∆xi− 1 ⎞ ⎛ (ε ) PM g ∆xi− 1 ⎞ 2 ⎟ 2 ⎟ C = (R p1 + Rm + R1 + R2 + R3 + R4 )∆xi− 1 + ⎜ −⎜ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ 2 RTg ∆t RTg ∆t ⎝ ⎠i ⎝ ⎠i 0 C.65 R ∆x + 0.2 M tar 2 R6 ∆x 1 * i− ⎟ 2 Ytar 2 ⎠i ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ i −1 ⎞ * ⎟ + 6. 3.Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations ⎛ (ε ) PM tar 2 ∆xi − 1 2 A=⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ ⎛ M Btar 2 = ⎜ m ′′ tar 2 g ⎜ Mg ⎝ C tar 2 ⎞ ⎛ ⎟ + ⎜ m ′′ M tar 2 ⎟ ⎜ g Mg ⎠i ⎝ * ⎞ ⎟ + 1.3 Energy balance equation (solid phase) The solid energy balance differential equation is discretized as follows: 254 .2 M tar 2 R6 ∆xi − 1 p2 i− 1 ⎟ 2 2 52.

Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations (1 − ε ) ∂T ∂ (ρ s hs ) + ∂ (m ′S′ hs ) = ∂ ⎛ k eff s ⎞ − hsg Av(Ts − Tg ) ⎜ ⎟ ∂x ⎝ ∂x ⎠ ∂x ∂t (eq.Central difference scheme for second order terms . 3.61) 4 4h − sw (Ts − Tw ) + R m ∆H m + R p1 ∆H p1 + ∑ R j ∆H j D j =1 . ms = (1 − ε )v s ρ s (1 − ε ) (ρ s Cp s (Ts − Ta ) ) i − (ρ s Cp s (Ts − Ta ) )i0 + ∆t (1 − ε ) [(ρ s v s Cp s (Ts − Ta ) )i − (ρ s v s Cp s (Ts − Ta ) )i −1 ] = ∆x i − 1 2 [ ] ⎡ ⎞⎤ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎢ (K eff )i+ 12 ⎜ (Ts )i+1 − (Ts )i ⎟ − (K eff )i− 12 ⎜ (Ts )i − (Ts )i−1 ⎟⎥ − (hsg Av (Ts − Tg ) )i ⎟⎥ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ∆x i − 1 ∆x i ⎢ ∆x i + 1 ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎠⎦ ⎝ 2 2 ⎠ ⎝ ⎣ 4 ⎛ 4h ⎞ − ⎜ sw (Ts − Tw ) ⎟ + Rm ∆H m + R p1 ∆H p1 + ∑ (R j ∆H j )i D ⎝ ⎠i j =1 (1 − ε ) (ρ s Cp s Ts )i − (1 − ε ) (ρ s Cp s Ta )i − (1 − ε ) (ρ s Cp s Ts )i0 + (1 − ε ) (ρ s Cp s Ta )i0 ∆t ∆t ∆t ∆t (1 − ε )(ρ s v s Cp s Ts )i (1 − ε )(ρ s v s Cp s Ta ) i (1 − ε )(ρ s v s Cp s Ts ) i −1 + − − ∆x i − 1 ∆x i − 1 ∆x i − 1 ⎛ (K ) + (K ) ⎞ (1 − ε )(ρ s v s Cp s Ta ) i −1 ⎛ (K eff )i +1 + (K eff )i ⎞ eff i ⎟ ⎟( ) ⎜ eff i +1 ⎜ + =⎜ ⎟(Ts )i ⎟ Ts i +1 − ⎜ 2∆x ∆x ∆x i − 1 ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎜ 2 ∆x i ∆x i + 1 i i+ 1 2 2 2 ⎠ ⎠ ⎝ ⎝ ⎛ (K ) + (K ) ⎞ ⎛ (K ) + (K ) ⎞ eff i eff i −1 ⎟ eff i −1 ⎟ (Ts )i + ⎜ eff i −⎜ ⎟(Ts )i −1 − (hsg Av Ts )i + (hsg Av T g )i ⎜ 2 ∆x ∆x ⎟ ⎜ 2 ∆x ∆x ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ i i i− 1 i− 1 2 2 ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ 4 4 4 − (hsw Ts )i + (hsw Tw )i + R m ∆H m + R p1 ∆H p1 + ∑ (R j ∆H j )i D D j =1 2 2 2 This can be rewritten in the form … Ai (Ts )i = Bi (Ts )i +1 + Ci (Ts )i −1 + Di 255 .Backward difference scheme for first order terms ″ where hs = Cp s (Ts − Ta ) .

3.9.Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations Ai = ⎛ (K ) + (K ) (1 − ε ) eff i +1 eff i ( ρ m Cpm + ρ bio Cpbio + ρ char Cpchar ) i + ⎜ ⎜ 2∆x ∆x ∆t ⎜ i i+ 1 2 ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎛ (K ) + (K ) ⎞ (1 − ε )( ρ Cp + ρ Cp + ρ Cp ) (v ) eff i eff i −1 ⎟ m m bio bio char char i s i +⎜ ⎟+ ⎜ 2∆x ∆x ∆xi − 1 ⎟ ⎜ i i− 1 2 2 ⎠ ⎝ 4(hsw )i + (hsg Av )i + D ⎛ (K ) + (K eff i +1 eff Bi = ⎜ ⎜ 2∆x ∆x ⎜ i i+ 1 2 ⎝ )⎞ ⎟ i ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎛ (K ) + (K ) ⎞ (1 − ε )( ρ Cp + ρ Cp + ρ Cp ) (v ) eff i eff i −1 ⎟ m m bio bio char char i −1 s i −1 Ci = ⎜ ⎜ 2∆x ∆x ⎟+ ∆xi − 1 ⎜ ⎟ i i− 1 2 2 ⎝ ⎠ (1 − ε ) ((ρ m Cp m + ρ bio Cp bio + ρ char Cp char )Ta ) i ∆t (1 − ε ) ((ρ m Cp m + ρ bio Cp bio + ρ char Cp char )Ts )i0 − + ∆t (1 − ε ) ((ρ m Cp m + ρ bio Cp bio + ρ char Cp char )Ta )i0 + ∆t (1 − ε )((ρ m Cp m + ρ bio Cp bio + ρ char Cp char )v s Ta ) i − ∆x i − 1 Di = (1 − ε )((ρ m Cp m + ρ bio Cp bio + ρ char Cp char )v s Ta ) i −1 ∆x i − 1 2 4 4 + (hsg Av Tg ) + (TW hsw )i + Rm ∆H m + R p1 ∆H p1 + ∑ (R j ∆H j )i D j =1 2 C. underrelaxation is carried out for all source terms related to gas oxidation reactions as follows: ⎛ 10 ⎞ ⎛ 10 ⎞ ⎛ 10 ⎞ ⎜ ∑ R j ∆H j ⎟ = (α )⎜ ∑ R j ∆H j ⎟ + (1 − α )⎜ ∑ R j ∆H j ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ j =6 ⎠i ⎝ j =6 ⎠i ⎝ j =6 ⎠i * 256 .4 Energy balance equation (gaseous phase) As discussed in 3.

62) .Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations where α is the underrelaxation factor. After underrelaxation is done. α = 0.3 is used in the computer program.Backward difference scheme for first order terms where hg = Cp g (Tg − Ta ) [(ρ Cp (T − T )) − (ρ Cp (T − T )) ]+ ∆t 1 [(m Cp (T − T )) − (m Cp (T − T )) ] ∆x ε 0 g g g a i g g g a i i i −1 g g g a g g g a i+ 1 2 ⎡ ⎛ (T ) − (T ) ⎞ ⎛ (T ) − (T ) ⎞⎤ 1 ⎢ (K g )i+ 12 ⎜ g i+1 g i ⎟ − (K g )i− 12 ⎜ g i g i−1 ⎟⎥ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎥ ∆xi ⎢ ∆xi + 1 ∆xi − 1 ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ 2 2 ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠⎦ ⎣ 4(hgw )i + (hsg Av (Ts − Tg ) )i − (Tg − Tw ) i + (R p 2 ∆H p 2 )i + (R5 F ∆H 5 F )i D = + (R5 R ∆H 5 R )i ⎛ 10 ⎞ ⎛ 10 ⎞ + (α )⎜ ∑ R j ∆H j ⎟ + (1 − α )⎜ ∑ R j ∆H j ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ j =6 ⎠i ⎝ j =6 ⎠i * 257 . the gas phase energy balance differential equation is discretized as follows: ∂T ∂ ⎟ ⎜ (ρ g hg ) + ∂ (m′g′ hg ) = ∂ ⎛ k g g ⎞ + hsg Av(Ts − Tg ) ⎜ ∂x ⎝ ∂x ⎟ ∂t ∂x ⎠ 10 4h gw (Tg − Tw ) + R p 2 ∆H p 2 + ∑ R j ∆H j − D j =5 (ε ) (eq 3.Central difference scheme for second order terms .

258 . New York: McGraw-Hill.Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations (ρ g Cp g Ta )i = ∆t ∆t ∆t ∆t ⎛ (K ) + (K ) ⎞ ⎛ (K ) + (K ) ⎞ ⎛ (K ) + (K ) ⎞ g i −1 ⎟ g i +1 ⎟ g i +1 ⎟ ⎜ g i ⎜ g i ⎜ g i ⎟(Tg ) ⎟(Tg )i − ⎜ 2∆x ∆x ⎜ 2∆x ∆x ⎟(Tg )i +1 − ⎜ 2∆x ∆x ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ i i i i− 1 i+ 1 i+ 1 2 2 2 ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎛ (K ) + (K ) ⎞ (mg Cp g Tg )i (mg Cp g Ta )i (mg Cp g Tg )i−1 g i −1 ⎟ ⎜ g i (Tg )i−1 − + + i +⎜ ∆xi − 1 ∆xi − 1 ∆xi − 1 ⎜ 2∆xi ∆xi − 1 ⎟ ⎟ 2 2 2 2 ⎝ ⎠ i −1 4(hgwTg )i 4(hgwTw )i (mg Cp g Ta ) ( − + hsg AvTs )i − (hsg AvTg )i − + + (R p 2 ∆H p 2 )i ∆xi − 1 D D 0 0 g g g 2 ε (ρ Cp g Tg )i − ε (ρ Cp g Ta )i − ε (ρ Cp g Tg )i + ε + (R5 F ∆H 5 F )i + (R5 R ∆H 5 R )i ⎛ 10 ⎞ ⎛ 10 ⎞ + (α )⎜ ∑ R j ∆H j ⎟ + (1 − α )⎜ ∑ R j ∆H j ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ j =6 ⎠i ⎝ j =6 ⎠i * This can be rewritten in the form … Ai (Tg )i = Bi (Tg )i +1 + C i (Tg )i −1 + Di ⎛ (K ) + (K ) ⎞ ⎛ (K ) + (K ) ⎞ (m Cp ) 4(hgw )i g i g i +1 ⎟ g i −1 ⎟ g g i ⎜ g i +⎜ + (hsg Av ) + ⎜ 2∆x ∆x ⎟ + ⎜ 2∆x ∆x ⎟ + ∆x D ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ i i i+ 1 i− 1 i− 1 2 2 2 ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ Ai = (ρ Cp ) ∆t g g ε i ⎛ (K ) + (K ) ⎞ g i g i +1 ⎟ Bi = ⎜ ⎜ 2∆x ∆x ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ i i+ 1 2 ⎝ ⎠ ⎛ (K ) + (K ) ⎞ (m Cp ) g i g i −1 ⎟ g g i −1 Ci = ⎜ ⎜ 2∆x ∆x ⎟ + ∆x ⎜ ⎟ i i− 1 i− 1 2 2 ⎝ ⎠ Di = ε ∆t (ρ g Cp g Ta ) i + ε ∆t (ρ g Cp g T g )i − 0 ε ∆t (ρ g Cp g Ta )i + 0 (m Cp T ) (m Cp T ) g g a i + (hsg Av Ts )i + 4(hgw )i Tw D ∆xi − 1 − g g a i −1 2 ∆xi − 1 2 + (R p 2 ∆H p 2 )i + (R5 F ∆H 5 F )i + (R5 R ∆H 5 R )i * ⎛ 10 ⎞ ⎛ 10 ⎞ + (α )⎜ ∑ R j ∆H j ⎟ + (1 − α )⎜ ∑ R j ∆H j ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ j =6 ⎠i ⎝ j =6 ⎠i Reference Pantankar. Numerical heat transfer and fluid flow. SV 1980.

[kg/m3] Moisture content of the fuel in dry basic. [m] Air supply rate. [m] ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Apparent density of biomass in dry basis. [K] Bed voidage fraction. Compaq Visual Fortran 6.0 operating system.00b and Windows NT 4. The Fortran code was developed by using ELF90 (Lahey. [m] ! Effective length of the reactor. f90 and UNIX (IRIX). It was tested on the following compiler and operating system pairs: Essential Lahey Fortran 90 Compiler Release 4. [K] Gas Inlet temperature.0D0) ! ********************************** ! List of main user input parameters ! ********************************** ! Gasifier Dimensions ! =================== REAL(DP):: D_rec REAL(DP):: L_rec ! Fuel Properties ! =============== REAL(DP):: rho_biomass REAL(DP):: moisture REAL(DP):: d_pwood REAL(DP):: air_rate REAL(DP):: Pre REAL(DP):: T_a REAL(DP):: T_gas REAL(DP):: void ! Double precision (DP) ! Inner diameter of the reactor.0 service pack 5.Appendix D Computer code listing Appendix D Computer code listing Given below is the computer code for the model developed duing this project. PARAMETER :: DP = KIND(1. 1998) compiler under Windows NT 4. [KPa] Ambient temperature. It is written in the Fortran programming language. [-] 259 . !========================================================================================== ! START MODULE !========================================================================================== MODULE gasification_data ! Purpose: ! The main purpose of this module is for data sharing for Transient wood gasifier model. [kg/hr] Pressure of gas mixture. IMPLICIT NONE ! List of parameters: INTEGER. [wt %] Initial wood particle diameter.1 and Windows 2000 service pack 4.

[-] INTEGER :: N_top = 200 ! Initial number of slices of top unreacted zone. [m] REAL(DP):: delta_x2 ! Depth of slice for forward difference ! (x(i+1)-x(i)).42D+0 ! PEFF REAL(DP):: A4 = 3. [-] ! Ultimate Analysis of the fuel ! ============================= REAL(DP):: carbon = 52.8Sec] of H2 oxidation.34D-04 ! PEFF REAL(DP):: A6 = 6. [wt %] Nitrogen content of the fuel in dry basic.858D+03 ! PEFF REAL(DP):: A7 = 1.0D0 ! ! ! ! ! ! Multiplication factor of Activation energy of tar cracking rate. [m] ! Defined Parameters for numerical soultion ! ========================================== INTEGER. [wt %] Sulfur content of the fuel in dry basic.[-] INTEGER :: N_ign = 50 ! Initial number of slices of ignition depth.42D-03 ! PEFF REAL(DP):: A5 = 4. [wt %] Hydrogen content of the fuel in dry basic. [kmolK/m3kPaSec] of char oxidation. [m/sK] of C-H2O reaction.6581 ! PEFF REAL(DP):: A2 = 589. [-] Secondary air supply rate. [m] ! Main Model parameters ! ===================== REAL(DP):: zeta REAL(DP):: km_max REAL(DP):: Av_mf REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: Ap1_mf Ap2_mf A6_mf keff_mf wall_loss ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Reacting to non-reacting solid-to-gas heat transfer coefficient ratio. [kmolK2/m3kPa2Sec] of CH4 oxidation.20D+05 ! PEFF REAL(DP):: Ap2 = 1. [kmolK2/m3kPa2Sec] for (CO/CO2) in char oxidation. [-] ! **************************** ! List of reactions' constants ! **************************** ! Pre_exponential frequency factors (PEFF) ! ======================================== REAL(DP):: Am = 5.3D0 ! PEFF of drying.5/kN1.00D0 REAL(DP):: sulfur = 0.858D+03 ! PEFF REAL(DP):: A10 = 8. [kg/hr] Location of secondary air from the reactor top.020D0 REAL(DP):: depth_bio ! ! ! ! ! ! Carbon content of the fuel in dry basic.88D+09 ! PEFF REAL(DP):: A8 = 2. [-] Multiplication factor of wall heat transfer coefficient.10D0 REAL(DP):: oxygen = 41. [wt %] Oxygen content of the fuel in dry basic. [1/s] of secondary pyrolysis. [K] Depth of the ignition.13D+06 ! PEFF REAL(DP):: Ap1 = 3. parameter :: N = 700 ! Total number of slice. [m] REAL(DP):: delta_x1 ! Depth of slice for backward difference ! (x(i)-x(i-1)). [-] Multiplication factor of secondary tar oxidation rate. [-] Multiplication factor of secondary pyrolysis rate.8Sec] of CO oxidation. [kmolK1.20D0 REAL(DP):: hydrogen = 6. [m] Location of the ignition from the reactor top. [-] Defined maximum mass transfer coefficient. [m/s] Ratio to effective and actural heat and mass transfer surface area.00D0 REAL(DP):: ash = 0. [1/s] of primary pyrolysis. [wt %] ! Initial char diameter. 1 for T_s=T_g Inital wall temperature estimation gradient.5D0 REAL(DP):: wall_coeff = 0.67*3.Appendix D Computer code listing REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: T_ign depth_ign loc_ign depth_char secondair loc_secair ! ! ! ! ! ! Ignition temperature. [-] 260 . [kmolK2/m3kPa2sec] of tar oxidation.5/m³kPa1. [-] Multiplication factor to Effictive thermal condutivity. [kmolK0. [m] Depth of char at initial condition.70D0 REAL(DP):: nitrogen = 0. [m/sK] of C-CO2 reaction. [m/sK] of H2O_gas shift reaction. [-] 0 for nomrmal case. [kmolK0. [m] ! Main Model parameters ! ===================== REAL(DP):: Ep2_mf = REAL(DP):: P_alpha = 0. [-] Multiplication factor of primary pyrolysis rate.850D0 0.40D+06 ! PEFF REAL(DP)::A_gamma = 4.09D+10 ! PEFF REAL(DP):: A9 = 6.00D0 ! Main operational parameters ! =========================== REAL(DP):: d_pinitial = 0.5Sec] of C2H4 oxidation. [wt %] Ash content of the fuel in dry basic.5/m³kPa1. [-] REAL(DP):: delta_x ! Depth of slice for central difference ! (x(i+1/2)-x(i-1/2)).150D+04 ! PEFF REAL(DP):: A1 = 0. [m/sK] of C_H2 reaction. [-] Adjustable factor for effitive tar cracking temperature at pyrolysis zone.0D+0 ! PEFF REAL(DP):: A3 = 1. [m] ! Depth of biomass.

[J/mol] Activation energy of secondary pyrolysis.0D0 28185.[J/kgK] Diffusion volumes of O2 Diffusion volumes of N2 261 . [g/mol] Molecular weight of primary tar.0D0 113000. [g/mol] Molecular weight of H2. [J/kg] ! Heat of reaction for reaction p2. [J/kg] ! ************************************** ! List of the yield of pyrolysis process ! ************************************** ! Yield of primary pyrolysis ! ========================== REAL(DP):: X1_char = 0.051D0 REAL(DP):: X2_H2 = 0. [-] CH4 yield of primary pyrolysis.068D0 REAL(DP):: X1_CH4 = 0. [g/mol] Molecular weight of H2O. [g/mol] Molecular weight of N2.6703D-08 = 0. [g/mol] Molecular weight of CH4.0D0 60279.[g/mol] Molecular weight of O2. [J/mol] Activation energy of C-H2O reaction.0D+03 -2257. [-] CH4 yield of secondary pyrolysis. [-] Gas yield of primary pyrolysis. [J/mol] Activation energy of primary pyrolysis.0D0 80230. [-] C2H4 yield of secondary pyrolysis.004D0 REAL(DP):: X1_H2O = 0.[-] ! **************************************** ! Constants values and physical properties ! **************************************** REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: pi R mole_C mole_O2 mole_CO2 mole_CO mole_H2O mole_H2 mole_CH4 mole_C2H4 mole_N2 mole_tar1 mole_tar2 mf_O2 mass_O2 sigma emiss Cp_m DV_O2 = DV_N2 = = 3. [-] Mass fraction of oxygen in air. [J/mol] Activation energy of C2H4 oxidation.267D0 REAL(DP):: X1_volt = 0. [J/mol] Activation energy of tar oxidation.0D0 = 44. [J/mol] Activation energy of shift reaction.D0 50.795D0 ! Yield of secondary pyrolysis ! ============================ REAL(DP):: X2_tar2 = 0.163D0 REAL(DP):: X1_gas = 0. [g/mol] Molecular weight of C2H4. [-] CO yield of primary pyrolysis. [-] CO2 yield of secondary pyrolysis. [-] H2O yield of secondary pyrolysis. [J/kg] ! Heat of drying. [J/mol] ! Heat of reactions ! ================= REAL(DP):: heatp1 = REAL(DP):: heatp2 = REAL(DP):: heatm = 0. [-] Specific heat of moisture.[-] Tar yield of primary pyrolysis. [-] volatile yield of pri pyrolysis.0D0 74830. [J/mol] Activation energy of C_H2 reaction.D0 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Activation energy of drying.0D0 = 0.0D0 30514.0D0 12.064D0 REAL(DP):: X2_CH4 = 0. [g/mol] Molar fraction of oxygen in air.21D0 = 0. [J/mol] Activation energy for (CO/CO2) in char oxidation.85D0 = 4200.934D0 = 78. [J/mol] Activation energy of CO oxidation.032D0 REAL(DP):: X1_CO2 = 0.0D0 129700.0D0 = 28.0163D0 REAL(DP):: X2_C2H4 = 0.0D0 129700.[-] ! ! ! ! ! ! Mass Mass Mass Mass Mass Mass Fraction Fraction Fraction Fraction Fraction Fraction of of of of of of Tar yield of secondary pyrolysis.0D0 = 134.054D0 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Mass Mass Mass Mass Mass Mass Mass Mass Fraction Fraction Fraction Fraction Fraction Fraction Fraction Fraction of of of of of of of of Char yield of primary pyrolysis. [-] CO2 yield of primary pyrolysis. [J/mol] Activation energy of H2 oxidation. [W/m2K4] Emissivity of char.Appendix D Computer code listing ! Activation energy ! ================= REAL(DP):: Em = REAL(DP):: Ep1 = REAL(DP):: Ep2 = REAL(DP):: E1 = REAL(DP):: E2 = REAL(DP):: E3 = REAL(DP):: E4 = REAL(DP):: E5 = REAL(DP):: E6 = REAL(DP):: E7 = REAL(DP):: E8 = REAL(DP):: E9 = REAL(DP):: E10 = REAL(DP)::E_gamma = 87900.0D0 202600.0D0 125580. [g/mol] Molecular weight of secondary tar.22D0 9. [-] Stefan-Boltzmann constant.0D0 = 28. [J/mol] Activation energy of CH4 oxidation.205D0 REAL(DP):: X1_tar1 = 0.0D0 222825.0D0 93300. [-] H2O yield of primary pyrolysis. [g/mol] Molecular weight of CO.0D+03 ! Heat of reaction for reaction p1.0665D0 REAL(DP):: X2_CO = 0.2762D0 REAL(DP):: X2_CO2 = 0. [-] CO yield of secondary pyrolysis.0D0 = 32.0D0 = 28. [g/mol] Molecular weight of CO2.528D0 REAL(DP):: X1_CO = 0. [J/mol K] Molecular weight of Char.233D0 = 5.3144D0 = 12.0D0 = 18.0D0 80230. [J/mol] Activation energy of C-CO2 reaction.08D0 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Value of pi Universal gas constant.0D0 = 2. [J/mol] Activation energy of char oxidation.0D0 = 16.141592654D0 = 8.

REAL(DP). [K] Rate of drying. [-] Molar Fraction of secondary tar. REAL(DP). REAL(DP). REAL(DP).3D0 1. REAL(DP). [-] Molar Fraction of CO. [kg/m³] Mass Concentration of volatile. [kg/m³/s] Reaction rate of C-H2O reaction. REAL(DP). [kg/m³] Mass Concentration of gas. REAL(DP). [m] Wall temperature. [-] Molar Fraction of CO2. [kmol/m³/s] Reaction rate of C2H4 oxidation. [-] Molar Fraction of C2H4. [-] Molar Fraction of N2. REAL(DP). REAL(DP). REAL(DP). [g/mol] Molar Fraction of O2. REAL(DP). REAL(DP). REAL(DP). REAL(DP). REAL(DP). REAL(DP). REAL(DP). REAL(DP).14D0 = 41. [kg/m²s] Temperature of solid surface. [kg/m³/s] Reaction rate of C-CO2 reaction.iteration logic = time delta_t = alpha = error = sec_check = output_time check_stage ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Index Check temperature index 0 for exit Gasifier operating time. [kg/m³] Mass Concentration of char.26D0 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion volumes volumes volumes volumes volumes volumes volumes volumes of of of of of of of of CO CO2 H2 H2O CH4 C2H4 tar1 tar2 ! ************************************ ! Calculation Parameters and variables ! ************************************ INTEGER :: INTEGER :: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: INTEGER :: INTEGER :: INTEGER :: i. [kmol/m³/s] Rate of reverse shift reaction. [s] Time step.0D0 0. [-] Check secondary air supply 0 for skip Time when output results are print out Check sigle stage of two stage (1 for single-stage. [-] Molar Fraction of H2. REAL(DP). [kmol/m³/s] Reaction rate of CH4 oxidation. REAL(DP). REAL(DP). [-] Molar Fraction of H2O. [K] Temperature of gas. [K] Superfical velocity of gas. REAL(DP).73D0 = 25. REAL(DP). 1 for with sensitivity anlysis) Selcect the parameter for sensitivity performance Location of the grids. [-] Maximum allownce error for covergence. [-] Molar Fraction of CH4. [-] Mass flux of total gas. REAL(DP). [kg/m³/s] Reaction rate of C_H2 reaction.12D0 = 4.01D0 = 28. REAL(DP). REAL(DP). [K] Average wood temperaure for pyrolysis process. [m/s] Solid velocity. [kg/m³/s] Reaction rate of primary pyrolysis. REAL(DP).08314D0 = 109. REAL(DP). [kmol/m³/s] Diffusion coefficient between O2 and gas mixture (m2/s) Diffusion coefficient between CO2 and gas mixture (m2/s) Diffusion coefficient between H2 and gas mixture (m2/s) Diffusion coefficient between 0 3. REAL(DP). REAL(DP). REAL(DP). 2 for two-stage) Check for sensitivity performance (0 for w/o sensitivity analysis. [m] Mass Concentration of moisture. [kmol/m³/s] Reaction rate of CO oxidation. [m/s] Particle diameter. [kg/m³] Molecular weight of gas mixture. REAL(DP). REAL(DP). DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: DIMENSION(N):: x rho_m rho_volt rho_char rho_g mole_g Y_O2 Y_CO2 Y_CO Y_H2O Y_H2 Y_CH4 Y_N2 Y_C2H4 Y_tar1 Y_tar2 m_g T_s T_g v_g v_s d_p T_wall T_e T_p2 ratem rateP1 rateP2 rate1 rate2 rate3 rate4 rate5 rate5R rate6 rate7 rate8 rate9 rate10 REAL(DP):: diff_O2_gas REAL(DP):: diff_CO2_gas REAL(DP):: diff_H2_gas REAL(DP):: diff_H2O_gas 262 . REAL(DP). [kg/m³/s] Reaction rate of char oxidation. [kmol/m³/s] Reaction rate of H2 oxidation.0D-04 0 INTEGER :: check_sensitivity INTEGER :: check_analysis REAL(DP).Appendix D Computer code listing REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: DV_CO DV_CO2 DV_H2 DV_H2O DV_CH4 DV_C2H4 DV_tar1 DV_tar2 = 22. [s] Under relexation coefficent. REAL(DP).04D0 = 140. REAL(DP). [-] Molar Fraction of primary tar. [kg/m³/s] Reaction rate of secondary pyrolysis. [kmol/m³/s] Reaction rate of tar oxidation. [kg/m³/s] Rate of forward shift reaction. REAL(DP). [K] Equivalent temperature for tar cracking. REAL(DP).62D0 = 10.

B_H2.O_in.O_out. [W/m²K] Ratio of solid and gas conductivity.C_dp ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! H2O and gas mixture (m2/s) Variables used in O2 balance term Variables used in CO balance term Variables used in CO2 balance term Variables used in H2O balance term Variables used in H2 balance term Variables used in CH4 balance term Variables used in C2H4 balance term Variables used in primary tar balance term Variables used in primary tar balance term Variables used in overall gas mixture balance term Variables used in solid velocity calculation Variables used in moisture density calculation Variables used in volatile density calculation Variables used in particle diameter calculation Molar flux of gas mixture (kmol/m2sec) Ratem that used in moisture content balance Ratep1 that used in volatile matter balance Ratep1 that used in primary tar balance Rate1 that used in O2 balance Rate2 that used in CO2 balance Rate3 that used in H2O balance Rate4 that used in H2 balance Rate5 that used in CO balance Rate5 that used in H2O balance Reverse rate5 that used in CO2 balance Reverse rate5 that used in H2 balance Rate6 that used in O2 balance Rate7 that used in CO balance Rate9 that used in O2 balance The stoichiometric coefficient to identify the moles of oxidant per mole of Carbon for reaction 1 Inverse of Y_O2 Inverse of Y_tar2 Inverse of C2H4 Inverse of CH4 Inverse of CH4 Renolds number. [W/mK] Gas effective radial conductivity.C_CO2 A_H2O. DIMENSION(N):: REAL(DP).N_out REAL(DP):: masstotal_in ! C.C_rhom A_rhov.B_H2O. DIMENSION(N):: REAL(DP). [-] Fuel consumption.O. [m/s] [m/s] [m/s] [m/s] Particle surface area/ Unit volume. [MJ/hr] Air fuel (biomass) ratio. [kg/m2sec] Condensable tar outlet.H. DIMENSION(N):: REAL(DP). [kgw. H_out. [-] Solid effective radial conductivity.O. [-] Schmidt number for reaction2.C_H2 A_CH4.B_CO. DIMENSION(N):: REAL(DP).N flux input to the reactor.b] Total energy output from the reactor.B_C2H4. DIMENSION(N):: REAL(DP). [W/m²K] Solid to wall heat transfer coefficient. reaction3. [-] Prandtl number.H.C_C2H4 A_tar1. DIMENSION(N):: REAL(DP). [kg/kgd. DIMENSION(N):: REAL(DP).H_in.B_dp. [kg/m2/s] ! Total mass flux input to the reactor.B_rhom.C_H2O A_H2.C_tar1 A_tar2. [W/m²K] Gas to wall heat transfer coefficient.C_tar2 A_gas.C_CH4 A_C2H4.B_rhov.N flux output to the reactor. reaction4.N_in REAL(DP):: C_out. [-] Schmidt number for reaction4. [Nm3/hr] Specific gasification rate. [W/mK] Static effective radial conductivity. DIMENSION(N):: REAL(DP). [kg/m2/s] ! C.B_O2.B_Vs. [MJ/Nm3 d. DIMENSION(N):: REAL(DP).b/hr] Gas yield in mass. [1/m] Solid to gas heat transfer coefficient. [kg/hr] Gas yield in volume. [W/mK] Bed to wall heat transfer coefficient. DIMENSION(N):: REAL(DP).C_gas A_Vs. DIMENSION(N):: REAL(DP).B_CH4.C_O2 A_CO. [-] Schmidt number for reaction3.C_rhov A_dp.B_CO2.b] Equivalence ratio. reaction2.Appendix D Computer code listing REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: A_O2. DIMENSION(N):: efficiency REAL(DP):: C_in.C_CO A_CO2. [-] Schmidt number for reaction1. [mg/Nm3] Cold gas efficiency of the gasifier. DIMENSION(N):: REAL(DP). [-] Film mass transfer coefficient of Film mass transfer coefficient of Film mass transfer coefficient of Film mass transfer coefficient of REAL(DP):: molar_g REAL(DP). DIMENSION(N):: REAL(DP):: gamma REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: Y_O2inverse Y_tar2inverse Y_C2H4inverse Y_CH4inverse Y_H2inverse Re Pr Sc_1 Sc_2 Sc_3 Sc_4 km_1 km_2 km_3 km_4 A_v h_sg k_ratio k_rs k_rg k_ro h_bw h_gw h_sw ratem_m ratep1_volt ratep2_tar1 rate1_O2 rate2_CO2 rate3_H2O rate4_H2 rate5_CO rate5_H2O rate5R_CO2 rate5R_H2 rate6_O2 rate7_CO rate9_O2 reaction1. [kg/m2/s] 263 .B_tar1.B_gas. [W/m²K] Lower heating value of producer gas. [%] REAL(DP):: LHV_gas REAL(DP):: Energy_out REAL(DP):: air_fuel REAL(DP):: ER REAL(DP):: fuel_flow REAL(DP):: gas_flow_mass REAL(DP):: gas_flow_vol REAL(DP):: spe_gasi_rate REAL(DP):: tar_outlet REAL(DP).C_Vs A_rhom. DIMENSION(N):: REAL(DP).B_tar2.

[K] Temperature of gas.gasheat=0. B_Ts. [-] REAL(DP). gas5 REAL(DP):: A_Tg. DIMENSION(N):: Tnew_g ! Temperature of gas at new grids. [kg/m³] REAL(DP). [-] Molar Fraction of H2. DIMENSION(N):: YP_O2 REAL(DP). DIMENSION(N):: YP_H2O REAL(DP). dt_final REAL :: run_time ! ---------------------------------! Variables used for adaptive method ! ---------------------------------REAL(DP):: Max_Tg ! Maximum gas temperature REAL(DP). DIMENSION(N):: xnew_nd ! Dimensionless new grids distance REAL(DP). DIMENSION(8):: dt_init. [m] Molar flux of gas mixture. [kg/m³] Mass Concentration of volatile. [-] Molar Fraction of CO. DIMENSION(N):: rhoP_m REAL(DP). [kg/m³] Mass Concentration of gas mixture. [-] REAL(DP). DIMENSION(N):: moleP_g REAL(DP). [kg/m²s] Temperature of solid surface. DIMENSION(N):: rhoP_g REAL(DP). D_Ts REAL(DP):: gas1. [-] Mass Concentration of moisture . [-] Molar Fraction of primary tar. DIMENSION(N):: rhonew_volt ! Density of volatile at new grids. T_gold REAL(DP). DIMENSION(N):: Ynew_tar2 ! Molar of secondary tar at new grids. DIMENSION(N):: YP_CO2 REAL(DP). DIMENSION(N):: YP_C2H4 REAL(DP). DIMENSION(N):: Ynew_H2 ! Molar of H2 at new grids. gas4. DIMENSION(N):: Ynew_CO2 ! Molar of CO2 at new grids. [-] REAL(DP). DIMENSION(N):: YP_N2 REAL(DP). [-] Molar Fraction of H2O. solid4. DIMENSION(N):: x_nd ! Dimensionless grids distance REAL(DP).Appendix D Computer code listing REAL(DP):: masstotal_out ! Total mass flux output from the reactor. zone INTEGER. [-] REAL(DP). C_Tg. DIMENSION(N):: YP_H2 REAL(DP). [kg/m³] REAL(DP). DIMENSION(N):: Ynew_CO ! Molar of CO at new grids. [-] REAL(DP). DIMENSION(N):: YP_CH4 REAL(DP). DIMENSION(N):: TP_g REAL(DP). [-] REAL(DP). DIMENSION(N):: T_sold. DIMENSION(N):: dnew_p ! Particle diameter at new grids [m] ! -----------------------------------------! Variables used for reaction front movement ! -----------------------------------------REAL(DP)::maxTg_x ! peak gas temp location at time t [K] REAL(DP)::maxTg_x05 ! peak gas temp location at 5 min [K] REAL(DP)::maxTg_x10 ! peak gas temp location at 10 min [K] 264 . ! --------------------------------! Value from the previous time step ! --------------------------------REAL(DP). solid2. DIMENSION(N):: YP_tar2 REAL(DP). [-] Molar Fraction of N2. DIMENSION(N):: Tnew_s ! Temperature of solid surface at new grids. DIMENSION(N):: P_Ts. DIMENSION(N):: rhoP_volt REAL(DP). gas3. solid3. DIMENSION(N):: vnew_s ! Solid velocity at new grids [m/s] REAL(DP). [-] REAL(DP). DIMENSION(N):: xnew ! New grids distance. DIMENSION(N):: Ynew_tar1 ! Molar of primary tar at new grids. DIMENSION(N):: mP_g REAL(DP). [-] Molar Fraction of secondary tar. C_Ts. DIMENSION(N):: mnew_g ! Mass flux of total gas at new grids. [g/mol] Particle diameter. DIMENSION(N):: rhonew_m ! Density of moisture at new grids. DIMENSION(N):: YP_CO REAL(DP). [-] REAL(DP). DIMENSION(N):: dP_p REAL(DP):: molarP_g ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Molar Fraction of O2. [K] Molecular weight of gas mixture. DIMENSION(N):: TP_s REAL(DP). [kg/m³] Mass flux of total gas. [-] REAL(DP). gas2. Q_Tg. DIMENSION(N):: rhonew_char ! Density of char at new grids. DIMENSION(N):: Ynew_C2H4 ! Molar of C2H4 at new grids. [K] REAL(DP). DIMENSION(N):: Tg_nd ! Dimensionless gas temperature REAL(DP). DIMENSION(N):: Ynew_O2 ! Molar of O2v_g at new grids. D_Tg REAL(DP). DIMENSION(N):: Ynew_H2O ! Molar of H2O at new grids. B_Tg. solid5 REAL(DP):: A_Ts. DIMENSION(N):: P_Tg. DIMENSION(N):: Ynew_CH4 ! Molar of CH4 at new grids. [-] Molar Fraction of C2H4. [kg/m2/s] ! Variable used for temperature Calculation ! --------------------------------REAL(DP):: T_701 REAL(DP):: solid1. [kg/m²s] REAL(DP). [-] Molar Fraction of CO2. Q_Ts REAL(DP). [kg/m³] REAL(DP). t. [K] REAL(DP). DIMENSION(N):: YP_tar1 REAL(DP). DIMENSION(N):: Ynew_N2 ! Molar of N2 at new grids. [m] REAL(DP). [-] REAL(DP). [kmol/m2sec] ! --------------------------------------------! Variable for calculating program running time ! --------------------------------------------CHARACTER (len=10) :: date. [-] Molar Fraction of CH4.

*) "Model is able to run for single-stage and two-stage" DO Write(*. A33)') " User defined fuel properties " Write(*.*)" Write(*.*) "(Enter '1' for signle stage or '2' for two-stage)" Read(*.*) "Enter the apparent density of biomass in [kg d.'(/T20.'(T20. A35)') " -------------------------------.46) " Read(*.D0 ELSE IF (check_stage==2) THEN Write(*.*) "(it must be between less than 0. A33)') " ---------------------------. Write(*.*) air_rate Write(*.*) loc_secair ELSE Write(*.325)" Read(*. A40)') " ----------------------------------.*) secondair Write(*. A40)') " User defined operational parameters " Write(*.5." Write(*.*) "Enter the secondary air supply rate.*) "Enter the pressure of inlet air.*)" Write(*.*)" Write(*.*) "Enter the air supply rate. Model is" able to predict the transient behivour of reactor namely.*) "(in the range of 1-5 kg/hr.*)" Write(*.'(T20.*) moisture Write(*.check_stage==2)exit END DO Write(*.*)" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------" TRANSIENT MODEL FOR STRATIFIED DOWNDRAFT WOOD GASIFIER " ------------------------------------------------------------------------------" This program is a transient model of a stratified downdraft gasifier." Write(*. A35)') " -------------------------------." Write(*.*) air_rate secondair = 0.*) "Enter the initial wood particle diameter in metre (for base case = 0.02)" Read(*.b %] (for base case = 10)" Read(*.206)" Read(*.'(T18." Write(*.*) "Enter the inner diameter of the reactor in metre (for base case = 0.*) L_rec Write(*.*) rho_biomass Write(*.*)" Write(*. it must be either 1 or 2" END IF IF(check_stage==1. solid and gas phase" temperarue profile.'(/T20. for base case = 5 kg/hr)" Read(*.4 m)" Read(*.Appendix D Computer code listing REAL(DP)::maxTg_x15 REAL(DP)::maxTg_x20 REAL(DP)::maxTg_x25 REAL(DP)::maxTg_x30 INTEGER:: ierror CHARACTER(len=30) :: filename CONTAINS ! ! ! ! peak peak peak peak gas gas gas gas temp temp temp temp location location location location at at at at 15 20 25 30 min min min min [K] [K] [K] [K] ! Status flag from I/O statements: 0 for success ! Name of file to open ! ***************************************************************************************** SUBROUTINE user_input() ! This subroutine is for user to enter the input parameter.*) check_stage IF (check_stage==1) THEN Write(*.*) "Enter the ambient temperature in K (for normal condtion = 300)" 265 . reaction rates profile. [kg/hr] (for base case = 15)" Read(*.b/m3] (for base case = 950)" Read(*. [kg/hr] (for base case = 15)" Read(*.'(T20. [kg/hr]" Write(*.*) "Enter the moisture content of the fuel in [wt d.*) d_pwood Write(*.or.*) Pre Write(*. for base case = 0. A33)') " ---------------------------.'(/T18.*) "Enter the effective length of the reactor in metre (for base case = 0.*) void Write(*. A35)') " User defined gasifier Dimensions " Write(*.'(T18.D0 loc_secair = 0.*) D_rec Write(*." Write(*.*)" Write(*." Write(*.*)"Enter the location of the secondary air supply from the reactor top in (m)" Write(*. A40)') " ----------------------------------.*) "Enter the primary air supply rate.'(T20.7)" Read(*.*) "Error in enter value." Write(*. [KPa] (atmosperic condtion = 101. gas composition" profile and condensable tar profile along the axis of gasifer. velocity profile.*) "Enter the bed void fraction (for base case = 0.

*)km_max exit ELSE IF (check_analysis==3) THEN Write(*.*) check_analysis IF (check_analysis==1) THEN Write(*.'(T2." Write(*. A)') "Enter '5' to analyse the secondary pyrolysis rate" Write(*. A)') "single parameter while all other parameter are kept constant.*) " it should be in a range of 0. [-] A6_mf = 1.'(T2. 300. A)')"Enter '1' to analyse the reacting to non-reacting" Write(*. A)') "Enter '3' to analyse the ratio to effective and actural" Write(*.04-0. [-] Ap2_mf = 1.*) "Enter the depth of char bed at initial condition in meter" Write(*.0D0 ! Multiplication factor of wall heat transfer coefficient.'(/T2.*) T_a Write(*. A)') "Enter '1' for sensitivity analysis of model parameter" Write(*.5)" Read(*.*) "(for base case = 0.'(T2.*)Ap1_mf exit ELSE IF (check_analysis==5) THEN Write(*.045D0 ! Defined maximum mass transfer coefficient.*) T_ign Write(*. 1200) (base case for 1800)" Read(*. [-] wall_loss = 1.'(/T2.*) check_sensitivity ! Defined the model parameter for base run zeta = 0.0D0 ! Multiplication factor of secondary tar oxidation rate.*) "Enter the ratio to effective and actural transport exchanged area" Write(*.'(T2.05)" Read(*.'(/T2. [-] IF (check_sensitivity==0) THEN exit ELSE IF (check_sensitivity==1) THEN DO Write(*.g.6)" read(*.*)Ap2_mf exit 266 . (for base case = 0. [-] Ap1_mf = 1.3 (for base case = 1)" read(*. 999. A)') "Enter '2' to analyse defined maximum mass transfer coefficient" Write(*.0D0 ! Ratio to effective and actural transport exchanged area. A)') "Enter '4' to analyse the primary pyrolysis rate" Write(*. for base case = 1000)" Read(*.*) " it should be in a range of 0. A)') "Enter '7' to analyse the effictive thermal condutivity" Write(*.'(T2.2 (for base case = 1)" read(*.*) " it must be in a range of 0.'(T2.*) " it must be less than '1'. A)')"Effect of eight model parameter can be examined by changing the" Write(*.*)Av_mf exit ELSE IF (check_analysis==4) THEN Write(*.*) "(for base case = 0.'(T2. [m/s] Av_mf = 1.2)" Read(*. A)')"heat and mass transfer surface area" Write(*.*) "Enter the location of the ignition from the reactor top in meter " Write(*.*) "Enter the multiplication factor of secondary pyrolysis rate" Write(*.*) "Enter the inlet air temperarue in K (for base case = 300)" Read(*.0D0 ! Multiplication factor to effictive thermal condutivity.00D0 ! Multiplication factor of primary pyrolysis rate. A)')"solid-to-gas heat transfer coefficient ratio" Write(*.*) "Enter the time to write the output result in second" Write(*.*) loc_ign Write(*.06 (for base case = 0. [-] keff_mf = 1.*) "Enter the reacting to non-reacting heat transfer coefficient ratio" Write(*.*) " it should be in a range of 0.'(T12.*) "(in the range of 900-1200 K.0D0 ! Multiplication factor of secondary pyrolysis rate.*) T_gas Write(*.5-2 (for base case = 1)" read(*.*) "It can be divided by 3 (e.Appendix D Computer code listing Read(*.'(T2.8-1.*) "Enter the multiplication factor of primary pyrolysis rate" Write(*.'(T2. A)')"Effect of which parameter do you want to analyse?" Write(*.*) depth_ign Write(*.*) "Enter the initial depth of the ignition in meter (for base case= 0.'(/T2.*) output_time DO Write(*.60D0 ! Reacting to non-reacting heat transfer coefficient ratio [-] km_max = 0. A)') "Enter '6' to analyse the secondary tar oxidation rate" Write(*.*) "Enter the defined maximum mass transfer coefficient" Write(*.*)zeta exit ELSE IF (check_analysis==2) THEN Write(*.*) depth_char Write(*.*) "Enter the ignition temperature in K" Write(*. A/)') "Enter '0' for to run the program without sensitivity analysis" Read(*.7-1. A/)')"Enter '8' to analyse the wall heat transfer coefficient" Read(*.045)" read(*.'(T12.

*) "Enter the multiplication Write(*. A)') "Please aware that your file name must be new in the folder.*)wall_loss exit ELSE Write(*. it END IF END DO exit ELSE Write(*." Write(*.59755420D+00*Temp)+(2.88033398D+03) ELSE h_C=-(5.5-3 (for base case = 1)" factor to Effictive thermal condutivity" of 0.5-1.)-(6. A/)')"defined file name already exist in the folder.*) "Enter the multiplication Write(*. it will be replaced.)-(1.26136365D-09*Temp**4.85438496D-06*Temp**3. it must END IF END DO factor of secondary tar oxidation rate" of 0.If your" Write(*.5 (for base case = 1)" must be any interger value from '1' to '8'" be either '0' or '1'" Write(*.5-3 (for base case = 1)" factor of wall heat transfer coefficient" of 0.*) " it should be in a range read(*.08974359D-13*Temp**5.*) " it should be in a range read(*.)-(1.7182818281D0) RETURN END FUNCTION ln ! ****************************End FUNCTION ln********************************************** FUNCTION h_C (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).53215420D-14*Temp**5.) THEN h_C=(1. A)') "Enter result output file name: It must be less than 30 characters.68524262D-10*Temp**4. INTENT(IN)::Temp REAL(DP)::h_C ! value ! ln value ! Gas Temperature [K] ! Absolute enthalpy of C (Graphite) at temperature T [kJ/kmol] ! Calculate absolute enthalpy of O2 at temperature T IF (Temp>1000.*) filename RETURN END SUBROUTINE user_input ! *********************END SUBROUTINE user_input******************************************* FUNCTION ln (value) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).91227177D-03*Temp**2.*) "Enter the multiplication Write(*.)-(6.Appendix D Computer code listing ELSE IF (check_analysis==6) THEN Write(*.23870304D+01*Temp)+(6. INTENT(IN)::Temp REAL(DP)::h_O2 ! Gas Temperature [K] ! Absolute enthalpy of O2 at temperature T [kJ/kmol] 267 .98573864D-02*Temp**2.*)A6_mf exit ELSE IF (check_analysis==7) THEN Write(*.*) " it should be in a range read(*.*)keff_mf exit ELSE IF (check_analysis==8) THEN Write(*.'(T2.)+& (2.)-(5.05750000D+02) END IF RETURN END FUNCTION h_C ! *********************** END FUNCTION h_C ************************************************ FUNCTION h_O2 (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP). INTENT(IN)::value REAL(DP)::ln ! Calculate ln value ln=LOG(value)/LOG(2.*) "Error in enter value.54884907D-05*Temp**3.)-(1.'(T2.*) "Error in enter value." READ (*.'(T2.)+& (4.

10185813D-09/4.D0*Temp**5.D0*Temp**5.1258842D-06/3.03697578D+02*Temp)+(0.05630827D-05/3.D0*Temp**3.04453623D+02*Temp)+(0.D0*Temp**2.)-& (0.)-& (0.)-& (0.D0*Temp**4.14426885D-02/2.D0*Temp**2.D0*Temp**5.02991423D+02*Temp)+(0. INTENT(IN)::Temp REAL(DP)::h_CO2 ! Gas Temperature [K] ! Absolute enthalpy of CO2 at temperature T [kJ/kmol] ! Calculate absolute enthalpy of CO2 at temperature T IF (Temp>1000.D0*Temp**3.D0*Temp**4.)-& (0. INTENT(IN)::Temp REAL(DP)::h_H2 ! Gas Temperature [K] ! Absolute enthalpy of H2 at temperature T [kJ/kmol] ! Calculate absolute enthalpy of H2 at temperature T IF (Temp>1000.D0*Temp**2.02275724D+02*Temp)+(0.0211728D-10/5.06866686D-07/4.D0*Temp**3.16690333D-13/5.03262451D+02*Temp)+(0.D0*Temp**3.05756150D-05/3.)+(0.04837314D+06)) END IF RETURN END FUNCTION h_CO2 ! *********************** END FUNCTION h_CO2 ********************************************** FUNCTION h_CO (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).11364354D-14/5.)-& (0.D0*Temp**4.12784105D-05/3.)-(0.) THEN h_O2= R*((0.1426835D+05)) ELSE h_CO= R*((0.)+& 268 .)-& (0.D0*Temp**3.D0*Temp**3.)-& (0.)-(0.03212936D+02*Temp)+(0.)-(0.)-& (0.01775281D-09/4.)+(0.02474951D-10/5.D0*Temp**4.D0*Temp**5.D0*Temp**4.)-(0.D0*Temp**4.D0*Temp**5.06910951D-13/5.03881755D-04/3.D0*Temp**5.D0*Temp**3.) THEN h_H2= R*((0.)+(0.13138773D-08/4.D0*Temp**4.D0*Temp**2.)-& (0.)-(0.)-& (0.D0*Temp**3.D0*Temp**2.)-(0.)-(0.D0*Temp**5.11274864D-02/2.)+(0.03298124D+02*Temp)+(0.07000644D-02/2.)-& (0.)+(0.)+(0.05581944D-07/4.12339301D+04)) ELSE h_O2= R*((0.09475434D-09/4.03140168D-01/2.)-& (0.02393996D-08/4.)-& (0.D0*Temp**2.09922072D-01/2.06135197D-02/2.) THEN h_CO= R*((0.D0*Temp**2.D0*Temp**2.) THEN h_CO2= R*((0.09231578D-10/4.10409113D-04/3.15827519D-14/5. INTENT(IN)::Temp REAL(DP)::h_CO ! Gas Temperature [K] ! Absolute enthalpy of CO at temperature T [kJ/kmol] ! Calculate absolute enthalpy of CO at temperature T IF (Temp>1000.0835034D+04)) ELSE h_H2= R*((0.)-& (0.14310539D+05)) END IF RETURN END FUNCTION h_CO ! *********************** END FUNCTION h_CO *********************************************** FUNCTION h_H2 (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).)-(0.Appendix D Computer code listing ! Calculate absolute enthalpy of O2 at temperature T IF (Temp>1000.1005249D+04)) END IF RETURN END FUNCTION h_O2 ! *********************** END FUNCTION h_O2 *********************************************** FUNCTION h_CO2 (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).08143015D-05/3.D0*Temp**4.08768554D-11/5.05633828D-06/3.)+& (0.15119409D-02/2.03025078D+02*Temp)+(0.04896696D+06)) ELSE h_CO2= R*((0.08249441D-02/2.)-(0.

D0*Temp**4.D0 RETURN END FUNCTION h_CH4 ! *********************** END FUNCTION h_CH4 ********************************************** FUNCTION h_C2H4 (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).-298.15D0**3.D0)*(Temp**2.D0*Temp**4.12009964D-09/4.15D0**2.03386842D+02*Temp)+(0.) THEN h_H2O= R*((0.392D-06/3.)).064D-03/2.)+(0.15D0))+((39.301D-06/3.702D0)*(Temp-298.394D-03/2.)-(0.& ((2.Appendix D Computer code listing (0.15D0**2.)-(0. INTENT(IN)::Temp REAL(DP)::h_C2H4 ! Gas Temperature [K] ! Absolute enthalpy of C2H4 at temperature T [kJ/kmol] ! Calculate absolute enthalpy of C2H4 at temperature T h_C2H4=(R*(((1.15D0))+((14.02672145D+02*Temp)+(0.)).164D-06/3.)-& (0.D0*Temp**3.06391618D-13/5.03020811D+06)) END IF RETURN END FUNCTION h_H2O ! *********************** END FUNCTION h_H2O ********************************************** FUNCTION h_CH4 (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).D0)*(Temp**2.-298.D0)*(Temp**2.-298.& ((4.D0 RETURN END FUNCTION h_C2H4 ! *********************** END FUNCTION h_C2H4 ********************************************* FUNCTION h_C6H6 (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP). INTENT(IN)::Temp REAL(DP)::h_C6H6 ! Gas Temperature [K] ! Absolute enthalpy of C6H6 at temperature T [kJ/kmol] ! Calculate absolute enthalpy of C6H6 at temperature T h_C6H6=(R*(-((0. INTENT(IN)::Temp REAL(DP)::h_CH4 ! Gas Temperature [K] ! Absolute enthalpy of CH4 at temperature T [kJ/kmol] ! Calculate absolute enthalpy of CH4 at temperature T h_CH4=(R*(((1.& ((13.D0)*(Temp**3.-298.D0*Temp**2.D0)*(Temp**3.)-& (0.206D0)*(Temp-298. INTENT(IN)::Temp REAL(DP)::h_H2O ! Gas Temperature [K] ! Absolute enthalpy of H2O at temperature T [kJ/kmol] ! Calculate absolute enthalpy of H2O at temperature T IF (Temp>1000.)-(0.06354696D-04/3.15D0**3.D0*Temp**5.-298.02506588D-10/5.04134872D-11/5.08730260D-05/3.02989921D+06)) ELSE h_H2O= R*((0.03474982D-01/2.))))+52283.10125209D+04)) END IF RETURN END FUNCTION h_H2 ! *********************** END FUNCTION h_H2 *********************************************** FUNCTION h_H2O (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).))))-74831.15D0**3.))))+82927.424D0)*(Temp-298.D0)*(Temp**3.)).D0*Temp**5.081D-03/2.15D0))+((9.D0 RETURN END FUNCTION h_C6H6 ! *********************** END FUNCTION h_C6H6 ********************************************* 269 .)-& (0.D0*Temp**5.15D0**2.)-& (0.D0*Temp**3.)+(0.-298.06968581D-07/4.03056293D-01/2.D0*Temp**2.

D0*(h_C(Temp)+2.Appendix D Computer code listing FUNCTION heat1 (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).D0*gamma-1. INTENT(IN)::Temp ! Gas Temperature [K] REAL(DP)::heat2 ! Calculate the heat of reaction of Reaction 2 [J/kg of Carbon] ! Calculate the heat of reaction of Reaction 2 heat2 = 1000.D0*(h_C(Temp)+h_H2O(Temp)-h_H2(Temp)-h_CO(Temp))/mole_C RETURN END FUNCTION heat3 ! *********************** END FUNCTION heat3 ********************************************** FUNCTION heat4 (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).D0*(h_CO(Temp)+h_H2O(Temp)-h_H2(Temp)-h_CO2(Temp)) RETURN END FUNCTION heat5 ! *********************** END FUNCTION heat5 ********************************************** FUNCTION heat5R (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP). INTENT(IN)::Temp ! Gas Temperature [K] REAL(DP)::heat3 ! Calculate the heat of reaction of Reaction 3 [J/kg of Carbon] ! Calculate the heat of reaction of Reaction 3 heat3 = 1000. INTENT(IN)::Temp ! Gas Temperature [K] REAL(DP)::heat5 ! Calculate the heat of reaction of forward reaction 5 [J/kmol] ! Calculate the heat of reaction of Reaction 5 heat5 = 1000.D0*(h_C(Temp)+h_CO2(Temp)-2.D0-2.D0*(h_C(Temp)+gamma*h_O2(Temp)-(2.D0*h_CO(Temp))/mole_C RETURN END FUNCTION heat2 ! *********************** END FUNCTION heat2 ********************************************** FUNCTION heat3 (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).D0*h_H2(Temp)-h_CH4(Temp))/mole_C RETURN END FUNCTION heat4 ! *********************** END FUNCTION heat4 ********************************************** FUNCTION heat5 (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP). INTENT(IN)::Temp ! Gas Temperature [K] REAL(DP)::heat4 ! Calculate the heat of reaction of Reaction 4 [J/kg of Carbon] ! Calculate the heat of reaction of Reaction 4 heat4 = 1000.D0*gamma)*h_CO(Temp)-& (2.D0)*h_CO2(Temp))/mole_C RETURN END FUNCTION heat1 ! *********************** END FUNCTION heat1 ********************************************** FUNCTION heat2 (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP). INTENT(IN)::Temp ! Gas Temperature [K] REAL(DP)::heat1 ! Calculate the heat of reaction of Reaction 1 [J/kg of Carbon] ! Calculate the heat of reaction of Reaction 1 heat1 = 1000. INTENT(IN)::Temp ! Gas Temperature [K] 270 .

INTENT(IN)::Temp REAL(DP)::heat10 ! Gas Temperature [K] ! Calculate the heat of reaction of Reaction 10 [J/kmol of H2] ! Calculate the heat of reaction of Reaction 10 heat10 = 1000.D0*h_O2(Temp)-3.D0*(h_C2H4(Temp)+ h_O2(Temp)-2.D0*h_H2O(Temp)-h_CO(Temp)) RETURN END FUNCTION heat8 ! *********************** END FUNCTION heat8 ********************************************** FUNCTION heat9 (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).Appendix D Computer code listing REAL(DP)::heat5R ! Calculate the heat of reaction of reverse Reaction 5 [J/kmol] ! Calculate the heat of reaction of reverse Reaction 5 heat5R = 1000.D0*(h_H2(Temp)+0. INTENT(IN)::Temp REAL(DP)::heat7 ! Gas Temperature [K] ! Calculate the heat of reaction of Reaction 7 [J/kmol of CO] ! Calculate the heat of reaction of Reaction 7 heat7 = 1000.5D0*h_O2(Temp)-2.5D0*h_O2(Temp)-h_CO2(Temp)) RETURN END FUNCTION heat7 ! *********************** END FUNCTION heat7 ********************************************** FUNCTION heat8 (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP). INTENT(IN)::Temp ! Gas Temperature [K] REAL(DP)::heat6 ! Calculate the heat of reaction of Reaction 6 [J/kmol of C6H6] ! Calculate the heat of reaction of Reaction 6 heat6 = 1000. INTENT(IN)::Temp ! Gas Temperature [K] REAL(DP)::heat9 ! Calculate the heat of reaction of Reaction 9 [J/kmol of C2H4] ! Calculate the heat of reaction of Reaction 9 heat9 = 1000.D0*h_H2(Temp)-6.D0*(h_CO(Temp)+0.5D0*h_O2(Temp)-h_H2O(Temp)) 271 . INTENT(IN)::Temp REAL(DP)::heat8 ! Gas Temperature [K] ! Calculate the heat of reaction of Reaction 8 [J/kmol of CH4] ! Calculate the heat of reaction of Reaction 8 heat8 = 1000.D0*(h_C6H6(Temp)+3.D0*(h_CO2(Temp)+h_H2(Temp)-h_H2O(Temp)-h_CO(Temp)) RETURN END FUNCTION heat5R ! *********************** END FUNCTION heat5 ********************************************** FUNCTION heat6 (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).D0*(h_CH4(Temp)+1.D0*h_H2(Temp)-2.D0*h_CO(Temp)) RETURN END FUNCTION heat6 ! *********************** END FUNCTION heat6 ********************************************** FUNCTION heat7 (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).D0*h_CO(Temp)) RETURN END FUNCTION heat9 ! *********************** END FUNCTION heat9 ********************************************** FUNCTION heat10 (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).

D0 272 . INTENT(IN)::E REAL(DP).D0)*1000.D0)*1000.00036D0*(temp+T_a)/2.98D-05*((Temp/300.66918D-1*temp + 9.K Activation energy for reaction. INTENT(IN)::Temp REAL(DP)::Cp_char ! Calculate specific heat of char Cp_char=(1. + 1.41079D+2 RETURN END FUNCTION Cp_g ! *********************END FUNCTION Cp_g ************************************************** FUNCTION Cp_char(Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP). K REAL(DP)::visco ! Viscosity. INTENT(IN)::A REAL(DP). K Kinetic reaction rate.63930D-8*temp**3.39D0+0. 1/s. kg/ms ! Calculate viscosity of the gas visco=1. INTENT(IN)::Temp REAL(DP)::Cp_wood ! Solid Temperature [K] ! Specific heat of wood [J/kgK] ! Solid Temperature [K] ! Specific heat of char [J/kgK] ! Calculate specific heat of wood Cp_wood=(1.D0)) RETURN END FUNCTION visco ! *********************END FUNCTION visco************************************************** FUNCTION Cp_g(Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP). 1/s ! Calculate specific heat of gas mixture Cp_g=-3.00036D0*(temp+T_a)/2.+ 6.39D0+0. INTENT(IN)::Temp REAL(DP)::K ! Calculate K K=A*exp(-E/(R*Temp)) RETURN END FUNCTION K ! ****************************END FUNCTION K*********************************************** FUNCTION visco (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).D0/3.Appendix D Computer code listing RETURN END FUNCTION heat10 ! *********************** END FUNCTION heat10 ********************************************* FUNCTION K (A.D0 RETURN END FUNCTION Cp_char ! *********************END FUNCTION Cp_char *********************************************** FUNCTION Cp_wood(Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP). INTENT(IN)::Temp ! Gas Temperature.50858D-5*temp**2.Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).D0)**(2. J/mol Temperature.E. INTENT(IN)::Temp REAL(DP)::Cp_g ! Gas Temperature [K] ! Specific heat of gas mixture [J/kgK] ! ! ! ! Pre-exponential frequency factor for reaction.

Appendix D Computer code listing RETURN END FUNCTION Cp_wood ! *********************END FUNCTION Cp_wood *********************************************** FUNCTION K_wood (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).emiss.)*(emiss/(2.D0-emiss)) RETURN END FUNCTION h_rs ! *********************END FUNCTION h_rs ************************************************** FUNCTION h_rv (Temp. INTENT(IN)::Temp REAL(DP)::K_wood ! Solid Temperature [K] ! Thermal conductivity of wood [W/mK] ! Calculate Thermal conductivity of wood K_wood=0.emiss) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP). INTENT(IN)::T_g REAL(DP).void) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).)/(1. INTENT(IN)::emiss REAL(DP).D0*(1. INTENT(IN)::emiss REAL(DP)::h_rs ! Solid Temperature [K] ! Emissivity ! Solid radiation coefficient [W/m²K] ! Calculate the solid radiation coefficient h_rs=4.D0*sigma*(Temp**3.D-4*Temp RETURN END FUNCTION K_wood ! *********************END FUNCTION K_wood ************************************************ FUNCTION K_g (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP). INTENT(IN)::m_g REAL(DP). INTENT(IN)::void REAL(DP)::h_rv ! ! ! ! Gas Temperature [K] Emissivity[-] Voidage fraction[-] Void to void radiation coefficient [W/m2K] ! Calculate the void to void radiation coefficient h_rv=4. INTENT(IN)::Temp REAL(DP).D0-emiss)/emiss))) RETURN END FUNCTION h_rv ! *********************END FUNCTION h_rv ************************************************** FUNCTION K_eff(m_g. INTENT(IN)::Temp REAL(DP)::K_g ! Gas Temperature [K] ! Thermal conductivity of gas [W/mK] ! Calculate Thermal conductivity of gas K_g=4.D0*sigma*(Temp**3. INTENT(IN)::d_p REAL(DP).D0+((void/(2. INTENT(IN)::void ! ! ! ! ! ! mass flux [kg/m2sec] Gas Temperature [K] Gas Temperature [K] Particle diameter[m] Emissivity[-] Voidage fraction[-] 273 . INTENT(IN)::T_s REAL(DP).d_p.77D-04*Temp**0.T_s.emiss.13D0+3.void) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP). INTENT(IN)::Temp REAL(DP). INTENT(IN)::emiss REAL(DP).D0-void)))*((1.T_g.717D0 RETURN END FUNCTION K_g ! *********************END FUNCTION K_g *************************************************** FUNCTION h_rs (Temp.

D0 IF (CO<0.H.8D0*S-1.4569D0*(k-1.M) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).14D0/(1. Hydrogen.S. Sulfur. Ash & Moisture content of the fuel in dry basic [%] Higher heating value of biomass [MJ/kg] Net or (lower) heating value of biomass [MJ/kg] ! Calculate Higher heating value of biomass in moisture and ash free basic [MJ/kg] HHV_biomass = (34.D0-H2O)*37.D0) RETURN END FUNCTION HV_biomass ! *********************END FUNCTION HV_biomass********************************************* FUNCTION HV_gas(CO. Oxygen.D0-H2O)*13. [W/mK] ! Calculate the effectivity thermal conductivity in case of gas filled voids.3525D0*(((k-1.D0 RETURN END FUNCTION HV_gas ! *********************END FUNCTION HV_gas************************************************* FUNCTION Kp_wg(temp) IMPLICIT NONE REAL(DP).D0)*(K_g(T_g)/K_wood(T_s))+& (1.O.CH4<0.S.H2O [-] ! Lower heating value of Producer gas [MJ/kg] ! Calculate Net (Lower) heating value of producer gas in dry basic [MJ/Nm3] HV_gas = ((CO*100.D0/(1. INTENT(IN)::C.D0) ! Calculate Net (Lower) heating value of biomass in moisture and ash free basic [MJ/kg] HV_biomass = HHV_biomass-2.D0-H2O)*11.D0/(10.D0+46.1D0*C+132.A.D0/void+(d_p*h_rs(T_s.N.D0*(d_p/D_rec)))*(d_p*m_g/(visco(T_g)))*& (Cp_g(T_g)*(visco(T_g))))) RETURN END FUNCTION K_eff ! *********************END FUNCTION K_eff************************************************** FUNCTION packp (k) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP). K_eff=keff_mf* ((K_g(T_g)*((1.A. INTENT(IN):: CO.D0*9. Nitrogen.D0*k)) RETURN END FUNCTION packp ! *********************END FUNCTION packp************************************************** FUNCTION HV_biomass(C.D0/3.5431D0*(k-1))))-& (0.D0)/k)))-(2.D0)/k)**2.H2O) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).D0/(3. INTENT(IN)::temp REAL(DP)::Kp_wg ! Calculate the equilibrium constant of water gas shift reaction 274 .void)/k_g(T_g))))& +(K_g(T_g)*void)& +((0.O.M REAL(DP) ::HHV_biomass REAL(DP) ::HV_biomass ! Ratio of solid conductivity and gas conductivity ! Packing parameter ! ! ! ! Carbon.2D0)+& (CH4*100.CH4.00000001D0) HV_gas=0.442D0*(M/100.2D0*H+6.H2O REAL(DP) ::HV_gas ! Mole fraction of CO.D0*(O+N))/(100.H2<0.00000001D0.H2.)/(((ln(k-0.CH4.H2.1D0)+(H2*100.1D0))/100.D0/(1.53D0*A-12.N.emiss. INTENT(IN)::k REAL(DP)::packp ! Calculate packing parameter packp=(0.Appendix D Computer code listing REAL(DP) ::K_eff ! Effectivity thermal conductivity.AND.00000001D0.CH4.D0-void)/((2.H2.D0+H/100.emiss)/K_g(T_g)))))+& (void*d_p*h_rv(T_g.H.D0/(1.AND.

pre/100.mole_CO2.mole_O2. INTENT(IN):: mole_B REAL(DP). INTENT(IN):: DV_B REAL(DP):: Diff_AB ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Gas Temperature [K] Pressure of gas mixture./3.D0-Y_O2(i))/(Y_N2(i)/diff_O2_N2+Y_CO(i)/diff_O2_CO+Y_CO2(i)/diff_O2_CO2+ & Y_H2(i)/diff_O2_H2+Y_H2O(i)/diff_O2_H2O+Y_CH4(i)/diff_O2_CH4+ & Y_C2H4(i)/diff_O2_C2H4+Y_tar1(i)/diff_O2_tar1+Y_tar2(i)/diff_O2_tar2) RETURN END SUBROUTINE diff_O2_gmix ! *********************END SUBROUTINE diff_O2_gas****************************************** SUBROUTINE diff_CO2_gmix() ! This subroutine is to calculate the Diffusion coefficient between ! CO2 and gas mixture at reactor temperature and pressure.mole_tar2.mole_N2.pre/100.DV_O2.DV_O2. REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: diff_CO2_N2 diff_CO2_O2 diff_CO2_CO diff_CO2_H2 diff_CO2_H2O diff_CO2_CH4 ! ! ! ! ! ! Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient between between between between between between CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 and and and and and and N2 [m2/sec] O2 [m2/sec] CO [m2/sec] H2 [m2/sec] H2O [m2/sec] CH4 [m2/sec] 275 . INTENT(IN):: DV_A REAL(DP).mole_CO.mole_O2. [bar] Molecular weight of A.-91500. INTENT(IN):: Temp REAL(DP).mole_O2.D0-31.D0.D0.mole_O2.mole_O2.mole_tar1.DV_A.D0/mole_A+1.mole_O2. INTENT(IN):: Pre REAL(DP).D0/temp)) RETURN END FUNCTION kp_wg ! *****************************END FUNCTION kp_wg****************************************** FUNCTION Diff_AB (Temp.mole_O2.DV_H2O) (T_g(i).D0.pre/100.75)*sqrt(1.mole_H2.)+DV_B**(1.08D0*temp+3*temp*& ln(temp)-0.D0.pre/100.D0/8.DV_tar2) diff_O2_gas =(1.D0. INTENT(IN):: mole_A REAL(DP).DV_CO2) (T_g(i).mole_B.DV_N2) (T_g(i).DV_tar1) (T_g(i).))**2.mole_O2.pre/100.D-04 / & (pre*sqrt(2.DV_O2.pre/100.DV_B) IMPLICIT NONE ! This function is to find the Diffusion coefficient between gas A and gas B ! at temperature T & Pressure P.DV_C2H4) (T_g(i).mole_A. [g/mol] Diffusion volumes of A Diffusion volumes of B Diffusion O2efficient between gas A and gas B [m2/sec] ! Calculate Diffusion O2efficient between O2 and gas mixture at temperature T Diff_AB = (0.DV_CO) (T_g(i). REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: diff_O2_N2 diff_O2_CO diff_O2_CO2 diff_O2_H2 diff_O2_H2O diff_O2_CH4 diff_O2_C2H4 diff_O2_tar1 diff_O2_tar2 = = = = = = = = = Diff_AB Diff_AB Diff_AB Diff_AB Diff_AB Diff_AB Diff_AB Diff_AB Diff_AB ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient between between between between between between between between between O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 and and and and and and and and and N2 [m2/sec] CO [m2/sec] CO2 [m2/sec] H2 [m2/sec] H2O [m2/sec] CH4 [m2/sec] C2H4 [m2/sec] tar1 [m2/sec] tar2 [m2/sec] diff_O2_N2 diff_O2_CO diff_O2_CO2 diff_O2_H2 diff_O2_H2O diff_O2_CH4 diff_O2_C2H4 diff_O2_tar1 diff_O2_tar2 (T_g(i).mole_CH4.) RETURN END FUNCTION Diff_AB ! *********************** END FUNCTION Diff_AB ******************************************** SUBROUTINE diff_O2_gmix() ! This subroutine is to calculate the Diffusion coefficient between ! O2 and gas mixture at reactor temperature and pressure.DV_O2.pre.DV_O2. [g/mol] Molecular weight of B.D0/mole_B)*1.DV_H2) (T_g(i).pre/100.pre/100.D0)*(DV_A**(1.DV_CH4) (T_g(i).7182818281D0**((1.DV_O2.mole_C2H4.pre/100.mole_O2.DV_O2. ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).D0.D0.DV_O2.mole_H2O.Appendix D Computer code listing kp_wg=2.D0.00143*Temp**1.D0./3.DV_O2.3144D0/temp)*(11321.00028D0*temp**2.

mole_tar1.DV_CO2.D0-Y_H2O(i))/(Y_N2(i)/diff_H2O_N2+Y_O2(i)/diff_H2O_O2+ & Y_CO(i)/diff_H2O_CO+Y_CO2(i)/diff_H2O_CO2+Y_H2(i)/diff_H2O_H2+ & Y_CH4(i)/diff_H2O_CH4+Y_C2H4(i)/diff_H2O_C2H4+Y_tar1(i)/diff_H2O_tar1+ & Y_tar2(i)/diff_H2O_tar2) RETURN END SUBROUTINE diff_H2O_gmix ! *********************END SUBROUTINE diff_H2O_gmix**************************************** SUBROUTINE diff_H2_gmix() ! This subroutine is to calculate the Diffusion coefficient between ! H2 and gas mixture at reactor temperature and pressure.mole_CO2.mole_CO.D0.pre/100.mole_CO.mole_CO2.DV_O2) (T_g(i).DV_tar1) (T_g(i).mole_tar2.D0.DV_H2O.pre/100.mole_tar1.DV_CO2.D0.mole_CO2.mole_H2.D0.DV_CO2.pre/100.pre/100.DV_tar2) = (1.mole_H2O.mole_O2.D0.DV_CO) (T_g(i).mole_H2O.D0.DV_O2) (T_g(i).DV_tar2) diff_CO2_gas=(1.pre/100.D0.DV_H2O.mole_H2.pre/100.D0.DV_N2) (T_g(i).mole_tar2.pre/100.pre/100.D0.mole_CO.pre/100. REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: diff_H2O_N2 diff_H2O_O2 diff_H2O_CO diff_H2O_CO2 diff_H2O_H2 diff_H2O_CH4 diff_H2O_C2H4 diff_H2O_tar1 diff_H2O_tar2 = = = = = = = = = Diff_AB Diff_AB Diff_AB Diff_AB Diff_AB Diff_AB Diff_AB Diff_AB Diff_AB ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient between between between between between between between between between H2O H2O H2O H2O H2O H2O H2O H2O H2O and and and and and and and and and N2 [m2/sec] O2 [m2/sec] CO [m2/sec] CO2 [m2/sec] H2 [m2/sec] CH4 [m2/sec] C2H4 [m2/sec] tar1 [m2/sec] tar2 [m2/sec] diff_H2O_N2 diff_H2O_O2 diff_H2O_CO diff_H2O_CO2 diff_H2O_H2 diff_H2O_CH4 diff_H2O_C2H4 diff_H2O_tar1 diff_H2O_tar2 diff_H2O_gas (T_g(i).pre/100.D0.DV_H2) (T_g(i).mole_C2H4.D0.DV_H2O) (T_g(i).DV_CH4) (T_g(i).DV_H2O.DV_CO2.mole_CO2.DV_CO2.pre/100.DV_CO2) 276 .mole_H2O.mole_N2.mole_H2.mole_H2O.D0.pre/100.DV_CO2.mole_CO2.mole_H2O.D0.DV_H2O.pre/100.DV_N2) (T_g(i).pre/100.DV_CO) (T_g(i).DV_CH4) (T_g(i).D0.DV_N2) (T_g(i).DV_C2H4) (T_g(i).mole_H2O.mole_O2.mole_N2.DV_H2O.pre/100.mole_H2.mole_CO2.D0.DV_O2) (T_g(i).pre/100.DV_H2.pre/100.DV_CO2.mole_N2.D0.pre/100.mole_H2O.D0.DV_CO2.mole_CO2.DV_CO2.DV_tar1) (T_g(i).mole_H2O.D0.mole_O2.pre/100.D0.mole_H2.mole_H2O.DV_CO) (T_g(i).DV_H2.pre/100.DV_CO2.Appendix D Computer code listing REAL(DP):: diff_CO2_C2H4 REAL(DP):: diff_CO2_tar1 REAL(DP):: diff_CO2_tar2 diff_CO2_N2 diff_CO2_O2 diff_CO2_CO diff_CO2_H2 diff_CO2_H2O diff_CO2_CH4 diff_CO2_C2H4 diff_CO2_tar1 diff_CO2_tar2 = = = = = = = = = Diff_AB Diff_AB Diff_AB Diff_AB Diff_AB Diff_AB Diff_AB Diff_AB Diff_AB ! Diffusion coefficient between CO2 and C2H4 [m2/sec] ! Diffusion coefficient between CO2 and tar1 [m2/sec] ! Diffusion coefficient between CO2 and tar2 [m2/sec] (T_g(i).D0.DV_H2O.DV_CO2) (T_g(i).D0.DV_CO2.mole_CO2.DV_H2O.DV_H2.mole_CH4.pre/100.mole_C2H4.mole_CO2.mole_H2.D0-Y_CO2(i))/(Y_N2(i)/diff_CO2_N2+Y_O2(i)/diff_CO2_O2+Y_CO(i)/diff_CO2_CO+& Y_H2(i)/diff_CO2_H2+Y_H2O(i)/diff_CO2_H2O+Y_CH4(i)/diff_CO2_CH4+ & Y_C2H4(i)/diff_CO2_C2H4+Y_tar1(i)/diff_CO2_tar1+Y_tar2(i)/diff_CO2_tar2) RETURN END SUBROUTINE diff_CO2_gmix ! *********************END SUBROUTINE diff_CO2_gmix**************************************** SUBROUTINE diff_H2O_gmix() ! This subroutine is to calculate the Diffusion coefficient between ! H2O and gas mixture at reactor temperature and pressure.mole_H2O. REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: REAL(DP):: diff_H2_N2 diff_H2_O2 diff_H2_CO diff_H2_CO2 diff_H2_N2 diff_H2_O2 diff_H2_CO diff_H2_CO2 diff_H2_H2O diff_H2_CH4 diff_H2_C2H4 diff_H2_tar1 diff_H2_tar2 = = = = Diff_AB Diff_AB Diff_AB Diff_AB ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion Diffusion coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient between between between between between between between between between H2 H2 H2 H2 H2 H2 H2 H2 H2 and and and and and and and and and N2 [m2/sec] O2 [m2/sec] CO [m2/sec] CO2 [m2/sec] H2O [m2/sec] CH4 [m2/sec] C2H4 [m2/sec] tar1 [m2/sec] tar2 [m2/sec] (T_g(i).D0.pre/100.mole_H2O.mole_CH4.mole_H2.DV_H2) (T_g(i).DV_H2O.DV_C2H4) (T_g(i).

DV_tar1) (T_g(i).D0-Y_H2(i))/(Y_N2(i)/diff_H2_N2+Y_O2(i)/diff_H2_O2+Y_CO(i)/diff_H2_CO+ & Y_CO2(i)/diff_H2_CO2+Y_H2O(i)/diff_H2_H2O+Y_CH4(i)/diff_H2_CH4+ & Y_C2H4(i)/diff_H2_C2H4+Y_tar1(i)/diff_H2_tar1+Y_tar2(i)/diff_H2_tar2) RETURN END SUBROUTINE diff_H2_gmix ! *********************END SUBROUTINE diff_H2_gmix***************************************** SUBROUTINE initial() ! This subroutine is to initialize the solid and gas temperature profile.D0.D0 mole_g(i)*pre/(R*T_g(i)) 277 .mole_tar1.N IF (i<=N_top) THEN IF (i==1) THEN x(i)=0.mole_H2O.DV_H2O) (T_g(i).DV_H2.pre/100.DV_tar2) diff_H2_gas =(1.mole_H2.mole_tar2.D0.DV_H2.DV_H2.mole_H2.pre/100.D0 ELSE x(i)=x(i-1)+depth_bio/real(N_top-1) END IF rho_m(i) = rho_m(1) rho_volt(i) = rho_volt(1) rho_char(i) = rho_char(1) T_s(i) = T_a T_g(i) = T_gas T_wall(i) = T_a d_p(i) = d_pwood ELSE IF (i<=N_top+N_ign) THEN x(i) = x(i-1)+depth_ign/real(N_ign) rho_m(i) = 0.D0 T_a T_gas T_a d_pinitial Y_O2(1) Y_N2(1) Y_CO2(1) Y_CO(1) Y_H2O(1) Y_H2(1) Y_CH4(1) Y_C2H4(1) Y_tar1(1) Y_tar2(1) mole_g(1) m_g(1) 0.Appendix D Computer code listing diff_H2_H2O diff_H2_CH4 diff_H2_C2H4 diff_H2_tar1 diff_H2_tar2 = = = = = Diff_AB Diff_AB Diff_AB Diff_AB Diff_AB (T_g(i).DV_CH4) (T_g(i).mole_CH4.DV_H2.DV_C2H4) (T_g(i).D0.D0. ! gas composition profile and species density profile.DV_H2.pre/100.mole_H2.mole_C2H4.pre/100.D0. DO i=1.pre/100.D0 T_s(i) = T_ign T_g(i) = T_gas T_wall(i) = T_a d_p(i) = d_pinitial ELSE x(i) rho_m(i) rho_char(i) rho_volt(i) T_s(i) T_g(i) T_wall(i) d_p(i) END IF Y_O2(i) Y_N2(i) Y_CO2(i) Y_CO(i) Y_H2O(i) Y_H2(i) Y_CH4(i) Y_C2H4(i) Y_tar1(i) Y_tar2(i) mole_g(i) m_g(i) v_s(i) rho_g(i) END DO RETURN END SUBROUTINE initial = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = x(i-1)+(L_rec-depth_bio-depth_ign)/real(N-N_top-N_ign) 0.mole_H2.D0 rho_char(1) 0.mole_H2.D0 rho_char(i) = rho_char(1) rho_volt(i) = 0.

D0/3. A_v=Av_mf*(6. ! Calculate the molecular weight of gas mixture.19D0*(Re**(-2. 2002 fomula h_sg = zeta*Cp_g(T_g(i))*m_g(i)*(2.19D0*(Re**(-2. DO i=1.N YP_O2(i) YP_CO2(i) YP_CO(i) YP_H2O(i) YP_H2(i) YP_CH4(i) YP_N2(i) YP_C2H4(i) YP_tar1(i) YP_tar2(i) mP_g(i) TP_s(i) TP_g(i) moleP_g(i) rhoP_m(i) rhoP_volt(i) rhoP_g(i) dP_p(i) END DO RETURN END SUBROUTINE pretime ! *********************END SUBROUTINE pretime********************************************** SUBROUTINE mh_coefficient() ! This subroutine is to calculate the mass transfer coefficient and ! solid to gas heat transfer coefficient.381D0)))*(Sc_1**(-2. g/mol mole_g(i) = Y_O2(i)*mole_O2+Y_CO(i)*mole_CO +Y_CO2(i)*mole_CO2+Y_H2O(i)*mole_H2O+ & Y_H2(i)*mole_H2+Y_CH4(i)*mole_CH4+Y_C2H4(i)*mole_C2H4+Y_tar1(i)*mole_tar1+ & Y_tar2(i)*mole_tar2+Y_N2(i)*mole_N2 ! Calculate the mass concentration of gas mixture. m/s.D0/3.381D0)))*(Pr**(-2.78D0*(Re**(-0.D0/3. Bird et al.Appendix D Computer code listing ! *********************END SUBROUTINE initial********************************************** SUBROUTINE pretime() ! This subroutine is to save the speices denisty.W/m²K with Bird et al.D0))+ & 0. [kg/m3] rho_g(i) = mole_g(i)*pre/(R*T_g(i)) ! Calculate the Particle surface area/ Unit volume.D0/3.D0))+& 0.D0)) ! Calculate the mass transfer coefficient. gas composition and gas & ! solid temperature of the previous time.D0-void) ! Calculate the Renolds Number Re=d_p(i)*m_g(i)/(visco(T_g(i))) ! Calculate the Prandtl Number Pr=Cp_g(T_g(i))*(visco(T_g(i)))/K_g(T_g(i)) !CALL diff_C2H4_gmix() CALL diff_O2_gmix() CALL diff_CO2_gmix() CALL diff_H2O_gmix() CALL diff_H2_gmix() Sc_1=visco(T_g(i))/(rho_g(i)*diff_O2_gas) Sc_2=visco(T_g(i))/(rho_g(i)*diff_CO2_gas) Sc_3=visco(T_g(i))/(rho_g(i)*diff_H2O_gas) sc_4=visco(T_g(i))/(rho_g(i)*diff_H2_gas) ! Calculate the Solid to gas heat transfer coefficient. 2002 fomula km_1 = (m_g(i)/rho_g(i))*(2.78D0*(Re**(-0.D0)) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Y_O2(i) Y_CO2(i) Y_CO(i) Y_H2O(i) Y_H2(i) Y_CH4(i) Y_N2(i) Y_C2H4(i) Y_tar1(i) Y_tar2(i) m_g(i) T_s(i) T_g(i) mole_g(i) rho_m(i) rho_volt(i) rho_g(i) d_p(i) 278 .D0/D_p(i))*(1.

T_s(i)) ratep1_volt(i) = (1.8)*(Y_C2H4(i))**0.E5.T_g(i))*(pre/T_g(i))**1.*Y_CO2(i)/Kp_wg(T_g(i)) = void*A6_mf*K(A6.8)*(Y_tar2(i))**0.5/(T_g(i)**0.D0*K(A_gamma./km_3)+(1.E_gamma.D0)) IF IF IF IF (km_1>km_max) (km_2>km_max) (km_3>km_max) (km_4>km_max) km_1=km_max km_2=km_max km_3=km_max km_4=km_max RETURN END SUBROUTINE mh_coefficient ! *********************END SUBROUTINE mh_coefficient*************************************** SUBROUTINE reaction_rates() ! This subroutine is to calculate the rates of drying.E3./(T_s(i)*K(A3.T_s(i))) T_e(i) = 1/((1/T_s(i))+((R/Ep1)*ln(953./km_1)+(1.E5.0000001) THEN rate2_CO2(i) = (mole_C*A_v*pre/(R*T_g(i)))/((1.D0/3.E1.5) = void*K(A7.D0 rate4_H2(i) = 0.5*(Y_H2O(i))**0.138*d_p(i)+46861.19D0*(Re**(-2.D0))+ & 0.T_g(i))*(pre/T_g(i))**2./(T_s(i)*K(A4.T_s(i))))) rate4_H2(i) =(mole_C*A_v*pre/(2./km_2)+(1.78D0*(Re**(-0.5/(T_g(i)**0.19D0*(Re**(-2.381D0)))*(Sc_2**(-2.D0/3.D0/3. ! hetrogeneous gas_char reactions.T_g(i))*(pre/T_g(i))**2.Em.D0)) km_3 = (m_g(i)/rho_g(i))*(2.E6.T_g(i))/T_g(i) END IF rate1_O2(i) = (mole_C*A_v*pre/(gamma*R*T_g(i)))/((1.381D0)))*(Sc_4**(-2./(T_s(i)*K(A1./(T_s(i)*K(A2.5) ratem_m(i)*rho_m(i) ratep1_volt(i)*rho_volt(i) Y_tar1(i)*ratep2_tar1(i) rate1_O2(i)*Y_O2(i) rate2_CO2(i)*Y_CO2(i) rate3_H2O(i)*Y_H2O(i) rate4_H2(i)*Y_H2(i) rate5_CO(i)*Y_H2O(i) rate5R_CO2(i)*Y_H2(i) rate6_O2(i)*(Y_O2(i)) rate7_CO(i)*(Y_CO(i)) void*K(A8.T_g(i))*(pre/T_g(i))**2.5*(Y_O2(i))**0. water-gas shift reaction and ! oxidation of CO and secondary tar.D0)) km_4 = (m_g(i)/rho_g(i))*(2.D0-void)*K(Am.D0-void)*Ap1_mf*K(Ap1.T_s(i))))) ELSE rate2_CO2(i) = 0.Ep2*Ep2_mf.E2.8*(Y_CH4(i))**0.78D0*(Re**(-0.T_s(i)))/(2.E5.19D0*(Re**(-2.984*d_p(i)**2))) IF (T_e(i)<T_a) THEN T_e(i)=T_a ELSE T_e(i)=T_e(i) END IF ratem_m(i) = (1.D0/3.T_g(i))*(pre**1.D0/3.7 rate9_O2(i)*(Y_O2(i)) 279 .Ep2*Ep2_mf.*Y_H2O(i) = void*K(A5.*(Y_O2(i))**0.T_g(i))*(pre/T_g(i))**2.T_s(i))))) IF (Y_O2(i)<0.D0))+ & 0.D0+2.*Y_CO(i) = void*K(A5.D0/3. primary and secondary pyrolysis.78D0*(Re**(-0./km_4)+(1.Appendix D Computer code listing Km_2 = (m_g(i)/rho_g(i))*(2.T_p2(i))/T_g(i) ELSE ratep2_tar1(i) = void*mole_tar1*pre*Ap2_mf*K(Ap2.E7.T_g(i))*(pre**1.D0+K(A_gamma.E4.T_g(i))*(pre/T_g(i))**2.T_s(i))))) rate3_H2O(i) = (mole_C*A_v*pre/(R*T_g(i)))/((1.381D0)))*(Sc_3**(-2.D0))+ & 0.D0 END IF rate5_CO(i) rate5_H2O(i) rate5R_CO2(i) rate5R_H2(i) rate6_O2(i) rate7_CO(i) rate9_O2(i) ratem(i) ratep1(i) ratep2(i) rate1(i) rate2(i) rate3(i) rate4(i) rate5(i) rate5R(i) rate6(i) rate7(i) rate8(i) rate9(i) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = void*K(A5.E9.E5.D0-p_alpha) IF (T_s(i)>T_g(i)) THEN ratep2_tar1(i) = void*mole_tar1*pre*Ap2_mf*K(Ap2. gamma = (2.D0 rate3_H2O(i) = 0.*Y_H2(i)/Kp_wg(T_g(i)) = void*K(A5.T_e(i)) T_p2 (i) = T_s(i)*p_alpha+T_g(i)*(1.Ep1.D0*R*T_g(i)))/((1.5 = void*K(A9.E8.E_gamma.

D0 IF(Y_H2(i)>0.D0*mole_H2O*rate8(i)*delta_x1+ & mole_H2O*rate10(i)*delta_x1 +mole_H2O*rate5R(i)*delta_x1 ! By applying H2 balance ! ---------------------Y_H2inverse = 0.Appendix D Computer code listing rate10(i) = void*K(A10.0D-300)Y_O2inverse=1.D0 IF(Y_O2(i)>1.D0*gamma-1.D0*mole_O2*rate6_O2(i)*delta_x1+0.05D0*mole_O2*rate10(i)*delta_x1 B_O2 C_O2 ! By applying CO balance ! ---------------------A_CO = (void*molar_g*mole_CO)+(m_g(i)*mole_CO/mole_g(i))+mole_CO*rate7_CO(i)*delta_x1+& mole_CO*rate5_CO(i)*delta_x1 B_CO = m_g(i-1)*mole_CO/mole_g(i-1) C_CO = (void*molarP_g*mole_CO*YP_CO(i))+(X1_CO/X1_volt)*ratep1(i)*delta_x1+ & (X2_CO/X1_tar1)*ratep2(i)*delta_x1+ & (2.D0 C_gas = (ratem(i)+ratep1(i)+rate1(i)+rate2(i)+rate3(i)+rate4(i))*delta_x1+ & (void*molarP_g*moleP_g(i))-(void*molar_g*mole_g(i)) m_g(i)=(B_gas*m_g(i-1)+C_gas)/A_gas ! By applying O2 balance ! ---------------------Y_O2inverse = 0.D0*mole_CO*rate9(i)*delta_x1 + mole_CO*rate5R(i)*delta_x1 ! By applying CO2 balance ! ----------------------A_CO2 = (void*molar_g*mole_CO2)+(m_g(i)*mole_CO2/mole_g(i))+ & (mole_CO2/mole_C)*rate2_CO2(i)*delta_x1+mole_CO2*rate5R_CO2(i)*delta_x1 B_CO2 = m_g(i-1)*mole_CO2/mole_g(i-1) C_CO2 = (void*molarP_g*mole_CO2*YP_CO2(i))+(X1_CO2/X1_volt)*ratep1(i)*delta_x1+ & (X2_CO2/X1_tar1)*rateP2(i)*delta_x1+ & (2.D0-2.3D0*mole_O2*rate8(i)*delta_x1+0.T_g(i))*(pre/T_g(i))**2.55D0*mole_O2*rate10(i)*delta_x1*Y_O2inverse = m_g(i-1)*mole_O2/mole_g(i-1) = (void*molarP_g*mole_O2*YP_O2(i))+0.D0)Y_H2inverse=1.D0 B_gas = 1.2*(Y_O2(i))**1.D0*mole_CO*rate2(i)*delta_x1/mole_C+ mole_CO*rate3(i)*delta_x1/mole_C+ & 6.60D0*mole_O2*rate7(i)*delta_x1*Y_O2inverse+& 1.E10.D0)*mole_CO2*rate1(i)*delta_x1/mole_C+ & mole_CO2*rate5(i)*delta_x1+ mole_CO2*rate7(i)*delta_x1 ! By applying H2O balance ! ----------------------A_H2O = (void*molar_g*mole_H2O)+(m_g(i)*mole_H2O/mole_g(i))+ & (mole_H2O/mole_C)*rate3_H2O(i)*delta_x1 + mole_H2O*rate5_H2O(i)*delta_x1 B_H2O = m_g(i-1)*mole_H2O/mole_g(i-1) C_H2O = (void*molarP_g*mole_H2O*YP_H2O(i))+ratem(i)*delta_x1+ & (X1_H2O/X1_volt)*ratep1(i)*delta_x1+2.D0/Y_H2(i) A_H2 = (void*molar_g*mole_H2)+(m_g(i)*mole_H2/mole_g(i))+ & 280 .1 RETURN END SUBROUTINE reaction_rates ! *********************END SUBROUTINE reaction_rates*************************************** SUBROUTINE gas_balance() ! This subroutine is to calculate the gas composition by applying mass balance.1D0*mole_O2*rate7(i)*delta_x1+& 0.D0*mole_CO*rate6(i)*delta_x1+mole_CO*rate8(i)*delta_x1+ & 2.D0*gamma)*mole_CO*rate1(i)*delta_x1/mole_C + & 2.D0/Y_O2(i) A_O2 = (void*molar_g*mole_O2)+(m_g(i)*mole_O2/mole_g(i))+ & (gamma)*(mole_O2/mole_C)*rate1_O2(i)*delta_x1+ & 3.1*(Y_H2(i))**1.8D0*mole_O2*rate8(i)*delta_x1*Y_O2inverse+mole_O2*rate9_O2(i)*delta_x1+& 0. delta_x1 molar_g molarP_g = x(i)-x(i-1) = pre*delta_x1/(R*T_g(i)*delta_t) = pre*delta_x1/(R*TP_g(i)*delta_t) ! By applying overall gas mixture balance ! --------------------------------------A_gas = 1.

D0 Y_tar1(i) = (B_tar1*Y_tar1(i-1)+C_tar1)/A_tar1 281 .D0 IF(Y_tar2(i)>0.1D0*mole_H2*rate10(i)*delta_x1 ! By applying CH4 balance ! ----------------------Y_CH4inverse = 0.D0 IF (NINT(time)>3.D0 Y_H2(i) = (B_H2*Y_H2(i-1)+C_H2)/A_H2 IF (Y_H2(i)<0.D0)Y_CH4inverse=1.D0) Y_CH4(i)=0.D0) Y_C2H4(i)=0.D0*(mole_H2/mole_C)*rate4_H2(i)*delta_x1+ & 1.sec_check==1) THEN Y_O2(i)= (Y_O2(i)*m_g(i)+ (mf_O2* secondair*4.2D0*mole_C2H4*rate9(i)*delta_x1 ! By applying primary tar balance ! ------------------------------A_tar1 = (void*molar_g*mole_tar1)+(m_g(i)*mole_tar1/mole_g(i))+ & ratep2_tar1(i)*delta_x1 B_tar1 = m_g(i-1)*mole_tar1/mole_g(i-1) C_tar1 = (void*molarP_g*mole_tar1*YP_tar1(i))+(X1_tar1/X1_volt)*ratep1(i)*delta_x1 ! By applying secondary tar balance ! --------------------------------Y_tar2inverse = 0.2D0*mole_tar2*rate6(i)*delta_x1 ! Calculate the gas compostions Y_O2(i) = (B_O2*Y_O2(i-1)+C_O2)/A_O2 IF (Y_O2(i)<1.D0*3600.D0 IF(Y_C2H4(i)>0.D0/Y_tar2(i) A_tar2 = (void*molar_g*mole_tar2)+(m_g(i)*mole_tar2/mole_g(i))+ & 1.D0 Y_CH4(i) = (B_CH4*Y_CH4(i-1)+C_CH4)/A_CH4 IF (Y_CH4(i)<0.D0*3600.1D0*mole_CH4*rate8(i)*delta_x1*Y_CH4inverse B_CH4 = m_g(i-1)*mole_CH4/mole_g(i-1) C_CH4 = (void*molarP_g*mole_CH4*YP_CH4(i))+(X1_CH4/X1_volt)*ratep1(i)*delta_x1+ & (X2_CH4/X1_tar1)*ratep2(i)*delta_x1+(mole_CH4/mole_C)*rate4(i)*delta_x1+& 0.D0)/(pi*D_rec**2.D0)/(pi*D_rec**2.D0)Y_C2H4inverse=1.D0*rate9(i)*mole_H2*delta_x1 & +0.D0) Y_H2(i)=0.D0 Y_C2H4(i)= (B_C2H4*Y_C2H4(i-1)+C_C2H4)/A_C2H4 IF (Y_C2H4(i)<0.2D0*mole_tar2*rate6(i)*delta_x1*Y_tar2inverse B_tar2 = m_g(i-1)*mole_tar2/mole_g(i-1) C_tar2 = (void*molarP_g*mole_tar2*YP_tar2(i))+(X2_tar2/X1_tar1)*ratep2(i)*delta_x1+ & 0.x(i)>loc_secair.D0)Y_tar2inverse=1.D0)) sec_check=0 END IF Y_CO(i) = (B_CO*Y_CO(i-1)+C_CO)/A_CO IF (Y_CO(i)<0.D0) Y_CO(i)=0.AND.D0/Y_C2H4(i) A_C2H4 = (void*molar_g*mole_C2H4)+(m_g(i)*mole_C2H4/mole_g(i))+& 1.D0))/& (m_g(i) + (secondair*4.D0/Y_CH4(i) A_CH4 = (void*molar_g*mole_CH4)+(m_g(i)*mole_CH4/mole_g(i))+& 1.1D0*mole_CH4*rate8(i)*delta_x1 ! By applying C2H4 balance ! -----------------------Y_C2H4inverse = 0.Appendix D Computer code listing B_H2 C_H2 2.2D0*mole_C2H4*rate9(i)*delta_x1*Y_C2H4inverse B_C2H4 = m_g(i-1)*mole_C2H4/mole_g(i-1) C_C2H4 = (void*molarP_g*mole_C2H4*YP_C2H4(i))+(X2_C2H4/X1_tar1)*ratep2(i)*delta_x1+& 0.AND.0D-300) Y_O2(i)=0.D0 IF(Y_CH4(i)>0.D0*rate6(i)*mole_H2*delta_x1+2.1D0*mole_H2*rate10(i)*delta_x1*Y_H2inverse + mole_H2*rate5R_H2(i)*delta_x1 = m_g(i-1)*mole_H2/mole_g(i-1) = (void*molarP_g*mole_H2*YP_H2(i))+(X2_H2/X1_tar1)*ratep2(i)*delta_x1+ & (mole_H2/mole_C)*rate3(i)*delta_x1+mole_H2*rate5(i)*delta_x1+& 3.

D0) RETURN END SUBROUTINE particle_diameter ! *********************END SUBROUTINE particle_diameter************************************ SUBROUTINE solid_balance() ! This subroutine is to calculate the solid density by applying mass balance.D0 Y_CO2(i) = (B_CO2*Y_CO2(i-1)+C_CO2)/A_CO2 Y_H2O(i) = (B_H2O*Y_H2O(i-1)+C_H2O)/A_H2O Y_N2(i) = 1.D0 d_p(i)=(A_dp/(B_dp+C_dp))**(1.D0 END IF A_rhov = delta_x1/delta_t+V_s(i)+ratep1_volt(i)*delta_x1/(1. delta_x1 = x(i)-x(i-1) A_rhom = delta_x1/delta_t+V_s(i)+ratem_m(i)*delta_x1/(1.D0 END IF IF (rho_m(i)>rho_m(1)) THEN rho_m(i)=rho_m(1) ratem(i)=0.D0-(Y_O2(i)+Y_CO(i)+Y_CO2(i)+Y_H2O(i)+Y_H2(i)+ & Y_CH4(i)+Y_C2H4(i)+Y_tar1(i)+Y_tar2(i)) RETURN END SUBROUTINE gas_balance ! *********************END SUBROUTINE gas_balance****************************************** SUBROUTINE solid_velocity() delta_x1 = x(i)-x(i-1) ! This subroutine is to calculate the solid velocity.Appendix D Computer code listing IF (Y_tar1(i)<0.D0-void)*(rho_char(1)) B_Vs = A_Vs C_Vs = (rate1(i)+rate2(i)+rate3(i)+rate4(i))*delta_x1 V_s(i-1)=(B_Vs*V_s(i)+C_Vs)/A_Vs RETURN END SUBROUTINE solid_velocity ! *********************END SUBROUTINE solid_velocity*************************************** SUBROUTINE particle_diameter() delta_x1 = x(i)-x(i-1) ! This subroutine is to calculate the particle_diameter A_dp=delta_x1+V_s(i)*delta_t B_dp=delta_x1/dP_p(i)**3.D0 Y_tar2(i) = (B_tar2*Y_tar2(i-1)+C_tar2)/A_tar2 IF (Y_tar2(i)<0.D0-void) B_rhov = V_s(i-1) C_rhov = rhoP_volt(i)*delta_x1/delta_t rho_volt(i)=(B_rhov*rho_volt(i-1)+C_rhov)/A_rhov IF (rho_volt(i)<0.D0 ratem(i)=0.D0 END IF 282 .D0 ratep1(i)=0.D0 C_dp=V_s(i-1)*delta_t/d_p(i-1)**3.D0) Y_tar2(i)=0. A_Vs = (1.D0) THEN rho_m(i)=0.D0) THEN rho_volt(i)=0.D0-void) B_rhom = V_s(i-1) C_rhom = rhoP_m(i)*delta_x1/delta_t rho_m(i)=(B_rhom*rho_m(i-1)+C_rhom)/A_rhom IF (rho_m(i)<0.D0/3.D0) Y_tar1(i)=0.

Appendix D Computer code listing

IF (rho_volt(i)>rho_volt(1)) THEN rho_volt(i)=rho_volt(1) ratep1(i)=0.D0 END IF RETURN END SUBROUTINE solid_balance ! *********************END SUBROUTINE solid_balance**************************************** SUBROUTINE wallh() ! This subroutine is to calculate the heat transfer coefficient of ! solid surface and gas to wall. ! Calculate the conductivity ratio k_ratio=k_wood(T_s(i))/k_g(T_g(i)) ! Calculate the solid effective radial conductivity k_rs=k_wood(T_s(i))*(1.0-void)/((2.D0/(3.D0*k_ratio))+(1.D0/((1.D0/packp(k_ratio))+& (h_rs(T_s(i),emiss)*d_p(i)/k_wood(T_s(i)))))) ! Calculate the gas effective radial conductivity k_rg=k_g(T_g(i))*((void*(1.D0+(d_p(i)*h_rv(T_g(i),emiss,void)/& k_g(T_g(i)))))+(0.14D0*Pr*Re/(1.D0+46.D0*((d_p(i)/D_rec)**2.D0)))) ! Calculate the static effective radial conductivity k_ro=(k_g(T_g(i))*void*(1.D0+(d_p(i)*h_rv(T_g(i),emiss,void)/k_g(T_g(i)))))+& ((k_g(T_g(i))*(1.D0-void))/((2.D0/(3.D0*k_ratio))+ & (1.D0/((1.D0/packp(k_ratio))+(h_rs(T_s(i),emiss)*d_p(i)/k_g(T_g(i))))))) ! Calculate the bed to wall heat transfer coefficient h_bw=wall_loss*(2.44D0*k_ro*(D_rec**(-4.D0/3.D0)))+(0.033D0*k_g(T_g(i))*Pr*Re/d_p(i)) ! Calculate the gas to wall heat transfer coefficient h_gw=h_bw*k_rg/(k_rg+k_rs) ! Calculate the solid to wall heat transfer coefficient h_sw=h_bw*k_rs/(k_rg+k_rs) RETURN END SUBROUTINE wallh ! *********************END SUBROUTINE wallh************************************************ SUBROUTINE thomasenergy_balance() ! This subroutine is to find coefficients by applying energy balance for the calculation of ! the solid and gas temperature. IF (NINT(time)<=300)THEN wall_coeff=0.D0 ELSE IF (NINT(time)>300.AND.NINT(time)<=600)THEN wall_coeff=0.2D0 ELSE IF (NINT(time)>600.AND.NINT(time)<=900)THEN wall_coeff=0.4D0 ELSE IF (NINT(time)>900.AND.NINT(time)<=1200)THEN wall_coeff=0.6D0 ELSE IF (NINT(time)>1200.AND.NINT(time)<=1500)THEN wall_coeff=0.75D0 ELSE wall_coeff=0.750D0 END IF T_wall(i) = T_a+(T_s(i)-T_a)*wall_coeff IF (T_s(i)>T_g(i)) THEN T_wall(i) = T_a+(T_g(i)-T_a)*wall_coeff ELSE T_wall(i) = T_a+(T_s(i)-T_a)*wall_coeff END IF IF (T_s(N)<620.0) THEN T_701 = T_s(N) -(-2.08999D-12*T_s(N)**6.0 + 6.22059D-09*T_s(N)**5.0 - & 7.55365D-06*T_s(N)**4.0 +4.78617D-03*T_s(N)**3.0 - &

283

Appendix D Computer code listing

1.66904D+00*T_s(N)**2.0+ 3.04147D+02*T_s(N) - 2.26665D+04) IF(T_701>T_s(N))T_701=T_s(N) ELSE T_701 = T_s(N) -( 5.67296D-13*T_s(N)**6.0 - 2.69520D-09*T_s(N)**5.0 + & 5.29841D-06*T_s(N)**4.0 - 5.51380D-03*T_s(N)**3.0 + & 3.20165D+00*T_s(N)**2.0 - 9.82866D+02*T_s(N) + 1.24565D+05) END IF ! ----------! Soild Phase ! ----------IF (i==N) THEN delta_x1 = x(i)-x(i-1)

solid1 = (1.D0-void)*(rho_m(i)*Cp_m+(rho_volt(i)*Cp_wood(T_s(i))+ & rho_char(i)*Cp_char(T_s(i)))) solid2 = (1.D0-void)*(rho_m(i-1)*Cp_m+(rho_volt(i-1)*Cp_wood(T_s(i-1))+ & rho_char(i-1)*Cp_char(T_s(i-1)))) solid3 = (1.D0-void)*(rhoP_m(i)*Cp_m+(rhoP_volt(i)*Cp_wood(T_s(i))+ & rho_char(i)*Cp_char(T_s(i)))) solid4 = h_rs(T_s(i),emiss)*(1.D0-void) solid5 = K_eff(m_g(i),T_s(i),T_g(i),d_p(i),emiss,void)+ & K_eff(m_g(i-1),T_s(i-1),T_g(i-1),d_p(i-1),emiss,void) A_Ts = (1.D0/delta_t+v_s(i)/delta_x1)*solid1+2.D0*solid4/(delta_x1)+ & solid5/(delta_x1**2.0)+h_sg*A_v+4.D0*h_sw/D_rec B_Ts = 0.D0 C_Ts = solid5/(delta_x1**2.0)+solid2*v_s(i-1)/delta_x1 D_Ts = (1.D0/delta_t)*(solid1*T_a+solid3*TP_s(i)-solid3*T_a)+ & solid1*V_s(i)*T_a/delta_x1-solid2*V_s(i-1)*T_a/delta_x1+ h_sg*A_v*T_g(i)+ & 4.D0*h_sw*T_wall(i)/D_rec+ratep1(i)*heatp1+ & rate1(i)*heat1(T_s(i))+rate2(i)*heat2(T_s(i))+rate3(i)*heat3(T_s(i))+ & rate4(i)*heat4(T_s(i))+ heatm*ratem(i)+2.D0*solid4*T_701/(delta_x1) P_Ts(i) = B_Ts/(A_Ts-C_Ts*P_Ts(i-1)) Q_Ts(i) = (D_Ts+C_Ts*Q_Ts(i-1))/(A_Ts-C_Ts*P_Ts(i-1)) ELSE delta_x1 delta_x2 delta_x = x(i)-x(i-1) = x(i+1)-x(i) = (x(i+1)-x(i-1))/2.D0

solid1 = (1.D0-void)*(rho_m(i)*Cp_m+(rho_volt(i)*Cp_wood(T_s(i))+ & rho_char(i)*Cp_char(T_s(i)))) solid2 = (1.D0-void)*(rho_m(i-1)*Cp_m+(rho_volt(i-1)*Cp_wood(T_s(i-1))+ & rho_char(i-1)*Cp_char(T_s(i-1)))) solid3 = (1.D0-void)*(rhoP_m(i)*Cp_m+(rhoP_volt(i)*Cp_wood(T_s(i))+ & rho_char(i)*Cp_char(T_s(i)))) solid4 = (K_eff(m_g(i),T_s(i),T_g(i),d_p(i),emiss,void)+ & K_eff(m_g(i+1),T_s(i+1),T_g(i+1),d_p(i+1),emiss,void))/2.D0 solid5 = (K_eff(m_g(i),T_s(i),T_g(i),d_p(i),emiss,void)+ & K_eff(m_g(i-1),T_s(i-1),T_g(i-1),d_p(i-1),emiss,void))/2.D0 A_Ts = (1.D0/delta_t+v_s(i)/delta_x1)*solid1+solid4/(delta_x*delta_x2)+ & solid5/(delta_x*delta_x1)+ h_sg*A_v+4.D0*h_sw/D_rec B_Ts = solid4/(delta_x*delta_x2) C_Ts = solid5/(delta_x*delta_x1)+solid2*v_s(i-1)/delta_x1 D_Ts = (1.D0/delta_t)*(solid1*T_a+solid3*TP_s(i)-solid3*T_a)+ & solid1*V_s(i)*T_a/delta_x1-solid2*V_s(i-1)*T_a/delta_x1+ h_sg*A_v*T_g(i)+ & 4.D0*h_sw*T_wall(i)/D_rec+ratep1(i)*heatp1+ & rate1(i)*heat1(T_s(i))+rate2(i)*heat2(T_s(i))+rate3(i)*heat3(T_s(i))+ & rate4(i)*heat4(T_s(i)) + heatm*ratem(i) P_Ts(i) = B_Ts/(A_Ts-C_Ts*P_Ts(i-1)) Q_Ts(i) = (D_Ts+C_Ts*Q_Ts(i-1))/(A_Ts-C_Ts*P_Ts(i-1)) END IF ! --------! Gas Phase ! ---------

284

Appendix D Computer code listing

IF (i==N) THEN delta_x1 gas1 gas2 gas3 gas4 gas5 = = = = = = x(i)-x(i-1)

rho_g(i)*Cp_g(T_g(i)) m_g(i-1)*Cp_g(T_g(i-1)) rhoP_g(i)*Cp_g(TP_g(i)) 2.D0*void*h_rv(T_g(N),emiss,void)/(1.0-void) K_g(T_g(i))+K_g(T_g(i-1))

gasheat(i) = alpha*(rate6(i)*heat6(T_g(i))+rate7(i)*heat7(T_g(i))+& rate8(i)*heat8(T_g(i))+rate9(i)*heat9(T_g(i))+& rate10(i)*heat10(T_g(i)))+(1.-alpha)*gasheat(i) A_Tg = void*gas1/delta_t+gas4/(delta_x1)+gas5/(delta_x1**2)+& m_g(i)*Cp_g(T_g(i))/delta_x1+h_sg*A_v+ 4.D0*h_gw/D_rec-& ratep2(i)*heatp2*Ep2*ep2_mf/(R*T_g(i)**2.D0) B_Tg = 0.D0 C_Tg = gas5/(delta_x1**2)+gas2/delta_x1 D_Tg = (void/delta_t)*(gas1*T_a+gas3*TP_g(i)-gas3*T_a)+ & m_g(i)*Cp_g(T_g(i))*T_a/delta_x1-gas2*T_a/delta_x1+h_sg*A_v*T_s(i)+ & 4.D0*h_gw*T_wall(i)/D_rec+rate5(i)*heat5(T_g(i))+rate5R(i)*heat5R(T_g(i))+& gasheat(i) +heatp2*ratep2(i)*(1.D0-Ep2*ep2_mf/(R*T_g(i)))+gas4*T_701/(delta_x1) P_Tg(i) = B_Tg/(A_Tg-C_Tg*P_Tg(i-1)) Q_Tg(i) = (D_Tg+C_Tg*Q_Tg(i-1))/(A_Tg-C_Tg*P_Tg(i-1)) ELSE delta_x1 delta_x2 delta_x gas1 gas2 gas3 gas4 gas5 = = = = = = x(i)-x(i-1) = x(i+1)-x(i) = (x(i+1)-x(i-1))/2.D0

rho_g(i)*Cp_g(T_g(i)) m_g(i-1)*Cp_g(T_g(i-1)) rhoP_g(i)*Cp_g(TP_g(i)) (K_g(T_g(i))+K_g(T_g(i+1)))/2.D0 (K_g(T_g(i))+K_g(T_g(i-1)))/2.D0

gasheat(i) = alpha*(rate6(i)*heat6(T_g(i))+rate7(i)*heat7(T_g(i))+& rate8(i)*heat8(T_g(i))+rate9(i)*heat9(T_g(i))+& rate10(i)*heat10(T_g(i)))+(1.-alpha)*gasheat(i) A_Tg = void*gas1/delta_t+gas4/(delta_x*delta_x2)+gas5/(delta_x*delta_x1)+& m_g(i)*Cp_g(T_g(i))/delta_x1+h_sg*A_v+ 4.D0*h_gw/D_rec B_Tg = gas4/(delta_x*delta_x2) C_Tg = gas5/(delta_x*delta_x1)+gas2/delta_x1 D_Tg = (void/delta_t)*(gas1*T_a+gas3*TP_g(i)-gas3*T_a)+ & m_g(i)*Cp_g(T_g(i))*T_a/delta_x1-gas2*T_a/delta_x1+h_sg*A_v*T_s(i)+ & 4.D0*h_gw*T_wall(i)/D_rec+rate5(i)*heat5(T_g(i))+& rate5R(i)*heat5R(T_g(i))+ gasheat(i) +heatp2*ratep2(i) P_Tg(i) = B_Tg/(A_Tg-C_Tg*P_Tg(i-1)) Q_Tg(i) = (D_Tg+C_Tg*Q_Tg(i-1))/(A_Tg-C_Tg*P_Tg(i-1)) END IF RETURN END SUBROUTINE thomasenergy_balance ! *********************END SUBROUTINE thomasenergy_balance********************************* SUBROUTINE thomas(N,P,Q,U) IMPLICIT NONE ! This subroutine is to calculate the solution of a numbers of linear algebraic equations ! in the form of tridiagonal matrix by Thomas Algorithm. INTEGER , REAL(DP), REAL(DP), REAL(DP), INTENT(IN) INTENT(IN) INTENT(IN) INTENT(OUT) :: :: :: :: N P(N) Q(N) U(N) ! ! ! ! Number of equations Coefficient Solution at old mesh points Solution of a numbers of linear equations

INTEGER :: i DO i=N,1,-1 IF (i==N) THEN

285

Appendix D Computer code listing

U(i)=Q(i) ELSE U(i)=P(i)*U(i+1)+Q(i) END IF END DO RETURN END SUBROUTINE thomas ! *********************END SUBROUTINE thomas*********************************************** SUBROUTINE temperatures() ! This subroutine is to calculate the solid and gas temperature by Thomas Algorithm. ! ----------! Soild Phase ! ----------IF (i==N) THEN T_s(i)=Q_Ts(i) ELSE T_s(i)=P_Ts(i)*T_s(i+1)+Q_Ts(i) END IF ! --------! Gas Phase ! --------IF (i==N) THEN T_g(i)=Q_Tg(i) ELSE T_g(i)=P_Tg(i)*T_g(i+1)+Q_Tg(i) END IF RETURN END SUBROUTINE temperatures ! *********************END SUBROUTINE temperatures***************************************** SUBROUTINE mass_balance() ! This subroutine is to check the mass balance of the system. mole_g(N) = Y_O2(N)*mole_O2+Y_CO(N)*mole_CO +Y_CO2(N)*mole_CO2+Y_H2O(N)*mole_H2O+ & Y_H2(N)*mole_H2+Y_CH4(N)*mole_CH4+Y_C2H4(N)*mole_C2H4+Y_tar1(N)*mole_tar1+ & Y_tar2(N)*mole_tar2+Y_N2(N)*mole_N2 masstotal_in = masstotal_out = C_in H_in O_in N_in V_s(1)*(1.D0-void)*(rho_m(1)+rho_volt(1)+rho_char(1))+m_g(1) m_g(N)

= (12.D0/23.D0)*V_s(1)*(1.D0-void)*(rho_volt(1)+rho_char(1)) = (1.4D0/23.D0)*V_s(1)*(1.D0-void)*(rho_volt(1)+rho_char(1))+ & V_s(1)*(1.D0-void)*rho_m(1)*mole_H2/mole_H2O = (9.6D0/23.D0)*V_s(1)*(1.D0-void)*(rho_volt(1)+rho_char(1))+& V_s(1)*(1.D0-void)*rho_m(1)*0.5D0*mole_O2/mole_H2O+m_g(1)*mole_O2*Y_O2(1)/mole_g(1) = m_g(1)*mole_N2*Y_N2(1)/mole_g(1)

C_out = mole_C*m_g(N)*Y_CO(N)/mole_g(N)+ mole_C*m_g(N)*Y_CO2(N)/mole_g(N)+ & mole_C*m_g(N)*Y_CH4(N)/mole_g(N)+(2.D0*mole_C)*m_g(N)*Y_C2H4(N)/mole_g(N) + & (6.D0*mole_C)*m_g(N)*Y_tar1(N)/mole_g(N) +(6.D0*mole_C)*m_g(N)*Y_tar2(N)/mole_g(N) H_out = m_g(N)*mole_H2*Y_H2(N)/mole_g(N)+mole_H2*m_g(N)*Y_H2O(N)/mole_g(N) + & (2.D0*mole_H2)*m_g(N)*Y_CH4(N)/mole_g(N) + & (2.D0*mole_H2)*m_g(N)*Y_C2H4(N)/mole_g(N) + (10.71D0*0.5D0*mole_H2)* & m_g(N)*Y_tar1(N)/mole_g(N)+(3.D0*mole_H2)*m_g(N)*Y_tar2(N)/mole_g(N) O_out = m_g(N)*mole_O2*Y_O2(N)/mole_g(N)+(mole_O2*0.5D0)*m_g(N)*Y_CO(N)/mole_g(N)+ & mole_O2*m_g(N)*Y_CO2(N)/mole_g(N)+(mole_O2*0.5D0)*m_g(N)*Y_H2O(N)/mole_g(N) + & (mole_O2*0.5D0*3.264D0)*m_g(N)*Y_tar1(N)/mole_g(N) N_out = m_g(N)*mole_N2*Y_N2(N)/mole_g(N) RETURN END SUBROUTINE mass_balance ! *********************END SUBROUTINE mass_balance***************************************** SUBROUTINE Tg_peak() ! This subroutine calculate the location of gas peak temperature at a particular time

286

Appendix D Computer code listing

IF (NINT(time)==300) THEN CALL peakTg_x () maxTg_x05 = maxTg_x END IF IF (NINT(time)==600) THEN CALL peakTg_x () maxTg_x10 = maxTg_x END IF IF (NINT(time)==900) THEN CALL peakTg_x () maxTg_x15 = maxTg_x END IF IF (NINT(time)==1200) THEN CALL peakTg_x () maxTg_x20 = maxTg_x END IF IF (NINT(time)==1500) THEN CALL peakTg_x () maxTg_x25 = maxTg_x END IF IF (NINT(time)==1800) THEN CALL peakTg_x () maxTg_x30 = maxTg_x END IF RETURN END SUBROUTINE Tg_peak ! *********************END SUBROUTINE Tg_peak********************************************** FUNCTION IMPLICIT ! ! ! ! ! sign_test(arg1,arg2) NONE This is the sign test routine Returns: -1. if ARG1 and ARG2 are of opposite sign. 0. if either argument is zero. +1. if ARG1 and ARG2 are of the same sign. :: arg1 :: arg2

REAL(DP), INTENT(IN) REAL(DP), INTENT(IN) REAL(DP) :: sign_test

sign_test = SIGN(1.D0,arg1) * SIGN(1.D0,arg2) IF ((arg1 == 0.D0) .OR. (arg2 == 0.D0)) sign_test = 0.D0 RETURN END FUNCTION sign_test ! ****************************END FUNCTION sign_test*************************************** SUBROUTINE rezone(N,xold,f,xnew) IMPLICIT NONE ! ! This subroutine is to distribute the new mesh nodes by global static rezoning methods based on the equidistribution principle and arclength monitor. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Number of mesh points Location of old mesh points Solution at old mesh points Location of new mesh points Mesh monitor function by the arclength Total arclength sloution from xold(1) to xold(i) Total arclength from xnew(1) to xnew(i) Equal arclength based on equidistribution principle

INTEGER , INTENT(IN) :: N REAL(DP), INTENT(IN) :: xold(N) REAL(DP), INTENT(IN) :: f(N) REAL(DP), INTENT(OUT) :: xnew(N) REAL(DP):: moni (N-1) REAL(DP):: arc (N) REAL(DP):: newarc (N) REAL(DP):: egrid INTEGER :: i,j,upper, lower ! Find the mesh monitor function

DO i=1,N-1 moni(i)= SQRT(1.d0+((f(i+1)-f(i))/(xold(i+1)-xold(i)))**2.) END DO

287

Appendix D Computer code listing

! Calculate the total arclength of curve arc(1)=0.D0 DO i=2,N arc(i)=moni(i-1)*(xold(i)-xold(i-1))+arc(i-1) END DO ! Find the equal arclength by equidistribution principle egrid=arc(N)/real(N-1) ! Estimate the total arclength of new mesh newarc(1)=arc(1) DO i=2,N newarc(i)=real(i-1)*egrid END DO ! Evaluate the new grids location lower=2 xnew(1)=xold(1) DO j=2,N-1 DO i=lower,N IF(arc(i)-newarc(j)>=0.D0)THEN lower=i-1 upper=i EXIT END IF END DO xnew(j)= xold(lower)+(newarc(j)-arc(lower))* & ((xold(upper)-xold(lower))/(arc(upper)-arc(lower))) END DO xnew(N)=xold(N) RETURN END SUBROUTINE rezone ! *********************************END SUBROUTINE rezone*********************************** SUBROUTINE deriv (N, x, f, D ) ! ! This subroutine is to set derivatives needed to determine a monotone piecewise cubic Hermite interpolant to the data given in X and F.

INTEGER, INTENT(IN) REAL (DP), INTENT(IN) REAL (DP), INTENT(IN) REAL (DP), INTENT(OUT)

:: :: :: ::

N x(N) f(N) D(N)

! ! ! !

Number of data points. Independent variable values Dependent variable values to be interpolated. Derivative values at the data points.

REAL (DP) :: slope1, slope2,W1,W2,Dmax,Dmin INTEGER::i slope1 = (f(2)-f(1))/(x(2)-x(1)) slope2 = (f(3)-f(2))/(x(3)-x(2)) W1= (x(3)+x(2)-2*x(1))/(x(3)-x(1)) W2= (X(1)-X(2))/(x(3)-x(1)) D(1)=W1*slope1+W2*slope2 IF (sign_test(D(1),slope1)<0.D0) THEN D(1)=0.D0 ELSE IF (sign_test(slope1,slope2)<=0.D0) THEN Dmax=slope1*3.D0 IF (ABS(D(1))>ABS(Dmax)) D(1)=DMax END IF DO i=2,N-1 IF (i>2) THEN

288

Appendix D Computer code listing

slope1=slope2 slope2=(f(i+1)-f(i))/(x(i+1)-x(i)) END IF IF (sign_test(slope1,slope2)<=0.D0) THEN D(i)=0.D0 ELSE W1= (x(i+1)+x(i)-2*x(i-1))/(3.D0*(x(i+1)-x(i-1))) W2= (2*x(i+1)-x(i)-x(i-1))/(3.D0*(x(i+1)-x(i-1))) Dmax=max(ABS(slope1),ABS(slope2)) Dmin=min(ABS(slope1),ABS(slope2)) D(i)=Dmin/((W1*slope1/Dmax)+(W2*slope2/Dmax)) END IF END DO W1=(X(N-1)-x(N))/(X(N)-X(N-2)) W2=(2*x(N)-x(N-1)-x(N-2))/(X(N)-X(N-2)) D(N)=W1*slope1+W2*slope2 IF (sign_test(D(N),slope2)<=0.D0) THEN D(N)=0.D0 ELSE IF (sign_test(slope1,slope2)<0.D0) THEN Dmax=slope2*3.D0 IF (ABS(D(N))>ABS(Dmax))D(N)=DMax END IF RETURN END SUBROUTINE deriv ! ***************************END SUBROUTINE deriv****************************************** SUBROUTINE interp (x_left,x_right,f_left,f_right,d_left,d_right,Ne,xe,fe) IMPLICIT NONE ! ! This subroutine is to evaluate a cubic polynomial given in Hermite form at an array of points. :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: x_left x_right f_left f_right d_left d_right NE xe(NE) ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Left point of interval of definition of cubic. Right point of interval of definition of cubic. Values of function at X_left Values of function at X_right Values of derivative at X_left Values of derivative at X_right Number of evaluation points Array of points at which the function is to be evaluated. Array of values of the cubic function defined by X_left,X_right, F_left, F_right, D_left,D_right at the points XE.

REAL(DP), INTENT(IN) REAL(DP), INTENT(IN) REAL(DP), INTENT(IN) REAL(DP), INTENT(IN) REAL(DP), INTENT(IN) REAL(DP), INTENT(IN) INTEGER, INTENT(IN) REAL(DP), INTENT(IN)

REAL(DP), INTENT(OUT) :: fe(NE)

INTEGER :: i REAL(DP) :: x_diff, K1, K2, slope slope=(f_right-f_left)/(x_right-x_left) K1= (d_left+d_right-2.*slope)/((x_right-x_left)**2) K2= -(2.*d_left+d_right-3.*slope)/(x_right-x_left) DO i=1, NE x_diff= XE(i)-x_left fe(i)=f_left+x_diff*(D_left+x_diff*(K2+x_diff*K1)) END DO RETURN END SUBROUTINE interp ! *****************************END SUBROUTINE interp*************************************** SUBROUTINE pch_intp (N,x,f,Ne,xe,fe) IMPLICIT NONE ! ! This subroutine is to evaluate a piecewise cubic Hermite function at an array of points. :: N :: x(N) :: f(N) ! ! ! Number of data points. Independent variable values Dependent variable values to be interpolated.

INTEGER, INTENT(IN) REAL (DP), INTENT(IN) REAL (DP), INTENT(IN)

289

ne DO j=k.Tnew_g) CALL pch_intp (N.x_nd.N Tg_nd(i)=T_g(i)/max_Tg x_nd(i) = x(i)/L_rec END DO RETURN END SUBROUTINE NON_DIMENT_Tg ! *************************END SUBROUTINE NON_DIMENT ************************************** SUBROUTINE static_rezone () ! This subroutine is to find the new grids and the variables at the new grid points.x.Tg_nd.d(left). INTENT(OUT) :: NE :: xe(NE) :: fe(NE) ! ! ! ! ! ! Number of evaluation points Array of points at which the function is to be evaluated.T_g.Ne IF (xe(i)-x(j-1)==0. D_left.N. F_right.xnew.N.x(right). F_left.D_right at the points XE. D ) k=2 DO i=1.X_right. left.xnew_nd) ! Change the dimensional system DO i=1.x. max_Tg = T_g(1) DO i=2.D0)THEN fe(i)=f(j-1) log=1 EXIT ELSE IF (x(j)-xe(i)==0. INTENT(IN) REAL(DP).D0)THEN fe(i)=f(j) log=2 EXIT ELSE IF(xe(i)<x(j)) THEN left=j-1 right=j EXIT END IF END DO k=j IF (log==0) call interp(x(left).log=0 CALL deriv (N. Array of values of the cubic function defined by X_left.Appendix D Computer code listing INTEGER.N IF (T_g(i)>T_g(i-1)) max_Tg=T_g(i) END DO DO i=1.xe(i).f(left).Y_O2. REAL(DP) :: D(N) INTEGER :: i.f(right).k.Tnew_s) CALL pch_intp (N.N xnew(i)=xnew_nd(i)*L_rec END DO !Find 18 variables at the new grid points CALL pch_intp (N.Ynew_O2) 290 . x. CALL rezone (N.T_s.1.right.j. INTENT(IN) REAL(DP).N.fe(i)) IF (log==2)k=j+1 log=0 END DO RETURN END SUBROUTINE pch_intp ! ***********************END SUBROUTINE pch_intp******************************************* SUBROUTINE NON_DIMENT_Tg () ! This subroutine is to non dimentionalize the gas temperature and grids distance.d(right).x.xnew. f.xnew.

Y_CO.xnew.x.xnew.d_p.mnew_g) (N.N efficiency(i)=m_g(i)*pi*D_rec**2.15D0/(T_g(i)*rho_g(i))* & HV_gas(Y_CO(i).xnew.xnew.*900.xnew.Nitrogen.Y_tar2.xnew.N.x.Oxygen.N.Y_H2O(i))*100.Y_CH4.D0/ & ((m_g(i)*pi*D_rec**2.x.Ynew_tar2) (N.Y_tar1. DO i=2.x.Y_H2O.rho_m.N.xnew.x.N.N.N.xnew.N.x.N.N.rhonew_char) (N.x.x.N x(i) T_s(i) T_g(i) Y_O2(i) Y_N2(i) Y_CO2(i) Y_CO(i) Y_H2O(i) Y_H2(i) Y_CH4(i) Y_C2H4(i) Y_tar1(i) Y_tar2(i) rho_m(i) rho_volt(i) rho_char(i) m_g(i) v_s(i) d_p(i) END DO RETURN END SUBROUTINE static_rezone ! ************************* END SUBROUTINE static_rezone SUBROUTINE peakTg_x () ! This subroutine is to find the location of peak gas temperature.Ynew_H2) (N.rhonew_volt) (N.Moisture)) END DO RETURN END SUBROUTINE coldgas_efficiency = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = xnew(i) Tnew_s(i) Tnew_g(i) Ynew_O2(i) Ynew_N2(i) Ynew_CO2(i) Ynew_CO(i) Ynew_H2O(i) Ynew_H2(i) Ynew_CH4(i) Ynew_C2H4(i) Ynew_tar1(i) Ynew_tar2(i) rhonew_m(i) rhonew_volt(i) rhonew_char(i) mnew_g(i) vnew_s(i) dnew_p(i) ********************************* 291 .x.D0/(moisture+ash+100.Y_H2(i).xnew.rho_volt.Ash.Ynew_C2H4) (N.v_s.xnew.Y_H2.D0)*& HV_biomass(Carbon.rhonew_m) (N.Y_CH4(i).Ynew_N2) (N.N.xnew.Y_N2.xnew.Ynew_H2O) (N.xnew.x.N.dnew_p) DO i=1.N.x.vnew_s) (N.Ynew_tar1) (N.D0*273.N.Appendix D Computer code listing CALL CALL CALL CALL CALL CALL CALL CALL CALL CALL CALL CALL CALL CALL CALL pch_intp pch_intp pch_intp pch_intp pch_intp pch_intp pch_intp pch_intp pch_intp pch_intp pch_intp pch_intp pch_intp pch_intp pch_intp (N.N IF (T_g(i)>T_g(i-1)) THEN max_Tg=T_g(i) maxTg_x=x(i) END IF END DO RETURN END SUBROUTINE peakTg_x ! *************************END SUBROUTINE peakTg_x **************************************** SUBROUTINE coldgas_efficiency() ! This subroutine is to find the location of peak gas temperature.Y_C2H4.Hydrogen.x.N.Sulfur.xnew.*900.Ynew_CO) (N.x.N.x.D0-air_rate)*100.x.xnew.Ynew_CO2) (N.rho_char.m_g. max_Tg = T_g(1) DO i=2.Ynew_CH4) (N.Y_CO2.

2)') Write(7. A34.'(T2.2//)')"(mm below reactor top) =".0 IF (check_stage==1) THEN Write(7. =". A34.'(T2.2)') Write(7.'(T2.0 rho_biomass moisture d_pwood*1000.F8. A36. A34.'(T2.'(T2.D0)*pi*D_rec**2.F8.2//)') "Reactor daiameter [mm] "Wood apparent density [kg/hr] "Moisture content [%Db] "Paticle diameter [mm] "Bed voidage fraction [-] "Initial depth of char bed [mm] "Feed air temperature [K] "Feed air pressure [kPa] "Ignition temperature [K] "Ignited location (mm below top) "Initial ignition depth [mm] ="." Write(7." Write(7. =". A36.'(T2.2)') Write(7.F8.'(T2. Write(7.233) ! Calcuate the net heating value of producer gas in dry basic (MJ/Nm3) LHV_gas = HV_gas(Y_CO(N). A55)') "Gasifier is operated by supplying air from reactor top" Write(7. =".2)') Write(7. A34.F9. A34)') " USER INPUT OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS " Write(7.F8. A33)') "Location of secondary air supply" Write(7.'(/T2.'(T2.0 void depth_char*1000.'(T2. A47)') "Gasifier is operated with two-stage air supply" Write(7.'(T2.233D0/1.2)') Write(7.Y_CH4(N). =".'(/T2.D0) ! Calculate eqivalent ratio ER = air_fuel*0. air_rate ELSE IF (check_stage==2) THEN Write(7.D0/((pi*D_rec**2. air_rate Write(7.3)') Write(7.2)') Write(7.D0-void)*(rho_m(1)+rho_volt(1)+rho_char(1))*pi*D_rec**2.'(T2.'(T2. =".D0 ! Calculate the specific gasification rate in dry basic (kg/m2hr) spe_gasi_rate = fuel_flow*4.F8.2)') "Secondary air supply rate [kg/hr] =".'(T2.F8. A34.'(T2.'(T2. A55)') "------------------------------------------------------" Write(7.'(T2. A34." Write(7.2)') "Primary air supply rate [kg/hr] =". A34.2)') "Air supply rate [kg/hr] =".0D0*100.F8.'(T2.D0)) ! Calculate the gas mass production rate (kg/hr) gas_flow_mass = m_g(N)*pi*D_rec**2.*900. A36.F8.'(T2.*900.Y_H2O(N)) ! Calculate the total energy output to the gasifier ! based on the net heating value to producer gas in dry basic [MJ/hr] Energy_out = gas_flow_vol*LHV_gas RETURN END SUBROUTINE gasifier_performance ! *********************END SUBROUTINE gasifier_performance********************************* SUBROUTINE input() ! This subroutine print out the input parameter. A47)') "----------------------------------------------" Write(7.F8. A34.Appendix D Computer code listing ! *************************END SUBROUTINE coldgas_efficiency ****************************** SUBROUTINE gasifier_performance() ! This subroutine calculate the gasifier performance summary ! Calculate the fuel consumption in wet basis (kg/hr) fuel_flow = V_s(1)*(1.'(T2.F8. A34)') " --------------------------------. =".463D0 ! (Note:mass of oxygen required for complete combustion of biomass/ mass of biomass= 1.15D0/(T_g(N)*rho_g(N)) ! Calculate the outlet condensable tar content (mg/Nm³) tar_outlet = Y_tar1(N)*Mole_tar1*Pre*1.)*(moisture+100. A34)') " --------------------------------. A34.2)') Write(7. secondair Write(7. =". A24)') " ---------------------. A34.'(T2. loc_secair*1000.15D0) ! Calculate air fuel ratio (. A34.'(T2. D_rec*1000.F8.D0/(fuel_flow*100.Y_H2(N).2)') Write(7.463) ! (Note:mass of Oxygen in 1 kg of air = 0.b) air_fuel= m_g(1)*(moisture+100.kg/kg d.0 END IF Write(7.'(/T2.F8.D+06/(R*273. A34. =". A24)') " INPUT MODEL PARAMETERS " 292 . =".F8. =".0 depth_ign*1000.'(T2.F8.D0 ! Calculate the gas volume production rate (Nm³/hr) gas_flow_vol = gas_flow_mass*273.0 T_gas Pre T_ign loc_ign*1000.*900.2)') Write(7.

I5."=====".'(T2."rate5R".T_s(i).14ES15."rho_V"."====="."Y_CO"."rho_m".A5.A7. T73.A10) Write(7.5) 200 FORMAT (/.T78.T138.T160.F10.T118.A9. "sec after ignition" Write(7. I5.T48.F9.Y_CO2(i)*100.'(T2.rho_m(i).T3.A5."v_g". =". A62.T24." Write(7.4."Y_tar2". A62.A8."========".A8."T_solid".T118."====="."pri_pyro"."rate9".A9.2)') & "zeta (reacting to non-reacting ratio of heat transfer) [-] Write(7. A19)') & "Model performance at".Y_tar1(i)*Mole_tar1*Pre*1.T14.A8.A7.2.'(/T2. Write(7.T24. A)') "=============================================" 100 FORMAT (' '.rho_volt(i)."======". ="."========". A)') "==========================================" Write(7.v_s(i)."rate7".4.T148. A62."rate1".4."====".T58."=====".'(T50.T34.F8."====".T14.300) "==".T189.A7..T40.T88.Y_O2(i)*100.F12..F15.2)') & "Ratio to effective and actural transport surface area [-] Write(7.T_g(i).'(T50.F9.T6.F8. =". A20.N WRITE(7.2)') & "Multiplication factor of primary pyrolysis rate [-] Write(7.Appendix D Computer code listing Write(7.T138."T_gas"."======".100)700.2000) "no"..A8.& "Y_CH4".F9."=====". A62.5.1.Y_N2(i)*100.5) 2000 FORMAT (' '.A7.4."=====".F6.A9.4.F5.& m_g(i)/rho_g(i).14A15) Write(7.Y_CH4(i)*100."rate3".F9.& "rate5".F5.2000) "==".2."====".T88.'(T2.T98.T160. ="."v_s".T189."Y_H2". A62.A7.F9.6."rate2".'(T2..T128.A7."======".A8.A6.4.T40.A10) 300 FORMAT (' '.15D0).F10.T68.& Y_C2H4(i)*100.3)') & "Defined maximum mass transfer coefficient [m/s] Write(7.A5.T78.F9.1.'(T50."=====".Y_tar1(i)*100.2)') & "Multiplication factor of secondary pyrolysis rate [-] Write(7.5.2/)') & "Multiplication factor of wall heat transfer coefficient [-] =".T148. A17. ! Write the out put ! ----------------Write(7."rate8".T40. =".-x(i)*1000.F5. zeta km_max Av_mf Ap1_mf Ap2_mf A6_mf Keff_mf wall_loss RETURN END SUBROUTINE input ! *********************END SUBROUTINE input************************************************ SUBROUTINE output_profile() ! This subroutine print out the results at specific time.F9."=====".T58.T172. output_time.'(/T50.T48."===".A9.A6.T128.A7.T189. =".A7.."=====".4.T6.F5.T148. A24)') " ---------------------.T88.T48.F9.T172.'(T2.A9.T160.F6."rate10" Write(7.T68.D+06/(R*273.'(/T50.T3.T172."drying".6.."Y_O2". A)') "==========================================" 1000 FORMAT (' '.& F9.A6.& "=====".2)') & "Multiplication factor to Effictive thermal condutivity [-] Write(7.A8.T24..5.200) "no".A8.& A7.A7.T98.T58. output_time. "sec after ignition" Write(7. A)') "=============================================" Write(7."Y_C2H4"..A15..4."======". T76."efficiency" Write(7."====".T128.T118. T67."tar_content"."======".& A7.F5.T6.A8.A6."==========" DO i=1."sec_pyro"."Y_tar1"."=====".Y_H2(i)*100."Y_CO2". A62. A62.A15.F5."===========".."Y_N2".'(T2."=====".A7.A6.4."Y_H2O"."======" 293 ."rate4".F9. ="..T138.T108.Y_tar2(i)*100.Y_H2O(i)*100.T98. A19)') & "Reaction rates at".'(T2.F9."===".F5.A9.A6.efficiency(i) END DO RETURN END SUBROUTINE output_profile ! *********************END SUBROUTINE output_profile*************************************** SUBROUTINE rates_output() ! This subroutine print out the reaction rates profile (kg/m3/sec).T14.F6.'(T50.& F9.T108."=====".2)') & "Multiplication factor of secondary tar oxidation rate [-] Write(7.T68.10.T34.& "====="."rate6"."====="."=======".'(T2.T34.& Y_CO(i)*100.T78. A62. T70.T108.

F10.6)') & "Zone movement between 25 min and 30 min (mm/sec) =".1000)700.6)') & "Zone movement between 10 min and 15 min (mm/sec) =".'(T3. =".'(T2.'(T3.A)') "----------------------------------" Write(7.F10.'(T4. =". fuel_flow spe_gasi_rate LHV_gas gas_flow_vol tar_outlet air_fuel ER Energy_out Efficiency(N) RETURN END SUBROUTINE output_summary ! *********************END SUBROUTINE output_summary*************************************** SUBROUTINE output_summary7() ! This subroutine print out the results of reactor performance in output file. (maxTg_x20-maxTg_x25)/0.3)') "Equivalence ratio (-) Write(7. A46.D0.3D0 IF (output_time>=1800) Write(7. A50.'(T2.2)') "Primary tar Out let (mg/Nm3) Write(7. (maxTg_x10-maxTg_x15)/0. A47.ratem(i). (maxTg_x05-maxTg_x30)/1.F10.'(T3.F10.3)') "Air_fuel ratio [(-) kg/kgd.'(/T2.D0.2)')"Fuel consumption rate (kgw. A46.'(T2. A46.A)') "----------------------------------" Write(*.& rate8(i)*16.rate5R(i)*28.'(T3. A46.6/)') & "Average Zone movement between(mm/sec) =".'(T2.'(T3.b/m²hr) Write(7. A47.F10.'(T2. =". A47.'(T3.F10. =".'(T2.'(T2.b] Write(7.3)') "Air_fuel ratio [(-) kg/kgd. =".F10. (maxTg_x25-maxTg_x30)/0. A50. =".2)')"Fuel consumption rate (kgw.F10.rate1(i).rate10(i)*2.b/m²hr) Write(*. A47.3)') "Equivalence ratio (-) Write(*.F10. A50. (maxTg_x05-maxTg_x10)/0.6)') & "Zone movement between 20 min and 25 min (mm/sec) =".F10.rate7(i)*28.2)') "Gas production rate (Nm³/hr) Write(*.rate2(i). =".2)') "Specific gasification rate (kg d.A)') "----------------------------------" Write(7. =". A50.2)') "Total Energy out(MJ/hr) Write(*.2)') "Net heating value of gas (MJ/Nm3 d.F10. ! Write the output summary ! -----------------------Write(7.'(T4.'(T2. (maxTg_x15-maxTg_x20)/0. A50.D0.F10.b/hr) write(*.F10.rate5(i)*28.2)') "Total Energy out(MJ/hr) Write(7.D0.'(T2.rate9(i)*28.'(T2.F10. A46.A)') "----------------------------------" Write(*.2)') "Specific gasification rate (kg d.F10.3D0 IF (output_time>1500) Write(7. =". A46. =".0.b) Write(7. A47.6)') & "Zone movement between 15 min and 20 min (mm/sec) =".F10.F10.A)') "REACTOR PERFORMANCE RESULT SUMMARY" Write(*. fuel_flow spe_gasi_rate LHV_gas gas_flow_vol tar_outlet air_fuel ER Energy_out Efficiency(N) 294 .F10.rate6(i)*78. A47.'(T2.'(/T2.b) Write(*.& rate4(i).'(T2.D0.'(T3.3D0 IF (output_time>900) Write(7.'(T2.F10. A47.'(T3.2)') "Gas production rate (Nm³/hr) Write(7.F10.'(T2. =".6)') & "Zone movement between 05 min and 10 min (mm/sec) =". A46.F10.b/hr) write(7. =".3D0 IF (output_time>1200) Write(7.A)') "REACTOR PERFORMANCE RESULT SUMMARY" Write(7.2/)')"Cold gas efficiency (%) =".2)') "Primary tar Out let (mg/Nm3) Write(*.5D0 =".D0 END DO RETURN END SUBROUTINE rates_output ! *********************END SUBROUTINE rates_output***************************************** SUBROUTINE output_summary() ! This subroutine print out the results of reactor performance. A50. =".'(T2. =". A46.F10. =".'(//T3.N write(7.'(//T4.ratep1(i).'(T2. ! Write the output summary ! -----------------------Write(*. A47.F10.2)') "Net heating value of gas (MJ/Nm3 d.ratep2(i).3D0 IF (output_time==1800) Write(7.D0.rate3(i).-x(i)*1000.2/)')"Cold gas efficiency (%) IF (check_stage==1) THEN IF(output_time>600) Write(7. =".b] Write(*. A46.Appendix D Computer code listing DO i=1.F10. A47.

Appendix D Computer code listing END IF RETURN END SUBROUTINE output_summary7 ! *********************END SUBROUTINE output_summary*************************************** SUBROUTINE READ_TIME (run_time. INTENT(IN):: dt_init. dt_final ! This subroutine is to estimate the running time of program IF (dt_final(5)<dt_init(5)) THEN run_time = real(((dt_final(7)+dt_final(6)*60+(dt_final(5)+24)*3600)*1000+dt_final(8))-& ((dt_init(7)+dt_init(6)*60+dt_init(5)*3600)*1000+dt_init(8)))/1000. INTENT(OUT):: run_time INTEGER. ELSE run_time = real(((dt_final(7)+dt_final(6)*60+dt_final(5)*3600)*1000+dt_final(8))-& ((dt_init(7)+dt_init(6)*60+dt_init(5)*3600)*1000+dt_init(8)))/1000.dt_init. DIMENSION(8). END IF RETURN END SUBROUTINE READ_TIME ! ************************* END SUBROUTINE READ_TIME ************************************** END MODULE gasification_data !========================================================================================== ! END MODULE !========================================================================================== 295 .dt_final) REAL.

D0)* (1.D0 mole_g(1) = Y_O2(1)*mole_O2+Y_CO(1)*mole_CO +Y_CO2(1)*mole_CO2+Y_H2O(1)*mole_H2O+ & Y_H2(1)*mole_H2+Y_CH4(1)*mole_CH4+Y_C2H4(1)*mole_C2H4+Y_tar1(1)*mole_tar1+& Y_tar2(1)*mole_tar2+Y_N2(1)*mole_N2 ! For Energy balance ! -----------------P_Ts(1) = 0.D0 Q_Tg(1) = T_gas CALL initial() DO time=time+delta_t CALL pretime() iteration = 0 DO i=2.D0)* X1_char rho_m(1) = rho_biomass * (moisture/100.D0-mf_O2 = = = = = = = = 0. t.D0/(pi*D_rec**2.D0-ash/100. USE gasification_data CALL user_input() call date_and_time (date.D0-X1_char) m_g(1) Y_O2(1) Y_N2(1) Y_CO(1) Y_CO2(1) Y_H2O(1) Y_H2(1) Y_CH4(1) Y_C2H4(1) Y_tar1(1) Y_tar2(1) = air_rate*4. OPEN ( UNIT=7. FILE=filename.D0 0.D0 0.D0 0. zone. ACCESS='SEQUENTIAL'.D0 END DO 296 .IOSTAT=ierror ) IF (ierror==0) THEN ! Open successful ! Print out the input data CALL input() ! ************************************* ! Initialize the operational parameters ! ************************************* depth_bio = L_rec-depth_char ! For mass balance ! ---------------rho_char(1) = rho_biomass * (1.N gasheat(i)=0. ! Outputs of the model are transient solid and gas temperature profile along the gasifier & ! density of different species.D0 0.Appendix D Computer code listing !========================================================================================== ! START MAIN PROGRAM !========================================================================================== PROGRAM gasification ! This program is a transient model for stratified downdraft wood gasifier.D0*3600. gas composition (Including tar) porfile along the gasifier.D0) = mf_O2 = 1.D0 0.D0-ash/100.D0 0. dt_init) ! Open output file. STATUS='replace'.D0 Q_Ts(1) = T_a P_Tg(1) = 0.D0 0. & FORM='FORMATTED'.D0) rho_volt(1) = rho_biomass * (1.

dt_final) CALL mass_balance() CALL gasifier_performance() CALL output_summary() 297 .T_g) CALL thomas(N.N CALL solid_balance() CALL gas_balance() END DO T_sold(1)=T_s(1) T_gold(1)=T_g(1) DO i=2.2.OR.NINT(time)."sec.A4.I6.P_Tg."no of iteration =". zone.CONVERGENCE PROBLEM ----------' EXIT END IF END DO Write(*.T45.-1 CALL solid_velocity() END DO DO i=2.T25.A18. iteration CALL NON_diment_Tg () CALL static_rezone () CALL coldgas_efficiency() IF IF IF IF IF IF (NINT(time)==300) call (NINT(time)==600) call (NINT(time)==900) call (NINT(time)==1200)call (NINT(time)==1500)call (NINT(time)==1800)call Tg_peak() Tg_peak() Tg_peak() Tg_peak() Tg_peak() Tg_peak() IF (NINT(time)==output_time) EXIT END DO CALL date_and_time (date.P_Ts.Q_Ts.T2.T_s) DO i=1.I5)")& "time =".T10.Appendix D Computer code listing DO logic = 0 DO i=2.T18.Q_Tg. t.N CALL wallh() CALL thomasenergy_balance() T_sold(i)=T_s(i) T_gold(i)=T_g(i) END DO CALL thomas(N.N CALL mh_coefficient() CALL reaction_rates() END DO DO i=N.N IF (ABS((T_s(i)-T_sold(i))/T_s(i))>error.N CALL particle_diameter() END DO sec_check=1 DO i=2.A7."(' '.& ABS((T_g(i)-T_gold(i))/T_g(i))>error) logic=1 END DO iteration = iteration + 1 IF (logic==0) EXIT IF (iteration>1000)THEN Write(*.".*)'------.

‘Essential Lahey Fortran 90.60. T63. Hyman. I5. no.dt_init. F6.*)'Error opening file:error='.). Los Alamos National Laboratory. Lahey Computer Systems 1998.lahey.ierror END IF ! Close file CLOSE (UNIT=7) STOP END PROGRAM gasification !========================================================================================== ! END MAIN PROGRAM !========================================================================================== References Fritsch. Numerical heat transfer and fluid flow. T17. T27. SV 1980."min". Revision D’."sec" Write(*. NM. Lahey Computer Systems.Appendix D Computer code listing CALL READ_TIME (run_time. vol.filename CALL output_profile() CALL rates_output() CALL output_summary7() ELSE Write(*. Static rezone methods for tensor-product grids. 298 . ‘Monotone piecewise cubic interpolation’. FN & Carlson. MJ 1983. RE 1980. A15. Pantankar.. T22. A4)') & "Running time =". <http://www. Report LAUR-83-3245. Siam J Numer Anal.'(/T2.'(T2. Inc.com/>.dt_final) Write(*. 17.3. A)') & "See the result details in your defined output file called". USA.INT(run_time/60. A58. Los Alamos. JM & Naughton. T33. 2. pp. mod(run_time.) . New York: McGraw-Hill. A4. 238-46.

In this section. BSI 1965)] 299 .Appendix E Air mass flow measurement using orifice plate with D & D/2 tappings Appendix E Air mass flow measurement using orifice plate with D & D/2 tappings A schematic of the orifice plate with D& D/2 tappings is presented in Figure E1.27CZεEd 2 ∆pρ (Page 23. details of the air mass flow measurement procedure using the orifice plate with D & D/2 tappings is described. BSI 1965) where W C Z ε = mass flow rate (kg/hr) = basic coefficient [Value read from C vs m graph (Page 120. D D D/2 d t Figure E1 Constructional arrangement of experimental orifice plate with D and D/2 tappings Air mass flow in a D & D/2 tappings orifice plate can be determined using the following equation and its auxiliary equations: W = 163. BSI 1965)] = correction factor [Z = ZR * ZD] = expansibility factor [Value read from graph (Page 122.

03T + 8. Nozzles and Venturi Tubes.9970E .05T 2 + 8.Appendix E Air mass flow measurement using orifice plate with D & D/2 tappings E d ∆p ρ = velocity approach factor [ = 1 (1 − m 2 ) ] = orifice or throat diameter (inches) = pressure difference (inches H2O) = density of fluid at upstream tapping (lb/ft³) ρ = 2. Page 48.4482E . BSI 1965)] Reference British Standards Institution 1965.7[δ (P − pv ) / KT + 0.06T 3 + 1. BSI 1965) where δ P T K pv RH pvs = specific gravity of the dry gas [for air =1 (Page 41. BSI 1965)] = Pipe size correction factor [Value read from ZD vs m graph (Page 121. Methods for the measurement of fluid flow in pipes: Part1.S. 1042 : Part 1 : 1964. BSI 1965)] = partial pressure of water vapour (lb/in²) [ = RHpvs ] = relative humidity = saturation vapour pressure at the temperature at the upstream tapping (lb/in²) [values can read from table 6.6892E . BSI 1965] [ = 9. BSI 1965)] = the absolute pressure at the upstream tapping (lb/in²) = the absolute temperature at upstream tapping in degrees Rankine (°F + 456. B.3783E .67) = gas law deviation coefficient at the temperature T and pressure P [taken as unity (Page 50. Orifice Plates.02 ] m ZR ZD = area ratio (d²/D²) = Reynold number correction factor [Value read from ZR vs m graph (Page 120.62 pv / T ] (Page 40. 300 .

Appendix F Experimental test summaries Appendix F Experimental test summaries 301 .

84 C 3.6 450 1183.9 (MJ/hr) 100 581.50 350 mm above grate 15.00E-03 350 mm above grate 117 Moisture 0.59 450 mm above grate 11.9 (Nm³/hr) 700 23.50 84.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) min after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of 4.1 O 7.50 11.38 11.7 750 23.75 H2O 1.37 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 21.05 3.2 200 702.49 53.9 Outlet gas 484.8 Gas flow rate 17.0 700 38.37 56.50 Outlet gas 15.14 O 6.51 1.35 16.09 Dry gas composition (vol%) .58 Outlet gas 58 Closure (%) 94.47 17.4 300 816.6 Energy Out 80.93 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 467.5 (-) 400 1023.37 55.18 1.8 Cold gas 59.76 4.89 1.05 0.7 350 976.8 11.61 12.3 400 1140.59 1.8 Total 21.35 N 11.68 93.33 54.35 100.52 17.30 52.79 1.22 250 mm above grate 46 Total 22.4 Air/Fuel ratio 2.78 1.4 800 22.9 650 25.Second sampling [45 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 4.68 outlet gas Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 22.47 H 0.82 4.61 5.5 250 743.1 150 671.1 600 97.51 250 mm above grate 15.4 200 717.7 650 57.33 88.4 500 1188.9 500 1159.25 Tar 1.21 11.74 18.7 50 533.10 68.50 17.76 9.55 54.17 19.15 300 859.27 61.48 0.7 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 3.80 Gas 20.0 wood (kg/hr) 550 527.00 600 59.19 250 mm above grate 13.40 84.67 12.0 350 939.36 11.4 (MJ/hr) 250 777.80 Experimental setting Height of charcoal 400 (mm above grate) Ignition level 400 (mm above grate) Results Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [30 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 3.46 11.30 Gauge pressure (kPa) 1.93 12.4 Consumption of 8.1 302 .Appendix F Experimental test summaries Run no: 311 Duration of run: 66 min Operating Variables Fuel (wood blocks) properties Size (mm) Moisture content (%wb) 20 x 20 x 20 9.85 Outlet gas 14.38 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 3416 Air 14.99 150 654.1 550 804.15 82.42 Density (kg/m³) 1.0 100 626.36 450 mm above grate 129 Dry wood 7.22 Flow rate (kg/hr) 14.33 1.04 450 1084.6 H 0.14 1.0 50 553.31 750 22.81 450 mm above grate 9.8 N 11.56 350 mm above grate 13.6 Energy In 135.

0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) min after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of 5.8 Energy Out 106.55 99.03 Outlet gas 17.87 7.07 Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [45 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 2.0 550 854.59 52.38 Total 25.46 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 2994 Air 16.9 600 122.98 250 mm above grate 16.96 Density (kg/m³) 1.36 350 mm above grate 15.54 14.63 6.55 3.51 1.90 300 844.6 (-) 400 1018.1 Gas flow rate 21.1 300 819.58 Tar 7.49 8.51 85.2 650 28.49 1.5 (MJ/hr) 100 554.81 59.30 O 7.63 48.05 450 mm above grate 8.18 87.0 Cold gas 66.2 650 36.6 50 573.35 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 487.43 250 mm above grate 129 Total 26.82 66.02 12.98 N 12.42 49.03 outlet gas Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 23.79 12.58 1.2 200 683.55 H 0.92 Gas 23.73 82.3 wood (kg/hr) 550 504.6 Outlet gas 509.92 95.41 H 0.10 18.9 100 599.9 350 977.75 350 mm above grate 13.41 Outlet gas 17.68 14.97 450 1210 450 1127.76 450 mm above grate 250 Dry wood 8.00 250 mm above grate 17.5 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 4.19 O 8.69 N 12.62 55.00 0.86 16.83 18.22 Flow rate (kg/hr) 16.32 12.0 200 680.7 400 1046.9 Air/Fuel ratio 1.95 1.98 100.54 C 3.88 H2O 1.26 14.69 14.99 13.39 12.70 Gauge pressure (kPa) 1.46 600 66.08 750 24.6 800 26.10 150 636.06 1.71 56.17E-04 350 mm above grate 133 Moisture 0.50 50.Appendix F Experimental test summaries Run no: 314 Duration of run: 68 min Operating Variables Fuel (wood blocks) properties Size (mm) Moisture content (%wb) 20 x 20 x 20 9.7 350 920.0 Energy In 159.92 Experimental setting Height of charcoal 400 (mm above grate) Ignition level 400 (mm above grate) Results Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [30 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 1.70 14.71 11.9 (MJ/hr) 250 759.3 250 736.8 150 642.19 Outlet gas 34 Closure (%) 95.2 700 31.34 1.98 19.60 1.75 1.4 500 994.8 500 1170.2 50 542.91 3.71 450 mm above grate 11.82 1.4 Consumption of 9.32 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 21.7 (Nm³/hr) 700 25.1 750 28.8 303 .

4 Energy Out 137.95 13.89 450 mm above grate 7.8 (Nm³/hr) 700 76.18 1.11 54.12 450 950.56 62.7 550 1189.4 Outlet gas 483.61 600 1017.06 Total 32.08 Outlet gas 17.30 17.04 98.34 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 460.46 1.49 46.45 60.23 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 32.7 (MJ/hr) 100 545.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) min after ignition (40-50) min after ignition Net HV of 5.84 11.0 Consumption of 10.04 150 604.7 Air/Fuel ratio 2.10 C 5.21 18.8 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 5.8 350 726.25 Outlet gas 47 Closure (%) 103.8 500 1112.1 800 32.68 100.7 650 569.26E-03 350 mm above grate 233 Moisture 0.30 48.02 H 0.98 H2O 1.20 250 mm above grate 17.2 (-) 400 822.22 19.4 200 619.44 18.18 Flow rate (kg/hr) 20.13 14.9 Cold gas 76.01 350 mm above grate 14.68 N 15.89 O 9.24 14.63 Tar 1.30 62.62 H 0.05 13.33 53.98 1.65 68.Appendix F Experimental test summaries Run no: 318 Duration of run: 72 min Operating Variables Fuel (wood blocks) properties Size (mm) Moisture content (%wb) 20 x 20 x 20 9.33 1.4 wood (kg/hr) 550 1205.4 50 513.67 14.00 12.6 350 695.95 13.3 200 587.71 114.7 50 538.4 450 883.80 750 32.36 1.64 14.69 N 15.29 18.6 700 81.3 750 36.1 Energy In 179.7 400 766.11 13.84 1.9 (MJ/hr) 250 630.19 13.65 O 10.2 300 620.8 304 .34 17.1 500 1035.52 300 678.45 Experimental setting Height of charcoal 500 (mm above grate) Ignition level 500 (mm above grate) Results Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [30 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 4.52 Outlet gas 18.20 350 mm above grate 14.9 650 476.15 1.83 250 mm above grate 15.43 450 mm above grate 322 Dry wood 9.24 51.69 12.4 250 571.95 450 mm above grate 10.72 Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [40 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 6.83 250 mm above grate 105 Total 31.46 48.77 1.7 Gas flow rate 26.40 Density (kg/m³) 1.1 150 573.60 Gauge pressure (kPa) 2.9 100 572.11 outlet gas Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 32.81 112.57 1.4 600 1050.90 14.56 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 1547 Air 20.72 16.45 Gas 30.63 1.

13 13.7 Air/Fuel ratio 1.65 H2O 1.35 450 mm above grate 16.17 1.Appendix F Experimental test summaries Run no: 320 Duration of run: 98 min Operating Variables Fuel (wood blocks) properties Size (mm) Moisture content (%wb) 20 x 20 x 20 8.53 600 1140.49 110.37 46.45 15.32 1.9 Cold gas 70.10 6.25 110.10 13.4 250 530.50 47.7 650 912.40 20.9 700 575.31 Outlet gas 37 Closure (%) 102.8 450 842.74 18.28 18.1 (-) 400 769.15 outlet gas Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 21.89 N 10.75 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 637 Air 13.2 (Nm³/hr) 700 355.88 Tar 6.67 49.2 350 685.6 350 622.87 11.6 (MJ/hr) 100 491.20 48.67 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 472.46 350 mm above grate 17.9 Energy Out 90.83 11.65 H 0.32 47.44 H 0.47 1.22 100.3 550 1044.50 Gauge pressure (kPa) 2.21 250 mm above grate 18.9 wood (kg/hr) 550 1103.57 12.94 450 941.4 Consumption of 7.22 300 591.07 21.78 250 mm above grate 18.5 650 971.36 92.70 46.32 Gas 20.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) min after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of 5.00 Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [45 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 8.24 8.25 Flow rate (kg/hr) 13.1 Gas flow rate 17.53 1.7 400 714.32 Experimental setting Height of charcoal 500 (mm above grate) Ignition level 500 (mm above grate) Results Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [30 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 11.21 14.69 350 mm above grate 19.43 47.4 500 928.11 O 6.3 50 482.2 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 3.3 500 1050.27 Outlet gas 18.55 O 7.2 800 31.11 1.1 305 .1 200 531.44 67.61 750 23.0 50 496.83 18.79 12.9 Outlet gas 471.2 300 565.33 20.10 450 mm above grate 151 Dry wood 6.50 20.9 750 39.61 150 526.32 18.2 (MJ/hr) 250 536.55 16.41 Density (kg/m³) 1.55 450 mm above grate 16.51E-04 350 mm above grate 134 Moisture 0.21 250 mm above grate 107 Total 20.65 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 17.64 C 3.8 150 501.24 Outlet gas 18.8 100 490.60 1.9 600 1192.49 13.43 44.26 1.32 1.70 1.5 Energy In 128.22 N 10.2 200 521.85 Total 21.14 1.22 72.

7 800 20.38 250 mm above grate 15.94 outlet gas Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 18.86 H 0.0 750 23.00 13.68 N 16.20 11.4 Outlet gas 483.35 13.32 95.94 100.15 13.21 60.97 1.87 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 3465 Air 22.5 450 897.6 350 747.94 Outlet gas 17.57 49.30 65.52 350 mm above grate 11.49 18.1 (MJ/hr) 100 583.94 N 16.41 75.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) min after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of 4.5 wood (kg/hr) 550 938.99E-04 350 mm above grate 152 Moisture 1.Appendix F Experimental test summaries Run no: 502 Duration of run: 80 Operating Variables Fuel (wood blocks) properties Size (mm) Moisture content (%wb) 20 x 20 x 20 8.56 52.0 550 1163.01 14.98 1.42 12.97 450 1075.88 1.7 Energy Out 134.5 350 809.71 18.8 150 650.5 300 701.89 450 mm above grate 7.70 13.8 (-) 400 853.24 O 10.9 Gas flow rate 27.99 1.2 Consumption of 12.34 Density (kg/m³) 1.0 (MJ/hr) 250 756.75 1.7 Cold gas 64.77 1.95 450 mm above grate 219 Dry wood 11.73 1.1 306 .86 250 mm above grate 80 Total 34.65 72.6 650 47.57 58.69 7.78 14.4 Air/Fuel ratio 1.2 500 1185.29 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 464.86 17.65 13.1 250 696.99 350 mm above grate 12.77 O 10.78 5.29 600 166.09 Gas 30.97 1.40 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 5.2 100 607.02 250 mm above grate 16.8 200 652.09 Experimental setting Height of charcoal 400 (mm above grate) Ignition level 400 (mm above grate) Results Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [30 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 4.0 50 535.24 750 19.70 98.29 18.19 450 mm above grate 10.43 300 785.46 17.64 150 627.05 H2O 1.3 700 24.95 10.24 Tar 5.7 50 519.11 11.84 81.22 Flow rate (kg/hr) 22.58 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 22.95 C 4.7 Energy In 209.50 12.31 57.71 H 0.65 13.62 51.40 Gauge pressure (kPa) 2.65 Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [45 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 3.28 Outlet gas 16.6 400 792.99 1.8 200 667.7 600 195.5 650 24.81 Outlet gas 22 Closure (%) 95.0 (Nm³/hr) 700 19.9 500 1090.38 Total 32.50 49.77 1.

56 450 mm above grate 10.38 Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [30 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 4.3 (-) 400 1138.89 16.00 7.30 12.9 (MJ/hr) 100 523.77 13.58 1.00 64.38 O 8.74 H2O 1.01 18.76 49.21 14.6 Energy Out 117.67 52.61 2.5 800 22.9 350 1035.1 Gas flow rate 23.85 350 mm above grate 15.11 14.91 2.04 17.3 550 85.8 307 .8 250 818.03 59.3 700 25.16 59.23 1.12 16.7 100 602.6 50 553.9 500 698.42 71.60 Experimental setting Height of charcoal 400 (mm above grate) Ignition level 400 (mm above grate) Results Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [10 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 0.7 600 43.2 650 17.0 (Nm³/hr) 700 17.24 350 mm above grate 9.1 0.13 1.2 350 1000.20 15.78 600 17.44 50.8 50 404.99 14.5 200 708.5 Outlet gas 482.70 Gauge pressure (kPa) 1.73 C 4.4 650 28.81 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 342.41 Outlet gas 11.81 2.8 200 748.03 N 15.47 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 20.8 Energy In 131.60 Gas 26.5 500 725.95 outlet gas Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 15.30 101.83 12.02 Outlet gas 20 Closure (%) 102.5 (MJ/hr) 250 859.04 Tar 4.05 9.57 124.12 110.18 13.4 150 691.00 2.74 H 0.91 150 628.02 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 2874 Air 19.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (10-15) min after ignition (30-40) min after ignition Net HV of 4.32 58.70 16.16 O 8.89 Outlet gas 18.03 100.77E-04 350 mm above grate 81 Moisture 0.9 0.35 0.84 18.29 300 955.16 59.8 Cold gas 89.3 Consumption of 7.46 H 0.3 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 3.06 250 mm above grate 16.7 300 919.4 wood (kg/hr) 550 59.94 450 mm above grate 419 Dry wood 7.Appendix F Experimental test summaries Run no: 504 Duration of run: 78 min Operating Variables Fuel (wood blocks) properties Size (mm) Moisture content (%wb) 20 x 20 x 20 9.83 750 16.0 450 1240.23 Flow rate (kg/hr) 19.78 450 1047.0 750 24.66 13.1 400 1151.38 250 mm above grate 10.65 N 15.8 1.56 450 mm above grate 6.89 Density (kg/m³) 1.66 17.3 Air/Fuel ratio 2.89 11.38 Total 28.08 250 mm above grate 94 Total 27.00 73.

7 300 690.03 65.82 Outlet gas 17.33 Density (kg/m³) 1.3 250 588.9 (MJ/hr) 100 482.2 Air/Fuel ratio 2.33 18.6 500 1145.00 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) min after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of 4.94 105.49 1.83 14.8 Outlet gas 405.3 (MJ/hr) 250 629.96 1.4 450 1005.0 308 .25 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 396.53 350 mm above grate 16.69 350 mm above grate 16.54 300 739.19 250 mm above grate 115 Total 20.71 11.98 N 10.09 450 1072.28 600 861.63 18.60 50.32 12.86 15.20 450 mm above grate 14.96 Outlet gas 50 Closure (%) 100.0 (Nm³/hr) 700 29.90 18.55 13.50 Gas 19.6 150 524.5 350 806.78 Total 20.43 H 0.35 100.47 48.8 (-) 400 940.34 2.Appendix F Experimental test summaries Run no: 506 Duration of run: 113 min Operating Variables Fuel (wood blocks) properties Size (mm) Moisture content (%wb) 20 x 20 x 20 11.66 O 6.89 150 532.43 C 3.2 800 21.55 17.1 350 859.32 17.47 Tar 8.77 14.79 10.65E-04 350 mm above grate 79 Moisture 0.86 18.9 500 1089.1 50 438.89 50.6 Consumption of 7.8 200 540.77 450 mm above grate 228 Dry wood 6.0 Energy Out 85.26 14.45 103.4 550 1188.71 1.57 O 6.65 Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [45 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 8.11 250 mm above grate 17.39 12.3 Gas flow rate 17.38 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 3982 Air 13.16 450 mm above grate 15.68 13.29 1.64 13.52 250 mm above grate 16.5 Energy In 120.46 54.6 650 381.29 50.75 1.01 65.21 93.63 49.46 1.17 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 23.22 Flow rate (kg/hr) 13.20 Gauge pressure (kPa) 2.33 47.5 750 29.35 N 10.7 50 445.6 600 1125.82 1.75 1.5 700 98.80 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 3.5 100 474.73 H 0.86 Outlet gas 17.45 13.5 Cold gas 71.50 Experimental setting Height of charcoal 400 (mm above grate) Ignition level 400 (mm above grate) Results Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [30 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 7.6 400 887.5 650 831.2 wood (kg/hr) 550 1088.91 55.96 outlet gas Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 18.69 14.66 1.30 750 19.81 H2O 1.7 200 556.67 11.

1 650 34.75 15.9 800 26.63 18.11 250 mm above grate 206 Total 37.43 14.8 (MJ/hr) 250 757.5 400 1061.9 350 1263.28 1.03 outlet gas Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 22.9 Energy Out 162.00 0.96 1.39 Density (kg/m³) 1.83 Total 38.29 48.4 200 724.70 Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [45 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 0.8 Energy In 217.73 93.43 16.17 C 6.19 100.73 Experimental setting Height of charcoal 400 (mm above grate) Ignition level 400 (mm above grate) Results Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [30 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 0.4 Outlet gas 598.2 300 1064.03 300 895.06 1.99 H 0.39 17.55 13.5 Gas flow rate 32.00 97.97 N 18.97 100.16E-04 350 mm above grate 185 Moisture 1.7 700 29.37 450 mm above grate 2.00 99.5 50 609.6 50 622.00 81.19 56.99 350 mm above grate 12.3 600 36.34 O 11.4 500 81.4 500 448.75 1.39 103.80 1.7 Air/Fuel ratio 2.00 0.64 Tar 5.11 250 mm above grate 16.22 0.3 wood (kg/hr) 550 68.05 N 18.12 450 999.73 Gas 37.23 Flow rate (kg/hr) 24.86 Outlet gas 17.12 53.55 250 mm above grate 16.21 0.00 2.3 Cold gas 74.1 (MJ/hr) 100 661.00 0.Appendix F Experimental test summaries Run no: 508 Duration of run (min): 74 min Operating Variables Fuel (wood blocks) properties Size (mm) Moisture content (%wb) 20 x 20 x 20 11.4 550 55.68 11.84 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 580.10 600 44.10 Gauge pressure (kPa) 4.47 48.56 18.10 72.7 (-) 400 1198.99 15.1 150 658.67 Outlet gas 17.49 5.38 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 406 Air 24.6 250 898.2 350 932.12 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 27.39 49.11 4.74 14.7 100 631.42 150 675.0 450 665.79 450 mm above grate 4.9 309 .20 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 6.75 18.50 46.0 750 27.2 Consumption of 13.27 Outlet gas 16 Closure (%) 101.28 750 24.70 1.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) min after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of 5.91 O 12.81 14.16 1.6 200 807.46 H2O 1.63 0.7 (Nm³/hr) 700 25.99 15.59 14.9 650 39.78 H 0.16 450 mm above grate 1475 Dry wood 11.87 350 mm above grate 14.

1 (MJ/hr) 250 578.6 (Nm³/hr) 700 20.61 46.5 150 502.46E-04 350 mm above grate 211 Moisture 0.11 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 20.0 250 609.30 7.50 Experimental setting Height of charcoal 400 (mm above grate) Ignition level 400 (mm above grate) Results Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [30 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 2.15 1.53 O 4.35 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 393.9 350 748.3 50 431.8 200 552.31 H 0.39 450 mm above grate 307 Dry wood 4.59 17.21 88.41 51.25 600 37.83 1.20 Outlet gas 17.0 750 22.5 800 18.5 Energy In 87.19 O 4.13 1.0 600 523.80 250 mm above grate 17.75 N 5.18 1.60 750 18.09 outlet gas Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 17.17 Outlet gas 18.6 310 .90 Gauge pressure (kPa) 4.00 1.1 Air/Fuel ratio 1.78 80.53 43.90 1.44 45.92 16.50 C 2.95 16.59 450 1049.3 450 1051.00 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 2.2 500 1052.25 56.07 58.91 1.5 wood (kg/hr) 550 467.98 18.5 350 746.5 Consumption of 5.3 50 426.27 1.0 Energy Out 53.82 13.5 Cold gas 61.14 15.10 Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [45 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 5.62 10.58 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 3046 Air 7.61 Density (kg/m³) 1.43 49.Appendix F Experimental test summaries Run no: 510 Duration of run (min): 137 min Operating Variables Fuel (wood blocks) properties Size (mm) Moisture content (%wb) 20 x 20 x 20 10.38 74.56 17.51 16.57 H 0.45 250 mm above grate 16.17 16.8 400 915.0 550 872.4 200 534.14 350 mm above grate 15.74 250 mm above grate 135 Total 12.7 (-) 400 983.26 Flow rate (kg/hr) 7.29 92.4 Outlet gas 404.10 17.78 1.25 11.75 100.9 Gas flow rate 10.3 650 22.21 18.30 18.53 H2O 0.20 N 5.75 Total 13.49 18.31 46.13 Outlet gas 61 Closure (%) 103.70 17.0 650 53.97 150 497.1 (MJ/hr) 100 440.5 100 448.1 300 661.48 450 mm above grate 11.88 116.88 0.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40-) min after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of 5.61 4.2 500 1070.84 16.97 300 671.9 700 28.07 350 mm above grate 14.90 12.50 Gas 12.72 Tar 6.79 450 mm above grate 12.

87 outlet gas Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 15.35 Outlet gas 17.1 200 608.1 250 662.5 (-) 400 938.58 16.64 H2O 0.52 13.07 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 3332 Air 10.66 1.6 Energy In 101.82 Total 16.20 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 2.78 450 mm above grate 10.68 13.37 H 0.10 95.96 78.24 1.78 61.06 1.3 750 17.08 14.41 O 5.4 (MJ/hr) 100 499.11 450 mm above grate 182 Dry wood 5.1 50 441.54 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 19.13 350 mm above grate 13.0 150 568.8 311 .02 Outlet gas 65 Closure (%) 95.71 17.40 53.96 450 1055.50 4.31 Density (kg/m³) 1.5 100 534.4 Energy Out 64.8 300 750.21 100.76 350 mm above grate 14.49 250 mm above grate 17.85 14.59 150 543.3 800 17.45 1.04 15.3 700 25.38 Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [45 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 2.89 300 756.24 18.5 400 881.8 50 479.22 Flow rate (kg/hr) 10.37 75.62 13.11 600 610.7 Consumption of 6.7 650 48.4 600 759.29 Outlet gas 17.8 450 1000.0 350 798.93 14.15 51.73 1.70 Gauge pressure (kPa) 1.50 1.56 18.71 Experimental setting Height of charcoal 400 (mm above grate) Ignition level 400 (mm above grate) Results Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [30 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 1.36 81.47 Tar 8.14 0.87 250 mm above grate 16.71 Gas 15.5 550 1083.8 500 1138.27 750 15.87 11.39 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 406.21 N 8.38 16.54 1.79 14.92 N 8.02 10.35 O 5.1 Cold gas 63.0 wood (kg/hr) 550 1035.64 12.90 C 2.9 650 62.3 200 590.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) min after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of 4.76 1.68 54.91 250 mm above grate 182 Total 16.3 (MJ/hr) 250 660.9 Air/Fuel ratio 1.43 49.8 500 1130.9 Outlet gas 436.15 16.24 1.3 350 793.63E-04 350 mm above grate 161 Moisture 0.34 94.36 H 0.33 4.52 55.09 13.6 (Nm³/hr) 700 18.56 60.Appendix F Experimental test summaries Run no: 513 Duration of run (min): 128 min Operating Variables Fuel (wood blocks) properties Size (mm) Moisture content (%wb) 20 x 20 x 20 10.35 450 mm above grate 10.0 Gas flow rate 13.78 49.

4 750 14.Appendix F Experimental test summaries Run no: 515 Duration of run: 111 min Operating Variables Fuel (wood blocks) properties Size (mm) Moisture content (%wb) 20 x 20 x 20 9.80 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 2.2 Consumption of 6.00 1.3 500 608.07 16.3 800 14.25 2.2 600 25.88 350 mm above grate 13.7 Energy Out 60.32 Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 14.15 94.67 100.85 450 mm above grate 9.57 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 488.8 200 740.2 200 761.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) min after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of outlet gas 4.19 10.22 56.2 700 16.59 Tar 6.86 107.47 Outlet gas 16.4 (-) 400 1148.04 63.7 350 1076.1 Air/Fuel ratio 2.4 Gas flow rate 13.42 Outlet gas 48 Closure (%) 99.1 Cold gas 57.9 350 991.9 (Nm³/hr) 700 15.56 H2O 0.67E-04 350 mm above grate 145 Moisture 0.2 Energy In 104.34 94.31 Gas 16.4 250 754.43 450 mm above grate 1016 Dry wood 5.46 Total 17.99 250 mm above grate 126 Total 17.6 50 559.36 H 0.29 Flow rate (kg/hr) 11.9 (MJ/hr) 100 596.25 300 921.51 Density (kg/m³) 1.91 17.0 550 62.88 250 mm above grate 15.1 400 1129.3 wood (kg/hr) 550 49.15 600 18.2 650 17.1 100 599.4 500 750.08 49.26 H 0.4 Outlet gas 504.65 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 674 Air 11.02 450 1039.3 312 .96 C 2.1 150 652.29 51.91 O 5.26 1.06 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 21.02 150 659.67 N 8.6 650 15.50 12.62 15.1 50 534.37 16.46 O 5.36 15.71 1.31 Experimental setting Height of charcoal 400 (mm above grate) Ignition level 400 (mm above grate) Results Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [30 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 0.9 300 871.30 Gauge pressure (kPa) 7.90 750 14.6 (MJ/hr) 250 802.5 450 1074.91 0.94 N 8.55 85.84 1.47 15.02 1.

7 350 773.46 Density (kg/m³) 1.0 (-) 400 873.40 15.7 550 1155.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) min after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of outlet gas 4.5 50 534.46 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 23.2 Energy Out 98.48 Gas 22.77 1.87 100.00 1.79 14.11 51.9 300 769.4 Energy In 118.92 18.19 15.41 H 0.68 13.90 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 3.2 (MJ/hr) 250 702.96 350 mm above grate 16.43 450 1009.33 Outlet gas 17.Appendix F Experimental test summaries Run no: 517 Duration of run: 117 min Operating Variables Fuel (wood blocks) properties Size (mm) Moisture content (%wb) 20 x 20 x 20 9.4 350 763.08 1.2 250 704.5 Cold gas 83.95 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 3278 Air 15.51 Total 22.3 750 23.34 47.43 O 6.0 Consumption of 7.41 100.64 300 767.7 500 1093.8 (MJ/hr) 100 553.3 150 607.92 250 mm above grate 15.50 56.74 50.90 Gauge pressure (kPa) 2.19 70.06 16.21 Flow rate (kg/hr) 15.3 (Nm³/hr) 700 23.08 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 423.9 800 22.3 650 301.7 Outlet gas 445.4 200 666.45 H 0.36 Tar 6.4 Air/Fuel ratio 2.93 Outlet gas 35 Closure (%) 101.79 7.85 750 19.3 400 863.1 100 570.85 O 7.62 107.95E-04 350 mm above grate 84 Moisture 0.60 N 11.8 50 515.02 102.84 13.97 Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 18.9 650 48.0 450 1006.0 wood (kg/hr) 550 1027.48 Experimental setting Height of charcoal 500 (mm above grate) Ignition level 500 (mm above grate) Results Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [30 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 5.9 313 .11 18.32 15.0 700 26.96 0.5 600 907.75 450 mm above grate 12.7 500 1189.37 C 3.5 Gas flow rate 19.87 N 11.03 600 408.67 H2O 0.48 450 mm above grate 380 Dry wood 6.2 200 659.57 150 593.45 250 mm above grate 77 Total 22.30 1.

00 0.4 350 1215.06 50.1 800 23.62 15.9 Cold gas 69.2 Consumption of 11.2 wood (kg/hr) 550 117.9 100 761.5 350 1186.42 100.1 Gas flow rate 27.05 63.33 13. 314 .5 650 32.23 10.5 650 28.94 450 mm above grate 376 Dry wood 10.13 1.41 13.42 C 4.71 H 0.1 (MJ/hr) 250 968.04 78.44 52.38 250 mm above grate 15.6 400 958.57 O 10.80 300 1195.63 19.48 2.89 8.00 100.00 1.55 97.50 1.5 500 296.75 105.27 50.9 50 689.83 outlet gas Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 20.71 Experimental setting Height of charcoal 500 (mm above grate) Ignition level 500 (mm above grate) Results Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [30 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 0.10 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 5.72 Outlet gas 16.2 300 1177.4 700 31.3 500 517.9 Energy Out 131.00 100.99 1.40E-03 350 mm above grate 168 Moisture 1.00 0.00 H 0.30 750 21.98 15.5 600 66.4 Air/Fuel ratio 2.68 90.42 Outlet gas 88 Closure (%) 97.1 550 103.99 Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [45 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 0.42 N 17.71 Gas 30.Appendix F Experimental test summaries Run no: 522 Duration of run: 67 min Operating Variables Fuel (wood blocks) properties Size (mm) Moisture content (%wb) 30 x 30 x 30 12.7 450 618.8 200 903.0 (Nm³/hr) 700 25.0 (-) 400 1094.00 450 mm above grate 0.88 O 10.59 2.98 N 17.12 65.00 0.94 Density (kg/m³) 1.8 Outlet gas 572.00 0.38 17.0 Energy In 190.00 0.71 350 mm above grate 8.48 250 mm above grate 174 Total 34.79 12.60 17.00 450 mm above grate 1.66 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 16.22 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 2245 Air 22.06 1.4 (MJ/hr) 100 735.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) min after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of 4.4 150 830.20 Gauge pressure (kPa) 1.24 Flow rate (kg/hr) 22.22 450 962.00 0.88 150 783.5 750 26.5 250 1101.6 * Gas sample composition was not measurable due to a leakage in gas sampling container.72 600 42.09 5.41 0.48 H2O 2.95 18.9 50 694.24 250 mm above grate N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A* Outlet gas 15.24 Tar 2.12 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 525.43 Total 33.3 200 958.68 1.34 350 mm above grate 9.69 86.

46 47.29 600 38.2 50 607.00 250 mm above grate 124 Total 17.87 14.28 18.2 350 1037.20 15.62 O 5.60 1.98 14.62 450 mm above grate 395 Dry wood 5.49 47.28 Gas 16.35 1.80 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 784 Air 11.4 150 710.78 H2O 1.8 250 838.00 450 mm above grate 11.3 750 19.1 (-) 400 1089.68 91.8 200 732.17 250 mm above grate 15.46 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 23.75 1.20 69.6 Energy Out 70.4 650 23.1 100 697.17 Outlet gas 18.51 Tar 6.40 Gauge pressure (kPa) 1.0 500 660.5 800 20.57 Total 17.62 N 8.94 250 mm above grate 16.21 Flow rate (kg/hr) 11.67 16.61 49.13 55.9 Gas flow rate 14.00 0.65 N 8.64 300 922.79 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 471.86 60.80 O 5.09 1.90 104.69 51.54 14.65 100.5 200 755.38 H 0.33 350 mm above grate 17.96 15.7 50 545.91 450 mm above grate 8.09 0.33 1.48 11.89 16.9 450 921.88 1.1 (MJ/hr) 250 809.52E-04 350 mm above grate 267 Moisture 0.05 450 876.71 15.00 97.10 1.00 2.0 300 901.9 Energy In 102.19 350 mm above grate 12.4 (MJ/hr) 100 603.4 650 26.48 Outlet gas 16.9 700 21.20 17.8 (Nm³/hr) 700 19.61 150 707.96 H 0.28 Experimental setting Height of charcoal 400 (mm above grate) Ignition level 400 (mm above grate) Results Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [30 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 0.7 400 1116.62 Outlet gas 45 Closure (%) 100.51 15.39 101.49 750 19.87 16.06 1.3 350 965.9 wood (kg/hr) 550 216.Appendix F Experimental test summaries Run no: 524 Duration of run: 134 min Operating Variables Fuel (wood blocks) properties Size (mm) Moisture content (%wb) 30 x 30 x 30 12.2 315 .7 Air/Fuel ratio 2.50 Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [40 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 0 0 0 0 100.30 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 2.8 Consumption of 6.5 500 665.5 600 38.6 550 156.87 Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 18.52 49.23 10.63 10.9 Cold gas 68.92 C 2.27 16.4 Outlet gas 493.48 Density (kg/m³) 1.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) min after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of outlet gas 4.

39 750 26.39 11.87 H2O 2.77 78.9 350 874.07 18.00 0.85 21.00 100.08 Tar 3.43 1.30 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 3.90 Gauge pressure (kPa) 2.08 95.00 0.00 0.5 50 752.05 13.55 Total 22.17 Outlet gas 23 Closure (%) 98.95 O 6.9 (-) 400 775.15 450 mm above grate 1772 Dry wood 6.5 Energy Out 73.30 Outlet gas 6.35 150 1009.04 Density (kg/m³) 1.99 16.00 0.5 800 26.2 (MJ/hr) 100 863.2 Outlet gas 615.02 250 mm above grate 167 Total 22.00 0.00 450 mm above grate 0.60 Experimental setting Height of charcoal 400 (mm above grate) Ignition level 400 (mm above grate) Results Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [30 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 0.4 500 122.1 650 27.91 Outlet gas 7.58 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 21.21 22.1 (MJ/hr) 250 1105.10 57.86 11.18 74.22 Flow rate (kg/hr) 15.6 316 .20 Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [45 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 0.32 70.0 750 26.0 200 1093.00 100.8 Cold gas 64.77 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 514.33 14.5 200 1058.9 Consumption of 6.42 H 0.7 350 979.Appendix F Experimental test summaries Run no: 525 Duration of run: 107 min Operating Variables Fuel (wood blocks) properties Size (mm) Moisture content (%wb) 30 x 30 x 30 12.54 57.8 500 97.77 97.44 8.0 150 1012.00 7.22 C 3.41 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 122 Air 15.25 300 1138.00 0.16 350 mm above grate 3.00 350 mm above grate 3.7 300 1131.6 wood (kg/hr) 550 57.3 550 53.6 700 27.40 7.00 450 mm above grate 0.02 1.7 Air/Fuel ratio 2.30 10.8 450 362.00 0.00 0.94 1.72 250 mm above grate 7.42 N 11.00 0.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) min after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of 4.57 450 462.4 250 1103.77E-04 350 mm above grate 200 Moisture 0.47 outlet gas Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 26.50 H 0.6 (Nm³/hr) 700 25.0 Energy In 113.60 O 6.88 25.97 100.3 600 35.97 N 1.15 1.95 600 33.7 400 629.58 1.6 Gas flow rate 16.1 100 950.48 1.71 250 mm above grate 8.60 Gas 20.12 59.8 50 833.31 8.35 84.89 1.00 58.5 650 28.00 100.

78 600 56.3 50 877.8 317 .63 300 1092.1 650 38.63 Gas 39.37 N 21.79 1.00 0.8 450 427.00 100.98 O 13.0 (-) 400 1201.27 59.35 250 mm above grate 97 Total 41.3 650 17.63 Experimental setting Height of charcoal 400 (mm above grate) Ignition level 400 (mm above grate) Results Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [30 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 0.22 Flow rate (kg/hr) 27.9 150 1057.6 Energy In 225.5 700 23.10 49.3 (Nm³/hr) 700 14.2 wood (kg/hr) 550 157.0 200 1073.Appendix F Experimental test summaries Run no: 527 Duration of run: 68 min Operating Variables Fuel (wood blocks) properties Size (mm) Moisture content (%wb) 30 x 30 x 30 12.11 Outlet gas 15.3 100 943.36 51.24 450 mm above grate 2492 Dry wood 12.83 H 0.48 19.19 N 21.9 500 204.8 Gas flow rate 34.8 250 1086.0 Outlet gas 675.41 15.95 1.8 350 1237.25 350 mm above grate 11.7 Energy Out 167.33 H 0.44 Density (kg/m³) 1.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) in after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of outlet gas 4.9 500 264.32 98.71 21.28 102.00 0.71 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 366 Air 27.93 Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 14.3 750 22.00 0.00 450 mm above grate 3.04 750 13.0 800 21.91 7.57 12.54 O 12.05 12.7 350 1155.66 150 993.3 300 1136.92 12.41 Total 41.38 250 mm above grate 14.2 50 740.97 73.68 H2O 2.60 Gauge pressure (kPa) 2.9 Cold gas 74.26 13.40 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 6.6 Consumption of 13.43 1.28 450 883.11E-03 350 mm above grate 233 Moisture 1.19 100.60 Outlet gas 62 Closure (%) 100.37 1.2 600 51.2 400 965.2 (MJ/hr) 250 1076.2 Air/Fuel ratio 2.6 (MJ/hr) 100 882.81 97.10 Tar 2.3 550 65.0 200 1061.31 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 596.16 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 22.41 C 6.

1 Cold gas 63.4 650 23.66 0.91 450 772.00 0.1 600 37.18 59.1 50 613.37 100.4 100 662.21 Gas 18.26 12.17 Outlet gas 16.91 250 mm above grate 14.00 100.86 59.1 700 19.4 750 18.13 Outlet gas 28 Closure (%) 98.31 600 26.97 1.8 (MJ/hr) 250 880.52 Total 19.70 250 mm above grate 14.4 550 88.51 350 mm above grate 10.36E-04 350 mm above grate 149 Moisture 0.96 Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [45 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 0.06 51.5 (-) 400 983.00 16.1 150 760.00 0.1 400 985.8 350 1068.7 250 878.39 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 22.6 800 27.62 1.44 H 0.85 outlet gas Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 21.00 0.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) min after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of 4.14 2.21 14.00 0.00 100.56 750 13.00 14.65 N 9.00 0.5 318 .67 17.9 500 469.46 Density (kg/m³) 1.21 Flow rate (kg/hr) 12.08 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 3847 Air 12.3 Outlet gas 474.21 Experimental setting Height of charcoal 500 (mm above grate) Ignition level 500 (mm above grate) Results Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [30 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 0.90 Gauge pressure (kPa) 1.55 16.88 15.39 C 2.42 101.38 300 953.95 87.9 350 1074.49 150 718.08 53.0 Energy In 119.2 (MJ/hr) 100 627.12 1.28 0.Appendix F Experimental test summaries Run no: 528 Duration of run: 107 min Operating Variables Fuel (wood blocks) properties Size (mm) Moisture content (%wb) 30 x 30 x 30 12.9 (Nm³/hr) 700 14.08 250 mm above grate 88 Total 19.1 Consumption of 7.24 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 441.8 Gas flow rate 15.2 wood (kg/hr) 550 71.40 Tar 4.96 13.0 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 3.31 47.80 Outlet gas 16.9 Energy Out 75.00 83.32 O 6.13 18.05 450 mm above grate 243 Dry wood 6.9 650 15.77 17.00 450 mm above grate 0.72 350 mm above grate 11.6 200 799.83 1.09 14.62 H 0.08 13.48 14.00 0.18 53.13 1.0 Air/Fuel ratio 1.6 200 833.91 H2O 1.37 N 9.4 50 567.00 450 mm above grate 0.5 500 397.76 19.03 O 6.9 300 974.39 88.1 450 778.00 0.55 78.35 0.

79 450 mm above grate 2.2 wood (kg/hr) 550 143.6 350 928.9 50 777.00 0.00 99.6 Energy In 116.61 450 mm above grate 708 Dry wood 6.4 300 1092.98 4.71 1.00 95.7 400 1092.3 Consumption of 7.24 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 22.4 Gas flow rate 16.88 15.53 O 6.22 450 818.4 (Nm³/hr) 700 19.83 3.14 15.57 15.21 0.23 Flow rate (kg/hr) 13.79 Outlet gas 33 Closure (%) 99.29 6.Appendix F Experimental test summaries Run no: 531 Duration of run: 118 min Operating Variables Fuel (wood blocks) properties Size (mm) Moisture content (%wb) 30 x 30 x 30 11.1 450 782.8 650 26.48 17.6 319 .7 550 100.68 102.21 Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [30 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 0.29 1.52 61.88 Total 20.1 Outlet gas 500.2 50 452.79 H2O 1.65 N 10.96 750 18.1 (-) 400 976.43 101.9 Energy Out 80.12 54.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (10-15) min after ignition (30-40) min after ignition Net HV of 4.00 0.96 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 1198 Air 13.00 0.42 11.05 0.60E-04 350 mm above grate 188 Moisture 0.91 14.1 (MJ/hr) 100 542.42 H 0.27 H 0.90 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 355.52 68.6 (MJ/hr) 250 732.90 350 mm above grate 9.3 200 619.85 Outlet gas 16.14 150 580.06 15.69 350 mm above grate 3.50 Gauge pressure (kPa) 3.42 9.9 500 429.40 69.9 200 1011.53 Outlet gas 5.8 650 20.3 150 952.0 800 20.62 N 10.73 outlet gas Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 19.41 250 mm above grate 14.9 750 20.48 49.30 1.3 Cold gas 68.35 5.18 250 mm above grate 86 Total 20.00 77.4 700 21.03 600 19.58 13.71 1.1 Air/Fuel ratio 2.31 300 875.62 100.00 250 mm above grate 5.51 15.7 350 1177.94 15.3 500 419.02 73.53 O 6.49 450 mm above grate 3.94 1.79 14.1 600 43.5 250 1082.15 Density (kg/m³) 1.85 Experimental setting Height of charcoal 400 (mm above grate) Ignition level 400 (mm above grate) Results Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [10 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 0.85 Gas 19.68 74.06 92.7 100 868.72 8.31 C 3.24 Tar 5.69 0.81 1.87 0.6 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 3.

2 50 525.85 H 0.20 64.53 Density (kg/m³) 1.91 600 151.43 15.73 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 436.29 0.23 Flow rate (kg/hr) 15.33 O 6.3 450 959.00 5.2 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 3.9 350 1048.3 650 38.16 450 mm above grate 7.72 11.00 93.9 (-) 400 1042.2 wood (kg/hr) 550 481.98 N 11.25 50.77 N 11.17 52.88 93.00 0.71 250 mm above grate 14.84 Outlet gas 16.08 17.53 56.40 16.6 400 1106.82 1.1 200 727.86 O 7.84 10.35 1.68 1.84 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 2782 Air 15.76 19.0 Air/Fuel ratio 2.4 600 100.17 53.61 150 658.44 18.15 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 24.77 100.7 550 257.31 51.86 350 mm above grate 12.48 H 0.25 1.1 (Nm³/hr) 700 25.7 Outlet gas 483.94 outlet gas Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 21.56 750 21.81 15.03 54.43 450 mm above grate 3.34 18.82 1.0 500 711.37 Outlet gas 59 Closure (%) 96.4 100 669.53 300 830.7 320 .96 H2O 1.71 0.00 96.5 750 26.3 (MJ/hr) 100 610.51 72.1 650 47.91 1.13 3.1 700 30.2 Energy Out 91.21 450 1054.34 Gas 21.34 Experimental setting Height of charcoal 500 (mm above grate) Ignition level 500 (mm above grate) Results Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [30 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 0.27 88.1 250 798.8 300 913.9 500 912.27 250 mm above grate 162 Total 23.00 0.46 96.65 13.68 C 3.3 200 768.84 1.95 Tar 1.7 Energy In 129.57 0.10 Gauge pressure (kPa) 3.7 150 708.45 13.25 Total 22.8 Gas flow rate 18.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) min after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of 4.49 Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [45 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 0.Appendix F Experimental test summaries Run no: 604 Duration of run: 129 min Operating Variables Fuel (wood blocks) properties Size (mm) Moisture content (%wb) 30 x 30 x 30 12.5 Consumption of 7.81 Outlet gas 15.44 18.5 Cold gas 70.09E-03 350 mm above grate 245 Moisture 0.68 250 mm above grate 14.0 800 25.00 6.3 50 587.7 (MJ/hr) 250 767.41 13.1 350 938.82 11.72 11.31 350 mm above grate 16.11 450 mm above grate 381 Dry wood 6.

1 550 53.0 350 967.6 500 68.8 200 742.59 54.21 Flow rate (kg/hr) 10.25 Tar 1.78 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 437.31 90.72 14.6 50 554.00 0.00 100.64 H 0.9 (Nm³/hr) 700 25.5 700 27.34 O 5.42 106.83 outlet gas Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 25.7 (MJ/hr) 100 650.3 750 25.24 250 mm above grate 12.19 63.72 15.41 Outlet gas 14.1 400 936.66 Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [45 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 0.9 Outlet gas 413.65 15.22 Gas 15.65 11.44 18.4 Cold gas 63.5 500 472.1 (-) 400 892.71 0.23 13.83 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 19.08 O 5.39 150 690.93 750 25.34 H 0.9 800 25.3 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 2.0 600 35.13 3.3 wood (kg/hr) 550 37.0 650 28.45 13.1 321 .10 Density (kg/m³) 1.31 49.00 0.91 250 mm above grate 153 Total 16.00 0.08 14.80 Gauge pressure (kPa) 1.51 350 mm above grate 9.3 Consumption of 5.7 Air/Fuel ratio 1.25E-02 350 mm above grate 310 Moisture 0.53 48.Appendix F Experimental test summaries Run no: 601 Duration of run: 139 min Operating Variables Fuel (wood blocks) properties Size (mm) Moisture content (%wb) 20 x 20 x 20 9.6 250 755.51 90.51 1.00 450 mm above grate 2.2 Energy In 97.40 Outlet gas 15.95 450 467.7 200 783.0 100 620.68 15.57 H2O 0.35 14.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) min after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of 4.08 17.0 (MJ/hr) 250 810.67 1.64 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 3309 Air 10.84 100.2 Gas flow rate 12.16 450 mm above grate 318 Dry wood 5.84 10.99 4.8 Energy Out 62.8 300 830.2 50 571.20 63.15 1.65 350 mm above grate 16.82 300 906.22 1.78 C 2.00 0.54 59.2 650 27.8 450 873.9 350 894.66 10.08 Outlet gas 964 Closure (%) 100.00 19.00 96.16 450 mm above grate 7.27 1.84 1.38 1.9 150 650.57 N 7.17 50.81 16.56 0.84 N 7.74 250 mm above grate 14.28 81.22 Experimental setting Height of charcoal (mm above grate) Ignition level 400 (mm above grate) Results Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [30 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 0.82 600 30.04 Total 16.

middle and upper sections of the stratified downdraft gasifier 322 .1 Experimental rig Figure G.2 The lower.Appendix G Photo documentation Appendix G Photo documentation Figure G.

Appendix G Photo documentation Figure G.3 Technique of installing castable insulation in the middle section of the experimental gasifier 323 .

Appendix G Photo documentation (a) Chromel-Alumel (K-Type) thermocouples (b) Thermocouples inside reactor (c) Data logger connection Figure G.4 Temperature measurement system 324 .

Appendix G Photo documentation (a) Water bath and impingers for tar collection (b) Sample gas volume measurement system Figure G.5 Gas sampling train 325 .

6 Apparatus used for gas composition measurement 326 .Appendix G Photo documentation (a) Gas chromatograph (GC) with thermal conductivity detector (b) PVC gas sampling container Figure G.

Appendix G Photo documentation (a) Collected condensate from five different levels in the gasifier (a) Rotary evaporator (b) Rotary evaporator (c) Water bath (d) Condensable tar collected Figure G.7 Tar measurement system 327 .

8 Wood fuel preparation 328 .Appendix G Photo documentation (a) Wood drying (b) Wood cutting Figure G.

Appendix H Soft copy of the computer code on CD 329 .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful