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

............................................................................ 129 4. 96 Chapter 4 Model results and discussions....................3 Initial moisture content....... 131 4...............................................................................................................9.......... 120 4...............2............................................3.......................................................................................................3........................................ 101 4......2 Initial particle size ........................ 95 References................................9........................................1 Transient behaviour of temperatures and gas compositions........10 3......................................................................7 Kinetics of primary pyrolysis .........................................2............................................................. 73 Numerical methods .3........4 Model discretization ............3.................................................... 79 3....................................................................... 122 4.............................7 3........................................................... 117 4...........................3......... 76 3....... 107 4..............6 Solution procedure.......................................3............. 127 4................... 110 4.......................1 Method of discretization.........................................2................................2................................................................................................ 108 4..............1 4................... 123 4........................................... 100 4........2 Temperature profiles ......................................3 Velocity profiles .......................2....................................... 78 3....................................................1 Airflow rate ....3 Underrelaxation ........................ 119 4. 89 3.........................2............5 Mass transfer coefficient ....9 Conservation of energy ....................11 Conclusions........................... 80 3.......... 133 4.............2 Introduction..................................... 114 4....................... 133 viii ............4 Solid densities profiles .............................................................................9......... 70 3...........................3 Parametric sensitivity analysis of the model...6.............................2......3.................................................. 101 4..................................... 75 3...2 Gas phase species ...............3........................................ 91 3..................................................7 Stability of reaction zones ...........6 Reaction rate profiles.................................5 Adaptive grid method ....8 Kinetics of secondary pyrolysis..............9........................................4 Solid-gas heat transfer coefficient ....... 72 The boundary and initial conditions .................................5 Gas composition profiles.............9.......................... 105 4...9...........................3.2 Source-term linearization .......6 Heat and mass exchange area ..........................................8 3............ 100 Generalised model predictions.............................

................. 159 5........................3....................... 151 5.................. 153 5....................................................................................................................3.......................................... 138 4.. 138 4...................... 147 5.......................3...........4.........6 Suction blower. 152 5. 164 5............ 153 5.................................................................................................................................................................................................................2....................4 Raw materials......3 Measurement of gas composition........................................................ 159 5..................3............. 162 5............10 Effective thermal conductivity................................................ 147 5.2....... 161 5..............................3..........2 Measurement of tar content ....................4 Measurement of temperature.........................................................................7 Measurement of gas flow rate ............................................................................. 167 ix ......................2 Red gum charcoal .....................................4 4.................................................................. 165 References....1 Gas sampling train.4 Filter ............................................................................... 160 5....................2 Thermal insulation....................2.........................3......................................1 Experimental stratified downdraft gasifier...............................5 Air blower.........9 Kinetic rate of oxidation of secondary tar ...........................3...................7 Experimental procedure ........................................1 Wood blocks..............2 Introduction..... 144 Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure......................................3.............. 146 Experimental set-up ........3.3 Flare and burner.....2......2.......................................................3.....................11 Heat loss through reactor wall ................................................................................................ 162 5.....9 Cold gas efficiency .......................... 161 5.......................2........4...... 160 5.................................................................... 151 5.................. 164 Summary .....3.....................4.. 140 References.................3 Measurement systems and instrumentation ....................................... 152 5.............................................................................. 146 5........................................................................... 159 5..............................................................6 5........3........................1 5.......................................................... 135 4............................5 5.............6 Measurement of supplied airflow rate................5 Conclusions...................... 157 5........................... 153 5.......8 Measurement of wood consumption rate .................................5 Measurement of pressure.........

.....................3 Comparison of model predictions and experimental results................3........2........1 Performance of the reactor when using wood fuel only........3 Two different concepts on two-stage gasification........... 178 6....Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation......3......3................ 179 6........ 176 6........................5 Conclusions...2 Gas composition profiles.............6 Gas production rate.............................................................................................................................4 6.................................................................3...................................................2.............................. 187 6..................7 Variation of reaction zone movement with air flow rate and wood block size ..........................................................2..........2................................. 182 6...............1 6..........................................3................................................................. 193 Investigation of low tar gas production for the stratified downdraft 7......................................................................4 Fuel consumption .......................................................1 7............................................... 185 6.3 Tar profile...... 192 Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier........... 207 7...........................................................5 Air-fuel ratio........2....................2 Introduction............................ 198 7................................................................................................ 176 6......................3...................... 168 6..... 173 6. 178 6............................................. 205 7.2...................................................................... 213 gasifier.. 193 7........................................................... 182 6.............................2 7....1 Temperature profiles ................. 175 6..............................3......................... 197 x ......................... 168 6....................3.... 201 7........................2 Temperature.3 Gas composition ..........................................3 Introduction........ 168 Experimental results................................................2 Alternative operating procedures for the stratified downdraft gasifier .....................................................................3............6 Cold gas efficiency .................... 186 6.............5 Energy output .................................................................................... 193 Optimum length of reaction zones..........................................................................1 Material balance and elemental balance...........................................................3.....4 Tar content......................................................................... 169 6...............................4 Conclusions............................... 185 6................... 190 References.........................................................................................4 Simulation on two-stage gasification ............3.....

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

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

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

....... -ve for downward)....................... -ve for downward) ............12 Gas temperature (Tg) and rates of gaseous and solid phase oxidation reaction along the axis of the gasifier ............................... 116 Figure 4....... 128 Figure 4......................... 118 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)............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........................................11 Drying.................... 118 Figure 4.......................13 Heterogeneous gasification reaction rates along the axis of the gasifier.. 115 Figure 4............. 124 Figure 4... -ve for downward) ......................Figure 4.................... 116 Figure 4.................. 121 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) ............................... -ve for downward) .. pyrolysis and char oxidation rates along the axis of the gasifier..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...................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.....................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..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)...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...................................................................... 132 Figure 4....................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 .............................................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............................ -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..................... 137 Figure 4.. 134 Figure 4........... -ve for downward)................................ 136 Figure 4...................................... 130 Figure 4...................................... 139 Figure 4............... -ve for downward)........ -ve for downward).................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.......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) ...........................primary and secondary tar levels (d) on outlet gas composition (e) on reaction zone movement (+ve for upward........

................5 kg/hr...................2 Temperatures measured at three different levels above the ignition port during run 510 (Airflow 7......................... 151 Figure 5............................ 175 Figure 6.......... 155 Figure 5...................................... 174 Figure 6. 154 Figure 5...............................6 Gas sampling train.......... 156 Figure 5....... ignition started at 400 mm above the grate)..............8 Modified gas sampling train................................................... 141 Figure 5......................5 Energy output versus dry wood consumption rate ........ 160 Figure 5........ 177 Figure 6.. -ve for downward) .................................................................................... 2002).........2 Picture of experimental stratified downdraft gasifier .......................... 173 Figure 6...............................10 Constructional arrangement of experimental orifice plate ............................................................1 Experimental set-up.. 177 Figure 6............................ 150 Figure 5.......................................................4 Outlet gas tar content as a function of air supply rate ......7 The moisture collector and impinger bottle used in experiments...........5 kg/hr.................................... 146 Figure 5......................... with 20 mm blocks).... wood block size 20x20x20 mm) ........................................4 Schematic diagram of the modified middle section of the reactor ........(d) on outlet gas composition (e) on reaction zone movement (+ve for upward...........5 Schematic diagram of burner set-up....................... 178 Figure 6...... 162 Figure 6.9 Schematic showing post-sampling procedures for gravimetric tar measurement (Source: Neeft et al...............................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 ...... 180 xvi .92 kg/hr........ 158 Figure 5............................. 148 Figure 5...................3 Temperature profiles at three different air flow rates (average temperature values between 30 min and 40 min after ignition)..........1 Temperature record for experiment 314 (air flow 16........................ 149 Figure 5.....................6 Cold gas efficiency versus air supply rate.....................3 Schematic diagram of experimental stratified downdraft gasifier ..........

..................................................................................6 kg/hr...................... predicted values are those at 30 min after ignition) .................................... 199 Figure 7........10 Comparison of predicted and experimentally measured condensable tar profiles along the gasifier for different airflow rates under steady state operating conditions.......Figure 6.......1 Cold gas efficiency profiles along the axis of the gasifier ........................................................... 184 Figure 6..................13 Gas production versus air supply rate .............. 201 Figure 7....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)............ 189 Figure 7.......................12 Air-fuel ratio (kg/kg d........................................................................................... 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............ 185 Figure 6.......... 183 Figure 6...... 203 xvii ......................... small wood blocks) (a) 10-15 min after ignition (b) 30-40 min after ignition.................................. 200 Figure 7.....................4 Volatile matter profile along the gasifier axis .......... 187 Figure 6.11 Wood fuel consumption versus air supply rate .... 186 Figure 6.....2 Predicted tar reduction rates along the gasification zone and inert char zone ...................... 194 Figure 7........................b) versus air supply rate . 196 Figure 7..... 188 Figure 6.................................6 Experimental procedure that obviates the need to use an initial charge of charcoal .........5 Tar profiles along the axis of the gasifier for wood only operation .........................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....................15 Variation of reaction zone movement rate with air supply rate (comparison between model and measured values)...

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

s molecular weight.K absolute enthalpy. ks/kg effective thermal conductivity.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. kg/m2. W/m². J/kg solid radiation coefficient. J/kg heat transfer coefficient. W/m. J/kg. m2/m3 molar concentration of gas species carbon specific heat. W/m².K void-to-void radiation coefficient. kg nitrogen xix . m activation energy. J/mol enthalpy of reaction. m/s gas effective radial conductivity. J/kg specific enthalpy. g/mol mass of single particle. W/m².K conductivity ratio. W/m. m2/s reactor diameter.K particle diameter. W/m. m diffusivity.K static effective radial conductivity. W/m.K equilibrium constant for water gas shift reaction mass flux.K hydrogen dimensionless mass transfer factor dimensionless heat transfer factor intrinsic reaction rate thermal conductivity.K mass transfer coefficient.

s density. (kg/m³) Stephan-Boltzmann constant (=5.µ/k) reaction rate.K Reynolds number (= dpm″/µ) Source term Schmidt number (=µ/ρDi) time. W/m2K4) equivalence ratio packing parameter summation of atomic diffusion volumes xx . void volume/ bed volume ratio of reacting to non-reacting heat transfer coefficient stoichiometric coefficient of char oxidation reaction. mol oxidant /mol carbon viscosity.s (or) kmol/m³. m/s mesh monitor function vertical coordinate. kg/m.g.s universal gas constant. mol/mol stoichiometric coefficient. K velocity. ∆t) emissivity bed void fraction. J/kmol.6703E-8. kPa Prandtl number (= Cp. 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.Nu O P Pr R R Re S Sc t T V W x X1i X2i Nusselt number oxygen gas mixture pressure. s temperature. kg/m³.

oxygenates) secondary tar (taken as benzene) volatiles reactor wall xxi .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.

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

trucks. Barnard & Timberlake 1983). Another wave of development began in the 1970s. Most of the gasifier projects then quietly disappear. trains and electric generators in Europe (Foley. announcements at meetings. which found vital applications during the Second World War when approximately one million gasifiers were used to operate cars. It quickly lost its competitive edge once petroleum fuels again became widely available. construction of the new gasifier: then it is found that gas contains 0. either as pure oxygen or from air.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). mainly the efficient and economic removal of tar and stability of reactor operation. 1. came many still unresolved problems. It is a centuries old technology. According to an extensive review of gasifier manufacturers in Europe. offered the following insight into his experience to date (Reed & Gaur 1998): “The typical project starts with new ideas. Reed & Agua 1988). along with the rebirth of thermal gasification of biomass.2 Problem statement Tom Reed.5 MWth) as there is a very big market not only in developed but also developing economies. USA and Canada. and a growing awareness of possible climatic effects of the continued use of fossil fuels. 75 % of 50 manufacturers offering commercial gasification plants use the downdraft mode (Knoef 2000). that limit its application (Bridgwater 1995.1-10% tars. Gasification is the process of converting a solid fuel to a combustible gas by supplying a restricted amount of oxygen. Downdraft gasifiers are attractive for small-scale applications (<1. following the drastic increase in world oil prices. boats. The rest of the time and money is spent trying to solve this problem. who spent more than 20 years working with various gasifier systems. However. In some cases the cost of cleaning up the experimental site exceeds 2 .

Bui. Hla & Pham 2001. Brandt. 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. Some of the steady state models (Chen & Gunkel 1988. Modelling is a very useful tool for designing a clean and efficient biomass gasification unit. Larsen & Henriksen 2000. 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). those applicable for biomass fuel are less numerous than those for coal. pyrolysis and combustion) are lumped together. 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. 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 . since it increases understanding of the gasification process and reactor optimisation. and in addition. However. Because of this. Groeneveld 1980) neglect the kinetic mechanisms of pyrolysis and cracking of volatile products and the first three zones of downdraft gasifier (drying.Chapter 1 Introduction the cost of the project! Thus ‘tars’ can be considered the Achilles heel of biomass gasification”. Loof & Bhattacharya 1994. Susanto & Beenackers 1996). 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. there are serious environmental problems due to the large quantities of condensate produced. among the gasification models developed. 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. Therefore modelling of gasification processes has received significant attention over the last few decades. the elimination of tar by auxiliary systems such as scrubbers is normally expensive. chemical composition and impurities.

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

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. and these are presented in the next chapter. 6. 5 .Chapter 1 Introduction 5. To achieve the objectives of this research. a thorough review of experimental work on tar reduction and a detailed understanding of previous numerical modelling works are required. To validate the model using the experimental results. 7. To study the performance of the experimental gasifier under both steady and transient conditions.

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

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

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

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

formulation of the process for gasifier operating conditions is not straightforward. Drying of moist biomass involves only physical processes such as heat and mass transport.3. biomass undergoes a sequence of decomposition reactions that give rise to a wide variety of chemical species.3 Reaction rates 2. Tars are high molecular weight products that are volatile at the pyrolysis temperature but are liquid at room temperature. Pyrolysis.3.1 Drying Drying is the first process undergone by the fuel introduced to the gasifier. There is no strict fixed temperature of pyrolysis. generally the product groups used are char. gas and tar. This is because most drying studies have been carried out on single particles. During pyrolysis. To make the mathematical modelling of the process manageable these are usually grouped. implies decomposition through heating (Hastaoglu & Berruti 1989). Depending on the degree of cracking. not particle beds. oxygenated hydrocarbons to heavy. Fortunately. 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).Chapter 2 Literature review 2. 10 . the fuel particles in the gasifier heat up and undergo pyrolysis. the decomposition takes place over a temperature range. tars may range from light. Although drying seems simple compared to other processes in biomass gasification. by definition. 2. Chars are carbon-rich non-volatile residues. Pyrolysis of biomass can start as low as 200°C and is essentially complete by 500°C (Milne & Evans 1998). 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).2 Pyrolysis Once dry. poly-aromatic hydrocarbons.

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

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

1989.5. Liden.000 seconds (Hobbs.d) 2. the time for devolatilization to take place is of the order of 1. together with ash. Rath & Staudinger 2001) there is growing interest in secondary pyrolysis reactions such as the vapour phase cracking of wood pyrolysis tars. The time required for consumption of a single char particle by oxidation and gasification is generally large compared to that needed for devolatilization. In fixed-bed gasifiers. judging by the series of recent experimental studies using a two-stage pyrolysis reactor (Fagbemi. (2. Hasler & Nussbaumer 2002. char and primary tars. all had the same aim. 2001. which was to characterise the thermal conversion of primary pyrolysis products into secondary products during gasification and combustion processes. In addition. Khezami & Capart 2001. Although the experimental processes and methods used in these investigations were not the same. and then the primary tar decomposes into secondary gases and secondary tars by thermal cracking. Berruti & Scott 1988).a-2. 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. Diebold 1985.5. Radulovic & Smoot 1993). Kelbon and Krieger (1985) has been used in a number of subsequent experimental studies (Boroson et al.3.3 Heterogeneous gas-char reactions The char remaining after wood devolatilization in the pyrolysis zone of a gasifier consists primarily of carbon. Heterogeneous reactions between gases and solid particles have been conventionally modelled using the following assumptions (Skinner & Smoot 1979): 13 .000 seconds while for char particle burnout the time is of the order of 10.Chapter 2 Literature review into primary gases. Morf et al.

The other reactions (the so-called char gasification reactions) are endothermic reactions and are relatively slow.6) (2. (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 kinetic rates for gas-char reactions have typically been taken from small particle experiments at high temperatures and heating rates. 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. 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. large particle oxidation and gasification data are scarce.7) (2. (3) The gas-phase products desorb and diffuse away from the particle.8) (2. In most of the fixed bed gasification models.Chapter 2 Literature review (1) Char particles are considered to be carbon spheres in an essentially infinite gas stream. α=β=0). However. and then absorbs and reacts with the surface. The consequences of using this data in 14 . Since both biomass charcoal and coal usually contain some amount of hydrogen and oxygen in addition to carbon. There are normally four heterogeneous reactions that can take place during the high temperature gasification of carbonaceous materials. which means that use of small particle kinetic data is usually unavoidable. for simplicity.

carbon dioxide. 1995. Both CO and CO2 are formed as primary reaction products.10) As indicated earlier. Evans & Emmons 1977. In the AS model. depending on the coal type (Standish & Tanjung 1988). since mass transport tends to be the rate controlling step for fixed-bed combustion and gasification processes. The oxidant is required to diffuse through both the film boundary layer and the ash layer. shrinking core-reaction control models using effective internal diffusion may often be adequate for comprehensive fixed-bed modelling (Hobbs. Laurendeau 1978. Radulovic & Smoot 1993). The AS model is only appropriate for low ash content carbonaceous solid fuels like hard wood charcoal.5-2 wt% whereas that of coal chars is typically 5-15 wt%. Of the gases that react with char. Monson et al. with the interior of the particle remaining relatively untouched until very high conversions have been reached (Standish & Tanjung 1988). namely the composition of the oxidation product. The char-carbon dioxide 15 . oxygen is the most reactive. The temperature dependence of this ratio has been described by different researchers (Arthur 1951. the principal gas-phase reactants in heterogeneous carbon reactions of the gasification process are oxygen. For the formulation of char oxidation reactions.Chapter 2 Literature review gasifier models may be less important than it first appears. 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. 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. namely the shell progressive model (SP model) and the ash segregation model (AS model). Rossberg 1956) using the following Arrhenius-type equation: ⎛−E⎞ CO = A exp⎜ ⎜ RT ⎟ ⎟ CO2 ⎝ s⎠ (2. and hydrogen. steam. the ash content of charcoals is typically 0. In the SP model the ash is assumed to remain intact. though. The CO/CO2 ratio increases with increasing reaction temperature. there is still one major uncertainty. For example. Thus. There are two common char oxidation sub-models. The difference between the two models is in the treatment of the ash.

The intrinsic rates of these reactions have been investigated by many researchers. common experimental systems have included entrained flow reactors. The water-gas shift reaction is very fast and proceeds to equilibrium within the gasifier. Since H2O is easily condensed out of the product gas while CO2 is not so easily removed.11) This reaction is slightly exothermic and is an unfavourable reaction as it reduces the heating value of the product gas in two ways. Since the kinetics often depend on the experimental environment. while the char-hydrogen reaction rate is the slowest (Laurendeau 1978). Therefore. the product gas ends up being diluted with an incombustible gas and with its specific heating value further reduced. CO + H 2 O ⇔ CO2 + H 2 (2. Dasappa et al. carbon dioxide. Standish & Tanjung 1988). and fixed bed gasifiers.Chapter 2 Literature review and char-water vapour reactions have reaction rates that are of the same order of magnitude. 1994. carbon monoxide 16 . Groeneveld & Swaaij 1980. DeGroot & Shafizadeh 1984. It exchanges a H2 molecule for a CO molecule with a corresponding reduction in the heat of combustion of 41kJ/gmol. 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.3.4 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. where hydrogen and carbon dioxide are produced from carbon monoxide and steam as described in following equation. 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. Evans & Emmons 1977. 2. the concentrations of hydrogen. thermogravimetric analysis. It also exchanges a CO2 molecule for a H2O molecule.

which is reaction temperature dependent. for example. means the molar concentration (moles per unit volume) of CO.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. To convert the reactants to final products may involve only a few steps or as many as several hundred (Turns 2000). gaseous pyrolysis products flow through the hot char combustion zone and may be ignited as long as oxygen is available. on which most early work was conducted. These reactions have been paid less attention than gas-char reactions. When a combustible gas reacts with an oxidising agent. 17 . and KC = Equilibrium constant for water gas shift reaction. 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). 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. many sequential processes can occur involving many intermediate species. b) Oxidation of devolatilization products Other gas phase reactions of importance in gasifier and combustor models are those involving the oxidation of devolatilization products. Therefore. however. In updraft mode reactors. This is probably due to the complicated reaction mechanisms involved. global reaction mechanisms are formulated by using a minimum number of elementary steps. In downdraft reactors.12) where [CO].

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

A one-step reaction mechanism is the simplest approach. who presented and evaluated one-step and two-step global kinetics for a wide variety of 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⎠ (2.16) In the two previous equations.Chapter 2 Literature review However.15) Siminski et al. and the heat release calculation is also quite simple. the hydrocarbon oxidation mechanism has been greatly simplified and a global reaction proposed to allow for the partial oxidation of gaseous hydrocarbons. shown below. represented as a pseudo-molecule. (1972) proposed an alternative global reaction where the combustion products are CO and H2 rather than CO and H2O. For instance. only partial oxidation was involved. Complete oxidation has been investigated by Westbrook and Dryer (1981). 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 . For the processes of modelling. But it has several drawbacks. CxHyOz (Adams 1980). which can be important in certain applications. This reaction. 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. Therefore oxygenates and other hydrocarbons are often treated as a single substance.17) The advantages of a single-step process are obvious in that only four chemical species are involved in the formulation. was assumed to have an infinitely fast forward rate (Hammond & Mellor 1970). 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.

20) (2. More realistic is a two-step mechanism. 1989). Wang and Rabinowitz 1992). One such mechanism. by minimizing the number of elementary steps.21) 20 . 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. Since the formation of intermediate hydrocarbons and CO is not taken into account. Methane oxidation at combustion temperatures has been studied in more detail than the oxidation of any other hydrocarbon (Thurgood & Smoot 1979).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.18) (2. Therefore. a two-step global model for methane oxidation has been constructed using experimental results from a turbulent flow reactor (Dryer & Glassman 1973). To make some sense of this complex system. which separates the highly exothermic oxidation of CO to CO2 from the less exothermic oxidation of the hydrocarbon to CO.Chapter 2 Literature review temperature. oxidation to CO2 is predicted to occur much faster than is observed experimentally. A review of its combustion kinetics indicated that the methane combustion mechanism involves 149 elementary steps. ⎛ 3⎞ CH 4 + ⎜ ⎟O2 → CO + 2 H 2 O ⎝ 2⎠ ⎛1⎞ CO + ⎜ ⎟O2 → CO2 ⎝ 2⎠ (2. methane combustion is a process that needs to be accounted for in the formulation of downdraft mode reactor models. with 144 reverse reactions. involving 33 species (Frenklach.

5 ⎫ = ⎨− 1014.22) Another expression describing the rates of CO oxidation was developed by Howard. Williams and Fine (1973). The rate of the CO oxidation. carbon monoxide oxidation is an essential component of mathematical models of fixed bed gasifiers operating in the downdraft mode.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. (2. turbulent flow reactor to develop kinetic rates (Hautman et al. was reported as d [CO ] ⎧ ⎛ − 20138 ⎞ 1. 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. Besides. 1981). both made in a differential flow reactor comprising the second stage of a two-stage combustion system. 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. As discussed in an earlier subsection.0 0.0 0.93 exp(− 2.3 × 1014 exp⎜ ⎟[CO ] [O2 ] [H 2 O ] ⎬ dt ⎝ T ⎠ ⎩ ⎭ where the kinetic rate is in (mole/cm³s) (2.6 exp⎜ ⎟[CO ] [O2 ] [H 2 O ] ⎬7. 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. at higher combustion temperatures. who determined the rates of carbon monoxide oxidation in post-flame gases at 1 atm by concentration and temperature measurements. solid char is initially oxidized to carbon monoxide rather than carbon dioxide. developed primarily from propane oxidation results.25 0.5 ⎫ = ⎨− 1.48φ ) dt ⎝ T ⎠ ⎩ ⎭ where the rate is expressed in (mole/cm³s) and φ is the initial equivalence ratio.23) 21 .5 0. So.

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. (1981) resulted from experimental investigations which encompassed a temperature range of 960 to 1540 K.85 1.52 exp⎜ ⎟[H 2 ] [O2 ] [C 2 H 4 ] ⎬ dt ⎝ T ⎠ ⎩ ⎭ (2. For example. In addition. They found.56 ⎫ = ⎨− 1013.Chapter 2 Literature review The rate expression reported by Hautman et al. A difficulty in predicting rates of hydrogen oxidation is that these depend on what other oxidisable components are present. that in the presence of hydrocarbons. In the downdraft gasifier. But the inclusion of the [C2H4] term implies that this rate expression is dependent on the nature of the hydrocarbons present.86 times faster than carbon monoxide (Haslam 1923). Turns 2000). Keating 1993.24) where kinetic rate is in (mole/cm³s). a potential flame temperature from gas oxidation can be higher than 1750 K (Reed & Markson 1983).86. for their system. Therefore.42 − 0. so its applicability is limited. 22 . showing that hydrogen burns 2. Hautman et al. the rate expression of Williams and Fine (1973) is more reasonable to apply in gasifier models since their correlation covers a wider temperature range. (1981) investigated the effect on the rate of hydrogen oxidation of the presence of hydrocarbons. 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. Detailed reviews of H2-O2 kinetics and their elementary reactions can be found in standard combustion books (Borman & Ragland 1998.

25) where A and E are the pre-exponential factor and activation energy respectively. 2. From their analyses they developed the following expression: d [H 2 ] ⎛−E⎞ 1 . using elementary kinetic reactions. 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. Radulovic & Smoot 1992).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 1 . from experimental analysis of the combustion of premixed laminar hydrogen-air mixtures of equivalence ratios ranging from 0. Thodos and Hougen (1943).5 to 5. Chatwani & Bracco 1986). and A and E vary as the equivalence ratio alters. a factor called ‘reacting to nonreacting heat transfer ratio’ was introduced in a coal gasification model (Hobbs. All of the published results have been based on experimental work in which no chemical reactions occurred. Radulovic & Smoot 1993). 23 .1 = − A exp⎜ ⎟[H 2 ] [O2 ] dt ⎝ RT ⎠ (2. 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.0 (Varma. This has been followed by a number of other studies during the last six decades. 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.Chapter 2 Literature review The global kinetic rates of hydrogen oxidation have also been estimated.

The relationship between jH factor and Reynolds number (Re=Dpmg/µ) was reported as follows: 24 .6 mm. Thodos and Hougen (1943).4. developed jH factor correlations for modified Reynolds numbers in the range of 200 to 3750. Various experimental techniques have been used under both steady-state and unsteady-state conditions. which was introduced by Chilton and Colburn (1934). = 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. who experimentally determined rates of evaporation of water into air streams from spherical and cylindrical porous pellets. Most of the relevant heat transfer studies reported in the literature have been summarized and comprehensively reviewed by Wakao and Kaguei (1982). In most of the studies.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. hsg Cp g m g jH = (Pr ) 3 2 (2. 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 2.26) where.Chapter 2 Literature review 2. to 11.3. the results have been presented in terms of the jH factor.

particle surface temperatures were measured directly and the relationship they derived between the jH factor and Reynolds number was as follows: 2.575 jH = ε (2. 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. 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.1(Re ) −0.0 for Re < 40 (2. Therefore.15 (2. In their experiments.064(Re ) j H = 18.06(Re ) −0. 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.29) where ε is the void fraction in the particle bed. 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. 25 . Thodos & Hougen (1943) and Acetis and Thodos (1960).1 jH = (Re ) 0.28) for the modified Reynolds number region of 13 to 2136 covered in their study. They derived the following relationship between the jH factor and Reynolds number: 1 .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. Therefore.Chapter 2 Literature review j H = 1.41 − 0.41 for Re > 350 −1. further experimental improvements were made by Gupta and Thodos (1963). Since the source of errors caused by radiation effects was eliminated in their experimental work.

74. 2.b) In an attempt to come up with a more comprehensive correlation than those then available. Stewart & Lightfoot 2002): 2 3 j H = 2.78(Re ) − 0.6 ⎞ ⎛ Nu = ⎜ 2 + 1.32) ⎛ hD p where Nu = ⎜ ⎜ k ⎝ ⎞ ⎛D m ⎟ . This was derived from heat transfer data obtained from various sources for beds packed with a variety of packings.2(Re ) 3 ⎟(Pr ) ⎝ ⎠ (2.34 to 0. Wakao and Kaguei (1982) revised and correlated selected reliable data (from both steady-state and unsteady-state measurements) and developed an empirical relationship.Chapter 2 Literature review Subsequently.31. which they believed would enable more accurate prediction of particle-tofluid heat transfer coefficients.1(Pr ) 3 (Re ) ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ (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.381 (2. Waitaker (1977) developed the Nusselt number correlation shown below. Re = ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ µ (1 − ε ) ⎟ ⎜ k ⎟⎝ 1 − ε ⎠ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ (2.30) This correlation applies over a Reynolds number range from 3.a.31. 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 .4 ⎛ ⎞ Nu = ⎜ 0. Nusselt number and Reynolds number are defined as follows: ⎛ D p mg ⎞ ⎛ hD p ⎞⎛ ε ⎞ ⎟⎜ Nu = ⎜ ⎟ .19(Re ) − + 0.33) 26 .7 to 8000 and a void fraction range from 0. 1 2 0 . For the above equation.4(Re ) 2 + 0.

34) = Dimensionless mass transfer factor = (Solid-to-gas) mass transfer coefficient.4.33 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). So the predictions of these equations were compared with the average values of heat transfer coefficients from two experimental correlations (Gupta & Thodos 1963. They all predict heat transfer coefficient values of the same order of magnitude. Thodos and Hougen (1943). Acetis & Thodos 1960). P M Sc (2.32 and 2. These mass transfer coefficients are frequently expressed in terms of the jd factor given by Chilton and Colburn (1934). 2. relevant solid-to-gas mass transfer studies were first carried out by Gamson. 27 .30.2 Mass transfer As in the case of heat transfer. They obtained a mass transfer coefficient from measurements of the rates of evaporation of water from wet porous particles. Since their pioneering work.Chapter 2 Literature review Equations 2. = 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 k m PM (Sc ) 3 mg jd = where. 2. Stewart and Lightfoot (2002) were close to the experimental values while the other two correlations gave values lower than those observed experimentally. Predictions made using the heat transfer correlation of Bird.

Air was used as a carrier gas which flowed through packed and dispersed beds of these spheres. The mass transfer coefficient associated with the vaporization of water and heavy hydrocarbons from the surface of porous spheres.1(Sc ) 3 (Re ) ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ (2.4 mm in diameter. Porous spheres saturated with a liquid were placed in a matrix of dry glass spheres to produce a dispersed bed.35) Subsequently Gupta and Thodos (1963) reported that the ratio jH /jd was approximately unity.357(Re ) −0.41 − 0.725 jd = (Re )0. Sc = ⎜ ⎟ ⎜D ρ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ im ⎠ ⎠ 28 . 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). 1. These were used to develop an empirical Sherwood number correlation for both gas and liquid phase mass transfer in packed beds: 1 0 .37) ⎛ km Dp where Sh = ⎜ ⎜ D ⎝ im ⎞ ⎛D m ⎟ . implying that separate measurement of mass transfer coefficients is unnecessary if a jH versus Re relationship is available.8 to 9.6 ⎞ ⎛ Sh = ⎜ 2 + 1.36) where ε is the void fraction. was determined by Petrovic and Thodos (1968).359 jd = ε (2. The following jd-Re relationship was obtained: 0.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: 0.15 (2. Re = ⎜ p g ⎟ ⎜ µ ⎠ ⎝ ⎞ ⎛ µ ⎞ ⎟ .

Radiation heat transfer between the surfaces of solid particles 2. Stewart and Lightfoot (2002): 2 3 j D = 2.38) As discussed in the heat transfer section. 2.Chapter 2 Literature review Very recently. who re-evaluated and correlated experimental data from a number of sources. gives similar results to those calculated using Gupta and Thodos’s correlation. 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): 1.78(Re ) − 0. Thermal conduction through the stagnant fluid near the contact surface d. the mass transfer coefficient correlation produced by Bird. Besides.4. Heat transfer through the solid phase a. Heat transfer by lateral mixing of fluid 29 . Thermal conduction through the contact surfaces of solid particles c. Stewart and Lightfoot (2002).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. 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. Radiation heat transfer through fluid in the void space g.19(Re ) − + 0. It is often convenient to combine these heat transfer processes by introducing the concept of an effective thermal conductivity. Heat transfer through the gas phase e. Thermal conduction through the fluid in the void space f. Thermal conduction through the solid particles b. (jH = jD = a function of Reynolds number) has been proposed by Bird. an empirical mass transfer correlation for packed beds. particularly radiation.381 (2.

especially for low conductivity solid materials such as wood. Mechanism a occurs in series with the combined result of parallel mechanisms b. radiation becomes the most significant process. however.Chapter 2 Literature review The effective thermal conductivity in a fuel bed is determined less and less by pure conduction as temperatures increase. 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. direct conduction between solid particles in contact. 30 . c and d while mechanisms e. the effect of mechanism g becomes significant. f and g occur in parallel with each other.39) = + In their approach to formulation of an effective thermal conductivity. was less important than the other mechanisms and this was neglected too. This contribution by mechanism g has been allowed for by Froment and Bischoff (1979) in their formulation of an effective thermal conductivity. They also assumed that mechanism b. in the case where fluid flows through a particle bed and the Reynolds number is large. However. take account of the thermal conduction through the fluid in the void space. Kunii and Smith (1960) did. Since both of the research groups (Kunii & Smith 1960. mechanism g (heat transfer by lateral mixing of fluid) was not considered. In a bed of particles heat transfer mechanisms 1 and 2 (see above) occur in parallel with each other. mechanism e. At temperatures normally found in gasifiers. in their formulation. 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. Yagi and Kunii (1957) did not include mechanism e. The effective thermal conductivity (keff) can be written as follows (Kunii & Smith 1960. Yagi & Kunii 1957) concentrated in their work on beds in which the fluid was stagnant.

Radiation heat loss to the surroundings from outer reactor wall (or) outer surface of insulation where mechanisms 1.Chapter 2 Literature review 2. Convective heat loss to the surroundings from outer reactor wall (or) outer surface of insulation 5. 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.4. it is possible to estimate hwf from mass transfer experiments using a heat and mass transfer analogy. To estimate the heat loss via mechanism 5. Heat transfer from reactor core to inner reactor wall 2. 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. Thermal conduction through insulation (if reactor is insulated) 4. Mechanisms 2 and 3 are controlled by the thicknesses and thermal conductivities of the reactor wall and the surrounding insulation.4 Heat loss through the reactor wall The mechanisms that contribute to heat loss through the reactor wall can be listed as follows: 1. The corresponding fluid-wall heat transfer coefficient was obtained by 31 . However. Thermal conduction through reactor wall 3. To estimate the heat loss via mechanism 4. 2 and 3 are in series with the combined result of parallel mechanisms 4 and 5 (Wakao & Kaguei 1982). Methods for estimating the heat loss via mechanisms 2-5 can be found in standard heat transfer texts. the free convective heat transfer coefficient from the outer surface of the insulation must be found. the emissivity of this outer surface must be known.

033 Re Pr (2. They considered simultaneous axial and radial gas mixing in the bed voids as well as accounting for the pressure drop across the bed.Chapter 2 Literature review analogy. 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.365 hw d p kg ⎛ mg d p = 3. 32 .40) while DeWasch and Froment (1971) put forward a rather different correlation: o hw d p hw d p kg = kg + 0. 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. side effects which were not accounted for in the work of Yagi and Wakao (1959). Calderbank and Pogorski (1957) proposed the following correlation to estimate the overall wall heat transfer coefficient 0. who determined mass transfer coefficients by measuring the vaporization of mercury from the wall into a nitrogen stream. Other relevant experiments have been carried out by Olbrich and Potter (1972).6⎜ ⎜ εµ ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ (2.41) 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. the influence of the tube diameter and of properties of catalytic o reactors is accounted for in the correlation through hw .

05 ≤ ≤ 0.17 Re 0.42) The average deviation was 14%. All the experiments were done with air. 2002). However.3) (2. “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)”. 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. 2.17(Pr/0. The best fit correlation for spherical packing was as follows: hw d p kg dp dt = 0.33 (Li & Finlayson 1977).Chapter 2 Literature review Subsequently. 33 .5 Tar in producer gas Tar is the most awkward and problematic parameter in any gasification commercialization effort. for constant wall temperature conditions.79 (20 ≤ Re ≤ 7600 ). In this section. In a recent guideline. 2.5.17 by 0. methods for tar sampling and analysis are standardized (Neeft et al.7)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. (0. so there was no Prandtl number dependence. According to that guideline. detailed discussions about tar in producer gas and different methods and approaches for tar removal are presented.

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

Magne & Deglise 1985). They are not discussed further here since it is primary methods of tar reduction that are the main concern of this study.5. partially oxidative. Tar can be reduced by thermal cracking at temperatures higher than 800°C (Milne & Evans 1998). Primary methods consist largely of chemical tar conversions. the higher the temperature and the longer the residence time. 1988).100°C if a catalyst is not used (Donnot. has been reported to produce fewer refractory tars. enhance phenol formation (Dayton & Evans 1997). which then has to be disposed of in an environmentally acceptable manner. Temperature is the most important parameter influencing chemical tar conversion processes. The addition of steam. Converting tar completely to lighter combustible gas requires temperatures greater than 1.5 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. steam. over and above that formed from the water and oxygen in the feedstock. Studies aimed at producing a relatively clean gas by increasing its temperature have been carried out at various temperatures. 35 . Generally. 2.Chapter 2 Literature review such as scrubbing lime). The chemical tar conversion processes can be divided into four generic categories: thermal. reduce the concentration of other oxygenates (Evans et al. and has only a small effect on the conversion of aromatics (Jess 1996). and catalytic processes (Milne & Evans 1998). The problems associated with the management of these wastewater or solid residues are described by Milne & Evans (1998). the more complete will be the tar removal. Steam gasification is endothermic and hence sometimes requires a complex design for heat supply to the process. Secondary methods have been widely investigated and are well understood.

However. 2.5.Chapter 2 Literature review When oxygen (or) air is added downstream of the pyrolysis zone. Partial oxidation could effectively reduce tars. All the modifications introduced have been done to enhance one or more of the above chemical tar conversion processes. air supply technique and reactor type. experimental results showing how the tar content of producer gas is affected by various factors are discussed. These experimental investigations are discussed in the following section although. a) Effect of primary pyrolysis temperature on tar content of raw gas In the pyrolysis reactor. These factors include the primary pyrolysis temperature. higher temperatures and greater residence 36 . especially considering the long activity requirements for expensive catalysts such as Ni to be economical (Milne & Evans 1998). Catalytic gas cleaning is being considered mostly for large-scale applications of biomass gasification. There are several reports available in the literature on experimental studies of tar reduction by modifying the reactor design. partial oxidation. split level air supply. Many types of catalysts have been investigated to reduce tars to lower levels. Creamer & Goss 1983). the cracking temperature. Non-metallic catalysts such as dolomites. the duration of most reported catalyst tests has been quite short. superficial velocity. and metallic catalysts such as nickel (Ni).gas turbine systems. thermal cracking of tar takes place to some extent but to accomplish a more efficient decomposition. at lower temperatures. such as biomass gasifier. tar can be preferentially oxidized. since catalytic tar conversion is beyond the scope of this study. recycling of the pyrolysis product. The technique appears to be rather too complicated for small power gasifier systems.6 Factors influencing chemical tar conversion in the absence of catalyst In this subsection. but contact between oxygen and tar is limited in gas producers (Kaupp. preheating of supplied air. only experimental investigations of tar reduction not involving catalysts are considered here. have been extensively studied.

higher char conversion and increased risk of sintering (Milne & Evans 1998). The first zone is dedicated to the flaming pyrolysis process. (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. Yu et al. with air intakes arranged at two levels in order to have separate reaction zones. It can be generally concluded.Chapter 2 Literature review times are desirable. A more than 40% reduction in tar yield was reported when the temperature was raised from 700°C to 900°C. However. 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. by analysing the results from experimental work using a pyrolysis reactor surrounded by a tube furnace. Bircher & Chisholm 1979). there are several other factors that limit the operating temperature. After taking account of these and other critical factors Hallgren (1997) has recommended typical operating temperature ranges for various feed materials. A very high temperature will most probably drive the cracking towards very simple components such as CO and H2. As a consequence of this. c) Two-stage gasification The two-stage gasifier is of a simple cylindrical shape. Higher temperatures can be achieved by introducing a secondary air supply to the second stage. the content of hydrocarbons will decrease at high temperatures. while the second zone is designed to be the reduction zone. 37 . that a higher pyrolysis temperature produces a lower tar content in the final raw gas (Jönsson 1985). 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. Some of the drawbacks that come with increased temperature are a lowering of the gas heating value.

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

4 g/Nm³ without recycle down to less than 0. Recycle ratios (ratio of recycled gas rate to air flow rate) in the range of 0.33 to 0. 1999). g) Effect of superficial velocity on low tar gas production It is reported that the superficial velocity of a gasifier. Larsen & Jorgensen 1996). The combustor was installed in the discharge of the injector and was mounted on the ash grate. It was also reported that a higher superficial velocity causes very fast pyrolysis. The air was introduced through a pipe from the top of the gasifier.1 g/Nm³ with recycle. 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. from 1. which could be rotated. 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.05m/s to 0. producing less than 10% char-ash at 1050°C and hot gas temperatures of 1200-1400°C in the flaming pyrolysis zone. It was found that adding oxygen above 700°C resulted in a considerable reduction in the tar content. which is controlled by the supplied air rate.3 g/kg. controlling the tar production rate (Reed et al. 39 . it was found that tar in the gas decreased from 8. As the superficial velocity was varied from 0.5 cm diameter was controlled.5 to 1. is the most important determinant of its performance.26 m/s.5 resulted in stable combustion of the recycled gas. A significant tar reduction was reported. This air also acted as the motive gas in the injector for suction of the recycle gas.

For example. This limits the size of gasifier and means that a throated gasifier cannot be scaled-up to a larger diameter. 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. air is introduced to the system through nozzles attached to the side of the reactor and located just above a throat. Graham & Huffman 1984). A 600 mm internal diameter stratified downdraft gasifier has been operated successfully by the Buck Rogers Co. 2. a number of conclusions can be reached: 40 .Chapter 2 Literature review h) Effect of air supply technique and reactor type In the traditional downdraft gasifier. also called a hearth. 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. Chern & Fan 1985). known as the ‘stratified downdraft gasifier’ has been developed during the last two decades (Reed & Agua 1988). If tarry gas is produced from this type of gasifier. Attempts have been made to get round this problem. 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. Since air is supplied to the reactor from the sides. 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). of Kansas (Walawender. and air and fuel can be assumed to be mixed uniformly. 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. This type of gasifier operates as a plug-flow reactor.6 Concluding remarks From the above review. a common practice is to reduce the hearth constriction area until a low-tar gas is produced (Reed & Agua 1988).

8.6. 2. 4.1 Theoretical modelling 1. a significant phenomenon in downdraft gasification. Both thermal conduction and radiation processes need to be considered for formulation of the effective thermal conductivity in fuel beds. The available literature on modelling of downdraft gasification is limited and existing steady state models mostly neglect the kinetics of pyrolysis processes. 41 . using effective internal diffusion. 6.Chapter 2 Literature review 2. is suitable for estimation of heterogeneous gas-char reaction rates inside fixed-bed gasifiers and combustors. any model has to include the time dependence of the reactor parameters. and radiation becomes the dominant process at high temperatures. 3. To understand the behaviour of a gasifier under transient conditions. 7. For the gasification of biomass material. Correlations giving heat and mass transfer coefficients inside packed beds are available. the gas species involved in the water-gas shift reaction can be related by equilibrium relationships throughout the gasification zone. single or twostep global models constructed by using experimental results are available in the literature.2 Tar reduction 1.6. The shrinking core-reaction control model. For pyrolysis gas (including hydrocarbons) oxidation. a factor known as the reacting to non-reacting heat transfer ratio should be included in the gasification model. However. 5. 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. 2. since these are based on experimental work using non-reactive systems. Tar removal by means of external physical processes causes waste treatment problems which are usually costly to manage. Oxidation of pyrolysis products is important in downdraft gasification and the relevant chemical reaction processes should be included in the numerical model formulation.

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

TN 1980. JD & Thodos. pp. Arthur. 225-39. Anthony.. paper presented to ISES 99 Solar World Congress. SC 1994. Calderbank. no. Boroson. RB. vol. JB 1976. 164-78. RP Overend. Combustion and Flame. G 1960. New York. SC & Dutta. ML. Fundamentals of Thermochemical Biomass Conversion. Washionton D. 2nd edn. 4. vol. R & Bhattacharya. no. Stewart. ‘Flow of gases through spherical packings’ Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. JB. JW. Buekens. vol. 35. T. pp. ‘Reactions between carbon and oxygen’. Israel. 195-207. Transactions of Institution of Chemical Engineers. EN 2002. Trans Faraday Soc. vol. TA Milne & LK Mudge. 1. Mc Graw-Hill. 22. WA 1989.7 References Acetis. ‘A two-stage gasification of wood with pre-heated air supply: A promising technique for producing gas of low tar content’. KG & Chisholm. 52. Bircher. 1003-6. Longwell. Bird. 1208. DB and Howard. JF 1985. Bhattacharya. JA 1951. ‘Product yields and kinetics from the vapor phase cracking of wood pyrolysis tars’. Howard. KA 1979. 35. Combustion Engineering. ‘Coal devolatilization and hydrogasification’. vol. WE & Lightfoot. JP & Peters. Borman. J Wiley.I. AIChE Journal. paper presented to the symposium on thermal conversion of solid waste and biomass. AG & Schoeters. The C. pp. Black. pp. Transport phenomena. ‘Multi Reactor for Biomass Gasification for Power Generation’. ‘Heat transfer in packed beds’. 397-404. Adams. 39. Bui. PH & Pogorski.L program Amer Chem Soc Meeting. 47. KW 1998. pp. 19. pp. eds. ‘Modelling of biomass gasification’. pp. 4-9 July. vol. ‘Fluidized bed gasification of solid wastes and biomass’. A 1999. 625-56. 619-89. no. pp. 4.Chapter 2 Literature review 2. ‘A simple fuel bed model for predicting particle emissions from a woodwaste boiler’. GL & Ragland. Fuel. AIChE J. LA 1957. 43 . Loof.C. Jerusalem. vol. September 10-14.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this model. Details are presented in the following sections.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development about rates of chemical reactions and physical transport processes.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. drying was formulated by assuming it follows the Arrhenius type kinetics equation developed by Chan. Purnomo.1) 51 . 3. Aerts & Ragland 1990).2 Reaction rates 3. Hobbs.2. Radulovic & Smoot 1992) the drying rate is assumed to be kinetically controlled (Bryden 1998. 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.

This necessitated calculating an average particle temperature.3. however. This involves a complex combination of heat and mass transfer processes that is very hard to model accurately.2. primary pyrolysis kinetic coefficient and particle size and which was determined using equation 3. This average temperature was used in equation 3. For the primary wood pyrolysis step. a thermal wave moves from the wood particle surface to its centre.5 mm. Almost all of the experimental studies and kinetics rates. which is a function of wood surface temperature.2 for estimating the primary pyrolysis rate of particle beds.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development 3. Kelbon and Krieger (1985b) was used: ⎛ − E p1 ⎞ ⎟ρ R p1 = (1 − ε )A p1 exp⎜ ⎜ RT ⎟ v avg ⎠ ⎝ where (3. so kinetic data which can be applied directly to the gasification process of large wood particles is scarce.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. a series of experiments have been conducted by various researchers and the kinetics rates obtained are available in the literature.1. The expression selected was that of Chan. apply only for finely divided particles or for sample sizes less than 1. 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. 52 .2 Pyrolysis A two-step pyrolysis process. This meant that a single particle pyrolysis rate expression would have to be used in the present study. In this model. the kinetic data obtained for the rapid pyrolysis of large wood particles by Chan. as shown in Figure 3. Kelbon and Krieger (1985b). was used in this model.

the Arrhenius 53 . temperature.984d p ⎜T E p1 ⎝ s ( ) ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ (3. moisture content and oxygen fraction. 2001).138d p + 46861. Kosstrin (1980) and Liden. coconut shell and straw). Secondary pyrolysis is the process of cracking of primary tar into lower molecular weight gases and secondary tar. Kosstrin. dp = particle diameter (m) Equation 3. Fagbemi.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development Tavg = 1 ⎛1 2 ⎜ + R × ln 953.3 are presented in Appendix A. Morf et al.3) where. Therefore. 1980. 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. the first one devoted to solid pyrolysis. 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. Fagbemi.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. 2001. the second to tar cracking under a flow of carrier gas with no packing present. (2001) and Rath and Staudinger (2001) have studied the tar decomposition reaction separately by using a set-up consisting of two distinct reactors. Although all of the kinetic parameters reported relate to unprocessed wood. Diebold (1985). 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. Details of the derivation of equation 3. (1989) (see above) show very good agreement with those in a recent report (Morf et al. Rath and Staudinger 2001). 1989. Khezami & Capart 2001. et al. Moreover. Morf et al. Diebold 1985. Boroson et al. Arrhenius constants determined by Boroson et al. Liden. (1989). the nature of the wood used as well as the experimental processes were not the same for all the investigations. the secondary pyrolysis kinetic data obtained when using two separate experimental reactors seem more appropriate than those obtained when using one reactor. Berruti & Scott 1988.

(1989). In addition.4) Tar reduction.71O3. It was established. In addition the composition of secondary tar (hydrocarbon) was taken to be 100% benzene (C6H6). a formula for the tars (primary tar) which are the product of primary pyrolysis (also known as oxygenates) was derived: C6H10. can occur by both homogeneous and heterogenous thermal cracking. 3. since benzene was the major 54 . By carrying out an elemental mass balance using the data provided by Boroson et al. 1989).85 yielded final gas tar contents that were in a similar range to observed values. Since there is no data available on heterogenous tar cracking mechanisms.264. that multiplying Boroson’s activation energy values by 0. 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. and lumping the results.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. 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 a trial and error method. the tar cracking temperature in eq.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development kinetic data provided by Boroson et al.

2kg CO2 = 6.8kg CH4 = 0. In this model.264)= 52.63kg C2H4 = 5.15kg CO = 27.5kg Primary Tar (C6H10.4O0. (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).) Figure 3.7kg CO = 3. 55 .1kg H2 = 1.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development component found in tar from downdraft gasifiers when this was analysed by direct mass spectrometry (Milne & Evans 1998).8kg Secondary Pyrolysis Primary Gases* = 26. 1999).4kg CH4 = 5.71O3.1 Pyrolysis mechanism used in the numerical model and product yields [adapted from Boroson et al.4kg * (Note: the gaseous products include Acetylene (C2H2) and Ethane (C2H6) but these have been omitted due to the very small quantities involved. 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).6 ) = 100kg Primary Pyrolysis Char (C) = 20. 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.4kg H2O = 16.3kg Secondary Tar (C6H6) = 6.65kg Secondary Gases* = 46.62kg CO2 = 6. Dry wood (CH1.

eq.ν 2 = 1.8) The heterogeneous reaction rates were estimated using eq.6) (3. in which reaction rate depends on film diffusion and intrinsic chemical reaction rate.ν 3 = 1. ν 1 = γ .9: this is adapted from Hobbs.3 Heterogeneous char combustion and gasification The unreacted shrinking core model.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development 3.7) (3. 3. H2.8. 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. ⎛ MC Ri = ⎜ ⎜ν j M j ⎝ ⎞ Av ρ j ⎟ ⎟ ⎡⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎠ ⎜ ⎟+⎜ ⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎢⎝ k m ⎠ ⎝ k i ⎣ ⎞⎤ ⎟⎥ ⎟ ⎠⎥ ⎦ (3.5-3. e. H2O. i = 1-4.2.9) where ⎛ − Ei k i = Ai Ts exp⎜ ⎜ RT ⎝ s Ri Ai Ei MC Mj νj ⎞ ⎟ . was used for the heterogeneous char oxidation and gasification reactions.g. ⎟ ⎠ = 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.5) (3. Radulovic and Smoot (1993). CO2.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 . j = O2.

the specific surface area or the reaction surface area. The ratio has been correlated by a first order Arrhenius-type relationship by different researchers for different types of char.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. 3. is one of the important fuel characteristics where heat and mass transfer to the particles in the bed are concerned.11) From eq. 57 . In this study. the stoichiometric coefficient γ can be estimated using ⎛ − EC ⎞ 2 + AC exp⎜ ⎟ ⎜ RT ⎟ s ⎠ ⎝ γ = ⎛ ⎛ − EC ⎞ ⎞ ⎟ 2 + 2⎜ AC exp⎜ ⎟ ⎜ RT ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ s ⎠⎠ ⎝ ⎝ (3.4 Homogeneous gas reactions Six homogeneous reactions were considered when developing the model. 3. This reaction surface area is related to the bed void fraction and the particle diameter as follows: ⎛ 6 Av = ⎜ ⎜dp ⎝ ⎞ ⎟(1 − ε ) ⎟ ⎠ (3.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development Av.2.5) and the ratio of CO/CO2 increases with the reaction temperature.11.10) CO and CO2 are generally the main products of char oxidation (eq.

An expression for the forward water-gas shift reaction rate was proposed by Grebenshchikova (1957). The water-gas shift reaction (eq. These are significant reactions in the downdraft gasification process.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.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. including the secondary tar (Hydrocarbon). 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.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 ⎟ ⎠ (3.13) (3.15) = reverse water-gas shift reaction rate (kmol/m³s) KC is the equilibrium constant.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 .

which is a significant reaction in downdraft gasification. proposed by Howard.17) 0. C2H4 and H2) released from primary and secondary pyrolysis processes.2. 59 .08Tg + 3Tg ln Tg − 2.18) where R6 A6 E6 CO2 P = hydrocarbon oxidation rate (kmol/m³s) = pre-exponential factor for hydrocarbon oxidation [(m1. CH4. treating the combustion of individual pyrolysis products (from both primary and secondary pyrolysis) separately is not practical. The mechanism for oxidation of carbon monoxide. As mentioned in subsection 3.16) The next homogeneous reaction considered here is the partial oxidation of hydrocarbon (secondary tar). Even though tar is not a single substance. CO is a major gas component released during the secondary pyrolysis process.5 O2 g (3.2. the mixture of products making up secondary tar was grouped and assumed to behave like benzene (C6H6).3 ⎛ − E6 ⎞ ⎟C R6 = εA6 exp⎜ ⎜ RT ⎟ C6 H 6 ⎝ g ⎠ ( ) (C )T P 0.3kmol0. 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. was used in this model. Williams and Fine (1973).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.5)/(kPa0.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development ⎛ 1 K C = exp⎜ ⎜ RTg ⎝ ⎛ ⎞⎞ ⎜11321 − 31.8 E − 4Tg 2 − 91500 ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ Tg ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠⎠ (3.

8 ( ) (C ) 0.s) = activation energy for carbon monoxide oxidation (J/mol) The mechanism for oxidation of methane.5 C H O R7 = εA7 exp⎜ 2 ⎜ RT ⎟ ⎝ g ⎠ (3.20) where R7 A7 E7 = carbon monoxide oxidation rate (kmol/m³s) = pre-exponential factor for carbon monoxide oxidation (m3/kmol.5)/(kPa0. in which the reaction products are CO and H2O (Dryer & Glassman 1973). was used in this model: CH 4 + 1.19) ( ) 0.5O2 ⎯k 7 CO2 ⎯→ ⎛ − E7 ⎞ ⎟(CCO )(CO 2 )0.3kmol0.5/kmol0.22) where R8 A8 E8 CCH4 = methane oxidation rate (kmol/m³s) = pre-exponential factor for methane oxidation (m1.21) 0.5 O2 g (3.23) 0.24) where R9 A9 = ethylene oxidation rate (kmol/m³s) = pre-exponential factor for ethylene oxidation [(m1.5s) = 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 ⎠ (3.5O2 ⎯k 8 CO + 2 H 2 O ⎯→ ⎛ − E8 ⎞ ⎟C R8 = εA8 exp⎜ ⎜ RT ⎟ CH 4 ⎝ g ⎠ (3.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development CO + 0.5 (3.5Ks)] 60 .3 ( ) (C )T P 0.7 O2 (3.

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.3 Gas-particle interchange 3. Stewart & Lightfoot 2002): 61 . under either steady state or unsteady-state conditions. This correlation (see below) was used in the model (Bird.1.6/kmol1. the quite extensive collection of data on forced convection for the flow of gases through packed beds has been critically analysed and correlated.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 3.1 ⎛ − E10 ⎞ ⎟C R10 = εA10 exp⎜ ⎜ RT ⎟ H 2 g ⎠ ⎝ where R10 A10 E10 CH2 = hydrogen oxidation rate (kmol/m³s) ( ) (C ) 1.5O2 ⎯⎯→ H 2 O (3.25) 1. 3.1 O2 (3. Recently. k 10 H 2 + 0.3.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).26) = pre-exponential factor for hydrogen oxidation (m3. which has been experimentally determined using various experimental techniques.

6/kmol1.5s) E8 = 202.8) CO/CO2 ratio Water Gas shift reaction (Equation 3.279 (J/mol) A6 = 2.10 E2 = 222. Kelbon & Krieger (1985b) Boroson et al.23) Hydrogen oxidation (Equation 3.514 (J/mol) Equation 3.300 (J/mol) A1 = 0.1 List of drying. Wei & Denn (1978) Hobb.20 Equation 3.13) Hydrocarbon oxidation (Equation 3.11 Equation 3.5Ks)] E6 = 80.4) Boudouard reaction (Equation 3. Williams & Fine (1973) Dryer & Glassman (1973) Smoot & Smith (1979) Varma.19) Methane oxidation (Equation 3.600 (J/mol) A9 = A9 E6 = E6 A10 =3.230 (J/mol) A7 = 1. (1989) Evans & Emmons (1977) Hobb.3 × 1011 (m3/kmol.900 (J/mol) Ap1 = 3.1 Equation 3.685 (m/sK) E1 = 74.18 [(m1.13 × 106 (s-1) Em = 87.s) E5 = 60.2s) E10 = 30.580 (J/mol) A8= 1.20 × 10 (s ) Ep1 = 113.25) Equation 3.14 Equation 3.825 (J/mol) A3 = 5.55 × 10 (s ) Ep2 = 93.9 Equation 3. Kelbon & Krieger (1985a) Chan.7144 (m/sK) E3 = 129.24 Equation 3. Radulovic & Smoot (1992) Yoon.s) E7 = 125.7 (m1.700 (J/mol) A4 = 3.3 EC = 28.07 × 10 4. Radulovic & Smoot (1992) Evans & Emmons (1977) Grebenshchikova (1957) Smoot & Smith (1979) Howard.21) Ethylene oxidation (Equation 3.26 62 .Chapter 3 Mathematical model development Table 3.7) Methane formation reaction (Equation 3.6) Water Gas reaction (Equation 3. Chatwani & Bracco (1986) Equation 3. devolatilization.17) Carbon monoxide oxidation (Equation 3.22 Equation 3.03 (m³/kmol. 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 3.2 Equation 3.42 ×10-3 (m/sK) E4 = 129.5)/(kPa0.9 Equation 3.0 × 1011.830 (J/mol) A2 = 589 (m/sK) 4 -1 5 -1 Chan.4(m3.4 Am = 5.5/kmol0.3kmol0.000 (J/mol) Ap2 = 9.53×108.700 (J/mol) AC = 4.185 (J/mol) A5 = 0.

especially for a low 63 . known as the Chilton-Colburn analogy. conduction and radiation.19(Re) 3 + 0.28) 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. since at the temperatures normally found in gasifiers. radiation becomes the most significant process.381 ⎟(Pr) 3 g⎜ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ (3.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development 2 − ⎛ ⎞ −2 hsg = Cp g m′′ ⎜ 2.78(Re) −0.3.2 Effective thermal conductivity The two modes of heat transfer.19(Re) 3 + 0. By applying an empirical analogy.78(Re) −0. This correlation was used in this study: 2 − m′′ ⎛ ⎞ 2 g ⎜ 2.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.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. a correlation for mass transfer in packed beds can be derived (Bird. Stewart & Lightfoot 2002). were considered in developing the effective thermal conductivity term.381 ⎟( Sc) − 3 km = ⎟ ρg ⎜ ⎝ ⎠ (3.

where D is reactor effective diameter in metre.1ε .29) where keff ks = effective thermal conductivity (W/mK) = thermal conductivity of solid phase (W/mK) γ =2/3.4 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).31) ψ depends on the ratio of particle diameter to effective reactor diameter (DeWasch & Froment 1971).Chapter 3 Mathematical model development conductivity solid material such as wood. Radulovic 64 . 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.30) (3. β=0.9~1 and ϕ = 0. ψ = 0. 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 (3.32) 3. The correlation proposed by Kunii and Smith (1960) was used for this model.14 ⎛dp 1 + 46⎜ ⎜D ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ 2 . (3. 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.

36) Gas effective radial conductivity1 k rg ⎧ ⎛ d p hrv ⎪ = k g ⎨ε ⎜1 + ⎜ kg ⎪ ⎝ ⎩ ⎡ ⎞ ⎛d ⎟ + 0.44k 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 + 0.14 Pr Re/ ⎢1 + 46⎜ p ⎜ D ⎟ ⎢ ⎝ ⎠ ⎣ 1 ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ 2 ⎤⎫ ⎥⎪ ⎬ ⎥⎪ ⎦⎭ (3.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development and Smoot (1992).5431(k − 1)] − k (3.3525⎜ ⎟ 2 ⎝ k ⎠ φ= − 0.033k g Pr Re d p −1 (3.34) (3.35) h gw = hbw k rg / k rg + k rs hsw = hbw k rs / k rg + k rs ( ) ) ( (3.33) (3. are listed below: Bed -to-wall heat transfer coefficient1 hbw = 2.38) Packing parameter3 ⎛ k −1⎞ 0. The equations for estimating the bed-to-wall heat transfer coefficient.4569(k − 1) 3k ln[k − 0.39) where k = Conductivity ratio = ks kg 1 2 3 Froment and Bischoff (1979) DeWasch and Froment (1971) Kunii and Smith (1960) 65 .37) Gas effective radial conductivity ⎡⎛ 1 h d rs p k rs = k s (1 − ε ) / ⎢⎜ + ⎜φ ks ⎢⎝ ⎣ 2 ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ −1 + 2⎤ ⎥ 3k ⎥ ⎦ ( 3. together with their auxiliary equations.

fixed carbon and unbound water. Aerts and Baker (1991) for the purpose of combustion analysis.5. The physical and transport properties of biomass fuel were extensively reviewed by Ragland. Aerts and Baker (1991) Gronli and Mellaaen (2000) 3.5 Thermophysical and transport properties of solid and gas mixture 3. 66 .13 + (3.85 Koufopanos and Panayannakos (1991) Ragland. thermal conductivity.5.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development 3.2 Gas mixture Expressions for predicting gas-phase physical properties. including heat capacity.2. The relationships they developed for predicting specific heat values have been adopted here but information on other properties was obtained from different sources.1031 + 0. together with the references from which they were obtained. and diffusivity are required for model formulations. one needs to know how the physical properties of the solid alter as it changes from its initial state to its final state.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. Table 3.003867 TS = 0. The physical properties of the solid feed can readily be established but. These properties are all functions of temperature and composition.1 Solid phase The components of the solid phase specified in this study are biomass.0 x 10-4) TS = 0. from a modelling perspective. The expressions used in this study for predicting temperature dependent thermophysical and transport properties of solid fuel are listed in Table 3.

98 x 10-5) x (Tg/T0)⅔ (3.50858 x 10-5 Tg2 – 3. Prausnitz and Poling (1987) recommended the use of the equation proposed by Fuller.41079 x 102 + 1. 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. For the diffusion coefficient for binary gas systems at low pressures.40) The temperature dependent gas mixture viscosity used in this model is (White 1979): Viscosity (gas mixture) [kg/m.s] = (1.66918 x 10-1 Tg + 6.41) where T0 is a reference temperature. The general form of these expressions is shown below: Cpg = 9. taken as 300 K. the correlation proposed by Wayne (1983) was adopted here: Thermal conductivity (gas mixture) [W/mK] = (4.63930 x 10-8Tg3 (3.77 x 10-4) Tg 0. 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.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development For estimation of the thermal conductivity of the gas mixture.43) where Dij is the binary diffusion coefficient for component i diffusing into component j.717 (3.42) Reid. Reid. Schettler and Giddings (1966): 67 .

as described below. 3.00143T 1.44) 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.6 Conservation of mass Mass balance equations were developed for several components.75 2 AB 1 ⎡( v )A 13 + ( v )B 13 ⎤ ∑ ⎢∑ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ 2 (3.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.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development D AB = PM 0. These describe how the mass of particular components changes with time and distance along the reactor. 68 .45) Absolute enthalpies of gas species were calculated from the empirical coefficients provided by Turns (2000) (also given in Appendix B).

The volatile matter content of wood diminishes during the primary pyrolysis process.3.1 Solid phase component Char is consumed by several heterogeneous reactions (eq.48) The first terms on the left hand side of equations (3. This assumption is reasonable for moisture levels less than the fibre saturation point in which no free water is available (Bryden 1998).48) are the transient terms and the second terms are convective terms.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development 3.48) account respectively for the conversion of char to gaseous matter by 69 . 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.5-3.6.47) Changes in the moisture content of the fuel also needed to be characterised. In this model.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 (3.46-3.205 times the biomass density (this is taken from pyrolysis mechanism and product yield data described in Figure 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 terms on the right hand side of equations (3.1). The relevant mass balance equation is: (1 − ε ) ∂ρ V ∂ρ m + (1 − ε ) m S = − Rm ∂x ∂t (3.46 excluding the first term on the right hand side of the equation.46-3.46) Char density along the reactor was assumed constant and it can be equated to 0. This can be described by: (1 − ε ) ∂ρ V ∂ρ V + (1 − ε ) V S = − R p1 ∂x ∂t (3.

6. C2H4. is only considered for H2O 70 . O2.49) where. H2O. VS. CO2. Rm. CO2.50) where. C6H10. C6H6.71O3. CH4. i = O2. H2. which diminishes along the combustion and gasification zone of the reactor as char is consumed. for loss of volatile matter to the gas phase. CH4. attrition or agglomeration of particles takes place. 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. Assuming that no fragmentation. H2. The rates of mass loss from particles are important when it comes to determining local heat and mass transfer coefficients. (Cooper & Hallett 2000) and can be calculated as follows: ∂ ⎛ (1 − ε ) ρ C ⎜ ∂t ⎜ m P ⎝ ⎞ ∂ ⎛ VS ρ C ⎟+ ⎜ ⎟ ∂x ⎜ m ⎠ ⎝ P ⎞ ⎟=0 ⎟ ⎠ (3. CO. primary tar and secondary tar were considered in this model. CO. the reduction in the particle diameter can be related to the solid velocity. m P = ρ C π 6 dp 3 3. C2H4. and for loss of moisture to the gas phase by evaporation. N2.264. 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. H2O.2 Gas phase species Ten gas phase species. These are a function of char particle diameter.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development heterogenous reactions.

gaseous homogenous reactions.5M O2 R7 − 1.80 (3.5) 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.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development The first term on the left hand side of equation (3. secondary pyrolysis reactions.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 − 0.50 52.52) C C C 3. From equation (3. primary pyrolysis reactions. On the right hand side.20 27.80 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. 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.63 + R p2 52.80 6.80 − M H 2 R5 R − 2 M H2 MC (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 .40 R2 + R p1 + R p2 79.53) 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 1.51) − M O2 R9 − (0. and moisture evaporation.50 p1 52.5M O2 R8 (3.

80 ∂t (3.50 ∂t (3. Each energy balance equation consists of 6 terms. heat transfer due to solid/gas flow.60) 3. The relevant differential equation can be written as: ε ∂ρ g ∂t + ∂m ′′ g ∂x = R p1 + Rm + ∑ Ri i =1 4 (3. the overall gas mass balance is required.7 Conservation of energy The energy balance relationships include individual equations for the solid phase and for the gas phase. heat loss through the reactor wall.30 R p1 + Rm + 79. namely: transient heat transfer rate.10 R p1 + R p2 79.56) Ethylene: ε + = − R9 M C2 H 4 + (3.58) Secondary Tar: ε ′′ ∂ρ tar 2 ∂mtar 2 6.80 + = −R p2 + R p1 ∂x 79.80 (3.40 5.80 5.50 (3.40 R p2 52. and heat production 72 .65 = − R6 M tar 2 + R p2 + ∂x 52. convective heat exchange between the solid and gaseous phases.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. conduction through the medium (including radiative effects). They are explicitly coupled by the heat exchange that occurs between the gas and the solid.59) In addition to the mass balances for individual species.57) Primary Tar: ε ′′ ∂ρ tar1 ∂mtar1 52.50 52.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.

At the bottom of the char bed. 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. 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. 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. 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.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 (3.62) 3. and the fuel (biomass) composition and temperature at the inlet to the reactor. the ash pit temperature was defined as a function of the temperature at the base of the reactor bed. In this model. Since no significant reaction was observed at the bottom of the reactor.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development (or extraction) due to all chemical reactions (including drying). for simplicity. flow rate and temperature.8 The boundary and initial conditions Operator determined boundary conditions include the inlet air composition. the 73 . The composition of the raw biomass at the reactor inlet was assumed to be the same as that of the incoming fuel.

were assumed to be uniform along the reactor at the start of the run. This was necessary. 74 . It was assumed that wood is only added to the reactor once ignition has occurred and that.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development temperature gradients at the bottom boundary can be defined by the heat lost to the ash pit. Other parameters. For the solid phase. so that the release of large amounts of tar and smoke formed as the bed is warming up can be avoided. The initial conditions in the reactor are illustrated in Figure 3.64) Zero char loss through the grate is assumed so that Vs. can be set to zero at the bottom of the reactor.63) For the gas phase. the solid fuel velocity. since the chemical reactions are temperature dependent and some fraction of the fuel must be assumed to be at the ignition temperature. it is supplied continuously together with air.2. Before the model could be run. Siddique and Pham (1999). the initial conditions in the system needed to be specified. In this model an intermediate ignition temperature value of 1000 K was specified. The top 50 mm of char was assumed to be the combustion initiating fuel. It was assumed that a 500 mm depth of char was present in the reactor. k eff dTs = hrs (Ts − Tashpit ) dx (3. Gas temperatures were set equal to the inlet air temperature. as suggested by Bhattacharya. Suitable ignition temperatures range from 900 K to 1200 K. such as mole fractions and particle diameter. kg dT g dx = hrv (T g − Tashpit ) (3.

temperatures can be assumed uniform in the radial direction). 3000K 45 cm Figure 3. 3. No pressure difference exists along the reactor.2 Initial conditions in model reactor Other assumptions used in the model are: 1.e. 2 energy balance equations and the equation which relates char particle size to solid velocity) describing the transient one-dimensional downdraft 75 . 3. 10 gas mass balance equations. 4. 5.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development Air Wood Biomass (wood).9 Numerical methods The sixteen partial differential equations (3 solid mass balance equations. The gas mixture behaves as an ideal gas. as described in the next section. Void fraction is assumed to remain constant at its initial value. Gas and solid phases move through the reactor in plug flow (i. Particles are of uniform diameter and spherical in shape. 3000K Ignited char. With the above assumptions. 2. it was possible to solve the model equations numerically. 10000K 20 cm 5 cm 70 cm (Effective length of reactor) Unignited char.

76 .65) This form is also known as the central-difference scheme and is the natural outcome of a Taylor-series formulation (Patankar 1980). 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. was used to solve the model equations. In this section. Using linear interpolation functions between the grid points. 3. The control volume method proposed by Patankar (1980).1 Method of discretization To derive the algebraic equations from the model partial differential equations. the governing equation was integrated over the control volume placed on either side of the point of interest i (Figure 3. the differential equations were examined as they related to the underlying conservation principle.3). The calculation domain was divided into a number of nonoverlapping control volumes such that there was one control volume surrounding each grid point. Thus. To write a discrete form of the second order differential term. it is necessary to select a discretization method. step-by-step techniques used for solving the model equations are presented. and i-½ midway between i-1 and i.9. The distances between successive nodes were not necessarily equal. 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. In the control volume method. and must be solved using a numerical method.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development gasifier cannot be solved analytically.

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. In other words. For discretization of the time derivative. 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. it also has to be discretized in time.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. 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. The first order term in energy balance equations (eq. 3. 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. a backward difference approximation was used as follows: 77 . low Reynolds numbers). 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. In this numerical solution. In an upwind scheme.61 & 3. an upwind-difference scheme was used for discretization.62) represents convective terms.66) Since the model was transient. a central differencing was used for the second order terms and backward differencing was used for the first order terms.

that is. there are some basic rules which must be obeyed. Such nonlinear source terms cause a divergence problem during iterations and must be linearized.67) The superscript.9. 3. chemical reaction rates are highly nonlinear functions of temperature and also nonlinear functions of the mass fraction of gaseous species in some cases.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development (ρ g )i − (ρ g )i ⎛ ∂ρ g ⎞ ⎜ε ⎟ ⎜ ∂t ⎟ = ε ∆t ⎝ ⎠i 0 (3. 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.68) where φ is the unknown variable being solved for and the symbol φ* is used to denote the previous-iteration value of φ. The final form of the linearized equation can also be written as: S = S C + S Pφ (3. 0. These rules must be followed while linearization is being applied to source terms in both energy balance equations and mass balance equations. 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. The method can be expressed as: ⎛ dS ⎞ S = S + ⎜ ⎟ (φ − φ * ) ⎜ dφ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ * * (3.2 Source-term linearization In the model equations. Another requirement is that SC must always be positive.69) To apply this linearization method. A fully implicit scheme was used for discretization of space and time. the unknown variables in the spatial discretization were evaluated at the current time level of solution. 78 .

3. Similarly.9.62) since all related reactions for the gas phase are exothermic. making it desirable to reduce the extent of the changes in the values of dependent variable between successive iterations. in the solid phase energy balance equation (eq.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development For the energy balance equations. In the underrelaxation method used in this study. This can cause divergence problems. This process is known as underrelaxation. the source term can be underrelaxed using the relationship S C = (α )S C + (1 − α )S * C (3.70) where α is the underrelaxation factor. and the superscript. which is less than unity.3 Underrelaxation Because of the strongly nonlinear nature of the equations. which is a very useful device for strongly nonlinear problems to achieve stability of the solution. it should be noted that only reaction source terms with negative (endothermic) relations gave a negative SP. 3. 79 .61). There are many ways of performing underrelaxation. Thus. primary pyrolysis and all heterogeneous reactions were linearized while no linearization is required for source terms of the gaseous phase energy balance equation (eq. 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. in the case of mass balance equations. heat source terms concerned with drying. rapid changes can occur in the magnitude of source terms between successive iterations. *. denotes the value of the source term from the previous iteration. The step-by-step linearization of reaction source terms for solving the mass and energy balance equations is presented in Appendix C. 3.

of the model partial differential equations (eq. the number of grid points. To obviate this problem. Char: By eliminating the transient char density terms of equation 3.9. Exploratory tests showed that an α value of 0.46-3. as discussed in subsection 3. and the iterative procedure used.71) 80 . leading to instabilities in the computation. the grid spacing. such as the nature of the problem.9. 3. Usually.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.4 Model discretization This subsection presents the algebraic equations in their final form. underrelaxation was carried out for all source terms related to gas oxidation reactions. The optimum value depends upon a number of factors. 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.1. the solid velocity was estimated as follows: VS i −1 = BVS i + C A (3. The step-by-step formulations of algebraic equations are presented in Appendix C.46. which was carried out together with linearization and underrelaxation. There are no general rules for choosing the best value of α. For mass balance equations.3 is the most suitable for use in the computer program developed.62). A large value of α enables the program to be run faster but it can result in a failure to converge. a suitable value of α can be found by experience and from exploratory computations for the particular problem (Patankar 1980). after discretization. 3.

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. ρmi = Bρ m i −1 + C A (3.73) 81 .47.48. 3. Volatile matter: After discretization was carried out on eq.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. 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.

gaseous mass balance equations can be written in the general form φi = Bφ i −1 + C A (3.76) where. 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. This was done using the ideal gas law: ρj = pjM j RTg (3. 3. Since all of the reaction rate equations were originally derived in terms of mass concentrations.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. ⎡ ⎤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 (3.49.75) where φ is the molar fraction of the gaseous species concerned.

60).51.5 C6 H 6 ∆xi − 1 + 2 * (0.25 ∆xi − 1 O 83 .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− 2YO2.5 6 ∆xi − 1 + H 2 * (0.3) M O2 R8 ∆xi − 1 + (0.8YC06.8) M O2 R8 ∆xi − 1 * YO2 2 + (3) M O2 (ε )k 6Tg−0.5YH .5 g P Y 1. Given below are the equations used in the model for each gaseous species and the total gas mixture.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 (3.6) M O2 R7 ∆xi − 1 * YO2 2 + + M O2 (ε )k 9T − 0.3.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development Reaction rate equations rewritten with molar fraction terms are presented in Appendix C. Oxygen: (YO 2 )i where ⎛ (ε ) PM O2 ∆xi − 1 2 A=⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ = B(YO 2 )i −1 + C A (3.1) M R * ∆x + (0.55) 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 ⎝ ⎞ * * ⎟ + (0.5 P 1.8 0.77) ⎞ ⎛ ⎟ + ⎜ 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. These were obtained by discretization of the model partial differential equations (eq. 3.

20 27.80 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 (3.79) ⎛ (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 = (3.50 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.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development ⎛ M B = ⎜ m ′′ CO g ⎜ Mg ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ i −1 0 ⎛ (ε )YCO PM CO ∆x i − 1 ⎞ M 3.40 2 ⎟ C =⎜ R p1 ∆xi − 1 + R p 2 ∆xi − 1 + (2γ − 1) + R1 ∆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 MC ⎠i 2 2 0 * * + 2 R9 M H 2 ∆xi − 1 − M H 2 R10 ∆xi − 1 + (1.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 * 1.1M H 2 R10 ∆xi − 1 * YH 2 2 ⎛ (ε )YH 2 PM H 2 ∆xi − 1 2 C =⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ 2 ⎞ M H2 ⎟ + 1.81) ⎞ ⎛ ⎟ + ⎜ 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 ⎞ 16.63 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 52.50 ⎝ ⎠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.

50 2 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.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 (3.80 ⎠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 = (3.40 R ∆x R p 2 ∆xi − 1 + R4 ∆xi − 1 p1 1 + i− ⎟ 79.1) M CH 4 R8 ∆xi − 1 2 ⎞ M CH 4 5.2 C2 H 4 9 ∆x 1 i− ⎟ 2 YC*2 H 4 ⎠i ⎛ M C2 H 4 B = ⎜ m′′ ⎜ g M g ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠i−1 ⎞ * ⎟ + 5.10 ⎟ + 0.83) ⎞ ⎛ ⎟ + ⎜ m′′ M C2 H 4 ⎟ ⎜ g Mg ⎠i ⎝ ⎞ M R* ⎟ + 1.2M C2 H 4 R9 ∆xi − 1 p2 i− 1 ⎟ 2 2 52.40 R ∆x + 0.82) ⎞ ⎛ ⎟ + ⎜ m ′′ M CH 4 ⎟ ⎜ g Mg ⎠i ⎝ * ⎞ (1.84) 86 .1) M CH 4 R8 ∆xi − 12 ⎟ + * ⎟ YCH 4 ⎠i ⎛ (ε )YCH 4 PM CH 4 ∆xi − 1 2 C =⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ * + (0.

85) ⎞ ⎛ ⎟ + ⎜ m′′ M tar 2 ⎟ ⎜ g Mg ⎠i ⎝ * ⎞ ⎟ + (1.2) M tar 2 R6 ∆x 1 * i− ⎟ 2 Ytar 2 ⎠i ⎛ M B = ⎜ m′′ tar 2 ⎜ g M g ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ i −1 ⎞ * ⎟ + 6.65 R ∆x + 0.50 ⎠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 ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ + 52.80 ⎠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 (3.80 R ∆x p1 i− 1 ⎟ 2 79.86) ⎛ (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 .2 M tar 2 R6 ∆xi − 1 p2 i− 1 ⎟ 2 2 52.

3. 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 3.62) became: Solid phase: Ai (Ts )i = Bi (Ts )i +1 + Ci (Ts )i −1 + Di where (3. After linearization and underrelaxation were carried out.9. the solid and gas phase energy balance differential equations (eq.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development For energy balance equations.1.87) ⎛ (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 .61 & 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.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 ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ (3.87 & 3.9. 3. The step-by-step solution procedures of TDMA are available in Patankar (1980). which are 89 .88) were solved by applying the Thomas algorithm. which is also known as TDMA (TriDiagonal-Matrix Algorithm).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. 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.

which is an efficient method to resolve the sharp gradients accurately while avoiding wasting computer time by over-resolving the smooth-solution regions. 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. (3. In the static rezone method. where the gradients of variables are not as steep. In addition. then to retain the accuracy and stability of the solution. this can be defined as 90 . 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.e. Because of this. based on the local truncation errors. since it moves upward or downward according to the input operational parameters.89) The mesh monitor function can be defined by different approaches (i. and the second part is to interpolate the solution from the old grid to the new one. 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. Varieties of adaptive mesh methods are available in the literature.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development exponential functions. 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. This procedure is known as adaptive gridding. In the numerical solution used in this study. a global static rezone method based on the equidistribution principle was used. the curvature and the combined arc-length and curvature). the reaction front cannot be located at the same position in the transient condition. a new grid can be computed satisfying xi +1 ∫ W = constant xi where W is the mesh monitor function. In this study. whereas a coarse grid was used outside the combustion zone. the arc-length. an arc-length monitor was used. if an equal grid size method were used. by applying the equidistribution principle.

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

Another such parameter is the effective thermal conductivity. The local particle diameters of the solid from the top of the reactor were determined by using the estimated local velocities. the other operational parameters needed to be defined. these have to be known to solve the mass balance equations. For example. 3. 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. such as reaction rates and mass transfer coefficients. Keff. 3. which can be determined only if the solid temperature at each grid point is known. the solution had to be obtained by a trial and error method with iterative steps. biomass fuel properties (initial particle diameter. calculations started using the defined initial temperature profiles for the temperature dependent properties. These were air supply rate. the solution of the algebraic linear equations is not straightforward because of the presence of several parameters which are dependent on each other. Before computation started. but for calculating the solid temperature the value of Keff is required. Therefore. 2.77-3. The detailed iteration procedures were as follows: 1.74.88) derived from the governing mass and energy balance partial differential equations. After setting the initial conditions. The local velocities of the solid were estimated starting from the bottom of the reactor by using heterogeneous reaction rates. Even after linearization has been carried out. the calculation started from the grate where VS was equal to zero.8. 3. For the solid velocity. void fraction) and reactor dimensions (effective length and diameter of the reactor).Chapter 3 Mathematical model development were solved for by using the 16 algebraic linear equations (eq.71-3. density. The computation started at the top of the reactor since all boundary values except VS were defined at the top of the reactor. The boundary and initial conditions were set as discussed in section 3. 92 .

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

4 Flow chart for the numerical solution of stratified downdraft gasifier 94 .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. 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.

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

ed. John Wiley. eds. W-CR. JB. 4451-60. no. Siddique AHM. RB. GF 1971. ‘Modeling and experimental verification of physical and chemical processes during pyrolysis of a large biomass particle’. vol. Fuel. Bhattacharya SC. 35. 64. KM & Ragland. W-CR. 26. Transport phenomena. 193-216. vol. New York. KW 1996. DeWasch. Longwell. fixed bed combustor’. AP & Froment. University of Wisconsin-Madison. vol. pp. ‘Performance of a down-draft charcoal gasifier’. ‘A numerical model for packed-bed combustion of char particles’. Kelbon. JP & Peters. 219-36. 2nd edn. vol. 2nd supplementary volume. 24.11 References Basak. Chan. vol. M & Krieger. BB 1985a. Chemical Engineering Science.Chapter 3 Mathematical model development 3. EN 2002. pp. pp. Boroson. pp. ‘A study on wood gasification for lowtar gas production’. ‘Numerical modeling of a deep. 96 . 269-75. Applied Energy. Fundamentals of thermochemical biomass conversion. J & Hallett. HE 1981. WE & Lightfoot. vol. 629-34. Bird. 10. Stewart.. Chemical Engineering Science. Chan. ‘Computational modeling of wood combustion’. Bryden. AK & Bhattacharya. SC 1987. pp. pp. WLH 2000. Bryden. Kelbon. Howard. ‘Product yields and kinetics from the vapor phase cracking of wood pyrolysis tars’. J Wiley. BB 1985b. Benson. pp. vol. WA 1989. 1. ‘Product formation in the pyrolysis of large wood particles’.The International Journal. RP Overend et al. 285-96. & Pham H-L 1999. Chemistry of coal utilisation. M & Krieger. Cooper. no. 26. KM 1998. Energy and Fuel. MA Elliott. ML.55. AIChE Journal. pp. Energy. 1505-13. 1208. PhD Dissertation. ‘A two-dimensional heterogeneous model for fixed bed catalytic reactors’. 3.

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

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

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

The model can predict the gas composition. the performance of the transient model developed is presented and discussed in detail. Table 4. firstly. As discussed in the previous chapter. and then the sensitivity of the model to small changes in parameter values is analysed. were chosen to be as close as possible to the experimental conditions. which also formed the base case for the sensitivity analysis. and gas and solid surface temperature profiles along the gasifier axis under transient conditions.325 300 1000 50 15 0. These parameter values are shown in Table 4.1 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.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 4.1. primary and secondary tar contents.46 100 .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. In this chapter. There are two main sections in this chapter. The selected operating parameters. to run the computer program the operating parameters must be defined. the general characteristics of the model output are described.

To obtain comparable results for the different ranges of model and operating parameter inputs. computer simulations were employed to develop plots showing how a variety of parameters varied along the reactor as a function of time (Figure 4. Some figures are given as paired plots. in all cases this was sufficient to achieve steady state operation.2. 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.1. 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.7. a 50mm deep section of the char bed was assumed to be ignited and char oxidation was therefore the dominant heat source.2.1 to Figure 4. As is shown later. the transient behaviour of temperature and gas composition under warm up conditions is discussed first. all of the results presented were generated by the model for the same operating period. velocity profiles. temperature profiles stabilise and the gasifier starts producing combustible gas. as a result.15).Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 4. The stability of the reaction zone is also evaluated by varying the specified rate at which inlet air is supplied. gas composition profile. The volatiles released in this process burn readily and. In this section. profiles of solid phase components (unbound water and volatile matter). gasification reaction rates in this zone are very low.1 Transient behaviour of temperatures and gas compositions At the beginning of a simulation. above the ignition zone. then the predicted solid and gas temperature profiles. This phenomenon is discussed in detail in subsection 4. the combustion zone moves upwards. This latter condition is known as the steady operating mode of the reactor.2 Generalised model predictions Using the input operating parameter values shown in Table 4. pyrolysis of the lower part of the wood bed is by this time taking off quite rapidly. with each showing the same quantity. However. 101 . After sufficient time has elapsed for the entire char bed to heat up. and reaction rates profile under steady state conditions are presented. namely 30 minutes of operation. While the char below the combustion zone is heating up. 4.

2 shows the predicted changes of gas phase temperature with time. 102 . 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. Initially. This phenomenon is also known as flaming combustion in the case of a combustor and flaming pyrolysis in the case of a downdraft gasifier. As temperatures in the gasification zone increase over time. as would be expected. the rate of the heterogeneous gasification reaction is not high enough to produce self-burning producer gas. the amounts of CO and H2 along the gasification zone increase while the amounts of CO2 and H2O decrease correspondingly. this is because the concentrations of the two main combustible components. Figure 4. It then increases as the gas absorbs heat released during the char oxidation reaction. Before the reactor reaches a steady operating condition. are very low.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).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. the gas temperature increases very rapidly to a peak level.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. Figure 4. while the char bed below the ignition level is being heated up by heat released in the oxidation zone. Since there are no gas phase oxidation reactions at the beginning of the start up period. carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The gas temperature was initially assumed to be the same as the inlet air temperature. the gas temperature is initially lower than the solid temperature. Once gas phase oxidation reactions of pyrolytic decomposition products (volatile gases and secondary tar) begin. then. Heat released from oxidation of volatiles is utilized to produce more volatile matter from the pyrolysis zone and this continues till pyrolysis is complete.

the heating value of the produced gas is very poor at the beginning but increases over time till it reaches a steady value. 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. not unexpectedly. outlet gas composition changes over time are presented together with the changes in the corresponding higher heating value of the producer gas (dry basis).4.2 Transient behaviour of gas temperature profile In Figure 4.1 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. 103 .

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. (b) CO2. (c) H2.4 Transient behaviour of outlet producer gas properties 104 .3 (d) Figure 4.3 (c) Distance from grate (mm) Fig 4.3 (a) Distance from grate (mm) Fig 4. (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.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 Transient behaviour of gas composition profile (a) CO.

This happens mainly because exothermic surface oxidation reactions cease.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 4. Beyond its peak. 105 .2. the gas temperature ceases to rise any further. This peak in the gas temperature occurs slightly further down the gasifier than the peak in the solid temperature. Differences between the solid and gas temperatures were substantial only in the combustion zone and tended to become smaller in the reduction zone. mainly due to heat loss to the solid phase and reactor walls. 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 4.5 shows the predicted steady state temperature profiles for the set of baseline operating parameters. the solid surface temperature increases very sharply at the point where the highly exothermic char oxidation reaction starts. 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. 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. the gas temperature increases very rapidly. which are the products of primary and secondary pyrolysis. These results show that as one moves down the gasifier. the solid temperature starts to decrease. Then. due to utilization of the remaining oxygen in gas phase oxidation reactions. The increase in solid temperature causes an increase of gas temperature through convective solid-to-gas heat transfer. When the gas temperature is hot enough to initiate oxidation of volatile gases and secondary tars. now decrease.2 Temperature profiles Figure 4. Gas temperatures. having peaked at the end of the oxidation zone. Also. once all the volatiles have been oxidised.5 (b)). the predominantly endothermic reactions of char with steam and carbon dioxide that are characteristic of the gasification zone start to increase in importance.

5 (b) Figure 4.5 (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 4.5 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 .

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. the heterogeneous gas-char reactions. The solid velocity at the top of the reactor is constant.00 1.14 0. This was not expected to have any significant impact on what was predicted to happen lower down in the gasifier.2.12 0.08 0.06 0. volatilisation. and expansion due to the increase of the gas phase temperature. 0.6.10 0. This velocity drops to zero at the grate since there was assumed to be no char loss through the grate.8 Velocity of solid (mm/s) Vs Vg 0. The predicted superficial gas velocity profile along the gasifier shows a very different pattern.3 Velocity profiles The predicted solid and gas velocity profiles along the gasifier are shown in Figure 4.04 0.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 4.6 Velocity of gases mixture (m/s) 0.0 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Distance from grate (mm) Figure 4. the gas velocity is the same as the air inlet velocity. It then increases rapidly due to the large amount of gas released by drying.02 0. the particle size reduces and causes the fuel velocity to decrease.4 0.2 0. Along the unreacted biomass particle bed.6 The solid and gas velocity profiles (Vs and Vg respectively) along the axis of the gasifier 107 . however. 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. In the char oxidation and gasification zones.0 0.

volatile matter and char (which was assumed to be pure carbon). heat takes a while to move from the surface of wood particles to the particle interior.7. 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 3.7 shows the predicted changes in density of two solid phase components. Also shown is the solid surface temperature profile. namely unbound water. For the gasifier model.4 Solid densities profiles In this study. 108 .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. unbound water and volatiles. in the drying and pyrolysis zones along the axis of the gasifier.2). however. wood was treated as a mixture of three solid species.2.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 4. which is about 350 K higher than the temperature required to complete the devolatilization of finely divided virgin wood.2. 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). 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. This result may or may not be physically accurate.) Figure 4. in particles 20-30 mm in size. This is not unreasonable because. From Figure 4. From Figure 4. it has units of kg/m³. the term density is used to refer to the mass of the component under consideration that is present in unit mass of reactor volume. 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. (In this subsection.

7 (b) Figure 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 .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 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.

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

120 . only some of the secondary tars are present in the condensed tar due to their volatility (Reed. tar content. both primary and secondary tar outlet levels drop at higher air supply rates (see Figure 4. reaction zone movement is not constant throughout the reactor warming up stage.1 Airflow rate Air supply rate to the gasifier is one of the most important operating parameters. this is attributed to higher thermal cracking rates at higher gas phase temperatures.16 (c)).2. all of the values of reaction front movement presented are those calculated for the case where steady state conditions have been achieved (i. 4. As a result. Therefore.16 (b) shows that peak gas phase temperatures increased faster than peak solid phase temperatures as the air supply rate was increased.16 shows the effects of variations in airflow rate on gasifier behaviour.e.7). 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. Figure 4.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). Levie & Graboski 1987). This is attributed to a more rapid increase in gas phase oxidation rates than in solid phase oxidation rates as temperatures rose. strongly influencing the temperature profiles.3. for the period between 25 minutes and 30 minutes after ignition). and stability of the reaction zones. Figure 4. As discussed in a previous subsection (4. to obtain comparable results for the different ranges of model and operating parameter inputs used in the sensitivity analysis.

16 (e) Figure 4.4 Secondary tar (vol%) 4.16 (c) 18 Reaction zone velocity (mm/sec) 0.7 0. -ve for downward) 121 .1 0 Secondary tar (Non-condensable) 0.020 0.040 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 4.030 12 kg/hr 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.16 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.16 (d) 4.010 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 4.2 0.050 0.000 -0.010 0.16 (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) 0.16 (b) 4.

2.16 (e)). The other gaseous component that changes significantly is methane. Increases in the solid temperature (Ts) would be expected to increase the rate of heterogeneous gasification reactions and therefore the CO level. 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. as Figure 4. As discussed in section 4. The main reason for this is that increasing the airflow rate also increases nitrogen concentrations in the gas.17. air supply rate controls the stability of the reaction zones. the char consumption rate increases. 4. Higher solid phase temperatures also increase the heterogeneous water-gas reaction rates. In the 122 . which leads to a higher solid velocity and causes the reaction zone to move downwards towards the grate (see Figure 4. lower CH4 levels are observed because of the higher CH4 oxidation rates at higher temperatures.16 (d) shows. the predicted drop in H2O level appears more significant than the increase in H2 level as air flow rates rise. Of particular interest is that changes in the concentration of CO in the outlet gas at different air flow rates are not significant.2 Initial particle size The predicted sensitivity of system output parameters to changes in initial wood particle diameter is shown in Figure 4. the rate of volatiles production is greater for a small particle than for a larger particle. this is offset by the higher gas temperature.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. 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. At higher air supply rates.3.7. In the pyrolysis zone. Thus.16(d). which increases the rate of oxidation of CO released in the pyrolysis processes. However. this has the effect of emphasising the decrease in the volume percentage of H2O and retarding the increase in the volume percentage of hydrogen. At higher air supply rates. However. the rate at which heat from the particle surface penetrates to the particle core is faster in the case of a smaller particle.

char oxidation rates fall and more oxygen is utilized for gas phase combustion.3.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions combustion and gasification zones. 8. As a result. 4. 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.18 for five fuel moisture contents. smaller particles enhance char combustion rates and lead to higher solid peak temperatures. Predicted exit gas compositions as a function of initial wood particle size are presented in Figure 4. lower exit CO and H2 concentrations. lower primary and secondary tar outputs are observed in the case of large wood particles. leading to increases in gas phase temperatures. As a result. a smaller char particle diameter increases the total surface area per unit volume and decreases mass transfer resistances. 12 and 15% (dry basis).3 Initial moisture content The effect of increasing fuel moisture content on the phenomena occurring within the reaction region is shown in Figure 4. Because of the lower specific surface areas in beds of larger particles. reaction zones show a tendency to move upwards. 10. thereby promoting both char oxidation and gasification. As a result. and higher exit CO2 concentration are predicted for larger solid fuel particles (see Figure 4.17 (d)). As particle sizes decrease. CH4 is also present in decreasing amounts as particle sizes increase. This results in more combustible gas species being consumed within the oxidation zone when larger char particles are present. 5. (b) and (c).17 (d). 123 .17 (a). At larger particle sizes. These effects are illustrated in Figure 4. this can be attributed to the faster pyrolysis rate (Figure 4.17 (e)).

060 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 0.17 (c) 20 16 Compostion (vol%) Reaction zone velocity (mm/sec) 0.17 (d) 4.020 0. -ve for downward) 124 .7 Initial particle diam eter (m m ) 4.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 4.3 100 50 0 15 20 25 30 Initial particle diam eter (m m ) 0.030 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 4.010 0.070 0.6 0.5 0.050 0.2 0.4 Secondary tar (vol%) 300 Secondary tar (Non-condensable) 0.17 (e) Figure 4.1 0 0.17 (b) 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.

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

b) 4.010 0.020 0.18 (c) 18 Reaction zone velocity (mm/sec) 0.4 0.18 (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) 0.5 0.18 (d) 4.2 0.035 0.3 0.18 (e) Figure 4.045 0.6 0.025 0.7 0.18 (b) 4.1 0 Secondary tar (vol%) Initial m oisture content (%d.040 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.b) Initial m oisture content (%d.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.030 0. -ve for downward) 126 .005 0.015 0.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.

Miropol’skii and Mal’kovskii (1986). however. and reaction zones move towards the bottom of the bed (Figure 4. More oxygen is consumed in char oxidation reactions and so less is available for hydrocarbon oxidation reactions. As a result. So.19 (a)) and hence in heterogeneous gas-char reaction rates.19. 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. the basic solidgas heat transfer coefficient used in this model was one formulated for a non-reacting surface. As reported by Dzhapbyev.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 4. The effects of changing ξ on the model outputs are shown in Figure 4. solid velocities increase. According to Dzhapbyev. a smaller ξ results in a more prolonged gas combustion process and consequently a lower peak gas phase temperature (Figure 4. Because of this. A reduction in the value of ξ leads to a decrease in the heat transfer rate from the solid phase to the gas phase.4 Solid-gas heat transfer coefficient Heat transfer coefficients derived for a reacting surface are scarce.0. 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.19 (d)).19 (b)).19 (a) & Figure 4. Therefore the initially calculated heat transfer coefficient needs to be modified for use in the gasifier model.19 (e)). Since oxidation of volatile gases depends on gas phase temperature.3. a higher primary and secondary tar content is observed at smaller values of ξ (Figure 4. CO and CH4 with increasing ξ is a direct consequence of this increase in gas phase reaction activity (Figure 4.19 (c)). Radulovic & Smoot 1996).6 was selected by comparison with results from experimental work (see Chapters 5 and 6 for details). 127 . By increasing ξ. For the present study a base case value of 0. the factor (ξ) that accounts for the reactive nature of the fixed bed can have a value ranging from 0. Miropol’skii and Mal’kovskii (1986). the solid-gas heat transfer coefficient for a nonreacting system exceeds that for a reacting system. Ghani. The ratio of reacting to non-reacting heat–transfer coefficient (ξ) has been introduced as a means of doing this (Cho & Joseph 1981.02 to 1.

Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 1800 Temperature (K) 1500 1200 900 600 300 700 650 ξ = 0.2 0.8 0.5 Ts Tg 600 550 500 450 400 Distance from grate (mm) Fig 4.7 ξ = 0.030 0.010 0.4 Secondary tar (vol%) Reacting to non-reacting heat transfer coefficient ratio (-) Reacting to non-reacting heat transfer coefficient ratio (-) 4.3 0.9 0.19(c) 18 Reaction zone velocity (mm/sec) 0.6 0.7 ξ = 0.19 (d) 4.005 0.5 0.025 0.19 (e) Figure 4.9 4.8 ξ = 0.6 0.1 0 Secondary tar (Non-condensable) 0.6 ξ = 0.5 0.6 ξ = 0.19 (b) 4.19 (a) Primary tar (Condensable) 2000 1900 1800 Primary tar (mg/Nm³) Temperature (K) 1700 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 0.8 0.7 0.5 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.020 0.8 ξ = 0.7 ξ = 0.035 0.015 0. 6 ξ = 0.000 ξ = 0. -ve for downward) 128 .9 Peak Ts Peak Tg 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0.9 16 Compostion (vol%) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CO CO2 H2O Gas species H2 CH4 ξ = 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.

and larger quantities of CO and CH4 are present in the exit gas.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 4.5 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. Kato. use of a limiting maximum value of the mass-transfer coefficient has been recommended (Bhattacharya et al. the amounts of combustible components consumed in the oxidation zone fall. This leads to a greater proportion of the oxygen being consumed in reactions with volatile products. To overcome this problem. 1986. The effects of varying the mass transfer coefficient value on the system outputs are presented in Figure 4. In contrast. In this study.20. 129 . gas temperatures drop. A slight increase in H2 levels is also observed (Figure 4.20 (c)). The mass transfer coefficient strongly affects the rates at which gaseous reactants diffuse to the fuel surface and react with the fuel. which was found to give results closely matching those obtained experimentally. with the result that the gas temperature increases (Figure 4.20 (d)). was therefore selected as a maximum mass transfer coefficient value to use in the simulation for the base case. A value of 0. Di Blasi 2000).045 m/s. direct application of existing empirical correlations to determine the rate of the diffusion-controlled combustion reactions in the gasifier resulted in unrealistic temperature values. A reduced mass transfer rate results in heterogeneous char oxidation reactions slowing down in comparison with gas phase combustion reactions. 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). Thus a lower mass transfer coefficient leads to decreased heterogeneous gas-char reaction rates.3. if mass transfer rates increase (due to an increase in the mass transfer coefficient value). 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.20 (b)). and both primary and secondary tar levels decrease (Figure 4.

005 0.025 0.050 0.4 0.05 0.040 m/s 0.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 1800 Temperature (K) 1500 1200 900 600 300 700 0.2 50 0.020 0.20 (e) Figure 4.04 m/s 0.000 0.040 m/s 0.05 m/s Ts Tg 650 600 550 500 450 400 Distance from grate (mm) Fig 4.055 m/s 4.045 0.20 (c) 18 Reaction zone velocity (mm/sec) 0.040 0. -ve for downward) 130 .050 m/s 0.20 (b) 4.015 0.1 0 0.7 0.045 m/s 0.010 0.045 m/s 0.5 150 100 0.055 Secondary tar (vol%) Temperature (K) 0 Maxim um m ass transfer coefficient (m /s) Maxim um m ass transfer coefficient (m /s) 4.045 m/s 0.050 m/s 0.04 0.20 (d) 4.045 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.030 0.055 Peak Tg 200 250 Secondary tar (Non-condensable) 0.3 0.6 0.035 0.20 (a) Primary tar (Condensable) 1900 1800 Primary tar (mg/Nm³) 1700 1600 Peak Ts 1500 1400 1300 1200 0.045 0.05 0.04 0.055 m/s 16 Compostion (vol%) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CO CO2 H2O Gas species H2 CH4 0.

3. 4. A reduction in heat and mass transfer exchange area reduces the extent of heterogeneous reactions. decreasing the heat and mass exchange area decreases the proportions of CO. The model also neglects the loss of effective surface area when particle surfaces are in contact.21 (c)). The effects of varying the heat and mass transfer exchange area (Av) are presented in Figure 4. This was done by multiplying the base case area by factors ranging from 0.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions Since gas temperatures are lower in the case where mass transfer rates increase. there is nevertheless a decrease in overall gas-char reaction rates and reaction zones move upwards (Figure 4. an increase in gas temperature (Figure 4.2.21 (b)).21 (e)). 131 .21 (d)). despite the higher value of the mass transfer coefficient.21. particles are not spherical and char particles do break up into smaller pieces. The effect of this is to increase the particle surface area per volume above the value assumed in the model. the biomass particles were taken to be spherical in shape and the effect of char particles breaking up was not accounted for. Therefore a sensitivity analysis was carried out to assess the effect of changes in heat and mass exchange area.8 to 1. as a result. and a decrease in primary and secondary tar levels in the outlet gas (Figure 4. As also happens when the mass transfer coefficient is reduced. This results in more oxygen being consumed in volatiles combustion processes. Reducing the heat and mass transfer exchange area also decreases char consumption rates and. and CH4 in the outlet gas due to the higher combustion rates at higher gas phase temperatures (Figure 4. however. In reality. solid temperatures along the gasification zone (not peak temperatures) also decrease.20 (e)). H2.6 Heat and mass exchange area In this model. reaction zones tend to move upwards (Figure 4. As a result.

9 1.21 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.4 0.015 0.1 1.8 Distance from grate (mm) Fig 4.035 0.2 0.3 0.2 Av x 1.21 (e) Figure 4.010 0.21 (c) 4.000 Av x 0.9 Av x 1.8 0.030 0.2 Heat and m ass transfer exchange area m ultiplication factor (-) Peak Ts Peak Tg 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0.0 1.0 Av x 1.025 0.0 Ts Tg Av x 0.040 0.9 Av x 1.9 1.1 Av x 1.1 0 Secondary tar (vol%) Heat and m ass transfer exchange area m ultiplication factor (-) 4. -ve for downward) 132 .1 1.8 0.6 0.2 Secondary tar (Non-condensable) 0.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 1800 Temperature (K) 1500 1200 900 600 300 640 620 600 580 560 Av x 1.020 0.0 Av x 1.2 4.1 Av x 1.21 (d) 4.5 0.2 16 Compostion (vol%) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CO CO2 H2O Gas species H2 CH4 Av x 0.005 0.21 (b) 18 Reaction zone velocity (mm/sec) 0.21 (a) Primary tar (Condensable) 1800 1700 Primary tar (mg/Nm³) Temperature (K) 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 0.0 1.

probably because of the lower secondary tar oxidation rate reducing the peak gas temperature (Figure 4. in this model rate coefficients for the primary pyrolysis reactions were derived from experimental results obtained during the rapid pyrolysis of large wood particles. Secondary pyrolysis involves the cracking of primary tar into secondary tar and other combustible gases. As discussed in subsection 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.23.5 to 2. as Figure 4. as a consequence.0. 4.8 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. except that in this case.7 Kinetics of primary pyrolysis As described in chapter 3. reaction zones move upwards (Figure 4. 133 . A slight decrease in both gas and solid temperatures is observed at higher primary pyrolysis rates.22 (c)). An increase in primary pyrolysis rates produces more primary tar within a given time and completion of tar cracking is hindered.22 (e)).3.23 (c) shows. Changes in the rate coefficients were made by multiplying the pre-exponential factor in the rate equation by values ranging between 0. increasing the secondary pyrolysis reaction rate directly reduces the amount of primary tar.0. No significant changes in gas composition result from changing the value of the primary pyrolysis reaction rate (Figure 4.5 and 2. Primary pyrolysis is the process in which primary tars (oxygenates) are released from virgin wood.22 (b)).7.3.2. the primary pyrolysis process is one of the main factors affecting the stability of the reaction zone. Thus a higher tar content in the gas results at higher primary pyrolysis rates (Figure 4. the factor ranged in value from 0.22 (d)).Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 4. Thus. a faster pyrolysis rate leads to the reactor running in a pyrolysis dominant mode and.

22 (b) 4.22 (a) Primary tar (Condensable) 1800 80 1700 Temperature (K) 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 0.015 0.045 0.0 1.22 (c) 18 Reaction zone velocity (mm/sec) 0.040 0.030 0.0 Ap1 x 1.5 1.025 0.22 (d) 4.6 0.005 0.000 Ap1 x 0.3 0.0 Ap1 x 1.4 0.5 Ap1x 2.035 0.5 Ap1 x 1.22 (e) Figure 4.5 2.5 Ap1x 2.1 0 0.0 0. -ve for downward) 134 .0 1.020 0.5 Ap1 x 1.2 0.5 1.0 Peak Ts Peak Tg Primary tar (mg/Nm³) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.22 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.010 0.0 4.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 1.5 Secondary tar (vol%) Secondary tar (Non-condensable) Prim ary pyrolysis rate m ultiplication factor (-) Prim ary pyrolysis rate m ultiplicaton factor (-) 4.5 Ap1 x 0.5 Ts Tg 600 580 560 Distance from grate (mm) Fig 4.0 16 Compostion (vol%) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CO CO2 H2O Gas species H2 CH4 Ap1 x 0.0 Ap1 x 1.5 2.

24 shows. As Figure 4.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions Increasing the secondary pyrolysis reaction rate also leads to the formation of more combustible gases. changing secondary tar oxidation rates seems to have no significant effect on model operation. The results of the analysis are presented in Figure 4. the amount of secondary tar in the outlet gas is determined mainly by the rate of secondary tar oxidation. The effect of changes in secondary pyrolysis rates on gas composition was insignificant (Figure 4. 4. reduced char combustion rates and a tendency for reaction zones to move upwards (Figure 4. This suggests that secondary tar oxidation is not a rate limiting step in the process.3. Increases in secondary pyrolysis rates lead to higher gas phase oxidation rates.23 (e)).2.24. 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 0.23 (b)). 135 .8 to 1.23 (d)). the consumption of more oxygen in gas combustion reactions and increases in gas phase temperatures (Figure 4.9 Kinetic rate of oxidation of secondary tar In the model.

0 1.000 Ap2 x 0.0 Ap2 x 1.2 4.3 0.4 0.2 0.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions Ap2 = pre-exponential factor in secondary pyrolysis rate equation 1800 Ap2 x 1.015 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.6 0. -ve for downward) 136 .025 0.1 Ap2 x 1.9 1.1 1.8 0.035 0.8 620 600 580 560 Distance from grate (mm) Fig 4.23 (b) 4.8 Ap2 x 1.23 (d) 4.8 Ap2 x 1.23 (e) Figure 4.030 0.005 0.2 Ts Temperature (K) 1500 1200 900 600 300 640 Tg Ap2 x 0.9 1.2 Peak Ts Peak Tg Primary tar (mg/Nm³) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0.010 0.2 Secondary tar (Non-condensable) 0.2 16 Compostion (vol%) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CO CO2 H2O Gas species H2 CH4 Ap2 x 0.0 1.23 (c) 18 Reaction zone velocity (mm/sec) 0.1 0 Secondary tar (vol%) Secondary pyrolysis rate m ultiplication factor (-) Secondary pyrolysis rate m ultiplication factor (-) 4.1 1.0 Ap2 x 1.020 0.23 (a) Primary tar (Condensable) 1800 1700 Temperature (K) 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 0.5 0.8 0.1 Ap2 x 1.0 Ap2 x 1.

2 0.0 A6x 1.020 0.5 2.0 1.010 0.025 0.030 0.0 A6x 1.5 0.24 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.0 A6 x 0.24 (c) 18 Reaction zone velocity (mm/sec) 0.5 A6 x 1.0 Peak Ts Peak Tg Primary tar (mg/Nm³) 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0.0 0 0.24 (e) Figure 4.0 1.035 0.5 1.5 A6 x 2.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions A6 = pre-exponential factor in secondary tar oxidation rate equation 1800 A6 x 1.24 (d) 4.24 (b) 4.0 4.5 A6 x 1.015 0.5 A6 x 1.5 1.5 2.1 0. -ve for downward) 137 .4 Secondary tar (vol%) 0.000 A6 x 0.0 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 4.24 (a) Primary tar (Condensable) 1800 50 1700 Temperature (K) 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 0.3 0.005 0.6 Secondary tar (Non-condensable) Tar oxidation ratem ultiplication factor (-) Tar oxidation rate m ultiplication factor (-) 4.5 A6 x 2.

25. the rates of the heterogeneous gasification reactions are reduced and. a lower amount of CO and H2. the inner wall temperature was assumed to vary linearly with solid and gas temperatures over time. as a result. 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. Under such conditions the reaction zones rise up the gasifier. an empirical correlation suggested in the literature (Froment & Bischoff 1979) was used to find the bed-to-wall heat loss coefficient. 138 .3. Since the solid temperature falls in the case of a higher effective thermal conductivity. Also. conduction of heat upwards in the bed increases and pyrolysis occurs at a faster rate (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 2.25 (c)). 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. An analysis of the sensitivity of the model outputs to changes in effective thermal conductivity (Keff) is presented in Figure 4. In this model. To restore stable operation under such conditions the input air flow rate would have to be increased. a larger amount of CH4 is present due to less CH4 combustion in the oxidation zone (Figure 4.11 Heat loss through reactor wall In this study. As a result. and a higher amount of H2O is found in the outlet gas.4. All model outputs except for gas composition were found to be sensitive to variations in the effective thermal conductivity. 4. which depends on the thickness and type of materials in the reactor wall and insulation. At higher effective thermal conductivity levels.25 (a) & Figure 4.25 (b)).25 (d)). rates of tar cracking decrease and the gas has a higher tar content (Figure 4.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 4.3 (Kunii & Smith 1960).25 (e)).3.

Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 1800 Keff x 1.25 (c) 0.0 1.0 keff x 1.0 keff x 1.010 0. -ve for downward) 139 .020 0.5 0.5 keff x 2.5 keff x 1.0 18 16 Compostion (vol%) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CO CO2 H2O Gas species H2 CH4 keff x 0.5 keff x 1.0 0.0 4.040 0.7 0.0 Keff x 0.6 Secondary tar (vol%) Secondary tar (Non-condensable) Effective conductivity of solid pahse m ultiplication factor (-) Effective conductivity of solid pahse m ultiplication factor (-) 4.2 0.5 2.050 0.1 0 0.5 1.25 (d) 4.5 1.000 keff x 0.5 Ts Tg Temperature (K) 1500 1200 900 600 300 640 620 600 580 560 540 520 500 Distance from grate (mm) Fig 4.4 0.0 Peak Ts Peak Tg 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0.5 Keff x 1.5 keff x 2.5 2.25 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.030 0.25 (b) 4.25 (a) Primary tar (Condensable) 1900 180 1800 Primary tar (mg/Nm³) Temperature (K) 1700 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 0.25 (e) Figure 4.3 0.060 Reaction zone velocity (mm/sec) 0.0 1.

4 Conclusions The predictions of the transient model developed for a stratified downdraft biomass gasifier are given in this chapter. At the start of the combustion zone. In the case where heat losses are reduced. 140 . This shows that.0 times the base case value. 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 results obtained are presented in Figure 4. The hydrogen content of the producer gas was mainly determined by steam-carbon reactions in the char gasification zone.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. 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. 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.26 (c)). These results show that solid surface temperatures increase very sharply once the initial char oxidation reaction begins. As shown in Figure 4.26 (a) & Figure 4.5 to 2. 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. were very low at the beginning and gradually increased to a stable value. 4.26 (b)). At steady state. some CO was present in the gas leaving the oxidation zone and its concentration increased in the gasification zone. the two main combustible components. as might be expected.26 (e) the effect of a reduction in heat loss is to move the reaction zones downwards. The concentrations of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The model showed that 20-25 min was required to reach a steady operating condition. Under these conditions a very clean gas is produced (Figure 4.26 (d)). 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. When the heat loss is small.26.

005 0.5 0.000 hbw x 0.49 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 (-) 4.2 hbw x 1.5 hbw x 0.5 0.8 1.26 (c) 18 Reaction zone velocity (mm/sec) 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.5 0.55 0.035 0.52 0.0 1.0 hbw x 1.5 2.54 0.015 0.26 (b) 4.58 0.8 hbw x 1.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 1800 hbw x 1.0 1.5 Temperature (K) 1500 1200 900 600 300 700 Ts Tg 650 600 550 500 450 Distance from grate (mm) Fig 4.0 hbw x 1.0 hbw x 1.5 hbw x 0.2 16 Compostion (vol%) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CO CO2 H2O Gas species H2 CH4 hbw x 0.030 0.5 4.53 0.010 0.025 0.020 0. -ve for downward) 141 .51 0.57 Secondary tar (vol%) 0.045 0.5 2.0 0.56 0.8 hbw x 1.26 (e) Figure 4.26 (d) 4.0 250 200 150 100 50 0 0.040 0.26 (a) Primary tar (Condensable) 1900 350 1800 300 Primary tar (mg/Nm³) 1700 Temperature (K) 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 0.8 1.

However.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. Over the wide range of air inlet rates investigated. for a smaller char particle size. Since most of the primary tars are cracked into secondary tars at the high temperatures present in the oxidation zone. outlet gas tar content. an increase in the inlet air flow rate was found to lead to a decreased upward movement of the reaction zone. a systematic analysis of the effect of varying individual operating and model parameters on predictions of temperature profile. more secondary tars (hydrocarbons) than primary tars (oxygenates) are found in the outlet gas from the gasifier. In order to obtain a detailed understanding of model sensitivity. At a certain stage. 142 . Increasing the initial moisture content of the fuel has a negative effect on the quality of the outlet producer gas. and vice versa. assuming that the fuel bed below the ignition ports was initially full of charcoal. a further increase in the inlet air rate leads to the reaction zone changing direction and moving downwards. 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. 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. 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). due to the higher rates of mass transfer achievable. gas composition and reaction zone stability has been carried out. A higher air supply rate increased both solid and gas phase temperatures and reduced the outlet gas tar content. Using a larger particle size was found to significantly increase the gas phase temperature and to reduce both primary and secondary tar output. Within this zone the solid surface temperature rises very steeply. 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.

where details of the experimental set up. An increase in the primary pyrolysis rate leads to the reactor operating in a “pyrolysis dominant” mode and the reaction zone moves upwards. The model was found to be insensitive to changes in the rate of tar oxidation. The sensitivity analysis provided a good understanding of the effects of operating and model parameters on the performance of a stratified downdraft gasifier. However. however. gas temperatures increase faster. the tar content of the outlet gas can be reduced. This investigation is described in the following chapters. the reaction zone moves downwards due to increases in heterogeneous reaction rates. 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. a higher proportion of the oxygen present is used to oxidize the volatile gases. the model developed still needed to be validated against experimental data. tar content and reaction zone stability were all significantly affected by variations in effective thermal conductivity. experimental results and a comparison between model predictions and experimental results are presented. Changing the mass transfer coefficient affected the location and maximum temperature of both the solid and gas phases. By reducing the heat loss through the wall. experimental procedures. and the gas temperature increases. Increasing the secondary pyrolysis rate has the effect of reducing the primary tar content of the outlet gas. 143 . It was therefore necessary to conduct an experimental investigation on a stratified downdraft gasifier for the purpose of model validation. 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. Decreasing either the mass transfer coefficient or the exchange area favoured gas oxidation and reduced the quantity of the outlet tar.Chapter 4 Model results and discussions As the solid-to-gas heat-transfer coefficient is increased. Temperatures.

55. 20. Chem. Radulovic. LD 1996. G Grassi. no. FT & Smoot. 681-702. no. H & Wen CY 1970. vol. Kubota. L. 25. 988-96. ‘Gasification of char particles in packed beds: analysis and results’. MU. 314-8. PhD Thesis. eds. 5. 6. A. Dev. Hobbs. Chemical Engineering Science. 1213-26. ‘Gasification of biomass in a downdraft reactor’. Kunii. LD 1992..Chapter 4 Model results and discussions 4. Dasappa. ML. AV 1990. ‘Heat transfer characteristics of porous rocks’. Eng. Elsevier Applied Science. UK. Dev. pp. ‘Heterogeneous model for moving-bed coal gasification reactors’. vol.. CEP Symp. Radulovic. ‘An improved model for fixed-bed coal combustion and gasification: sensitivity analysis and applications’. Reyes-Nunez. vol. WLH 2000. 71-8. 2. Process Des. vol. Earp. Biomass for Energy and Industry. ‘Investigation of unsteady heat transfer in a packed bed of spheres swept by gas’. PT & Smoot. pp. C 2000. ‘A numerical model for packed-bed combustion of char particles’. Kato. vol. vol. 75.. D & Smith. Earp. no. Cooper. 144 . vol. Salam. ‘Mass and energy balances over an open-core downdraft gasifier’. S & Paul. 10. 1053-72. pp.1. LR. no. G Gosse and G dos Santos. 2931-44. K.. B 1981. Dudukovič. 3. London. DM 1988. pp. VJ 1986. Lisbon. Di Blasi. ‘Modelling of fixed-bed coal gasifiers’. vol. Thermal Engng. Aston University.5 References Bhattacharya. YS & Joseph. Eng. vol. 55. Ghani. AIChE Journal. B 1986. vol. ‘Dynamic behaviour of stratified downdraft gasifiers’. pp. AL & Mal’kovskii. Process Des. p. Miropol’skii. ‘Experimental and modelling studies in fixed-bed char gasification’. Ind. GD & Bridgwater. 4451-60. pp. Birmingham. 38. Evans. 33. Dzhapbyev. p. pp. vol. Chem. 25.87. AIChE Journal. pp. Ser. B & Joseph. no. 105. Ind. Chemical Engineering Science. JM 1960. J & Hallett. PJ 2001. Cho. K. DM. EC Conference 9-13 Oct 1989. International Journal of Energy Research. 159. Fuel. 66.

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

a producer gas burner and a gas sampling train. raw materials and experimental procedure are described in this chapter. The main components of the experimental set-up consisted of an air supply unit. 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. measurement systems.P. a stratified downdraft gasifier.1.1 Experimental set-up 146 L. a wood fuel ignition system. The overall schematic of the gasifier system is shown in Figure 5.G . The experimental set-up.Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure 5.1 Introduction Experiments were carried out in a stratified downdraft biomass gasifier using wood blocks as a biomass fuel.

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. The top section. 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. gasifier components and auxiliary equipment is shown in Appendix G. A range of photographs of the assembled gasifier. The reactor can be divided into three sections. was designed and fabricated for the purpose of the experimental work. described in Figure 5. Several small holes (about 10mm diameter) were found to have developed just below the ignition ports.3. was fabricated from 6 mm thick mild steel tube with a 206 mm inner diameter. A horizontal 50 mm (ID) diameter pipe attached to the gasifier below the grate served as the producer gas outlet. No reaction was expected for 700 mm below the inlet so that the lower section acted in practice as a fuel storage bunker.2. presumably due to the very high temperatures in this zone. The part immediately below the grate served as a gas solid separator. through which air was supplied to the reactor. some damage to the reactor wall of the middle section was observed. Appendix G. major 147 .75 kW thermal input).1 Experimental stratified downdraft gasifier A small scale stratified downdraft gasifier (40.2 and shown schematically in Figure 5. In the middle section.Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure 5. which was cylindrical in shape. The bottom section contained a grate located at a distance of 1500 mm below the top of the reactor tube. pictured in Figure 5. consisted of an inlet section shaped like an inverted funnel mounted above the reactor main cylindrical body.3 and also pictured in Figure G.2. These tubes were used for the purposes of temperature measurement and gas sampling and were located symmetrically around the reactor circumference. Before the experimental work could be continued. The grate was designed so that it could be rotated for the purpose of cleaning.2 Experimental set-up 5. After three experimental runs had been carried out. The gasifier. and below that an ashbin was fitted.

4 and the step-by-step fabrication process of the new middle section is illustrated in Figure G.2 Picture of experimental stratified downdraft gasifier 148 .D 356mm X I.D 340mm).3 in Appendix G. 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. Figure 5.Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure repairs had to be carried out to the reactor. A detailed schematic diagram of the modified middle section is shown in Figure 5. A new middle section was fabricated using mild steel tube (O. The temperature measuring ports and ignition ports were located such that the original spacing was maintained.

for temperature measurement Ignition ports (25 mm stainless steel.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. 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 .

4 Schematic diagram of the modified middle section of the reactor 150 .Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure Castable insulation (Tufcast 1700QT) 45° 100 mm 80 mm 6 mm thick flange 422 PCD. 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.

The pilot flame from the L. A pilot flame from the L. Flue gas 100 mm stainless steel tube 30 mm Φ holes Pilot flame Air L. more details of which are shown in Figure 5.2.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.P.P.2 Thermal insulation To prevent excessive heat loss from the reactor wall.5. two layers of ceramic fibre blanket of thickness 25 mm were also wrapped around them. A stainless steel burner.G Smoke from suction blower Producer gas Figure 5. To prevent the condensation of tar and moisture along the gas-sampling pipes. two layers of a ceramic fibre blanket of thickness 25 mm were wrapped around the reactor. air was introduced through the other sides of the burner.G torch was injected through one side of the burner. while the producer gas entered through the bottom of the burner.2. was used to flare the producer gas.G torch was used both for ignition of fuel inside the gasifier and for ignition of producer gas downstream of the reactor. 5.P.3 Flare and burner A L.P.Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure 5.5 Schematic diagram of burner set-up 151 .

6 18. external power is required for moving the air and producer gas through the gasifier. This enabled some air to be discharged to the atmosphere preventing pressure build up and overloading of the blower motor.65 2500 25.375 1430 1. 27.6 101.2. which was connected at the entrance of the gas sampling line.6 152 .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. In the experimental set-up.2 400/415 15. The capacity of the air blower was much higher than the required air supply rate for some experimental runs.5 Air blower In the gasification process. flow rate (m³/min) Inlet pressure. 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.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 5.6. Therefore a by-pass valve was attached to the blower. 5. a blowing system was employed and a rotary piston compact blower was used for that purpose. Outlet pressure and ∆p (kPa) Suction blower (Rotary Blower Unit) Motor power (kW) Speed (rpm) Amps (A) Voltage (V) 0.Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure 5.2. which may be done by sucking or blowing. 128. Table 5.1. The filter housing was heated and also insulated with a ceramic fibre blanket to avoid condensation of tar and moisture inside it. Particle removal from the sample gas was undertaken with a cotton wool filter installed in a 35mm steel housing.

was used for that purpose. tar collection and volume measurement. producer gas from five different levels in the gasifier was sampled using a recently proposed standard gas-sampling procedure guideline (Neeft et al.3 Measurement systems and instrumentation In this section. ignition of solid fuel inside the gasifier was achieved by sucking in the flame from a torch.4. using a small blower. Fine particles in the sample gas were removed by a heated filter which is described in detail in section 5. producer gas flow rate. temperatures at each of 16 different levels in the reactor.2.1 Gas sampling train In this experiment.3. gas preconditioning and particle removal. The tar collection module consisted of a moisture collector. five impinger bottles and a water bath with two chambers. the suction blower was switched off and only the main blower was used.Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure 5.6 Suction blower In this experiment. and which consisted of 3 modules. for which motor specifications are presented in Table 5. 2002). the gas-sampling set-up and instrumentation are discussed in detail. After ignition of the solid fuel. 153 .2. and wood consumption rate. This module also included a stainless steel airtight (sealed) lock. 5. which was held in front of the air suction ports. gas composition at five different levels in the reactor. which was set up according to the guideline. A rotary blower.6 shows the modular sampling train. In the preconditioning module. The measured parameters for the experiments included: tar content of the producer gas at five different levels in the reactor. the temperature of the producer gas was maintained within a temperature range of 300-350°C using electric heating tape.1. Figure 5. namely. 5. inlet air pressure. 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. inlet airflow rate.

The volume measurement module consisted of a gas suction pump. The moisture collector and three of the impinger bottles were placed in one chamber of a water bath at 20°C.6 Gas sampling train 154 .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).7. ice and water. A control valve was also attached at the inlet to the flow indicator to adjust the sample flow rate. 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. Two other impinger bottles were placed in the other chamber which contained a cooling mixture of salt. 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. 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 detailed dimensions of the moisture collector and impinger bottles used in the experiment are shown in Figure 5. a flow indicator.

A schematic of the modified gas sampling train set-up is shown in Figure 5. was also used to transfer the gas from each sampling line to the sampling containers.2.5 mm Rubber seal 24/29 Din=32mm s = 3 mm 285 mm (a) Moisture collector (b) Impinger bottle Figure 5. 2 & 3 were set up.7 The moisture collector and impinger bottle used in experiments The sampling line was kept as short as possible for all sampling points. 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. A common water bath and a common vacuum pump were used for these 5 trains. for which details are described in Table 5. A direct drive high vacuum pump was used as the common vacuum pump and its specifications are presented in Table 5.2. In this study. gas samples needed to be collected from 5 different levels in the reactor. Therefore 5 sets of modules 1. A small vacuum pump. 155 .Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure ½ in OD tube Conical ground joints 24/29 Din = 5mm s =1.5).8 and photographs of the set-up are also presented in Appendix G (Figure G.

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 5.2 220/240 50 0.3 230/240 156 .9/2.325 1.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.

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

The selected charcoal pieces were stored in drums for experimental use. the gasifier was filled with sized charcoal up to the ignition level (the air suction port) to avoid tar formation during start-up. E 873-82 E 871-82 13. The rest of the reactor was then filled up with wood blocks.b) Volatile Matter Fixed Carbon Ash Value 20-30 244 5.b) Proximate Analysis (wt % d.90 0. Since the size of the charcoal blocks available from the market was bigger than the size required in this study. 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. To achieve a uniform size.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. 164 .4.52 E 872-82 E 870-82 D 1102-82 5.58 86.5 Experimental procedure At the beginning of the first run. these were manually broken into smaller pieces to facilitate the feeding and burning. broken charcoal blocks were sieved to obtain the 20–30 mm fraction. After loading the fuel. Table 5.06 ASTM Standards Test Method No. Bags of red gum wood charcoal were purchased from a local charcoal supplier.4 Average properties of red gum charcoal blocks Characteristic Size (mm) Bulk Density (kg/m³) (20 mm cube) Moisture content (% w. The measured properties of the red gum charcoal blocks are presented in Table 5.4.Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure 5.

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

166 . The performance of the gasifier was determined for various rates of inlet air supply. 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. Suitably sized red gum charcoal was also used as ignition initiation fuel. Two different sizes of red-gum wood blocks were used as fuel.Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure in the gas samples were measured by gas chromatography.

B. Energy project EEN5-1999-00507 (Tar protocol). 20 January. ‘An outline of R&D work supporting the tar guideline’. M 2002. N. S. Paasen. The Netherlands. British Standards Institution 1965. Neeft. Reed. JPA. D 1988. C & Sjőstrőm. Brage.Chapter 5 Test rig and experimental procedure 5. Abatzoglou. Biomass Energy Foundation Press. Knoef. Nozzles and Venturi Tubes. Orifice Plates. C. Dorrington. 167 . U. C & Suomalainen. Sjőstrőm. <vanpaasen@ecn.7 References Brage.S. Deutch. Greil. Buffinga. Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN). GJ. email. Zielke. MA. Hasler. Handbook of biomass downdraft gasifier engine systems. Guideline for sampling and analysis of tar and particles in biomass producer gases (Version 3. 1042 : Part 1 : 1964.nl>. SVB van 2003.3). K 2002. Simell. PA. report related to the project Tar Guideline (project no EEN5-00507). HAM. TB & Agua. P. Methods for the measurement of fluid flow in pipes: Part1. Washington.

1 Introduction As discussed earlier. A numerical model was constructed. there is very limited experimental data on gas composition profiles along the reactor axis. were described in Chapter 4. that have largely focused on temperature profiles and gas compositions.5. the detailed development of which is discussed in Chapter 3.2 Experimental results A total of 19 experimental runs was conducted. 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. together with details of a sensitivity analysis carried out to test the effect of changes in different operating and model parameters on model predictions. the objective of this project was to improve our understanding of how stratified downdraft gasifiers work. Conditions varied between runs were: the air supply rate (7. 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. In addition. Normally.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation 6. under a range of operating conditions.27. 6.6 kg/hr) and the size of the wood blocks (20 mm or 30 mm cubes). 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. The predictions of this model. Unlike earlier stratified downdraft gasifier studies. at the start of a run the bed was loaded up 168 . It was therefore necessary to conduct an experimental investigation on a stratified downdraft gasifier constructed specifically for the purpose of model validation.

More detailed information for individual runs is given in Appendix F. 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. The average value of mass balance closures for all experimental runs was found to be 99. air to fuel ratio.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation to the level of the ignition port with charcoal. gas production rate. 601) was carried out using small wood blocks only and no initial charge of charcoal. 169 .5 show that good elemental balance closures were also achieved over the full range of input rates and operating conditions.2. These results are summarised in Table 6. Details of the overall and elemental mass balances for all experimental runs are presented in Table 6. fuel consumption.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.e. the main parameters measured or calculated were: temperature profiles along the gasifier. reactor cold gas efficiency and reaction zone velocity.3 to Table 6. Material and elemental balance closures are important indicators of the quality of experimental results since mass has to be conserved across the gasifier.3% and this indicates that considerable reliance can be placed on the accuracy of the experimental measurements. the tar profile. During experiments. 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). material balances closed to within 3%. the gas composition profile.5.2 shows that for 14 out of the total 20 experimental runs.2 to Table 6. Another 5 runs had closures within 5% and the last run closed to within 6%. Elemental balances for oxygen. carbon and hydrogen were conducted in a similar way. by determining the ratio of the total outputs of each individual element to the total inputs of that element. Table 6.1. The inputs comprised the inlet air and moist wood while the outputs comprised the dry gas and condensate. i. 6.

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) 8.46 12.12 1.15 7.48 12.1 19.46 3.83 4.8 64.11 5.32 9.50 18.32 22.60 13.22 2.11 6.04 1.11 12.9 179.9 22.87 4.15 4.4 21.09 2.73 4.3 70.8 P (kPa) 1.1 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) 21.82 19.96 2.08 1.43 1.49 48.02 19.4 Cold gas η (%) 59.0 101.21 1.27 1.10 49.1 159.4 116.31 7.22 1.00 14.03 5.2 209.5 80.6 134.65 47.28 1.95 18.6 62.29 15.10 ρ (kg/m³) 1.96 50.71 47.06 9.46 10.22 2.31 1.1 91.53 1.23 1.97 2.31 7.17 17.04 15.0 90.1 137.99 18.83 17.96 49.6 60.34 10.03 7.95 50.71 11.6 83.49 1.5 97.22 1.89 2.5 128.65 8.94 4.78 2.1 20.16 12.94 4.7 23.25 1.4 57.6 190.9 70.43 14.02 47.39 34.42 1.48 16.21 17.0 64.94 1.97 2.17 11.10 5.30 1.53 N2 52.15 3.04 2.5 217.9 22.9 162.7 64.72 6.6 119.22 1.93 19.58 12.95 13.79 17.29 1.46 12. 13.85 4.30 32.3 225. Run no 510 means that an experiment carried out on 10th of May (2003)].22 1.87 4.68 15.28 13.22 Dry gas outlet composition (vol%) H2 14.25 6.83 18.2 23.6 73.00 CO 19.50 10.21 1.23 1.78 7.00 9.47 4.00 49.21 Flow rate (kg/hr) 14.29 18.59 1.32 4.96 5.33 1. 170 .91 2.1 68.51 25.5 22.33 8.79 19.28 15.76 16.63 12.00 1.56 16.9 66.01 17.71 16.70 1.24 18.0 88.53 1.8 61.3 129.34 1.23 1.40 2.44 21.1 69.48 1.6 17. (Reed &Agua 1988) Outlet temperatures of producer gas were average values of measured data between 30 -40 min after ignition.3 21.03 5.27 13.24 23.2 27.1 MJ/Nm³ for CH4.80 16.03 11.4 54.44 1.74 17.00 12.4 20.31 21.56 16.68 5.94 1.25 1.39 4.99 12.23 8.57 2.54 17.83 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) 17.51 14.73 7.38 49.33 4.6 22.6 113.4 131.79 18.06 18.92 20.29 11.3 89.2 MJ/Nm³ for H2.09 15.7 75.0 98.95 4. LHV of producer gas was calculated from the gas composition by using the value of 11.78 7.20 6.45 18.85 15.49 16.71 11.50 24.47 11.90 19.22 1.42 1.11 10.02 2.44 1.15 CH4 1.30 18.51 2.58 9.18 1.4 76.7 21.85 27.48 22.90 17.26 1.53 12.41 2.50 1.9 16.9 104.3 74.68 CO2 12.29 7.76 15.83 Gasa LHV (MJ/ Nm³) 4.18 13.65 50.45 13.12 1.39 11.88 15.8 71.07 46.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation Table 6.8 74.54 9.05 2.34 1.66 12.50 58.e.22 18.00 17.70 43.2 118.97 4.24 12.28 10.82 AF ratio (-db) 2.21 1.7 32.4 167.08 26.80 17.3 23.3 63.1 MJ/Nm³ for CO and 37.4 63.23 14.31 15.0 106.97 14.9 85.09 4.09 19.91 18.99 47.24 1.5 24.98 18.2 68.6 117.46 1.96 2.56 12.9 19.9 70.30 14.6 131.8 102.33 15.93 4.61 1.3 120.22 1.00 15.36 17.92 16.61 7.21 13.57 1.60 27.51 12.72 46.29 6.10 1.12 10.60 13.7 63.15 9. Input and output energy of the experimental gasifier was calculated by using the LHV of wood fuel and LHV of producer gas respectively.43 2.65 46.61 27.91 5. [i.8 Energy out (MJ/hr)b 81.46 1.23 1.09 49.20 49.95 Energy in (MJ/hr)c 135.48 2.98 18.8 Run numbers were assigned by dates when experiments were conducted.37 9.05 19.64 size (mm) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 20 MC (%wb) 9.75 18.22 1.96 18.21 1.

21 2.25E-02 0.95 3.31 32.95 0.16 1.84 4.74 8.79 20.24 1.25 0.99E-04 1.34 91.06 0.89 92.66 100.17E-04 1.94 6.64 5.11 6.41 3.43 86.36 4.3 99.85 2.74 27.77E-04 1.59 1.57 16.85 20.13 16.68 41.08 6.24 0.82 15.10 3.22 6.78 19.45 2.53 12.00E-03 1.51 (%) 82.86 4.46E-04 0.3 100.61E-10 1.62E-10 3.56 17.12 3.19 2.28 15.37 1.52 18.59 0.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation Table 6.75 22.22 Inputs (kg/hr) Dry wood Moisture Total Gas 7.96 3.46 16.19 5.11 5.39 3.05 0.52E-04 1.18 1.49 0.10 4.09 3.45 13.04 15.65 20.55 20.3 100.95 7.37 16.25 0.36 0.37 5.85E-10 1.06 30.99 1.26 2.00 3.09E-03 1.19 1.38 23.73 7.50 2.21 6.02 20.03 92.11 3.0 95.91 Total 21.48E-10 2.63E-04 0.91 6.36 1.83 6.16 4.76 0.92 20.75 1.7 95.62 6.90 2.55 3.76 9.2 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 14.27 0.33E-10 1.88 26.16 Average closure (%) Standard deviation σ <95% mean Outputs (kg/hr) Tar H2O 1.3 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) 3.25 0.41 39.25 21.53 81.06 3.80 95.61 6.8 101.98 31.11 81.05 6.20 0.57 16.19 1.30 0.42 2.43 30.43 6.34 10.08 5.62 0.15 3.11E-03 2.32 2.43 1.36 2.19 2.12 5.34 88.32 22.38 93.54E-10 1.8 102.71 11.16 3.4 98.48E-10 2.3 98.71E-10 2.39 5.81 28.12 4.58 0.27 1.77 11.19 32.86 1.13 2.27 13.36E-04 1.12 5.48 22.58 0.95E-04 0.75 12.2 100.48 6.13E-09 1.13 20.02 17.83 37.42 0.43 6.91 19.77E-04 2.56E-10 1.42 17.48 34.60 13.21 13.45E-10 1.91 107.83E-10 2.08 8.96 38.98 1.64 16.42 22.6 96.09 2.22 7.54 5.62 4.81 20.67E-04 0.20 1.53 88.75 0.60 19.65E-04 1.0 99.79 22.8 101.1 100.40 0.46 37.38 26.31 3.63 12.80 16.05 34.24 6.71 1.24 1.27 0.94 5.01E-10 3.97 0.69 2.33 0.10 1.35 4.31 2.76 1.90 0.48 10.58 25.73 3.99 6.47 0.20E-10 2.2 95.60 27.17 0.24 171 .73 5.25 21.28E-09 1.88 19.17 41.77 8.93 33.09 19.27 2.2 103.17 0.3 2.4 102.36 8.44 0.11 2.26E-03 1.17 2.5 103.24 110.36E-10 2.63 0.41 85.43 6.21 6.66E-09 Average closure (%) Standard deviation σ <95% mean Closure Total 3.85 15.54 87.50 10.36 1.73E-10 1.02 2.84 4.67 22.15 12.71 11.08 3.78 Carbon outputs (kg/hr) from from From from CO CO2 CH4 tar 1.04 0.96 23.24 0.05 82.80 20.62 22.75 1.21 5.09 1.38 30.31 15.86 90.9 97.50 24.23 3.64 1.51E-04 1.95 3.57 91.40E-03 2.29 0.60E-04 1.68 3.51 0.72 0.99E-10 1.92 3.47 0.88 0.51 22.14 3.16 3.08 0.68 2.84 Table 6.10 11.19 98.60 98.2 99.11 6.16E-04 1.87 22.62 1.04 0.08 Closure (%) 94.04 3.11 5.78 17.76E-10 1.77 2.

53 3.08 0.65 3.05 0.37 0.35 1.27 93.32E-04 1.16 3.50 102.04 6.38 0.73E-05 0.54 0.47 0.05 92.57 3.90E-04 0.46 0.09 2.45 0.65 95.21 0.90 3.71 0.42E-05 0.04 8.16 0.85 106.40 4.36 0.64 102.39 2.10 5.94 100.44 0.77E-04 1.62 84.50 5.60 105.08 0.51 0.73 0.46E-04 1.25 10.12 0.24E-04 1.05 5.57 2.83E-05 0.60 0.84 0.23 0.05 5.02 110.66 2.39 4.62 1.29 0.78 2.10 0.62 2.94 10.10 Average closure (%) Standard deviation σ <95% mean Total 0.12 3.41 0.64 3.32 8.34 0.03 2.46 1.77 3.11E-05 0.28 0.66 3.34 0.44 0.99 2.37 0.34 0.32 2.44 0.96 97.42 97.15 0.75 99.13 0.17 0.81E-05 0.57 0.78 0.66E-05 0.51 5.30 6.07 0.12 0.09 4.81 2.55 2.00 104.87 3.88 2.99 1.44 1.17 0.06 0.34 3.84E-04 0.34 1.28 0.65 101.45 97.65 8.96 2.20 0.99 1.48 3.08 1.0 9.39 0.69 5.86 7.33 2.09 0.83 0.95 2.67 2.11 0.82 3.22 0.95E-05 0.20 1.40 0.36 Table 6.94 0.05 4.17E-04 1.55 0.50E-04 0.68 7.69E-04 0.37 88.03 5.04 3.76E-05 0.37 107.52E-04 1.91 4.34 0.06 3.72 2.20 94.25 0.12 3.93E-05 0.55 0.06 0.41 0.06 1.23 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 0.58E-04 0.34 0.29 1.10 0.14 0.53 2.25 0.08 4.90 6.15E-05 0.70 3.08E-05 0.04 5.58 6.78 8.39 0.13 0.30E-04 2.86 101.47 2.38 0.11 0.33 2.88E-10 1.44E-05 0.94 4.29 0.79 4.05 5.57 95.81 2.79 5.81 7.74 105.14 2.19 2.00E-04 0.21 0.70 6.59 6.10 0.15E-05 0.67E-04 0.72 6.06 8.22 0.06 0.88 5.69 114.97 1.69 110.68 6.26 102.55 3.33 101.75 0.10 0.50 0.19 1.57 0.29 11.62 95.55 5.28 0.81 Average closure (%) Standard deviation σ <95% mean Closure Total 6.32 0.75 0.02 4.85E-04 0.10 0.12 0.70 5.33 0.89 98.51 0.62 102.69 5.57 5.07 9.14 0.65 96.31 0.57 0.49 12.02 3.88 3.15 0.73 103.98 101.30 2.88 5.39 0.92 10.13 6.94 12.04 9.87E-04 1.34 3.07 2.28 6.76 1.27 5.89 2.59 3.20 0.4 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 3.82E-03 0.65E-05 0.96 2.27 4.70 0.58 3.30 2.98E-05 0.87 172 .10 0.78 6.85 2.63 0.42 (%) 93.81 0.87 9.34 0.45 2.14 4.13 0.30 0.17E-04 2.99 1.42 0.07 0.38 0.86 5.11 0.07 1.24 0.07 4.26 0.65 2.65 103.09 0.07 0.62 0.61 0.43 0.04 4.41 6.98 93.76 0.68 9.03 6.52E-04 0.64 0.32 10.04 7.13 2.47 4.67 4.41 0.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation Table 6.20 2.27E-05 0.71 0.92 94.42 0.57 99.98 5.34 0.12 0.16 3.60 3.96 2.35E-04 1.69E-04 0.46 0.05 6.19 2.49E-05 0.41 112.35 0.31 Closure (%) 84.46 0.77 2.28 0.45 0.03 5.43 0.32 0.48 0.61 5.36 0.11 0.48 0.37 0.34E-04 0.49 0.42 6.98 90.34 6.05 2.29 0.02 10.85 7.30 0.16 0.87 3.67 7.63 0.99 116.71 0.11 4.28 2.65 3.09 0.16 0.68 124.81 6.64 0.77 13.19 0.08 0.09 3.62 0.42 0.84 2.50 4.

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. but fluctuates within the range of 950-1270 °C.1 Temperature record for experiment 314 (air flow 16.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation 6. with 20 mm blocks) 173 . as the reactor warms up.1 shows a representative set of changes over time of temperatures at four different locations in the gasifier. Under these conditions rates of gasification are insignificant to small. It was observed that only after the temperature at the grate level reached 350-400 °C. 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. 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.92 kg/hr.2 Temperature At the beginning. the heat from the burning char goes to heating up the bottom char bed and the reactor itself (mainly the thick refractory wall). 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. both of which absorb a large proportion of the heat produced at this stage. Figure 6. was the outlet producer gas able to burn by itself without the LPG flare.2.

2.3). the rate of upward movement of the reaction zone was estimated to be 0. 174 . Air supply rates for the three curves shown were 10.2.6 kg/hr and the temperatures shown are averages over the period 30 to 40 minutes after ignition.5 kg/hr. This pattern is similar to that predicted by the model (model validation is discussed in detail in the next section (section 6.8 & 19.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. From the profiles shown in Figure 6. as would be expected. It is evident that in this run the reaction zone moved upwards in the reactor. the value of the peak temperature increases with increases in the airflow rate. It can be seen that. 14.2 Temperatures measured at three different levels above the ignition port during run 510 (Airflow 7. 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. From the distance between corresponding sections of the profiles at different times the rate of reaction zone movement can be estimated.063 mm/s.3 shows how temperatures vary along the gasifier once steady gas producing conditions have been reached. The profiles show temperatures increasing rapidly at the beginning of the combustion zone and then gradually decreasing in the gasification zone.7. ignition started at 400 mm above the grate) Figure 6.

6 kg/hr Distance from grate (mm) Figure 6.3.3 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 5.3.3. The concentration of CO2 was in the range of 11-17 vol%. As predicted by the numerical model. The outlet gas compositions were relatively consistent over the range of operating airflow rates used.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation Figure 6. 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) 6.2.8 kg/hr 19.3 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. Of the combustible gas components. This is discussed in more detail in Section 6. 1400 1200 Temperature (°C) 1000 800 600 400 200 0 800 600 400 200 0 10. a higher airflow rate slows down the upward reaction front movement.7 kg/hr 14. CO has the highest concentration (16-21 175 . The results show nitrogen to be the dominant constituent of the outlet gas (46-58 vol %).

which is about 20 times less than the tar content found in gas from a traditional downdraft wood gasifier. Firstly. as predicted by the model.5 Energy output The total energy output (determined from the outlet gas composition and flow rate. 176 . 6. A small fraction of CH4 (1.3. there was uniform distribution of air across the reaction zone.2. 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.5. 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. This can be attributed to two factors.4 as a function of air supply rate for both wood block sizes. Tar content in the outlet producer gas is shown in Figure 6. 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. From Figure 6.2.3 to 5. since air was introduced to the system at the top of the reactor rather than from the sides of the reactor. Table 6.2 MJ/Nm³.7 vol%) was also present. Net heating values of the outlet gas ranged from 4.1 shows that outlet gas tar contents for all experimental runs (except run 601) were less than 100 mg/Nm³. 6.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation vol%) followed by H2 (14-19 vol%).4. it can be seen that tar content generally decreased as the air supply rate increased. Secondly. and expressed in MJ/hr) is plotted against dry wood consumption rate in Figure 6. Chern & Fan 1987).2. As can be seen from the figure. and not unexpectedly.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. total energy output increased linearly with the increase in fuel consumption.0-1. 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. For this run the tar content was almost 1000 mg/Nm³.

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 6.5 Energy output versus dry wood consumption rate 177 .

6. The predicted and experimentally measured values of various gasifier performance parameters (transient and steady temperature profiles. the numerical model was run using the same operational input parameters as those used in the experimental runs. tar profile.6 Cold gas efficiency versus air supply rate 6.2. and reaction zone movement) were then compared.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation 6.6 Cold gas efficiency Cold gas efficiency is plotted against the air supply rate in Figure 6. similar values of cold gas efficiency were achieved for most of the runs. 178 . gas composition profiles. A slight increase in cold gas efficiency with increases in air supply rate is suggested by the results but.5 kg/hr. wood consumption rate. further work would be needed to confirm this apparent trend.6 kg/hr) tested. Within the range of air supply rates (7. 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. air to fuel ratio. given the extent of scatter in the results. gas production rate. average cold gas efficiency was found to be 70 %.6.27. As shown in Figure 6.3 Comparison of model predictions and experimental results To compare the model predictions with experimental results.

the rate at which the gasification zone heats up is predicted to slow and the temperature profiles to stabilise.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation 6. The effect of this is that the model predicts complete oxidation of the volatiles within too short a length of the reactor. However. After 15-20 minutes of ignition. Firstly. 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). In addition. too rapid attainment of the adiabatic flame temperature. especially at the time of reactor start up.7.1 Temperature profiles In Figure 6. the pyrolysis rate is predicted to be higher than the gasification rate. Temperature gradients within the gas spaces are large.3. peak. measured transient temperature profiles are compared with the temperature profiles predicted by the model. and then decrease more gradually along the gasification zone. and therefore too sharp an increase in the gas temperature. 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. 179 . 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. causing the reaction zone to move upwards. Since gasification zone temperatures over the initial warm-up period are not high enough for gasification rates to be significant. The trend of the experimental temperatures over time is quite similar to that predicted by the model. 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. since mass transfer effects are very difficult to include. in the model oxidation of volatiles released from the pyrolysis zone is described by a kinetic expression alone. Two reasons can be put forward to explain this discrepancy. The model predicts that temperatures in the gasifier will increase sharply in the oxidation zone. and the bed of particles in the reaction zone is continually moving. 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.

This is because a higher air supply rate 180 . while gas temperature tends to increase with an increase in air supply rate.5 kg/hr. It can be seen that there were no significant differences in gas outlet temperature for the two different wood block sizes.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.8 shows the gas temperature at the reactor outlet (which was measured with thermocouple T1 in Figure 5. wood block size 20x20x20 mm) Figure 6.

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 5.1).Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation leads to higher gas temperatures in the combustion zone. Figure 6. were generally higher than the experimentally measured values. 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. The predicted gas outlet temperatures. 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. It was not possible to insert a thermocouple at the level of the grate since clearance was required for rotation of the grate. which also raises the gas outlet temperature. especially at higher airflow rates. however.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.8 also compares the experimental results with model predictions. some loss of heat was inevitable. predicted values are those at 30 min after ignition) 181 . Even though attempts to minimise heat losses downstream of the grate were made by wrapping the pipe in insulation.

H2 and CH4. 6.9. the data from experimental run no. During the experimental runs it would have been ideal to carry out online measurement of gas composition at different points along the gasifier. tar contents of gas samples drawn from five different levels in the gasifier were measured.3.3. however.9.3. In Figure 6.2 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 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. This is attributed to the fact that predicted temperatures distributions rose more sharply than experimental ones. this was not possible since there was no online gas analyser available. Predicted and observed steady-state values were in good agreement. gas samples were collected over two different intervals from five different levels in the gasifier. as discussed in subsection 6. Both sets of samples were collected during the period of steady state operation (more than 30 min after ignition). However. For CO. It can be seen that the model was able to predict gas composition profiles reasonably well.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation 6. there was a greater difference between model predictions and experimental data. For CO2. Gas compositions during the gasifier start up period were determined for two runs (Run 504 and Run 531). the amount of tar in the sample from this sampling point was taken to be representative of gas 182 . For most of the experimental runs. Therefore gas compositions were determined by taking gas samples and analysing them using gas chromatography as described in Chapter 5.1. The top sampling point was located either 50 mm or 150 mm above the ignition level depending on where the ignition was started.504 is compared with compositions predicted by the model.3 Tar profile As described in Chapter 5. 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.

The last sampling port enabled the tar content of the producer gas at the gasifier outlet to be determined. 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.9 (b) Figure 6. small wood blocks) (a) 10-15 min after ignition (b) 30-40 min after ignition 183 .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. 6. 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. 6.6 kg/hr.9 Comparison of model and experimental dry gas composition profiles along the gasifier for two different time intervals (air flow rate 19.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation phase tar content in the pyrolysis zone.

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.10 (d) for air flow rate = 19. 6. 6.50 kg/hr Fig. the lowest tar level occurs in the outlet gas samples. 6.10 (a) for air flow rate = 13.92 kg/hr Fig. Not unexpectedly.60 kg/hr Figure 6.10 shows predicted and experimentally measured tar profiles along the gasifier for four different airflow rates.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation Figure 6.10 Comparison of predicted and experimentally measured condensable tar profiles along the gasifier for different airflow rates under steady state operating conditions 184 . 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. Tar levels in the gasification zone are orders of magnitude less than that in the pyrolysis zone.10 (b) for air flow rate = 15. 6.48 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. 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.10 (c) for air flow rate = 16.

3.4 Fuel consumption Predicted and experimentally observed wood fuel consumption rates are presented in Figure 6. and the gasification rate also increases since a higher amount of CO2 and H2O is released from the combustion zone.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation 6. A higher air supply rate increases the rate of combustion because more oxygen is available to react with both char and volatile gases.5 Air-fuel ratio Figure 6. In line with expectations. discussed in subsection (6.3.3. This is consistent with the finding.11 as a function of air supply rate.11 Wood fuel consumption versus air supply rate 6. 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. it was found that the wood fuel consumption rate was directly dependent on the amount of air supplied to the gasifier. that the rate of fuel consumption is a linear function of air supply 185 . Figure 6.11 shows that model predictions agree very well with the experimental data.4). The figure shows that varying the air supply rate has no significant effect on the air-fuel ratio.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.

Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation rate. as reported by other authors (Barriom. 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. 1994). the agreement between predicted and observed air-fuel ratios is very good.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.b) versus air supply rate 6.12 Air-fuel ratio (kg/kg d. 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. For the 20 mm cubes. 4 Air: fuel ratio (kg/kg d. This is as expected given that the 30 mm cubes have a lower specific surface area than the 20 mm cubes. García-Bacaicoa et al.13 shows predicted and experimentally measured gas production rates as a function of air supply rate. In the case of the larger wood particle size the model predicts an air-fuel ratio higher than that for the smaller wood blocks.6 Gas production rate Figure 6.3. The figure shows that there is a linear increase in gas 186 . however. 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. Fossum & Hustad 2001. In other words.

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 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. where the airflow rate was 11.3. Figure 6.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation production rate as the air supply rate increases.5.14 (b) shows a similar pair of temperature profiles for two different wood block sizes and the same air flow rate. in the case where the airflow rate was considerably higher (24. The likely reasons for this divergence between model predictions and experimental results were discussed in subsection 6.14(a) shows temperature profiles measured at two different times for two different airflow rates but the same wood block sizes. downwards.3.13 Gas production versus air supply rate 6.e.7 kg/hr) the reaction zone moved in the other direction. Figure 6. movement of the reaction front was in an upwards direction.3 kg/hr. i. The profiles in Figure 6.14 (a) show that in the first case. However. 187 . 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.

at lower air supply rates the predicted direction of reaction zone movement was upwards and.(a) 1400 1200 1000 Temperature (°C) 800 600 400 200 0 800 600 400 200 0 (11. as 188 . 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 14.3 kg/hr. As discussed in the sensitivity analysis of the model (Chapter 4).3 kg/hr. 20 mm block) 1400 1200 1000 Temperature (°C) 800 600 400 200 0 800 600 400 200 0 1000 sec 3000 sec (11.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation 1400 1200 1000 Temperature (°C) 800 600 400 (11. 30 mm block) Distance from grate (mm) Distance from grate (mm) Figure 14.(b) 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) ir The same effect of air supply rate on reaction front movement was observed in model predictions.7 kg/hr.3 kg/hr. 20 mm block) 200 0 800 600 400 200 0 800 600 400 200 0 (24.

it is evident that the reaction front moves upwards. However. Beyond a certain limit (in this study this is about 20 kg/hr).3 kg/hr.06 0.08 Upward zone movement rate (m m/sec) 0.02 Experimental model 0.00 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Air flow rate (kg/hr) Figure 6. when big wood blocks (30mm) are used at the same air flow rate the reaction front moved downwards. further increases in air supply rate reverse the direction of movement. When using small wood blocks (20mm) at an airflow rate of 11.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation the air supply rate increased. The effect of wood block size on reaction front movement is shown in Figure 6. This is well illustrated in Figure 6. 0. A similar effect of fuel particle size on zone movement rate and direction is predicted by the model.14 (b). causing the reaction zone to move downwards towards the grate and the reactor operates in the gasification dominant mode. Relatively good agreement was obtained between model predictions and experimental results.15 Variation of reaction zone movement rate with air supply rate (comparison between model and measured values) 189 . as discussed in the section on sensitivity analysis in Chapter 4.15 which compares predicted and observed rates of reaction zone movement for a range of airflow rates. the rate of zone upward movement decreased.04 0.

the section of the gasifier below the ignition ports was filled with charcoal rather than with wood. Net heating values of the outlet gas were in the range of 4. prior to ignition. A small fraction of CH4 (1. An average cold gas efficiency of 70% was observed.Chapter 6 Experimental results and model validation 6. CO was present in the highest concentration (16-21 vol%) followed by H2 (14-19 vol%). The gasifier was run successfully at a fairly wide range of airflow rates (7. Such tar contents are about 20 times less than the tar content found in the gas from traditional downdraft wood gasifiers. 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.6 kg/hr) with corresponding energy outputs ranging from 54 to 168 MJ/hr. 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. Of the combustible gas components. At the beginning of an experimental run. tar contents of less than 100 mg/Nm³ were obtained. 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.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 4.7 vol%) was also present in the producer gas. It took about 20 minutes to reach a steady operating condition. 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.3-5. a significant reduction in the tar content of the outlet producer gas was achieved. 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.0-1.5 to 27. For all experimental runs where a charcoal bed was used during start up. 190 .2 MJ/Nm³.

As expected. 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. 191 . there was good agreement between exit gas compositions predicted by the model and those obtained experimentally. Wood fuel consumption rate and gas production rate were both observed to increase linearly with an increase in air supply rate. A higher airflow rate favoured the downward movement of reaction zones as did the use of larger wood block sizes. Air-fuel ratio was not affected by changes in air supply rate.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. Good agreement between predicted and measured tar contents was obtained in the gasification region. 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. however. 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.

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

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. a longer reaction zone leads to higher cold gas efficiencies and better tar cracking. Generally. but at the same time it leads to increased heat losses to the surroundings and lower temperatures in the gasification zone.Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier 7.e. i. The model developed was able to predict reactor behaviour under both start-up and steady state operating conditions. producing a low tar content gas. 193 . and also on the extent of tar reduction.1 Introduction Previous chapters describe a theoretical and experimental investigation of the stratified downdraft wood gasifier. In this section. 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. with a longer reactor it takes more time to reach steady conditions since a larger charcoal bed needs to be heated up. 7. conditions under which it can operate stably for a long time. 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. Reaction zone length has significant effects on gas phase reactions and how far they proceed towards completion. 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. Generally good agreement was obtained between predicted and experimentally measured trends and values.

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.1 presents several cold gas efficiency profiles.09 kg/hr model (15 kg/hr) 20 0 500 400 300 200 100 0 Distance from grate (mm) Figure 7. An increase in efficiency was observed closer to the grate level.1 Cold gas efficiency profiles along the axis of the gasifier 194 . the average measured cold gas efficiency was found to be 97% of the cold gas efficiency at the reactor outlet. Experimental observations showed that gas sampled at a point 550 mm above the grate was of very low quality.3% of the cold gas efficiency at the reactor outlet. At that level (250 mm above the grate). 100 Cold gas efficiency (%) 80 60 Air flow rate 40 13. predicted rates of formation of CO and H2 were much faster than those observed experimentally.Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier Figure 7. As was discussed in the previous chapter. This discrepancy is reflected in Figure 7. At a level of 350 mm above the grate a satisfactory fuel gas was produced. although predicted and experimentally measured final gas compositions were similar. and below the level of 250 mm there was no further significant improvement. Therefore. which results in a very low cold gas efficiency of about 20%. having an average CO and H2 content of 6%.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. at least from the standpoint of cold gas efficiency. the cold gas efficiency predicted at that level by the model was 99.92 kg/hr 22. these efficiencies were calculated using values predicted by the model and also values measured experimentally at different airflow rates.5 kg/hr 16.

A value of 0. This depth also needs to be checked against the tar content profile along the gasifier axis. The figure shows that tar reduction still continued along the gasification and inert char zone.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 model predicts that the stratified downdraft gasifier should operate stably over the limited range of air flow rates between 19. 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.Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier For the three different airflow rates referred to in Figure 7. As discussed in the previous chapter. a reaction zone depth selected solely with reference to cold gas efficiency is not appropriate where tar minimization is desirable.20. 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. The starting point of the reaction zone was defined as the level where 195 . tar profiles in this air flow rate range were used in selecting the optimum reaction zone length. 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. Therefore.1. However. Therefore.0 kg/hr. it is not enough just to accept the optimum reaction zone depth determined on the basis of cold gas efficiency. The amount of tar removed per unit length of reactor diminishes steadily as one moves down the gasifier.2 shows predicted tar reduction rates along the gasification zone and inert char zone under stable operating conditions at the above airflow rates. and since predicted and experimentally measured tar profiles were in good agreement. 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.5 kg/hr. An average level of 625 mm above the grate was taken as the starting point for the reaction zones. Since experimentally measured gas compositions and gravimetric tar measurements were only available for five different levels.

0 kg/hr 0. Table 7.025 mg/mm 176 157 Optimum reaction zones length (mm) 417 432 425 Average optimum reaction zones length (mm) 196 .5 20. 0.1 0. It was found that 425 mm is a suitable length for reaction zones where tar minimization is concerned.0 Starting point of reaction zone (mm above the grate) 593 589 Starting point where tar reduction rate lower than 0.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.5 kg/hr 20.4 Air flow rate 19.1 presents estimates of optimum reaction zone length for the two airflow rates bounding the region of stable operation.2 Predicted tar reduction rates along the gasification zone and inert char zone Table 7. This length is greater than that determined from cold gas efficiency considerations.3 0.5 Tar reduction rate (mg/mm) 0.0 400 300 200 100 0 Distance from grate (mm) Figure 7.1 Estimation of optimum reaction zone length based on tar reduction rate Air flow rate (kg/hr) 19.2 0.6 0.

Chern & Fan (1985) This study _ Tar content (mg/Nm³) Source Remarks _ _ 197 . it is necessary to investigate the factors which influence final tar content in order to establish how tar contents can be reduced. 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.7 mm) Hard wood chips (14 mm) Red gum hard wood blocks (20 mm) 206 964 600 776-2.2. Thus.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. Table 7.Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier 7.445 75 522 Milligan.4-12. Loof & Bhattacharya (1994) Air was supplied from sides Wood chips (6. 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.600 Bui. Table 7. For the producer gas to be acceptable as a fuel for an internal combustion engine. 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. In Table 7.2 shows that tar contents found in all these experimental studies are beyond the acceptable limit for engine applications. Of particular importance is that the scale up problems associated with the throated gasifier can be largely eliminated.3 Investigation of low tar gas production for the stratified downdraft gasifier As discussed in chapters 2 & 3. the tar content needs to be lower than 100 mg/Nm³ and preferably less than 50 mg/Nm³ (Knoef 2000 & Stassen 1995). Evans & Bridgwater (1997) Walawender.

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.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. When the experimental work using wood blocks only was carried out. Loof & Bhattacharya (1994) is higher than those reported by others. In addition. About 15 minutes after ignition. it can be seen that the tar content reported by Bui. 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. 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. This helps confirm the superiority of a top air supply system over a side air supply system for the downdraft gasifier.3. The figure shows that when no charcoal is used the gasifier can 198 . 7.3.Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier From Table 7. In their experimental set-up. 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. the reactor was operating like an inverted updraft gasifier. At this stage. 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. some of the pyrolysis products passing down the centre of the gasifier will not be fully cracked. air was introduced to the reactor through nozzles which were located circumferentially around the reactor. The effect of loading the lower part of the gasifier with charcoal rather than wood is well illustrated by Figure 7.2. This is probably due to the nature of their air supply system. 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. Generally.

in the case of the wood only operation.3 Dynamic behaviour of solid temperature at reactor outlet As discussed above.4 that the rate of 199 . It can be inferred from Figure 7. for wood only operations. However.4 presents predicted volatile matter density profiles along the axis of gasifier at various times during the first 2 hours of gasifier operation. it is helpful to know how long it takes before carbonization of that part of the fuel bed below the ignition port is complete. pyrolysis is the dominant process during the reactor start up period. In other words. 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. (This is because tar levels in the gas are likely to remain high until carbonisation is complete.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.) Figure 7. In the latter case. 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. for wood only operations devolatilization is the dominant process during the early part of the reactor warming up stage. From a practical point of view. there is a much slower rate of increase in solid temperatures in that section of the bed below the ignition port. and a longer time is needed for the solid temperature to reach its final steady value.

5 that the high tar levels are attributable to the processes occurring in the lowest part of the bed. However. It is evident from Figure 7. 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.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. devolatilization is largely complete except in the bottommost 100 mm 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 . Figure 7.5 shows tar levels along the axis of the experimental gasifier measured at steady operating condition during run no 601. in which no initial charcoal charge was used. 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. Within the combustion and gasification zones tar levels soon drop off to a level similar to those observed when charcoal is 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. Also shown are the tar profiles predicted by the model for the period 125 to 150 minutes after ignition.4 Volatile matter profile along the gasifier axis This failure to achieve complete devolatilization significantly affects the final tar content of the gas. After one hour of operation.

This was not the procedure followed during the experimental 201 .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. 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. 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. They also show that running the gasifier for a number of hours will not necessarily achieve low enough tar levels in the gas.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.3. 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. However. and then use this residual charcoal in the next run.2 Alternative operating procedures for the stratified downdraft gasifier Despite its advantages. There are two ways of getting round this problem. 7. run the gasifier until all the wood has been consumed or converted to charcoal. 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.

6 shows a schematic diagram of the proposed operating procedure. 2) After ignition is well under way. However. 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.2) the air flow rate is increased to 19-20 kg/hr [0. A second approach is to use the gasifier itself to produce the charcoal needed. the gasifier can be initially run as a charcoal producing unit rather than as a gas producer and then switched to gas production.058 kg/m²sec].042-0.7 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. and when it reaches a point 400-450 mm above the grate (the desirable reaction zone height .7 shows how the temperature profile along the gasifier axis varies with time under the proposed procedure.167 kg/m²sec] to achieve stable operation. 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. air is introduced from the top of the reactor at a very low airflow rate (5-7 kg/hr) [0. The proposed procedure was simulated using the model developed in this project and the results are shown in Figure 7. 202 .8. 3) The reaction front will move upwards. 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. 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.7 and Figure 7.Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier runs undertaken in this project.058 mm/sec. The proposed operating procedure is as follows: 1) Fill the gasifier with wood blocks and ignite the bottommost 50-100 mm of bed. Figure 7. the gasifier was unloaded after each run so that the tar sampling pipe could be cleaned by blowing pressurized air through it. A new charge of charcoal was then loaded before the next run.158-0. Figure 7. Figure 7.see section 7. Using this approach. In this study. As discussed in previous chapters. in real world applications.

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 7.7 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 0.158-0.058 kg/m²sec Wood Air 0.042-0.042-0.6 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 7.058 kg/m²sec Wood Air 0.

An increase in cold gas efficiency also occurs at this time. However. to a value less than 10 mg/Nm³. predicted solid and gas phase temperatures increase rapidly and the tar content is dramatically reduced. as the gas composition alters.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. the time required to reach a steady operating condition is rather long and this. After the airflow rate is increased to normal operating levels. coupled with the problem of how to deal with the tar rich gas produced over the initial period. 204 Cold gsa efficiency (%) 69 . 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. makes the practical usefulness of this procedure rather doubtful. 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. 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.8 Variations over time of outlet gas tar content and cold gas efficiency for the procedure of producing charcoal inside the gasifier Figure 7.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.

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

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

with both solid and gas phase temperatures increasing to a second. a marked difference from the single. the gas phase temperature at the point where the second peak occurs is higher than the corresponding solid temperature. the combined primary and secondary airflow rate was set at 20 kg/hr and different combinations of primary and secondary air flows tried. Except in the case of the air supply rate. the rate of increase in fuel bed temperatures at the level of the grate is faster than that observed in a single-stage unit.stage profile occurs at the level where secondary air is introduced. as indicated in Figure 7. In the simulation it was assumed that secondary air could be uniformly distributed across the gasifier at the level where it was introduced. Since the introduction of secondary air leads to higher temperatures in the region close to the grate. overall gasification rates in the two-stage unit increase faster during the reactor warming up period.1). However. the effect of changing the level at which secondary air was introduced was also explored. The temperature profiles at the ignition port level are quite similar to those of the single-stage reactor which was discussed in Chapter 4.9 (b).4 Simulation on two-stage gasification To simulate the two-stage gasifier concept. As is the case with the first peak. As a result. 207 . the model was modified such that air was supplied simultaneously at two different levels in the gasifier. 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. In addition. 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.10 shows how the solid and gas temperature profiles are predicted to vary with time along the two-stage gasifier. (a) Temperature profiles Figure 7.Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier 7. 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. Since an air supply rate of 19-20 kg/hr enabled stable operating conditions to be achieved in a single stage reactor.3. rather smaller peak.

with the injected oxygen reacting almost instantaneously. It should be noted that the scale on the X axis of Figure 7.11 (b). Here both solid and gas phase oxidation rates are predicted to take off and peak at the same level. 208 . patterns in the second stage are very different. The implication of this is that very high rates of reaction occur at the level where secondary air is introduced.11 (a) shows how the oxidation rates of various gaseous components are predicted to vary along the first stage combustion zone. primary air flow rate = 15 kg/hr.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. covering a distance of just one millimetre. As shown in Figure 7. CO oxidation rates show a higher peak than the other gaseous oxidation rates. secondary air flow rate = 5 kg/hr) (b) Reaction rates profile Figure 7. Patterns of behaviour similar to those in a single stage system are observed.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. Char oxidation reaches its peak 15 to 20 mm further up the gasifier than the gas phase oxidation reactions. In addition rates of char oxidation are significant over a greater distance than the gas phase reactions.11 (b) is a very expanded one. secondary air supply: 300 mm above grate.

7.6 299.11 (b) Solid and gas phase oxidation reaction rates in the second stage Figure 7.2 C2H4 oxidation x 0.0 580 570 560 550 540 Distance from grate (mm) Fig.4 1. secondary air = 5 kg/hr) 209 .Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier 1.11 (a) Solid and gas phase oxidation reaction rates in the first stage 1. at 1000 sec after ignition (Ignition port: 500 mm above grate.4 C6H6 oxidation CO oxidation x 0.0 Distance from grate (mm) Fig.4 299.0 0.11 Gas and solid phase oxidation rate profiles for the first and second stage.6 0.2 1.4 0.0 0.2 0. primary air = 15 kg/hr.6 1.8 0.4 0.04 1.2 299.6 0.02 CO oxidation x 0.0 299.02 Char oxidation x 20 Oxidation rate (kg/m³/s) 300. 7.8 0.6 1.2 0.1 H2 oxidation Char oxidation Oxidation rate (kg/m 3/s) 1.0 H2 oxidation x 0.8 299.2 C6H6 oxidation x 0. secondary air supply: 300 mm above grate.

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.06 0.08 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. The further slow 210 . secondary air supply: 300 mm above grate.10 0.12 0. 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.13.13 (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.Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier Figure 7. gasification rates in this second stage are lower than those in the first stage.04 0. It can be seen from Figure 7. with concentrations of H2 and CO in particular increasing substantially immediately downstream of the second air supply point. 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 Heterogenous gasification reaction rates for two-stage gasification (Ignition port: 500 mm above grate. primary air flow rate = 15 kg/hr. 0.13(a) that better gas quality was achieved by introducing secondary air. However.02 0. Figure 7.

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. primary air flow rate = 15 kg/hr. secondary air flow rate = 5 kg/hr) 211 . 7. 7.13 (b) Figure 7.13 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. secondary air supply point: 300 mm above grate.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. 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.

the gas temperature is higher and more of the oxygen utilized is consumed in gas phase oxidation reactions. as shown in Figure 7. It was also observed that the closer to the oxidation zone the secondary air is introduced.Chapter 7 Analysis for tar reduction in stratified downdraft gasifier Figure 7. final gas phase tar levels in the two-stage unit end up well below that for gas from the single-stage system. 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. 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.13 (b) shows the predicted variation in concentrations of minor gas species. (As discussed in Chapter 4. (d) Condensable tar profile In Figure 7.14.) However. Methane levels also fall but to a much smaller extent. smaller amounts of tar and higher cold gas efficiencies are predicted. 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). the tar cracking rate increases dramatically due to the increase in temperature at this point. Table 7.14.3 that as the amount of secondary air is increased. 212 . It can be seen from Table 7. The second reason is that at higher temperatures. As a result. A rapid decrease in concentration of C6H6 and C2H4 is evident at the point where the secondary air is introduced. once the secondary air input level is reached in the two stage unit.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. the primary tar profile for two-stage gasification is shown compared to that for a single stage gasifier without secondary air supply. proportionally less H2 is consumed in gas phase oxidation reactions and a higher cold gas efficiency results. 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.

Since reaction zone length affects both final tar content and cold gas efficiency. 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. from a tar reduction point of view.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. First an attempt was made to establish what was the best reaction zone length to use.3% respectively of values considerably further downstream.14 Tar profile along the gasifier for both single-stage and two-stage units. However.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. single-stage air flow rate: 20 kg/hr. a longer reaction zone was necessary since tar reduction still continued beyond a 375 mm zone length. secondary air supply: at 300 mm above grate) 7. the effects on both these two parameters of variations in reaction zone length were determined. at 1000 sec after ignition (Ignition port: 500 mm above grate for both cases. The 213 . secondary air flow rate = 5 kg/hr). two-stage total air supply rate: 20 kg/hr (primary air flow rate = 15 kg/hr.

28 14.28 13.49 11.94 16.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 0.41 72.03 16.3 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 12.52 75.30 65.55 14.82 11.44 11.20 2.39 32.42 13.81 2.14 15. This gave a zone length of 425 mm.34 76.72 12.35 13.80 2.87 2.46 14.40 18.16 2.65 11.44 64.57 12.32 13.10 14.26 2.19 91.27 13.37 13.23 14.77 Operating the reactor with wood fuel only was observed to have considerable disadvantages.94 2.29 2.66 43. This was predicted to have a 214 .13 9.50 69.82 10.07 17.32 2. 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. 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.53 11.77 31.91 12.16 2.16 11.73 12.41 15.63 77.33 13.98 17.54 13.34 66.45 13.16 49.28 2.51 16.50 14.25 19.23 12.39 13.23 70.90 17.09 75.66 15.74 63.47 17.69 15.25 2.33 68.81 2.52 15.26 10.39 12.27 58.75 72.04 15.21 15.74 2.66 25.87 13.36 78.01 11.55 11.39 15.30 13.34 14.24 12.26 49.65 14.82 67.39 98.89 13.025 mg/mm.45 73.75 68. Table 7.15 64.17 2.67 11.21 18.82 2.86 12.80 12.50 14.

It was concluded that avoiding tar formation in the region downstream of the oxidation zone is very important for producing a tar free gas. However. that is being introduced. Once the front reaches the required level. however. Avoiding devolatilization below the oxidation zone can be simply achieved by charging the gasifier with charcoal prior to each run. This leads to local increases in both solid and gas phase temperatures. The concept of two-stage gasification was investigated using the dynamic model developed in this study. more than an hour is required to generate a charcoal bed of the required depth and to achieve stable operation. A charcoal bed can also. the air flow rate is increased to a level where stable operation occurs. requires that sufficient charcoal of a suitable quality be available on site. and substantial tar reduction is achieved at the second stage. 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. 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.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. the reactor can be operated using the charcoal left over from the previous run. achieving 215 . There is also the problem of what to do with the tar rich gas produced during the initial period. 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. 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. Since it is secondary air. a low tar gas can be produced under stable operating conditions. under these conditions the reaction front moves upward. This. at least in theory. To avoid having to load charcoal before every run. Higher cold gas efficiencies are predicted to be achieved by the supplying the secondary air at levels close to the ignition port level.

216 .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. improvements in tar levels in the gas should still be achievable in smaller diameter units.

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

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

and the effective thermal conductivity. 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. and a secondary pyrolysis step in which primary tar cracked into secondary tar and combustible gases. In this study. A two-step pyrolysis mechanism used in the model incorporated a primary pyrolysis step in which biomass decomposed to primary tar. 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. This happens because temperatures are not high enough for the two main combustible gases. a parametric sensitivity analysis was carried out to understand the effects of changes in operating and model parameters on model performance. CO and H2. An important initial condition assumed in most simulation runs using this model was that prior to a run commencing. which enables the importance of radiation at high reactor temperatures to be properly accounted for. volatile gases and char.Chapter 8 Conclusions and recommendations combustion. but it 219 . This was done to avoid the excessive tar formation and smoky gas release that would otherwise occur during the reactor warming up stage. to be formed in significant quantities. In the sensitivity analysis. The amount of H2 and CO in the producer gas increases gradually with time. the effects of varying three operating parameters and eight model parameters were investigated. 2) During the period immediately after ignition. 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. 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. 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. the quality of the producer gas is very poor. the gasifier was charged with charcoal up to the ignition port level.

4) The superficial gas velocity. A virtually constant value of CH4 is found along the gasification zone. which shows that reactions involving CH4 occur to only a limited extent in this zone. being of the order of only a few millimetres long due to the steep solids temperature rise in the upper part of the gasifier. 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. thereafter increases rapidly along the drying. 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. Decomposition of condensable tar is not complete within the gasifer and a small amount is present in the outlet producer gas. pyrolysis and combustion zone. Under such conditions the heating value of the producer gas was about 5 MJ/Nm³. 5) The drying zone is typically short in a stratified downdraft gasifier. More secondary tar than primary tar (oxygenate) is found in the outlet gas. 6) At steady state conditions. 7) Primary tar release occurs over a relatively narrow pyrolysis zone in the reactor.Chapter 8 Conclusions and recommendations was found to take 20 to 25 minutes to achieve steady operating conditions. and gas temperatures exceed solid surface temperatures throughout the rest of the gasifier. 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. some CO is present in the gas leaving the oxidation zone but its concentration increases substantially in the gasification zone. whilst the same as the inlet air velocity at the top of the gasifier. 220 . giving mostly secondary tar (hydrocarbon). This occurs both because of mass transfers from the solid phase to the gas phase and also because of increases in gas phase temperatures.

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

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

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. 4) The producer gas composition did not vary significantly over the range of air flow rates used. which is about 40 times less than the tar content found in gas from a traditional downdraft gasifier.0-1. Of the combustible gas components. and neglecting mass transfer effects. Also.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. followed by H2 (14-19 vol %). As predicted in the numerical model. in the model gas phase oxidation reactions were characterized using only the intrinsic kinetic rate. 6) A discrepancy between the predicted gas temperatures and measured values within the combustion zone was observed. The combustion zone temperature increased with an increase in airflow rate and peak values were in the range of 1000°-1300°C. outlet gas temperature also increased at a higher air flow rate.5 to 27. 3) The experimental gasifier could be operated over a fairly wide range from 7. It was found that the concentration of 223 . 7) Gas composition profiles along the reactor were measured during the reactor warm up phase and during steady state operation. CO had the highest concentration (16-21 vol %).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. 5) The variation over time of the measured temperature profile along the axis of the gasifier agreed reasonably well with model predictions. 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.7 vol %) were also present. Small amounts of CH4 (1. It was found that 20 to 25 minutes was required to reach a steady temperature profile. This is attributable to the difficulties involved in experimentally measuring the true flame temperature within the gas spaces of a packed bed. However (see point no 10 below).

deficiencies in our understanding of combined kinetic. 224 . experimental results showed that the air flow rate is the main operating parameter controlling gasifier stability. 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). there was an encouragingly good level of agreement between the results of model simulations and experimental measurements. The air-fuel ratio was found to be constant and independent of air supply rate. Overall. 9) Wood consumption rate and gas production rate increased linearly with increases in air flow rate. 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. This value was assumed representative of the amount of tar in the pyrolysis zone. Model predictions of wood consumption and gas production rates agreed very well with experimental values.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. Model predictions of gas composition at two different times (during reactor warm up and steady operating conditions) agreed satisfactorily with experimental values. 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. 10) As the model predicted. 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. however. The average tar content in the outlet producer gas was around 80 times less than that in the gases in the pyrolysis zone. The average tar content along the gasification zone was found to be 25 times less than in the pyrolysis zone. Higher airflow rates favoured the gasification dominant mode of operation as did the use of a larger wood block size. However.

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. However. 1) A reaction zone length of 375 mm. appears to be an optimum reaction zone length for the stratified downdraft gasifier on the basis of cold gas efficiency considerations. 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. and these predictions have been confirmed experimentally.3% efficiency in model results. a longer reaction zone length of 425 mm is a more suitable length for the stratified downdraft gasifier studied in this project. even after two hours operation. and a 99. 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. However.Chapter 8 Conclusions and recommendations 8. especially in the region less than 100 mm above the grate.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. from a tar minimization point of view. This problem persisted. The required charcoal bed could also. 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. for which a 97 % cold gas efficiency at the reactor outlet was observed in experimental results. There is also the problem of what to do with the high tar content gas produced during the charcoal-forming stage. 225 . This is attributable to incomplete devolatilization of the fuel in the region of the gasifier below the ignition level. in theory. The requirement to have extra charcoal on hand for every run can be eliminated by using the charcoal left over from the previous run. the model predictions suggest that more than an hour would be required to produce a charcoal bed of sufficient depth (425 mm).

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. This is not the case with larger particles for which intraparticle heat and mass transfer processes cannot be ignored (Salazar 1987). 8. The secondary air was found to create a secondary oxidation zone and a local increase in both solid and gas phase temperatures was predicted. are generally obtained from experimental investigations in which reaction rates are determined by thermogravimetric analysis. However.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. Further reduction of tar content appears achievable by introducing secondary air at a suitable point downstream of the primary oxidation zone. 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. Effects of 226 . Recommendations for further research work are as follows: 1) The kinetic coefficients used in modelling studies. For instance. including the one undertaken in this project. and the model predictions generally agreed well with experimental observations. The conditions employed in such experiments differ significantly from real gasification conditions. 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. as well as significant tar reduction.5 Recommendations for further research works The model developed is able to predict the dynamic behaviour of a stratified downdraft gasifier. including the changes in tar content with time along the gasifier. provided that the secondary air can be distributed effectively across the gasifier cross-section.

3) In this study. will predictions of reactor performance be improved sufficiently to eliminate the discrepancies between model predictions and experimental observations referred to earlier. To correctly estimate rates of formation and evolution of volatile gases (including tar) in the pyrolysis zone. a sub-model needs to be developed in which heat transport and mass transport processes within the particle are accounted for. in the modelling of primary pyrolysis processes a major simplifying assumption was made. 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. to avoid the overpredicting of tar content. experimental studies have shown that particle size is reduced during the pyrolysis process (Salazar 1987). However. However. However. Only once single particle processes are well characterized. and the resulting kinetic data integrated into gasification models. 2) Tar reduction can occur by both homogeneous and heterogenous thermal cracking.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. 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 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. 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. 227 . 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. 4) In the dynamic model developed. the size of particle was assumed to be the same both before and after the pyrolysis process. a correction factor approach was applied.

heat and mass transfer between the solid surface and the gas phase occurs under strongly reactive conditions. 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. 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. 7) In the model. 8) By modifying the existing experimental set-up. 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. More reliable gas phase oxidation kinetic coefficients are required to avoid the overestimation of gas peak temperatures. However. which are able to uniformly distribute the secondary air across the gasifier cross section without disturbing the solid fuel flow. since in real gasification processes. 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. In this study.Chapter 8 Conclusions and recommendations 5) Solid-to-gas heat and mass transport processes are very important in modelling studies of gasification. the performance of a two-stage gasifier should be investigated. should be explored. 228 . 9) For two-stage gasification. 6) The dynamic model developed in this study has been shown to be able to predict separate solid and gas phase temperature profiles. 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.

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

1) can be rewritten as (3.4 FO 2 ) 80.76M ) exp(2201T ) (1 + 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.481E − 2)ρ (1 + 1. temperature.4 FO 2 ) (A.6 × 0.6 × 0. moisture content and oxygen fraction.6 D(1 + 80.61D ) t fp = (A.61D ) exp(2201T ) (1 + 3. the primary pyrolysis rate was estimated by using an average particle temperature in the primary pyrolysis kinetic rate equation.76M )80.1) 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.2) 230 .6 D(1 + 80. 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 = (3.481E − 2)ρ (1 + 1. 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.

M.4 & A.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.7) TD1 = average temperature of fine particle which is assumed to be equal to surface temperature of particle (K) From equation (A.6 D1 (1 + 80.61D1 ) ⎦ ⎣ 80. ⎛−E⎞ Kinetic rate of primary pyrolysis (kg/m³s) = Aexp⎜ ⎟ρ ⎝ RT ⎠ (A. FO2 & T.Appendix A Average particle temperature for use in primary pyrolysis process calculations For the same ρ.5. 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.61D2 ) ⎦ (A.6) where TD = average temperature of particle in K (Assuming D1 ≤ 1 mm. and for different diameters D1 and D2 t D1 t D2 ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎣ 80.3) For fine particles.6 × 0.6 D2 (1 + 80.3) the time required to complete the pyrolytic decomposition of a particle of diameter D2 (sec) is: 231 .5) From equation A. fine particle) tD1 = 1 ⎛ −E ⎞ A exp⎜ ⎟ ⎜ RT ⎟ ⎝ D1 ⎠ (A.6 × 0.

001) (A.61D2 ) D1 (1 + 80.6 t D2 = 1 ⎛ −E ⎞ A exp⎜ ⎟ ⎜ RT ⎟ ⎝ D2 ⎠ (A.12) where TD1 is the temperature for a fine particle which is assumed as the surface temperature of a wood particle 232 .11) Therefore.61D1 ) (A. t D2 = 1 × (953.138 D2 + 46861.6 × 0.984 D2 ) ⎝ D1 ⎠ (A.7) in equation A. 1 1 × (953.8 becomes t D 2 = t D1 × D2 (1 + 80.61 × 0.138D2 + 46861.9) Substituting tD1 (eq.138D2 + 46861.138D2 + 46861. equation A.6 × 0.984 D2 ) ⎝ D 2 ⎠ ⎝ D1 ⎠ TD 2 = 1 ⎛ 1 ⎞ R ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ T ⎟ + E ln(953.001 m.984 D2 ) ⎛ −E ⎞ ⎛ −E ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎜ RT ⎟ = ⎜ RT ⎟ − ln(953.10) tD2 can be estimated from the equivalent (average) temperature for D2.8) Since D1 = 0.984 D2 ) ⎛ −E ⎞ A exp⎜ ⎟ ⎜ RT ⎟ ⎝ D1 ⎠ (A.8.138D2 + 46861.984 D2 ) 0.001(1 + 80.138D2 + 46861. (TD2) by using equation A.6 × 0.984 D2 ) ⎝ D 2 ⎠ ⎝ D1 ⎠ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ R ⎜ ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎜ T ⎟ = ⎜ T ⎟ + E ln(953.Appendix A Average particle temperature for use in primary pyrolysis process calculations tD2 = t D1 × D2 (1 + 80.984 D2 ) = ⎛ −E ⎞ ⎛ −E ⎞ A exp⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ RT ⎟ A exp⎜ RT ⎟ ⎝ D1 ⎠ ⎝ D2 ⎠ ⎛ −E ⎞ exp⎜ ⎟ ⎜ RT ⎟ ⎛ −E ⎞ ⎝ D1 ⎠ ⎜ ⎟= exp⎜ ⎟ ⎝ RTD 2 ⎠ (953.61D2 ) = t D1 × (953.6 × 0. A.138D2 + 46861.

12 as follows: Tavg = 1 ⎛ 1 ⎜ ⎜T ⎝ S ⎞ R ⎟ + ln(953.13) 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.Appendix A Average particle temperature for use in primary pyrolysis process calculations Therefore. pp. the general form of the equation to estimate the average temperature of the particle with diameter D can be written using equation A. DA Tillman & EC John. 233 .138D + 46861. 4. TB & Markson. ‘A predictive model for stratified downdraft gasification of biomass’. Progress in biomass conversion. vol.984 D ) ⎟ E ⎠ (A. eds. M 1983. 217-54.

31 6. Prausnitz & Poling 1987) Atomic and structural diffusion volume increments C H O N 15.11 4.Appendix B Properties of gas species Appendix B Properties of gas species Table B1 Atomic Diffusion Volumes (Reid.0 26.9 13.1 234 .9 2.54 Diffusion volumes of molecules H2 N2 O2 Air CO CO2 H2O 6.7 18.5 16.3 19.12 18.

14310539E+05 -0.06354696E-04 -0.10185813E-09 0.08768554E-11 -0.04134872E-11 -0.06866686E-07 -0.15119409E-02 0.02989921E+06 -0.11364354E-14 -0.03025078E+02 0.13138773E-08 a5 a6 -0.03474982E-01 0.02506588E-10 -0.09475434E-09 0.02672145E+02 0.03262451E+02 0.02117280E-10 -0.68524262E-10 4.08730260E-05 -0.02991423E+02 0.03881755E-04 -0.26136365E-09 a5 a6 -1.15827519E-14 -0.03140168E-01 0.04453623E+02 0.08143015E-05 -0.06910951E-13 -0.05581944E-07 0.12339301E+04 -0.08249441E-02 0.02474951E-10 -0.09231578E-10 -0.06135197E-02 0.05633828E-06 -0.53215420E-14 -5.06968581E-07 0.11274864E-02 a3 -0.10125209E+04 -0.04896696E+06 -0.14426885E-02 0.05756150E-05 a4 0.05750000E+02 235 .12009964E-09 0. 2000) Species C T(K) 1000-5000 300-1000 a1 1.03056293E-01 0.03386842E+02 0.03020811E+06 -0.08974359E-13 -6.12784105E-05 -0.1258842E-06 -0.03697578E+02 0.23870304E+01 5.54884907E-05 a4 2.08350340E+04 0.06391618E-13 -0.01775281E-09 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 0.10409113E-04 -0.09922072E-01 0.04837314E+06 0.16690333E-13 -0.03298124E+02 0.14268350E+05 -0.05630827E-05 -0.98573864E-02 a3 -1.07000644E-02 0.02275724E+02 0.10052490E+04 h = a1T + a 2T 2 + a 3T 3 + a 4T 4 + a 5T 5 + a 6 (Turns.88033398E+03 -6.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.85438496E-06 -1.59755420E+00 a2 6.02393996E-08 0.03212936E+02 0 a2 0.91227177E-03 2.

424E+00 -0.392E-06 -13. JM & Poling.164E-06 -4. Turns. 2nd edn. An introduction to combustion: Concepts and application. New York. Advanced thermodynamics engineering.702E+00 1. RC. 4th edn. 2001) ⎥ ⎦ Species CH4 C2H4 C6H6 href0 (J/mol) (Thrns. McGraw-Hill. Prausnitz.081E-03 14. 2000) -74831 +52283 +82927 A 1. IK 2001.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. RE 1987.064E-03 C -2.301E-06 where Tref =298. SR 2000. McGrawHill. K & Puri.206E+00 B 9. FL: CRC Press.15 K References Annamalai. Reid. Boca Raton. The properties of gases and liquids. 236 .394E-03 39.

62) is presented.46-3.3. 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. which is the same as Figure 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. shows the grid-point cluster for the one-dimensional problem used for discretization. 3. the model partial differential equations are discretized as follows: 237 . The following diagram.

an expression for the solid velocity Vs can be developed. equation 3.Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations C.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. which means that the time dependent char density term in equation 3.1 Mass balance equations (solid phase) Char: By assuming constant char density along the reactor. After eliminating the transient char density terms.46 can be eliminated.47) can be discretized as follows: 238 . 3.

3.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.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 .

3.68.49.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. In this case. 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 .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. 3. which need be linearized using eq.

the heterogeneous gas-char reaction rate equations (eq. 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 …. the gas phase homogenous reactions are changed to their molar fraction form.14) becomes: 241 . p j = PY j and Y j = mole fraction of species j After applying the ideal gas law. 3.Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations discretizing the differential equations. 3. 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 forward water-gas shift reaction rate equation (eq.

34 × 10 − 4 The reverse water-gas shift reaction rate equation (eq.5 R * 6 * 6 YC6 H 6 − YC*6 H 6 YC*6 H 6 The superscript. denotes the previous-iteration values.5 1. A6 = 6858 3 m kPa1.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. Thus.5 is changed to 1.88 × 10 9 kmolK 2 .2 R * 6 * 6 The rate equation for carbon monoxide oxidation (3.20) becomes: ⎛ − E7 R7 = (ε ) A7 exp⎜ ⎜ RT g ⎝ ⎞ 2 −2 0 ⎟ P Tg YCO YO0. The equation becomes ….8 0. m 3 kPa 2 s 242 .5 2 2O ⎟ ⎠ where.8 Sec Since YC6H6 is nonlinear in the above equation.5 where. The steeper slope results in stable iteration even though it also leads to slower convergence. A7 = 1.2 which makes the slope steeper. R6 = R + 0.3.5YH . 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 . linearization is performed with respect to YC6H6. *. In the above linearization.5 ⎟Tg P YC H YO 2 6 6 ⎟ ⎠ kmolK 0.18) for hydrocarbon oxidation becomes: ⎛ − E6 R6 = (ε ) A6 exp⎜ ⎜ RT g ⎝ ⎞ −0. the factor 0.15) becomes: ⎛ − E5 F A5 F exp⎜ ⎜ RT g ⎝ =ε KC ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ P 2T − 2Y g R5 R CO2 YH 2 The rate equation (eq. 3.

R8 = R + 0. the final form of the carbon monoxide oxidation equation (used for the oxygen balance) is: R 7 = R + 1 . the factor 0. * * R8 = R8 + 0.5 ⎛ − E8 ⎞ 1.Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations Since YO2 is nonlinear in the above equation.8 are changed to 1. Thus.8 where.1 and 1. The equation becomes ….8 R * 8 * 8 * YO2 − YO2 * YO2 In the above two linearizations.7 and 0. linearization is performed with respect to YCH4 and YO2.5 −1.7YO 2 0. Linearizing with respect to YCH4 . R7 = R + 0. A8 = 2.5 is also changed to 1. the final form of the methane oxidation equation (used for the methane balance) is: R8 = R + 1.7 R8 * YCH 4 − YCH 4 * YCH 4 Linearizing with respect to YO2 .5 s ⎝ g ⎠ Since YCH4 and YO2 are nonlinear in the above equation. the factors 0. Thus.22) becomes: 1. linearization is performed with respect to YO2.2 to make the slope steeper and thus achieve stable iteration.5 ⎟ P Tg YCH 0.1R * 8 * 8 * YCH 4 − YCH 4 * YCH 4 243 .09 × 1010 kmolK .2 R * 7 * 7 * YO2 − YO2 * YO2 The rate equation for oxidation of methane (3.2 to make the slope steeper and achieve stable iteration.5 R * 7 * 7 * YO2 − YO2 * YO2 In the above linearization. R8 = (ε ) A8 exp⎜ 4 ⎜ RT ⎟ m 3 kPa 1.

The equation becomes …. the final form of the methane oxidation equation (used for the oxygen balance) is: R8 = R + 1.5 R * 9 * 9 YC2 H 4 − YC*2 H 4 YC*2 H 4 Similarly in the case of C6H6.1R * 10 * 10 * YH 2 − YH 2 * YH 2 * YO2 − YO2 * YO2 Linearizing with respect to YO2 . 3.5 is also changed to 1.2 to make the slope steeper.24) can be transformed to ⎛ − E9 R9 = (ε ) A9 exp⎜ ⎜ RT g ⎝ ⎞ −0.4 × 10 6 Since YH2 and YO2 are nonlinear in the above equation. 3.2 s where A10 = 8.5 1. the factor 0.5 ⎟Tg P YC H YO 2 2 4 ⎟ ⎠ kmolK 0.1 ⎟ ⎠ kmolK 2. the rate equation for ethylene oxidation (eq.8 s Since YC2H4 is nonlinear in the above equation. the final form of the ethylene oxidation equation (used for the ethylene balance) is: R9 = R + 1.26) becomes: ⎛ − E10 R10 = (ε ) A10 exp⎜ ⎜ RT g ⎝ ⎞ − 2. R10 = R + 1.2 R * 9 * 9 YC2 H 4 − YC*2 H 4 YC*2 H 4 The rate equation for hydrogen oxidation (3.1R * 10 * 10 244 . Linearizing with respect to YH2 . R9 = R + 0.2 R * 8 * 8 * YO2 − YO2 * YO2 Using a process similar to that used for eq. linearization is performed with respect to YC2H4.18.8 0.5 where. A9 = 6858 3 m kPa 1. linearization is performed with respect to YH2 and YO2.1 (YO 2 )1.2 ⎟Tg P (YH 2 )1.Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations Thus.2 2. R10 = R + 1.2 m 3 kPa 2. Thus.

5M O2 ⎢ R10 + 1.8YC06.5 6 YO 2 H ⎟ ⎡⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞⎤ ⎠ ⎜ ⎟+⎜ ⎟ ⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎥ ⎣⎝ k m ⎠ ⎝ k1 ⎠⎦ * ⎤ ⎡ * Y − YO * O − 1.1R10 * YO2 ⎢ ⎣ ⎤ ⎥ ⎥ ⎦ This can be rewritten in the form … (YO 2 )i = B(YO 2 )i −1 + C A 245 .51) is discretized as shown below: M O2 ⎞ M ∂ ∂ ⎛ ⎟ = −γ O2 R1 − 3M O R6 − 0.8 0. the mass balance differential equations (gaseous phase) are discretized as follows: Oxygen: The mass balance equation for oxygen (eq.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 − 0.5M O R7 2 2 ⎟ MC ⎠ − 1.5M O2 R8 − M O2 R9 − 0. 3.5M O2 R8 − M O2 R9 − 0.2 R8 2 * 2 ⎥ YO2 ⎥ ⎢ ⎦ ⎣ * ⎡ * Y − YO * O − 0.5M O R7 C O2 M O 2 + ⎜ m ′′YO2 g 2 2 ∂t ∂x ⎜ Mg ⎟ MC ⎝ ⎠ − 1.5 ⎥ − M O2 (ε )k 9Tg P YC6 H 6 YO 2 ⎥ ⎦ * ⎡ * YO2 − YO2 * − 0.5 1.5M O2 ⎢ R7 + 1.Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations After converting the reaction rate equations to molar fraction forms and after linearization has been done.5 P 1.5M O2 ⎢ R8 + 1.5M 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−0.2 R7 2 * 2 YO2 ⎢ ⎣ ⎤ − 0.

80 246 .5 C6 H 6 ∆xi − 1 + 2 * 0.6M O2 R7 ∆xi − 1 2 Y * O2 + * 1.25 + O ( ) 3. 3.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 − 0.5YH .50 52.80 ⎞ ⎛ (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 YO2.8 0.3M O2 R8 ∆xi − 1 + 0.8 0.1M R * ∆x + 0.8M O2 R8 ∆xi − 1 Y * O2 − 0.62 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 * 0.50 52.55M O2 R10 ∆xi − 1 2 Y * O2 ⎛ M O2 B = ⎜ m′′ g ⎜ Mg ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ i −1 ⎞ * * ⎟ + 0.62 R p1 + R p2 29.05M 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.20 27.49) is discretized as shown below: ⎞ ⎟ = 2(1 − γ ) M CO R1 + 2 M CO R2 + M CO R3 ⎟ MC MC MC ⎠ 3.20 27.5 g P Y 1.5 g P Y 1.

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− 2YO02.80 ⎝ ⎠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.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 29.80 247 .40 R p 2 − M CO2 R5 R 52.53) 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 + 6.50 6.50 52.20 27.5YH .80 R p1 79.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 YO2.5YH .25 ∆xi − 1 O ⎛ M B = ⎜ m′′ CO g ⎜ Mg ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ i −1 0 ⎛ (ε )YCO PM CO ∆xi − 1 ⎞ M 3.25 + O ( ) 3.62 R p1 + R p2 29.50 52. 3.20 27.

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 ⎞ 6.80 ⎠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 ⎠ 6.40 2 ⎟ C =⎜ R p1 ∆xi − 1 + R p 2 ∆xi − 1 + ⎟ ⎜ 2 2 RTg ∆t 79.80 6.40 R p1 + R p 2 − M CO2 R5 R 79.80 ⎟ R + ⎟ ⎡⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞⎤ 79.50 52.80 ⎛ (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 6.50 52.50 p1 ⎠ ⎜ ⎟+⎜ ⎟ ⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎥ ⎣⎝ k m ⎠ ⎝ k 2 ⎠⎦ + 6.80 6.40 R p2 52.

Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations Hydrogen: The mass balance equation for hydrogen (eq.1R10 * YH 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 + 1.80 ⎛ (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. 3.63 R p2 52.80 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 1.80 ⎦ 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 * 1.63 −2 R4 − R10 M H 2 + R p2 MC 52.63 R p2 ⎥+ ⎥ 52.1M H 2 R10 ∆xi − 1 2 Y * H2 249 .

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 + 1.1M H 2 R10 ∆xi − 1 Water vapor: The mass balance equation for water vapor (eq. 3.30 − M H 2O (ε )k 5 F P 2Tg− 2YCO YH 2O + Rm + R p1 + M H 2O R5 R 79.55) 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 ⎟ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ 16.63 R ∆x R3 ∆xi − 1 + M H 2 R5 F ∆xi − 1 p2 1 + i− ⎟ 2 2 2 52.50 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 .30 R p1 + M H 2O R5 R 79.50 ∂ ⎛ 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.Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations ⎛ (ε )YH 2 PM H 2 ∆xi − 1 2 C =⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ 2 ⎞ M H2 ⎟ + 1.

10 ⎟= R4 − M CH 4 R8 + R p1 + R p2 ⎟ MC 79.50 p1 i − 12 52.50 ⎦ 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 * ⎞ 1.1R8 * YCH 4 ⎢ ⎣ * CH 4 ⎤ 0.80 ⎥ 79. 3.10 R p1 + R p2 ⎥+ 52.40 5.40 R ∆x + R p 2 ∆xi − 1 + R4 ∆xi − 1 ⎟ 79.1M CH 4 R8 ∆xi − 1 2 251 .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 + 1.40 5.56) is discretized as shown below: ∂ ⎛ YCH 4 PM CH 4 ⎜ RTg ∂t ⎜ ⎝ ⎞ ∂ ⎛ M CH 4 ⎟ + ⎜ m ′′YCH g 4 ⎟ ∂x ⎜ Mg ⎠ ⎝ ⎞ M CH 4 0.1M CH 4 R8 ∆xi − 1 2 ⎟ + * ⎟ YCH 4 ⎠i ⎛ M CH 4 B = ⎜ m′′ g ⎜ Mg ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠i ⎞ M CH 4 5.30 2 ⎟ C =⎜ + R m ∆x i − 1 + R p1 ∆xi − 1 + M H 2O R5 R ∆xi − 1 ⎟ ⎜ 2 2 2 RTg ∆t 79.50 52.50 ⎠i ⎝ + 2 M H 2O R8 ∆xi − 1 + M H 2O R10 ∆xi − 1 2 2 Methane: The mass balance equation for methane (eq.80 2 2 MC ⎠i ⎛ (ε )YCH 4 PM CH 4 ∆xi − 1 2 C =⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ * + 0.10 ⎟ + 0.Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations ⎛ (ε )YH 2O PM H 2O ∆xi − 1 ⎞ 16.

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 ⎝ ⎞ * ⎟ + 5.40 R ∆x + 0.80 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* ⎟ + 1.80 ⎠i 0 Primary Tar : The mass balance equation for primary tar (oxygenate) (eq.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 + 1.2 R9 2 4 * ⎜ YC2 H 4 ⎝ ⎞ 5. 3. 3.2M C2 H 4 R9 ∆xi − 1 p2 i− 1 ⎟ 2 2 52.57) 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 ⎞ 5.40 ⎟= R − R9 M C2 H 4 ⎟ 52.40 ⎟+ R ⎟ 52.80 R p1 ⎜ g ⎟ ∂x ⎜ 79.Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations Ethylene: The mass balance equation for ethylene (eq.50 Mg ⎟ ∂t ⎜ RTg ⎠ ⎠ ⎝ ⎝ ε 252 .58) is discretized as shown below: ⎞ ∂ ⎛ Ytar1 PM tar1 ⎞ ∂ ⎛ ⎟ + ⎜ Ytar1 m ′′ M tar1 ⎟ = − R p 2 + 52.

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.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 + 6.65 ⎟+ ⎟ 52.80 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 + 1.2 R6 tar 2 * ⎜ Ytar 2 ⎝ ⎞ 6.50 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 ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ + 52.80 R p1 79.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 − ) 52.80 R p 2 ⎠ This can be rewritten in the form … (Ytar 2 )i = where B(Ytar 2 )i −1 + C A 253 . 3. benzene) (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 + 0.3 Energy balance equation (solid phase) The solid energy balance differential equation is discretized as follows: 254 . 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 ⎝ * ⎞ ⎟ + 1.2 M tar 2 R6 ∆x 1 * i− ⎟ 2 Ytar 2 ⎠i ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ i −1 ⎞ * ⎟ + 6.80 ⎠i 0 ⎛ (ε )Ytar 2 PM tar 2 ∆xi − 1 2 =⎜ ⎜ RTg ∆t ⎝ Total gas : The mass balance equation for total gas (eq.2 M tar 2 R6 ∆xi − 1 p2 i− 1 ⎟ 2 2 52.

Backward difference scheme for first order terms ″ where hs = Cp s (Ts − Ta ) .61) 4 4h − sw (Ts − Tw ) + R m ∆H m + R p1 ∆H p1 + ∑ R j ∆H j D j =1 .Central difference scheme for second order terms . 3. 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 .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.

3.4 Energy balance equation (gaseous phase) As discussed in 3.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 .9.

62) .3 is used in the computer program. α = 0. After underrelaxation is done.Appendix C Discretization of model partial differential equations where α is the underrelaxation factor.Central difference scheme for second order terms . 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.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 .

Numerical heat transfer and fluid flow. 258 .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. SV 1980. New York: McGraw-Hill.

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. [m] ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Apparent density of biomass in dry basis. [K] Bed voidage fraction. f90 and UNIX (IRIX).1 and Windows 2000 service pack 4.00b and Windows NT 4. [-] 259 . It is written in the Fortran programming language.0 service pack 5. PARAMETER :: DP = KIND(1.Appendix D Computer code listing Appendix D Computer code listing Given below is the computer code for the model developed duing this project. It was tested on the following compiler and operating system pairs: Essential Lahey Fortran 90 Compiler Release 4. [m] Air supply rate. [KPa] Ambient temperature. Compaq Visual Fortran 6. [K] Gas Inlet temperature. [kg/m3] Moisture content of the fuel in dry basic.0 operating system. The Fortran code was developed by using ELF90 (Lahey. [wt %] Initial wood particle diameter. [kg/hr] Pressure of gas mixture. [m] ! Effective length of the reactor. IMPLICIT NONE ! List of parameters: INTEGER. 1998) compiler under Windows NT 4. !========================================================================================== ! START MODULE !========================================================================================== MODULE gasification_data ! Purpose: ! The main purpose of this module is for data sharing for Transient wood gasifier model.

858D+03 ! PEFF REAL(DP):: A7 = 1.020D0 REAL(DP):: depth_bio ! ! ! ! ! ! Carbon content of the fuel in dry basic.150D+04 ! PEFF REAL(DP):: A1 = 0. [wt %] Hydrogen content of the fuel in dry basic.8Sec] of H2 oxidation. [m] Location of the ignition from the reactor top.42D-03 ! PEFF REAL(DP):: A5 = 4. 1 for T_s=T_g Inital wall temperature estimation gradient. [wt %] Ash content of the fuel in dry basic.00D0 REAL(DP):: sulfur = 0. [-] Multiplication factor of secondary tar oxidation rate. [-] REAL(DP):: delta_x ! Depth of slice for central difference ! (x(i+1/2)-x(i-1/2)). [kmolK2/m3kPa2Sec] for (CO/CO2) in char oxidation. [K] Depth of the ignition.0D+0 ! PEFF REAL(DP):: A3 = 1. [wt %] ! Initial char diameter. [m/s] Ratio to effective and actural heat and mass transfer surface area. [-] Defined maximum mass transfer coefficient. [m/sK] of C-H2O reaction. [1/s] of secondary pyrolysis.[-] INTEGER :: N_ign = 50 ! Initial number of slices of ignition depth. [-] ! Ultimate Analysis of the fuel ! ============================= REAL(DP):: carbon = 52.00D0 REAL(DP):: ash = 0. [-] Multiplication factor of primary pyrolysis rate.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. [-] Multiplication factor of wall heat transfer coefficient.5Sec] of C2H4 oxidation.0D0 ! ! ! ! ! ! Multiplication factor of Activation energy of tar cracking rate. [-] INTEGER :: N_top = 200 ! Initial number of slices of top unreacted zone. [m/sK] of C-CO2 reaction.20D+05 ! PEFF REAL(DP):: Ap2 = 1.5/m³kPa1.10D0 REAL(DP):: oxygen = 41. [wt %] Nitrogen content of the fuel in dry basic.5/kN1. [wt %] Sulfur content of the fuel in dry basic.850D0 0. [1/s] of primary pyrolysis.70D0 REAL(DP):: nitrogen = 0.858D+03 ! PEFF REAL(DP):: A10 = 8.6581 ! PEFF REAL(DP):: A2 = 589. [-] Secondary air supply rate. [kmolK2/m3kPa2Sec] of CH4 oxidation. [kmolK0. [-] ! **************************** ! List of reactions' constants ! **************************** ! Pre_exponential frequency factors (PEFF) ! ======================================== REAL(DP):: Am = 5. [-] 260 . [m/sK] of C_H2 reaction. [m] REAL(DP):: delta_x2 ! Depth of slice for forward difference ! (x(i+1)-x(i)). [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.13D+06 ! PEFF REAL(DP):: Ap1 = 3.8Sec] of CO oxidation. [kg/hr] Location of secondary air from the reactor top. [m] Depth of char at initial condition.67*3. [kmolK0. [m] REAL(DP):: delta_x1 ! Depth of slice for backward difference ! (x(i)-x(i-1)). [m] ! Depth of biomass.20D0 REAL(DP):: hydrogen = 6. [kmolK2/m3kPa2sec] of tar oxidation.5/m³kPa1. parameter :: N = 700 ! Total number of slice. [m] ! Defined Parameters for numerical soultion ! ========================================== INTEGER.5D0 REAL(DP):: wall_coeff = 0.3D0 ! PEFF of drying.40D+06 ! PEFF REAL(DP)::A_gamma = 4.88D+09 ! PEFF REAL(DP):: A8 = 2. [kmolK1. [kmolK/m3kPaSec] of char oxidation.42D+0 ! PEFF REAL(DP):: A4 = 3.09D+10 ! PEFF REAL(DP):: A9 = 6.34D-04 ! PEFF REAL(DP):: A6 = 6. [-] 0 for nomrmal case. [-] Multiplication factor of secondary pyrolysis rate.00D0 ! Main operational parameters ! =========================== REAL(DP):: d_pinitial = 0. [-] Adjustable factor for effitive tar cracking temperature at pyrolysis zone. [m] ! Main Model parameters ! ===================== REAL(DP):: Ep2_mf = REAL(DP):: P_alpha = 0. [m/sK] of H2O_gas shift reaction. [-] Multiplication factor to Effictive thermal condutivity. [wt %] Oxygen content of the fuel in dry basic.

0D0 = 28.0D0 113000.08D0 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Value of pi Universal gas constant.0D+03 -2257.0D0 202600. [-] CH4 yield of primary pyrolysis. [J/mol] Activation energy of C-CO2 reaction.0D0 = 32. [g/mol] Molecular weight of CO2.2762D0 REAL(DP):: X2_CO2 = 0. [J/mol] Activation energy of C2H4 oxidation.[-] Tar yield of primary pyrolysis. [-] C2H4 yield of secondary pyrolysis. [J/mol] Activation energy of C_H2 reaction. [J/mol] Activation energy of tar oxidation.[J/kgK] Diffusion volumes of O2 Diffusion volumes of N2 261 .3144D0 = 12. [J/mol] Activation energy of CH4 oxidation. [-] H2O yield of secondary pyrolysis.267D0 REAL(DP):: X1_volt = 0. [-] Mass fraction of oxygen in air.21D0 = 0.0D0 222825. [J/mol] Activation energy of H2 oxidation. [J/mol] Activation energy of secondary pyrolysis. [J/mol] Activation energy of char oxidation. [J/mol] ! Heat of reactions ! ================= REAL(DP):: heatp1 = REAL(DP):: heatp2 = REAL(DP):: heatm = 0.032D0 REAL(DP):: X1_CO2 = 0.[-] ! ! ! ! ! ! Mass Mass Mass Mass Mass Mass Fraction Fraction Fraction Fraction Fraction Fraction of of of of of of Tar yield of secondary pyrolysis. [J/kg] ! Heat of reaction for reaction p2. [-] CO yield of secondary pyrolysis.0D0 60279.0D0 = 44.141592654D0 = 8. [J/mol K] Molecular weight of Char. [g/mol] Molecular weight of C2H4.004D0 REAL(DP):: X1_H2O = 0.051D0 REAL(DP):: X2_H2 = 0.0D0 12.0D0 = 28. [-] CO yield of primary pyrolysis. [J/mol] Activation energy of primary pyrolysis. [-] CO2 yield of secondary pyrolysis. [J/mol] Activation energy of CO oxidation.0D0 93300.068D0 REAL(DP):: X1_CH4 = 0.0D0 28185.0D0 = 18.934D0 = 78.795D0 ! Yield of secondary pyrolysis ! ============================ REAL(DP):: X2_tar2 = 0. [g/mol] Molecular weight of H2.[g/mol] Molecular weight of O2.163D0 REAL(DP):: X1_gas = 0. [-] CO2 yield of primary pyrolysis. [g/mol] Molar fraction of oxygen in air.233D0 = 5.D0 50. [g/mol] Molecular weight of CO. [-] Gas yield of primary pyrolysis.0D0 = 28. [W/m2K4] Emissivity of char.D0 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Activation energy of drying.0D0 = 134. [-] Stefan-Boltzmann constant.[-] ! **************************************** ! 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 = = 3.064D0 REAL(DP):: X2_CH4 = 0. [-] volatile yield of pri pyrolysis. [J/mol] Activation energy for (CO/CO2) in char oxidation.22D0 9.054D0 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 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.0D0 80230.0D0 125580.0D0 = 16.0D0 30514. [g/mol] Molecular weight of H2O.0D0 80230.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. [J/mol] Activation energy of C-H2O reaction. [-] CH4 yield of secondary pyrolysis. [g/mol] Molecular weight of CH4.0163D0 REAL(DP):: X2_C2H4 = 0. [J/kg] ! ************************************** ! List of the yield of pyrolysis process ! ************************************** ! Yield of primary pyrolysis ! ========================== REAL(DP):: X1_char = 0.0D+03 ! Heat of reaction for reaction p1. [-] Specific heat of moisture. [g/mol] Molecular weight of secondary tar.528D0 REAL(DP):: X1_CO = 0. [J/mol] Activation energy of shift reaction.0665D0 REAL(DP):: X2_CO = 0. [g/mol] Molecular weight of N2.205D0 REAL(DP):: X1_tar1 = 0.6703D-08 = 0. [-] H2O yield of primary pyrolysis.0D0 = 0.0D0 = 2.0D0 129700. [g/mol] Molecular weight of primary tar.0D0 74830.0D0 129700.85D0 = 4200. [J/kg] ! Heat of drying.

[kg/m³/s] Reaction rate of C-H2O reaction. [kg/m³/s] Rate of forward shift reaction. [m/s] Solid velocity. [-] Molar Fraction of C2H4. [-] Molar Fraction of secondary tar. REAL(DP). [-] Mass flux of total gas.73D0 = 25. [-] Molar Fraction of CO2. [s] Time step. [kmol/m³/s] Reaction rate of C2H4 oxidation. [s] Under relexation coefficent. 1 for with sensitivity anlysis) Selcect the parameter for sensitivity performance Location of the grids. [kg/m²s] Temperature of solid surface. REAL(DP). [kmol/m³/s] Reaction rate of CO oxidation.01D0 = 28. REAL(DP). [-] Maximum allownce error for covergence. [-] Molar Fraction of H2. [K] Rate of drying. REAL(DP). [kmol/m³/s] Reaction rate of CH4 oxidation. REAL(DP). [m/s] Particle diameter. REAL(DP). [kmol/m³/s] Reaction rate of tar oxidation. [kmol/m³/s] Reaction rate of H2 oxidation.04D0 = 140. REAL(DP). [m] Mass Concentration of moisture.14D0 = 41. [-] Molar Fraction of CO. REAL(DP). REAL(DP). [kg/m³] Mass Concentration of char. [kg/m³/s] Reaction rate of C_H2 reaction. 2 for two-stage) Check for sensitivity performance (0 for w/o sensitivity analysis. REAL(DP).3D0 1. 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] Mass Concentration of gas. [K] Average wood temperaure for pyrolysis process. REAL(DP). [kg/m³/s] Reaction rate of secondary pyrolysis.12D0 = 4. [K] Superfical velocity of gas. [K] Equivalent temperature for tar cracking.iteration logic = time delta_t = alpha = error = sec_check = output_time check_stage ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Index Check temperature index 0 for exit Gasifier operating time. [K] Temperature of gas.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. REAL(DP). [kmol/m³/s] Rate of reverse shift reaction. REAL(DP). REAL(DP). REAL(DP). REAL(DP). REAL(DP). REAL(DP). [kg/m³/s] Reaction rate of char oxidation. REAL(DP). [-] Check secondary air supply 0 for skip Time when output results are print out Check sigle stage of two stage (1 for single-stage. REAL(DP). REAL(DP).0D0 0.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. REAL(DP).0D-04 0 INTEGER :: check_sensitivity INTEGER :: check_analysis REAL(DP). [kg/m³] Mass Concentration of volatile. [g/mol] Molar Fraction of O2. REAL(DP). [-] Molar Fraction of N2. REAL(DP). REAL(DP). [m] Wall temperature. REAL(DP). REAL(DP). [kg/m³/s] Reaction rate of primary pyrolysis.08314D0 = 109. [-] Molar Fraction of H2O. 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. [kg/m³/s] Reaction rate of C-CO2 reaction. REAL(DP). REAL(DP). REAL(DP).62D0 = 10. REAL(DP). [-] Molar Fraction of primary tar. REAL(DP). REAL(DP). REAL(DP). [-] Molar Fraction of CH4. REAL(DP). [kg/m³] Molecular weight of gas mixture. REAL(DP).

B_tar2. DIMENSION(N):: REAL(DP).H_in. DIMENSION(N):: REAL(DP).B_O2. [kg/hr] Gas yield in volume. DIMENSION(N):: REAL(DP). [-] Solid effective radial conductivity. DIMENSION(N):: REAL(DP).B_rhov. DIMENSION(N):: REAL(DP).N_in REAL(DP):: C_out. [mg/Nm3] Cold gas efficiency of the gasifier. [W/mK] Bed to wall heat transfer coefficient. [kg/m2/s] ! C.B_H2O. DIMENSION(N):: REAL(DP). DIMENSION(N):: REAL(DP). [-] Fuel consumption. [MJ/Nm3 d.C_rhov A_dp. [-] Prandtl number.C_O2 A_CO. DIMENSION(N):: REAL(DP).b] Total energy output from the reactor.O_in.N flux input to the reactor.B_rhom.C_rhom A_rhov.C_H2 A_CH4. DIMENSION(N):: REAL(DP).B_dp.B_gas.N flux output to the reactor. [1/m] Solid to gas heat transfer coefficient.b/hr] Gas yield in mass.B_CO. [Nm3/hr] Specific gasification rate. [kg/kgd. DIMENSION(N):: REAL(DP).C_CH4 A_C2H4.B_H2.B_CO2.O_out. [W/m²K] Lower heating value of producer gas. [W/m²K] Solid to wall heat transfer coefficient.C_Vs A_rhom. DIMENSION(N):: efficiency REAL(DP):: C_in.C_CO A_CO2. [kg/m2/s] 263 .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.H.C_tar1 A_tar2. 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). [-] Schmidt number for reaction3.H. 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.B_C2H4.C_C2H4 A_tar1. [W/mK] Static effective radial conductivity.b] Equivalence ratio.O. reaction3.C_H2O A_H2. H_out. [kg/m2sec] Condensable tar outlet. reaction2. [kg/m2/s] ! Total mass flux input to the reactor.B_CH4. [m/s] [m/s] [m/s] [m/s] Particle surface area/ Unit volume. [-] Schmidt number for reaction4. reaction4.C_tar2 A_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). [-] Schmidt number for reaction1.N_out REAL(DP):: masstotal_in ! C. DIMENSION(N):: REAL(DP). DIMENSION(N):: REAL(DP). [W/m²K] Gas to wall heat transfer coefficient. [W/mK] Gas effective radial conductivity. [MJ/hr] Air fuel (biomass) ratio.O.C_gas A_Vs. [-] Schmidt number for reaction2. [kgw. [W/m²K] Ratio of solid and gas conductivity.B_tar1.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.B_Vs.C_CO2 A_H2O.

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

*) moisture Write(*.*) "Error in enter value.b %] (for base case = 10)" Read(*.*) loc_secair ELSE Write(*. for base case = 0.*) d_pwood Write(*.'(T20.*) D_rec Write(*.'(/T18.*) rho_biomass Write(*. A40)') " User defined operational parameters " Write(*.*)" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------" TRANSIENT MODEL FOR STRATIFIED DOWNDRAFT WOOD GASIFIER " ------------------------------------------------------------------------------" This program is a transient model of a stratified downdraft gasifier.*) "Enter the air supply rate.*) secondair Write(*.*) "Enter the pressure of inlet air.*) "Model is able to run for single-stage and two-stage" DO Write(*.*) "(Enter '1' for signle stage or '2' for two-stage)" Read(*.*) air_rate secondair = 0. A35)') " -------------------------------.D0 ELSE IF (check_stage==2) THEN Write(*.*) "(in the range of 1-5 kg/hr.*) "Enter the ambient temperature in K (for normal condtion = 300)" 265 . it must be either 1 or 2" END IF IF(check_stage==1." Write(*. A33)') " User defined fuel properties " Write(*.'(/T20. A33)') " ---------------------------.*) "Enter the bed void fraction (for base case = 0.4 m)" Read(*.b/m3] (for base case = 950)" Read(*.*) "Enter the moisture content of the fuel in [wt d." Write(*.*) L_rec Write(*.or." Write(*. A35)') " User defined gasifier Dimensions " Write(*.D0 loc_secair = 0.*)" Write(*. A40)') " ----------------------------------. A40)') " ----------------------------------.*)" Write(*." Write(*.check_stage==2)exit END DO Write(*.'(/T20.*) "(it must be between less than 0.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. [kg/hr] (for base case = 15)" Read(*.*) "Enter the inner diameter of the reactor in metre (for base case = 0. [KPa] (atmosperic condtion = 101.46) " Read(*. velocity profile.*)" Write(*. Model is" able to predict the transient behivour of reactor namely.*)"Enter the location of the secondary air supply from the reactor top in (m)" Write(*." Write(*.02)" Read(*. [kg/hr] (for base case = 15)" Read(*.*)" Write(*.'(T20." Write(*.206)" Read(*.'(T18.*) "Enter the effective length of the reactor in metre (for base case = 0. A33)') " ---------------------------.*) "Enter the initial wood particle diameter in metre (for base case = 0.*) Pre Write(*.'(T18.5.7)" Read(*.*) void Write(*.*) air_rate Write(*. reaction rates profile.*) "Enter the apparent density of biomass in [kg d. A35)') " -------------------------------. [kg/hr]" Write(*.*)" Write(*. for base case = 5 kg/hr)" Read(*." Write(*.'(T20. gas composition" profile and condensable tar profile along the axis of gasifer.*) "Enter the primary air supply rate. solid and gas phase" temperarue profile.*) "Enter the secondary air supply rate.*)" Write(*.'(T20. Write(*.325)" Read(*.*) check_stage IF (check_stage==1) THEN Write(*.

*)Ap2_mf exit 266 .045D0 ! Defined maximum mass transfer coefficient.'(T2. A)') "Enter '2' to analyse defined maximum mass transfer coefficient" Write(*.*) " it must be less than '1'. A)')"Effect of eight model parameter can be examined by changing the" Write(*.Appendix D Computer code listing Read(*. 999.*) " it must be in a range of 0. A)') "Enter '6' to analyse the secondary tar oxidation rate" Write(*.7-1." Write(*.*) " it should be in a range of 0.'(/T2.'(/T2. A)')"Effect of which parameter do you want to analyse?" Write(*. [-] Ap2_mf = 1. A)') "Enter '1' for sensitivity analysis of model parameter" Write(*.5-2 (for base case = 1)" read(*.'(T2.*) T_ign Write(*.5)" Read(*.*) "Enter the initial depth of the ignition in meter (for base case= 0. A)') "Enter '5' to analyse the secondary pyrolysis rate" Write(*. [-] A6_mf = 1.*) "Enter the multiplication factor of primary pyrolysis rate" Write(*.*) "(for base case = 0. A/)')"Enter '8' to analyse the wall heat transfer coefficient" Read(*.'(T12.6)" read(*. [-] Ap1_mf = 1.*) "Enter the defined maximum mass transfer coefficient" Write(*. 1200) (base case for 1800)" Read(*.2 (for base case = 1)" read(*. A)')"Enter '1' to analyse the reacting to non-reacting" Write(*.8-1. [-] keff_mf = 1. A)')"solid-to-gas heat transfer coefficient ratio" Write(*.'(T2.0D0 ! Multiplication factor of secondary pyrolysis rate.'(/T2.0D0 ! Ratio to effective and actural transport exchanged area. [-] wall_loss = 1.'(/T2.'(T2.04-0.*) "(for base case = 0.*) "Enter the reacting to non-reacting heat transfer coefficient ratio" Write(*.*)km_max exit ELSE IF (check_analysis==3) THEN Write(*.*) loc_ign Write(*.*)Ap1_mf exit ELSE IF (check_analysis==5) THEN Write(*.*) output_time DO Write(*. [m/s] Av_mf = 1.'(T2.0D0 ! Multiplication factor to effictive thermal condutivity.0D0 ! Multiplication factor of secondary tar oxidation rate.*) depth_ign Write(*. A)')"heat and mass transfer surface area" Write(*.05)" Read(*. A)') "Enter '3' to analyse the ratio to effective and actural" Write(*.*) " it should be in a range of 0.*) T_a Write(*.00D0 ! Multiplication factor of primary pyrolysis rate.g. A)') "Enter '7' to analyse the effictive thermal condutivity" Write(*.60D0 ! Reacting to non-reacting heat transfer coefficient ratio [-] km_max = 0.*) " it should be in a range of 0.'(T2.*) "Enter the inlet air temperarue in K (for base case = 300)" Read(*. [-] IF (check_sensitivity==0) THEN exit ELSE IF (check_sensitivity==1) THEN DO Write(*.*) "Enter the location of the ignition from the reactor top in meter " Write(*.*)zeta exit ELSE IF (check_analysis==2) THEN Write(*.045)" read(*.*) check_analysis IF (check_analysis==1) THEN Write(*.2)" Read(*.*) "It can be divided by 3 (e.*) "Enter the ignition temperature in K" Write(*.0D0 ! Multiplication factor of wall heat transfer coefficient.'(T12. for base case = 1000)" Read(*. (for base case = 0. A/)') "Enter '0' for to run the program without sensitivity analysis" Read(*.'(T2.'(T2. 300.3 (for base case = 1)" read(*. A)') "single parameter while all other parameter are kept constant.*)Av_mf exit ELSE IF (check_analysis==4) THEN Write(*.*) "(in the range of 900-1200 K.*) "Enter the multiplication factor of secondary pyrolysis rate" Write(*.*) check_sensitivity ! Defined the model parameter for base run zeta = 0.06 (for base case = 0.'(T2.*) depth_char Write(*.*) "Enter the time to write the output result in second" Write(*.*) "Enter the ratio to effective and actural transport exchanged area" Write(*. A)') "Enter '4' to analyse the primary pyrolysis rate" Write(*.*) T_gas Write(*.*) "Enter the depth of char bed at initial condition in meter" Write(*.

*) "Error in enter value.88033398D+03) ELSE h_C=-(5.26136365D-09*Temp**4." Write(*.5 (for base case = 1)" must be any interger value from '1' to '8'" be either '0' or '1'" Write(*.) THEN h_C=(1.*) " it should be in a range read(*.7182818281D0) RETURN END FUNCTION ln ! ****************************End FUNCTION ln********************************************** FUNCTION h_C (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).54884907D-05*Temp**3.Appendix D Computer code listing ELSE IF (check_analysis==6) THEN Write(*." READ (*.*) "Enter the multiplication Write(*. it must END IF END DO factor of secondary tar oxidation rate" of 0.)-(6.98573864D-02*Temp**2.)-(1.)+& (4.)-(5.68524262D-10*Temp**4. INTENT(IN)::Temp REAL(DP)::h_O2 ! Gas Temperature [K] ! Absolute enthalpy of O2 at temperature T [kJ/kmol] 267 .5-1.53215420D-14*Temp**5. it will be replaced.*)wall_loss exit ELSE Write(*.)-(1.*) " it should be in a range read(*.*) " it should be in a range read(*.*)keff_mf exit ELSE IF (check_analysis==8) THEN Write(*.5-3 (for base case = 1)" factor to Effictive thermal condutivity" of 0.*) "Enter the multiplication Write(*. 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.)-(6. INTENT(IN)::value REAL(DP)::ln ! Calculate ln value ln=LOG(value)/LOG(2.)-(1.05750000D+02) END IF RETURN END FUNCTION h_C ! *********************** END FUNCTION h_C ************************************************ FUNCTION h_O2 (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).If your" Write(*.*) "Error in enter value.)+& (2.'(T2.*) "Enter the multiplication Write(*. A/)')"defined file name already exist in the folder. A)') "Please aware that your file name must be new in the folder.85438496D-06*Temp**3. A)') "Enter result output file name: It must be less than 30 characters.08974359D-13*Temp**5.23870304D+01*Temp)+(6.5-3 (for base case = 1)" factor of wall heat transfer coefficient" of 0. it END IF END DO exit ELSE Write(*.'(T2.*) filename RETURN END SUBROUTINE user_input ! *********************END SUBROUTINE user_input******************************************* FUNCTION ln (value) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).59755420D+00*Temp)+(2.'(T2.*)A6_mf exit ELSE IF (check_analysis==7) THEN Write(*.91227177D-03*Temp**2.

02393996D-08/4.D0*Temp**3.05581944D-07/4.)+& (0.)-(0.D0*Temp**2.) THEN h_CO= R*((0.03881755D-04/3.03262451D+02*Temp)+(0.D0*Temp**3.09475434D-09/4.01775281D-09/4.0211728D-10/5.Appendix D Computer code listing ! Calculate absolute enthalpy of O2 at temperature T IF (Temp>1000.)-(0.06866686D-07/4.) THEN h_H2= R*((0.13138773D-08/4.)-& (0.08768554D-11/5.03212936D+02*Temp)+(0.)-& (0.10409113D-04/3.03025078D+02*Temp)+(0.14426885D-02/2.)-(0.15827519D-14/5.)+& 268 .12339301D+04)) ELSE h_O2= R*((0.D0*Temp**2.D0*Temp**4.07000644D-02/2.D0*Temp**4. 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.)+(0.D0*Temp**4.05633828D-06/3.12784105D-05/3.10185813D-09/4.)-& (0.06135197D-02/2.D0*Temp**2.)-& (0.)+(0.D0*Temp**4.D0*Temp**5.D0*Temp**4.05630827D-05/3.)-& (0.04896696D+06)) ELSE h_CO2= R*((0.D0*Temp**3.)-(0.)-& (0.)-& (0.1005249D+04)) END IF RETURN END FUNCTION h_O2 ! *********************** END FUNCTION h_O2 *********************************************** FUNCTION h_CO2 (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).14310539D+05)) END IF RETURN END FUNCTION h_CO ! *********************** END FUNCTION h_CO *********************************************** FUNCTION h_H2 (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).D0*Temp**5.D0*Temp**5.05756150D-05/3.16690333D-13/5.D0*Temp**5.15119409D-02/2.03298124D+02*Temp)+(0.D0*Temp**5.D0*Temp**4.03140168D-01/2.D0*Temp**2.08143015D-05/3.11274864D-02/2.D0*Temp**4.1258842D-06/3.D0*Temp**3.)+(0.)-(0.)-& (0.)-& (0.D0*Temp**3.1426835D+05)) ELSE h_CO= R*((0.D0*Temp**3.) THEN h_CO2= R*((0.)-& (0.09231578D-10/4.08249441D-02/2.D0*Temp**4.D0*Temp**2.09922072D-01/2.D0*Temp**3.D0*Temp**3.D0*Temp**5.)-& (0.0835034D+04)) ELSE h_H2= R*((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.)+(0.)-& (0.D0*Temp**2.02275724D+02*Temp)+(0.)+(0.D0*Temp**5.) THEN h_O2= R*((0.06910951D-13/5.)+(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.)-(0.02991423D+02*Temp)+(0.D0*Temp**2. 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>1000.04453623D+02*Temp)+(0.)-(0.)-& (0.)-& (0.)-(0.03697578D+02*Temp)+(0.D0*Temp**2.)-(0.02474951D-10/5.

D0*Temp**3.424D0)*(Temp-298.& ((13.))))+82927.02506588D-10/5.)).02989921D+06)) ELSE h_H2O= R*((0.D0)*(Temp**3.15D0))+((9.-298.03020811D+06)) END IF RETURN END FUNCTION h_H2O ! *********************** END FUNCTION h_H2O ********************************************** FUNCTION h_CH4 (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).-298.392D-06/3.D0)*(Temp**3.)+(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*(((1.04134872D-11/5.06391618D-13/5. 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*(((1.394D-03/2.)-& (0.03386842D+02*Temp)+(0.D0*Temp**4.)-& (0.D0 RETURN END FUNCTION h_CH4 ! *********************** END FUNCTION h_CH4 ********************************************** FUNCTION h_C2H4 (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).))))-74831.D0)*(Temp**3.)).164D-06/3.702D0)*(Temp-298.D0 RETURN END FUNCTION h_C6H6 ! *********************** END FUNCTION h_C6H6 ********************************************* 269 .)-& (0.)-(0.)). 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.D0)*(Temp**2.064D-03/2.D0*Temp**5.-298.)-(0.D0)*(Temp**2.03474982D-01/2.))))+52283. 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>1000.10125209D+04)) END IF RETURN END FUNCTION h_H2 ! *********************** END FUNCTION h_H2 *********************************************** FUNCTION h_H2O (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).15D0**3.15D0**2.12009964D-09/4.06354696D-04/3.206D0)*(Temp-298.15D0))+((14.15D0**2.15D0**3.D0*Temp**2.03056293D-01/2.15D0**2.02672145D+02*Temp)+(0.)-& (0.D0*Temp**2.)+(0.15D0**3.15D0))+((39.081D-03/2.08730260D-05/3.& ((4.D0)*(Temp**2.)-(0.-298.) THEN h_H2O= R*((0.Appendix D Computer code listing (0.301D-06/3.-298.D0*Temp**5.D0*Temp**3.& ((2.D0*Temp**4.06968581D-07/4.-298.D0 RETURN END FUNCTION h_C2H4 ! *********************** END FUNCTION h_C2H4 ********************************************* FUNCTION h_C6H6 (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).D0*Temp**5.

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] 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.Appendix D Computer code listing FUNCTION heat1 (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).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] 270 .D0-2.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)::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)+2.D0*(h_C(Temp)+gamma*h_O2(Temp)-(2.D0*(h_C(Temp)+h_CO2(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).D0*gamma)*h_CO(Temp)-& (2. 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_CO(Temp))/mole_C RETURN END FUNCTION heat2 ! *********************** END FUNCTION heat2 ********************************************** FUNCTION heat3 (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).D0*gamma-1. 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.

5D0*h_O2(Temp)-h_CO2(Temp)) RETURN END FUNCTION heat7 ! *********************** END FUNCTION heat7 ********************************************** FUNCTION heat8 (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).D0*h_O2(Temp)-3.D0*(h_C2H4(Temp)+ h_O2(Temp)-2.D0*(h_H2(Temp)+0.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). 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. 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 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_CH4(Temp)+1.D0*h_H2(Temp)-2.D0*(h_CO(Temp)+0. 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_CO(Temp)) RETURN END FUNCTION heat6 ! *********************** END FUNCTION heat6 ********************************************** FUNCTION heat7 (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 = 1000.5D0*h_O2(Temp)-2.D0*(h_C6H6(Temp)+3.5D0*h_O2(Temp)-h_H2O(Temp)) 271 .D0*h_H2O(Temp)-h_CO(Temp)) RETURN END FUNCTION heat8 ! *********************** END FUNCTION heat8 ********************************************** FUNCTION heat9 (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP). 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.D0*h_CO(Temp)) RETURN END FUNCTION heat9 ! *********************** END FUNCTION heat9 ********************************************** FUNCTION heat10 (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).

Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP). J/mol Temperature.K Activation energy for reaction. kg/ms ! Calculate viscosity of the gas visco=1.63930D-8*temp**3.D0)*1000. 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). INTENT(IN)::A REAL(DP).D0 RETURN END FUNCTION Cp_char ! *********************END FUNCTION Cp_char *********************************************** FUNCTION Cp_wood(Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP). K Kinetic reaction rate.D0 272 .50858D-5*temp**2.D0)**(2.E.Appendix D Computer code listing RETURN END FUNCTION heat10 ! *********************** END FUNCTION heat10 ********************************************* FUNCTION K (A. 1/s.00036D0*(temp+T_a)/2.41079D+2 RETURN END FUNCTION Cp_g ! *********************END FUNCTION Cp_g ************************************************** FUNCTION Cp_char(Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP). INTENT(IN)::Temp REAL(DP)::Cp_g ! Gas Temperature [K] ! Specific heat of gas mixture [J/kgK] ! ! ! ! Pre-exponential frequency factor for reaction.66918D-1*temp + 9. K REAL(DP)::visco ! Viscosity. INTENT(IN)::E REAL(DP). INTENT(IN)::Temp REAL(DP)::Cp_char ! Calculate specific heat of char Cp_char=(1.39D0+0.D0/3. + 1.00036D0*(temp+T_a)/2.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. 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)*1000.39D0+0.+ 6. INTENT(IN)::Temp ! Gas Temperature.98D-05*((Temp/300.

void) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).717D0 RETURN END FUNCTION K_g ! *********************END FUNCTION K_g *************************************************** FUNCTION h_rs (Temp.)/(1.D0-emiss)/emiss))) RETURN END FUNCTION h_rv ! *********************END FUNCTION h_rv ************************************************** FUNCTION K_eff(m_g. INTENT(IN)::Temp REAL(DP). 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*(1. INTENT(IN)::void ! ! ! ! ! ! mass flux [kg/m2sec] Gas Temperature [K] Gas Temperature [K] Particle diameter[m] Emissivity[-] Voidage fraction[-] 273 .)*(emiss/(2.d_p.D0-void)))*((1.77D-04*Temp**0. INTENT(IN)::Temp REAL(DP).emiss. INTENT(IN)::emiss REAL(DP). 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.D0-emiss)) RETURN END FUNCTION h_rs ! *********************END FUNCTION h_rs ************************************************** FUNCTION h_rv (Temp.13D0+3. 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.emiss) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP). INTENT(IN)::emiss REAL(DP).D0+((void/(2. INTENT(IN)::T_g REAL(DP).D-4*Temp RETURN END FUNCTION K_wood ! *********************END FUNCTION K_wood ************************************************ FUNCTION K_g (Temp) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).T_g.void) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).emiss.T_s. INTENT(IN)::Temp REAL(DP)::K_wood ! Solid Temperature [K] ! Thermal conductivity of wood [W/mK] ! Calculate Thermal conductivity of wood K_wood=0.D0*sigma*(Temp**3.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). INTENT(IN)::T_s REAL(DP). INTENT(IN)::d_p REAL(DP).

O.D0/(3.emiss.D0*(O+N))/(100. Sulfur.D0+H/100.H2O REAL(DP) ::HV_gas ! Mole fraction of CO.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).)/(((ln(k-0.D0/void+(d_p*h_rs(T_s.M REAL(DP) ::HHV_biomass REAL(DP) ::HV_biomass ! Ratio of solid conductivity and gas conductivity ! Packing parameter ! ! ! ! Carbon.H.AND. Nitrogen.8D0*S-1.1D0)+(H2*100.emiss)/K_g(T_g)))))+& (void*d_p*h_rv(T_g.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)/k)**2. INTENT(IN)::k REAL(DP)::packp ! Calculate packing parameter packp=(0. INTENT(IN):: CO.H.A.void)/k_g(T_g))))& +(K_g(T_g)*void)& +((0.3525D0*(((k-1.S. Hydrogen.D0)*(K_g(T_g)/K_wood(T_s))+& (1.00000001D0) HV_gas=0.H2.S.1D0*C+132.D0/(1.CH4<0. K_eff=keff_mf* ((K_g(T_g)*((1.D0*k)) RETURN END FUNCTION packp ! *********************END FUNCTION packp************************************************** FUNCTION HV_biomass(C.D0-void)/((2.M) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP). [W/mK] ! Calculate the effectivity thermal conductivity in case of gas filled voids.O.5431D0*(k-1))))-& (0.53D0*A-12.D0)/k)))-(2. INTENT(IN)::C.H2<0.1D0))/100.D0/3.D0-H2O)*37.H2.442D0*(M/100.CH4.2D0)+& (CH4*100.H2.D0-H2O)*13.14D0/(1.D0 RETURN END FUNCTION HV_gas ! *********************END FUNCTION HV_gas************************************************* FUNCTION Kp_wg(temp) IMPLICIT NONE REAL(DP).Appendix D Computer code listing REAL(DP) ::K_eff ! Effectivity thermal conductivity.2D0*H+6. Oxygen.D0 IF (CO<0. INTENT(IN)::temp REAL(DP)::Kp_wg ! Calculate the equilibrium constant of water gas shift reaction 274 .00000001D0.A.CH4.AND.D0) RETURN END FUNCTION HV_biomass ! *********************END FUNCTION HV_biomass********************************************* FUNCTION HV_gas(CO.H2O) IMPLICIT NONE ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP).N.4569D0*(k-1.N.D0*9.D0+46.CH4.D0/(1.00000001D0. 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)*11.D0/(1.D0/(10.D0) ! Calculate Net (Lower) heating value of biomass in moisture and ash free basic [MJ/kg] HV_biomass = HHV_biomass-2.

DV_C2H4) (T_g(i).DV_O2.pre/100.D0. 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).pre/100.DV_A.DV_O2.DV_B) IMPLICIT NONE ! This function is to find the Diffusion coefficient between gas A and gas B ! at temperature T & Pressure P.75)*sqrt(1. ! Declare calling arguments REAL(DP)./3.DV_N2) (T_g(i). [bar] Molecular weight of A.00028D0*temp**2.pre/100.DV_O2.mole_O2.mole_O2.mole_O2.D0.mole_N2.) 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.mole_O2.pre/100.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.pre/100.pre/100. INTENT(IN):: DV_A REAL(DP).08D0*temp+3*temp*& ln(temp)-0.Appendix D Computer code listing kp_wg=2.mole_O2.)+DV_B**(1.D0/temp)) RETURN END FUNCTION kp_wg ! *****************************END FUNCTION kp_wg****************************************** FUNCTION Diff_AB (Temp.D0/mole_B)*1.mole_CH4.mole_CO2. INTENT(IN):: mole_B REAL(DP).D0.mole_O2.pre/100.D0.D0.mole_O2.))**2. [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. [g/mol] Molecular weight of B.D0.DV_CO2) (T_g(i).DV_CO) (T_g(i).DV_O2.D-04 / & (pre*sqrt(2.D0)*(DV_A**(1.DV_CH4) (T_g(i).DV_H2O) (T_g(i).00143*Temp**1.mole_H2.pre/100.DV_O2.3144D0/temp)*(11321.D0.mole_A. INTENT(IN):: Pre REAL(DP).D0.mole_B.pre.mole_tar1. INTENT(IN):: mole_A REAL(DP).DV_H2) (T_g(i).DV_tar2) diff_O2_gas =(1.D0/mole_A+1.D0.mole_C2H4.mole_O2.DV_O2. INTENT(IN):: DV_B REAL(DP):: Diff_AB ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Gas Temperature [K] Pressure of gas mixture.mole_tar2./3.mole_H2O.pre/100. 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 .DV_tar1) (T_g(i).mole_CO.D0/8.D0-31.DV_O2.7182818281D0**((1.DV_O2. INTENT(IN):: Temp REAL(DP).DV_O2.-91500.mole_O2.

DV_O2) (T_g(i).pre/100.mole_H2.mole_CO2.pre/100.mole_H2O.mole_O2.pre/100.pre/100.mole_CO.mole_CO2.mole_CO2.DV_H2O.DV_H2O.mole_CH4.pre/100.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_CO2.DV_H2.D0.DV_CO2) (T_g(i).D0.mole_H2O.pre/100.mole_H2O.DV_CO2.mole_CO.DV_N2) (T_g(i).pre/100.D0.mole_H2O.mole_O2.mole_H2O.DV_CO2.DV_H2O.pre/100.pre/100.mole_C2H4.mole_H2.mole_H2.D0.D0.DV_CO2.pre/100.mole_CO2.mole_N2.pre/100.DV_CO2.mole_CO.DV_CO) (T_g(i).pre/100.mole_H2O.pre/100.mole_CO2.pre/100.D0.DV_C2H4) (T_g(i).DV_CO2.DV_H2) (T_g(i).DV_O2) (T_g(i).DV_N2) (T_g(i).D0.pre/100.DV_N2) (T_g(i).DV_H2.D0.mole_H2.DV_tar1) (T_g(i).D0.mole_H2O.D0.pre/100.D0. 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).DV_tar1) (T_g(i).DV_CO2.pre/100.pre/100.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.DV_CO) (T_g(i).DV_H2O.DV_C2H4) (T_g(i).mole_CO2.mole_CO2.mole_tar1.D0.mole_H2O.pre/100.D0.pre/100.DV_H2O) (T_g(i).pre/100.mole_CH4.mole_N2.D0.mole_CO2.mole_H2.DV_H2.mole_H2O.D0.DV_H2O.DV_tar2) = (1.DV_CH4) (T_g(i).mole_tar1.mole_H2. 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.mole_C2H4.DV_CO2.D0.DV_CO) (T_g(i).D0.D0.DV_tar2) diff_CO2_gas=(1.pre/100.DV_H2O.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_N2.mole_tar2.DV_H2O.DV_H2O.mole_O2.DV_CO2.DV_CH4) (T_g(i).DV_O2) (T_g(i).DV_CO2) 276 .DV_CO2.mole_H2O.mole_tar2.D0.mole_H2O.DV_H2) (T_g(i).D0.DV_CO2.mole_CO2.

DV_H2.DV_H2.D0 rho_char(i) = rho_char(1) rho_volt(i) = 0.DV_tar1) (T_g(i).DV_H2.DV_H2.N IF (i<=N_top) THEN IF (i==1) THEN x(i)=0.DV_H2.D0 rho_char(1) 0.D0.mole_CH4.mole_H2O.DV_C2H4) (T_g(i).D0.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.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).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.mole_H2.D0 mole_g(i)*pre/(R*T_g(i)) 277 . DO i=1. ! gas composition profile and species density profile.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.pre/100.mole_C2H4.mole_tar2.DV_CH4) (T_g(i).mole_H2.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.mole_tar1.mole_H2.pre/100.DV_tar2) diff_H2_gas =(1.D0.mole_H2.pre/100.pre/100.DV_H2O) (T_g(i).D0.

19D0*(Re**(-2. gas composition and gas & ! solid temperature of the previous time.78D0*(Re**(-0. Bird et al.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.78D0*(Re**(-0. DO i=1. [kg/m3] rho_g(i) = mole_g(i)*pre/(R*T_g(i)) ! Calculate the Particle surface area/ Unit volume.W/m²K with Bird et al.D0/3.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)) ! Calculate the mass transfer coefficient.19D0*(Re**(-2.D0/D_p(i))*(1. 2002 fomula h_sg = zeta*Cp_g(T_g(i))*m_g(i)*(2. ! Calculate the molecular weight of gas mixture.381D0)))*(Pr**(-2.D0))+ & 0.D0/3. 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.Appendix D Computer code listing ! *********************END SUBROUTINE initial********************************************** SUBROUTINE pretime() ! This subroutine is to save the speices denisty.381D0)))*(Sc_1**(-2.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. m/s.D0/3. 2002 fomula km_1 = (m_g(i)/rho_g(i))*(2. A_v=Av_mf*(6.D0))+& 0.D0/3.

5/(T_g(i)**0.T_g(i))*(pre/T_g(i))**1.0000001) THEN rate2_CO2(i) = (mole_C*A_v*pre/(R*T_g(i)))/((1./(T_s(i)*K(A1.D0))+ & 0.D0 rate4_H2(i) = 0.7 rate9_O2(i)*(Y_O2(i)) 279 .E5.*Y_H2O(i) = void*K(A5.E4.E7.E1.E5.T_s(i)))/(2.T_p2(i))/T_g(i) ELSE ratep2_tar1(i) = void*mole_tar1*pre*Ap2_mf*K(Ap2.78D0*(Re**(-0.T_g(i))*(pre/T_g(i))**2.19D0*(Re**(-2.78D0*(Re**(-0.E_gamma.T_g(i))*(pre/T_g(i))**2.5*(Y_H2O(i))**0.8)*(Y_tar2(i))**0.T_g(i))*(pre/T_g(i))**2./(T_s(i)*K(A2.*(Y_O2(i))**0.5 = void*K(A9.E3.T_s(i))))) rate4_H2(i) =(mole_C*A_v*pre/(2.T_s(i))))) IF (Y_O2(i)<0.E5.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.Em./km_3)+(1.T_s(i)) ratep1_volt(i) = (1.19D0*(Re**(-2.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.8)*(Y_C2H4(i))**0.T_g(i))*(pre**1.381D0)))*(Sc_2**(-2.Ep2*Ep2_mf.D0/3.T_g(i))*(pre/T_g(i))**2.D0))+ & 0.D0)) km_4 = (m_g(i)/rho_g(i))*(2.T_s(i))))) rate3_H2O(i) = (mole_C*A_v*pre/(R*T_g(i)))/((1.19D0*(Re**(-2.D0*R*T_g(i)))/((1.Ep2*Ep2_mf.D0*K(A_gamma.D0/3.5) 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_s(i))))) ELSE rate2_CO2(i) = 0.T_g(i))/T_g(i) END IF rate1_O2(i) = (mole_C*A_v*pre/(gamma*R*T_g(i)))/((1./km_2)+(1.381D0)))*(Sc_4**(-2.D0)) km_3 = (m_g(i)/rho_g(i))*(2.D0))+ & 0.D0-p_alpha) IF (T_s(i)>T_g(i)) THEN ratep2_tar1(i) = void*mole_tar1*pre*Ap2_mf*K(Ap2.D0-void)*Ap1_mf*K(Ap1. water-gas shift reaction and ! oxidation of CO and secondary tar.E9.D0 rate3_H2O(i) = 0./km_1)+(1.Ep1.*Y_H2(i)/Kp_wg(T_g(i)) = void*K(A5./km_4)+(1.*Y_CO2(i)/Kp_wg(T_g(i)) = void*A6_mf*K(A6.D0/3.5/(T_g(i)**0.5*(Y_O2(i))**0.984*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.Appendix D Computer code listing Km_2 = (m_g(i)/rho_g(i))*(2. primary and secondary pyrolysis.T_g(i))*(pre**1.E_gamma.T_g(i))*(pre/T_g(i))**2.D0/3.D0+K(A_gamma.*Y_CO(i) = void*K(A5.T_s(i))) T_e(i) = 1/((1/T_s(i))+((R/Ep1)*ln(953.E2.8*(Y_CH4(i))**0.78D0*(Re**(-0.T_e(i)) T_p2 (i) = T_s(i)*p_alpha+T_g(i)*(1./(T_s(i)*K(A3./(T_s(i)*K(A4. ! hetrogeneous gas_char reactions.E5.D0+2.D0/3.5) = void*K(A7.E6.381D0)))*(Sc_3**(-2.D0-void)*K(Am.D0/3.E8.138*d_p(i)+46861. gamma = (2.

D0/Y_H2(i) A_H2 = (void*molar_g*mole_H2)+(m_g(i)*mole_H2/mole_g(i))+ & 280 .D0*gamma-1.D0*gamma)*mole_CO*rate1(i)*delta_x1/mole_C + & 2.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+ & (2.0D-300)Y_O2inverse=1.E10.D0*mole_O2*rate6_O2(i)*delta_x1+0.1 RETURN END SUBROUTINE reaction_rates ! *********************END SUBROUTINE reaction_rates*************************************** SUBROUTINE gas_balance() ! This subroutine is to calculate the gas composition by applying mass balance.D0-2.8D0*mole_O2*rate8(i)*delta_x1*Y_O2inverse+mole_O2*rate9_O2(i)*delta_x1+& 0.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 = 0.05D0*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+ & (2.1*(Y_H2(i))**1.2*(Y_O2(i))**1.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.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 = 0.55D0*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. 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 = 1.1D0*mole_O2*rate7(i)*delta_x1+& 0.D0*mole_CO*rate2(i)*delta_x1/mole_C+ mole_CO*rate3(i)*delta_x1/mole_C+ & 6.D0 B_gas = 1.Appendix D Computer code listing rate10(i) = void*K(A10.3D0*mole_O2*rate8(i)*delta_x1+0.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*mole_CO*rate6(i)*delta_x1+mole_CO*rate8(i)*delta_x1+ & 2.D0 IF(Y_H2(i)>0.T_g(i))*(pre/T_g(i))**2.D0)Y_H2inverse=1.60D0*mole_O2*rate7(i)*delta_x1*Y_O2inverse+& 1.D0 IF(Y_O2(i)>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*3600.D0 IF(Y_CH4(i)>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.Appendix D Computer code listing B_H2 C_H2 2.D0 IF(Y_C2H4(i)>0.0D-300) Y_O2(i)=0.D0/Y_tar2(i) A_tar2 = (void*molar_g*mole_tar2)+(m_g(i)*mole_tar2/mole_g(i))+ & 1.2D0*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.D0/Y_CH4(i) A_CH4 = (void*molar_g*mole_CH4)+(m_g(i)*mole_CH4/mole_g(i))+& 1.D0) Y_C2H4(i)=0.D0*(mole_H2/mole_C)*rate4_H2(i)*delta_x1+ & 1.D0))/& (m_g(i) + (secondair*4.D0 Y_tar1(i) = (B_tar1*Y_tar1(i-1)+C_tar1)/A_tar1 281 .D0*rate9(i)*mole_H2*delta_x1 & +0.D0 IF (NINT(time)>3.D0 IF(Y_tar2(i)>0.D0/Y_C2H4(i) A_C2H4 = (void*molar_g*mole_C2H4)+(m_g(i)*mole_C2H4/mole_g(i))+& 1.1D0*mole_H2*rate10(i)*delta_x1 ! By applying CH4 balance ! ----------------------Y_CH4inverse = 0.AND.D0)Y_CH4inverse=1.D0) Y_CH4(i)=0.AND.D0) Y_CO(i)=0.D0*rate6(i)*mole_H2*delta_x1+2.D0 Y_CH4(i) = (B_CH4*Y_CH4(i-1)+C_CH4)/A_CH4 IF (Y_CH4(i)<0.D0) Y_H2(i)=0.1D0*mole_CH4*rate8(i)*delta_x1 ! By applying C2H4 balance ! -----------------------Y_C2H4inverse = 0.D0 Y_C2H4(i)= (B_C2H4*Y_C2H4(i-1)+C_C2H4)/A_C2H4 IF (Y_C2H4(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.x(i)>loc_secair.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.D0 Y_H2(i) = (B_H2*Y_H2(i-1)+C_H2)/A_H2 IF (Y_H2(i)<0.sec_check==1) THEN Y_O2(i)= (Y_O2(i)*m_g(i)+ (mf_O2* secondair*4.D0)/(pi*D_rec**2.2D0*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+ & 0.1D0*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)Y_tar2inverse=1.D0)Y_C2H4inverse=1.

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) THEN rho_volt(i)=0.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 C_dp=V_s(i-1)*delta_t/d_p(i-1)**3.Appendix D Computer code listing IF (Y_tar1(i)<0.D0/3.D0 END IF 282 .D0) THEN rho_m(i)=0.D0 END IF A_rhov = delta_x1/delta_t+V_s(i)+ratep1_volt(i)*delta_x1/(1.D0 ratem(i)=0.D0 END IF IF (rho_m(i)>rho_m(1)) THEN rho_m(i)=rho_m(1) ratem(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 ratep1(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. delta_x1 = x(i)-x(i-1) A_rhom = delta_x1/delta_t+V_s(i)+ratem_m(i)*delta_x1/(1.D0 d_p(i)=(A_dp/(B_dp+C_dp))**(1. A_Vs = (1.D0 Y_tar2(i) = (B_tar2*Y_tar2(i-1)+C_tar2)/A_tar2 IF (Y_tar2(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.D0) Y_tar1(i)=0.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_tar2(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

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

xnew.*900.rho_volt.N. max_Tg = T_g(1) DO i=2.rhonew_volt) (N.Y_tar2.mnew_g) (N.xnew.N.x.Ynew_CH4) (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.N.xnew.x.xnew.Ash.x.Ynew_CO2) (N.x.x.d_p.Hydrogen.N.x.N.xnew.D0)*& HV_biomass(Carbon. DO i=2.Ynew_tar1) (N.xnew.vnew_s) (N.N.N.Sulfur.D0*273.N.Ynew_N2) (N.rho_m.x.xnew.Ynew_C2H4) (N.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_CO) (N.xnew.Y_H2O(i))*100.Y_H2O.N.D0/(moisture+ash+100.x.xnew.N.Y_H2(i).x.Nitrogen.x.x.xnew.Ynew_H2) (N.v_s.Y_N2.D0-air_rate)*100.Y_CO2.N.Y_H2.Y_CO.D0/ & ((m_g(i)*pi*D_rec**2.15D0/(T_g(i)*rho_g(i))* & HV_gas(Y_CO(i).Ynew_H2O) (N.N.xnew.Oxygen.m_g.Y_tar1.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.Y_CH4(i).rhonew_char) (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.xnew.Y_CH4.x.dnew_p) DO i=1.xnew.Ynew_tar2) (N.*900.x.N.xnew.x.Y_C2H4.N.rhonew_m) (N.xnew.rho_char.N.N efficiency(i)=m_g(i)*pi*D_rec**2.

2)') Write(7.2)') "Primary air supply rate [kg/hr] =". =".'(/T2.15D0/(T_g(N)*rho_g(N)) ! Calculate the outlet condensable tar content (mg/Nm³) tar_outlet = Y_tar1(N)*Mole_tar1*Pre*1.D0/((pi*D_rec**2.'(T2.Y_CH4(N).463D0 ! (Note:mass of oxygen required for complete combustion of biomass/ mass of biomass= 1.2//)')"(mm below reactor top) =".2)') Write(7.'(T2.2)') Write(7. A36.'(T2.2)') Write(7.'(T2. A34.15D0) ! Calculate air fuel ratio (. air_rate Write(7.'(/T2. A34.F8.D0-void)*(rho_m(1)+rho_volt(1)+rho_char(1))*pi*D_rec**2. A34. A34.2)') Write(7.2)') Write(7.'(T2. Write(7.kg/kg d. =".)*(moisture+100.F8. A34.F8.*900. =".'(T2.0 IF (check_stage==1) THEN Write(7.'(T2.'(T2. A47)') "----------------------------------------------" Write(7. A34.463) ! (Note:mass of Oxygen in 1 kg of air = 0.D0 ! Calculate the gas volume production rate (Nm³/hr) gas_flow_vol = gas_flow_mass*273.3)') Write(7.F8. D_rec*1000. A34.233) ! Calcuate the net heating value of producer gas in dry basic (MJ/Nm3) LHV_gas = HV_gas(Y_CO(N).'(T2.'(T2.F8. A47)') "Gasifier is operated with two-stage air supply" Write(7.'(T2.2)') "Air supply rate [kg/hr] =".F8.0 END IF Write(7.D0 ! Calculate the specific gasification rate in dry basic (kg/m2hr) spe_gasi_rate = fuel_flow*4.D0)) ! Calculate the gas mass production rate (kg/hr) gas_flow_mass = m_g(N)*pi*D_rec**2. =".F9.D+06/(R*273.0 T_gas Pre T_ign loc_ign*1000.'(T2.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.'(T2.0 rho_biomass moisture d_pwood*1000.b) air_fuel= m_g(1)*(moisture+100.'(T2.0D0*100. secondair Write(7.D0)*pi*D_rec**2. =".2)') Write(7.F8.'(T2.'(T2. A24)') " INPUT MODEL PARAMETERS " 292 .D0) ! Calculate eqivalent ratio ER = air_fuel*0. A36.F8.2)') Write(7. =".*900. loc_secair*1000. A33)') "Location of secondary air supply" Write(7. =". A36.2//)') "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] =". A34. A34. =".*900. A34)') " --------------------------------.F8.F8.Y_H2(N).233D0/1. A24)') " ---------------------.'(T2.'(T2.F8. A34.2)') "Secondary air supply rate [kg/hr] =". A34)') " --------------------------------. A55)') "Gasifier is operated by supplying air from reactor top" Write(7. A34.'(T2." Write(7. A55)') "------------------------------------------------------" Write(7.'(T2.D0/(fuel_flow*100.2)') Write(7. =".0 depth_ign*1000. air_rate ELSE IF (check_stage==2) THEN Write(7." Write(7.'(T2.'(/T2. A34)') " USER INPUT OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS " Write(7.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.F8. =".F8." Write(7.0 void depth_char*1000.F8.'(T2. A34.

'(T2.5) 200 FORMAT (/.F9.A9.F9. =".5) 2000 FORMAT (' '.T_s(i).A5.A7. =". ! Write the out put ! ----------------Write(7. 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.6.A7."efficiency" Write(7. output_time.& "====="..T118.T34.F9..A7.F5.A7.300) "=="..T128.Y_CO2(i)*100.'(T2.T189."rate7"."======".'(T50.2/)') & "Multiplication factor of wall heat transfer coefficient [-] =".T88.4.'(/T2.'(T50. A62.A7.T34. A62.10..200) "no"."rate8".T189.& "Y_CH4".."Y_O2".4.'(T50.5.T160."=====".4.A8.6."Y_N2"."rate4".& "=====".1. =". =".F6.T40. A19)') & "Model performance at"."pri_pyro".Y_tar2(i)*100.F5."rho_V". ="."====".T160.& A7.N WRITE(7.& m_g(i)/rho_g(i).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)."Y_H2".T160.'(T2."T_gas".F5.T108."rho_m".F9.A8. A20."tar_content"...."====="."======"."======".T34."Y_CO2". I5.F5."=====".Y_N2(i)*100.T6.T14.& Y_CO(i)*100.& Y_C2H4(i)*100.Y_tar1(i)*Mole_tar1*Pre*1.v_s(i).F5."======". A19)') & "Reaction rates at".T148.T78.A8.& "rate5". =".A7.'(T2.F6.T48.Y_H2O(i)*100.2)') & "Ratio to effective and actural transport surface area [-] Write(7.2)') & "Multiplication factor of secondary tar oxidation rate [-] Write(7.A7.T48.A7.F5.T6."====="."=======".A8.2)') & "Multiplication factor of primary pyrolysis rate [-] Write(7.T108. T70."drying"."v_g".A6."===========". A62." Write(7."sec_pyro".'(T2.A8. Write(7.F9.A5.'(/T50."===".T58.'(T2.100)700."Y_CO". A24)') " ---------------------.A7.T24.F8.A15.F8."=====".2.2)') & "zeta (reacting to non-reacting ratio of heat transfer) [-] Write(7."rate1".Appendix D Computer code listing Write(7.5.2000) "no".T98. "sec after ignition" Write(7.T24.A6."Y_tar2".rho_m(i).-x(i)*1000."Y_H2O".T148.3)') & "Defined maximum mass transfer coefficient [m/s] Write(7.'(T50.A15."======". A)') "==========================================" Write(7."=====".Y_H2(i)*100.F9.4."====".F10. A62.2)') & "Multiplication factor of secondary pyrolysis rate [-] Write(7.F5.2. A62.F6.F9."========".T118.4.& F9.15D0).T14..T98.4.T118.T_g(i).A6.T138.4.T24."rate6".T6.F12."=====".T128.A9.T78.A6."rate3".& A7."===".T3.T14.F9.A8.Y_CH4(i)*100."Y_tar1".rho_volt(i). output_time.F10.T88.T108."====".T40.A8."T_solid".T68.A8.'(T2."=====". A17.2)') & "Multiplication factor to Effictive thermal condutivity [-] Write(7. T67.."v_s".& F9."Y_C2H4"."=====".T88.1.T58. A62. A)') "==========================================" 1000 FORMAT (' '.T3.T98.A5."rate5R"."====="."======" 293 . "sec after ignition" Write(7. T73.T78. T76. =".A9.T138.T48.4.A9."=====".A10) 300 FORMAT (' '.A7. A)') "=============================================" 100 FORMAT (' '..T68.Y_tar1(i)*100.5."rate9".'(/T50. A62.F15."====".A9.2000) "==".F9. A62.D+06/(R*273.A9.T189. A)') "=============================================" Write(7.T172.14A15) Write(7.A10) Write(7.14ES15.Y_O2(i)*100.T148.F9.4.'(T2."rate10" Write(7.A6. I5."====="."====="."========"."==========" DO i=1.T58.A6.T128.T68.T40."rate2".T138.T172.T172.

'(//T4. (maxTg_x25-maxTg_x30)/0. A47.F10.D0. A46. A47.F10. A47.rate9(i)*28.3)') "Equivalence ratio (-) Write(*.F10.rate5R(i)*28.F10.'(/T2. (maxTg_x05-maxTg_x10)/0.2)') "Gas production rate (Nm³/hr) Write(7. (maxTg_x20-maxTg_x25)/0.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. =".2)') "Specific gasification rate (kg d. ! Write the output summary ! -----------------------Write(7.F10.& rate4(i).3D0 IF (output_time>=1800) Write(7.2/)')"Cold gas efficiency (%) IF (check_stage==1) THEN IF(output_time>600) Write(7. =".F10.'(T2.2)')"Fuel consumption rate (kgw. A47. A50.F10.F10.2)') "Primary tar Out let (mg/Nm3) Write(7. ! Write the output summary ! -----------------------Write(*.F10.A)') "----------------------------------" Write(*.'(T2.ratem(i).ratep2(i). A46.3D0 IF (output_time>1500) Write(7.5D0 =".D0.'(T2.2)') "Total Energy out(MJ/hr) Write(7. 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.D0. =". A46.6)') & "Zone movement between 05 min and 10 min (mm/sec) =".'(T2. (maxTg_x10-maxTg_x15)/0.'(T3.D0.3)') "Air_fuel ratio [(-) kg/kgd. A46.A)') "----------------------------------" Write(7.b/m²hr) Write(*. A46.'(T3. A46. A47.6)') & "Zone movement between 10 min and 15 min (mm/sec) =". =".A)') "REACTOR PERFORMANCE RESULT SUMMARY" Write(7. =". A46.'(//T3.F10.F10.b/m²hr) Write(7.b) Write(7. A47.3D0 IF (output_time==1800) Write(7.D0.b) Write(*.rate7(i)*28.3D0 IF (output_time>1200) Write(7. =".'(T2. =".rate3(i).Appendix D Computer code listing DO i=1.-x(i)*1000.rate1(i). A50.'(T2.'(T3.rate2(i).b/hr) write(7.F10. (maxTg_x15-maxTg_x20)/0. =". A47. =".b/hr) write(*.F10.3)') "Equivalence ratio (-) Write(7.2)')"Fuel consumption rate (kgw.A)') "REACTOR PERFORMANCE RESULT SUMMARY" Write(*.2)') "Gas production rate (Nm³/hr) Write(*.rate10(i)*2.6/)') & "Average Zone movement between(mm/sec) =".'(T3.6)') & "Zone movement between 20 min and 25 min (mm/sec) =".'(T3. A47.D0.F10.'(T3. =". =".'(T2.2)') "Primary tar Out let (mg/Nm3) Write(*.0.2/)')"Cold gas efficiency (%) =".'(T4.6)') & "Zone movement between 15 min and 20 min (mm/sec) =".& rate8(i)*16.'(T4.b] Write(*.F10.'(T2. =".A)') "----------------------------------" Write(7.F10.b] Write(7. fuel_flow spe_gasi_rate LHV_gas gas_flow_vol tar_outlet air_fuel ER Energy_out Efficiency(N) 294 .'(T2.3D0 IF (output_time>900) Write(7.6)') & "Zone movement between 25 min and 30 min (mm/sec) =".2)') "Net heating value of gas (MJ/Nm3 d.3)') "Air_fuel ratio [(-) kg/kgd.rate5(i)*28.A)') "----------------------------------" Write(*.'(/T2. =".'(T3. =". A50.'(T2.F10. =".rate6(i)*78. A47.F10.F10.'(T3.'(T2.'(T2.'(T2.N write(7. A50.F10.F10.'(T2.ratep1(i). A50. (maxTg_x05-maxTg_x30)/1.2)') "Net heating value of gas (MJ/Nm3 d.1000)700.F10.F10.F10.'(T2.'(T2.2)') "Specific gasification rate (kg d.2)') "Total Energy out(MJ/hr) Write(*. A46. A46.

dt_final) REAL.dt_init.Appendix D Computer code listing END IF RETURN END SUBROUTINE output_summary7 ! *********************END SUBROUTINE output_summary*************************************** SUBROUTINE READ_TIME (run_time. DIMENSION(8). END IF RETURN END SUBROUTINE READ_TIME ! ************************* END SUBROUTINE READ_TIME ************************************** END MODULE gasification_data !========================================================================================== ! END MODULE !========================================================================================== 295 . 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. INTENT(OUT):: run_time INTEGER. 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(IN):: dt_init.

D0-mf_O2 = = = = = = = = 0. & FORM='FORMATTED'. FILE=filename.D0-ash/100.D0 0.D0 0. STATUS='replace'.D0*3600.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)* X1_char rho_m(1) = rho_biomass * (moisture/100. USE gasification_data CALL user_input() call date_and_time (date.D0 0.D0 0.Appendix D Computer code listing !========================================================================================== ! START MAIN PROGRAM !========================================================================================== PROGRAM gasification ! This program is a transient model for stratified downdraft wood gasifier. zone.D0 0.N gasheat(i)=0.D0 Q_Ts(1) = T_a P_Tg(1) = 0. ! Outputs of the model are transient solid and gas temperature profile along the gasifier & ! density of different species. OPEN ( UNIT=7.D0 Q_Tg(1) = T_gas CALL initial() DO time=time+delta_t CALL pretime() iteration = 0 DO i=2.D0-ash/100. dt_init) ! Open output file.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.D0 0.D0) = mf_O2 = 1. t.D0 0.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. gas composition (Including tar) porfile along the gasifier.D0/(pi*D_rec**2.D0)* (1.D0) rho_volt(1) = rho_biomass * (1.D0 END DO 296 . ACCESS='SEQUENTIAL'.

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

T33. New York: McGraw-Hill.lahey. RE 1980. Siam J Numer Anal. MJ 1983. T17. A)') & "See the result details in your defined output file called". pp. T22. mod(run_time.*)'Error opening file:error='. 2. 238-46. Numerical heat transfer and fluid flow.60. Los Alamos National Laboratory. <http://www.). JM & Naughton. vol.. T27. 298 . Lahey Computer Systems. Report LAUR-83-3245. A4.3."min". Pantankar.INT(run_time/60.) . A15.ierror END IF ! Close file CLOSE (UNIT=7) STOP END PROGRAM gasification !========================================================================================== ! END MAIN PROGRAM !========================================================================================== References Fritsch. USA. SV 1980.'(/T2. Inc.'(T2. Static rezone methods for tensor-product grids. FN & Carlson. F6.dt_init. ‘Monotone piecewise cubic interpolation’. ‘Essential Lahey Fortran 90. I5.dt_final) Write(*. Los Alamos. Lahey Computer Systems 1998.filename CALL output_profile() CALL rates_output() CALL output_summary7() ELSE Write(*. NM.com/>. A4)') & "Running time =". Hyman. 17. no.Appendix D Computer code listing CALL READ_TIME (run_time. A58."sec" Write(*. T63. Revision D’.

BSI 1965)] = correction factor [Z = ZR * ZD] = expansibility factor [Value read from graph (Page 122. details of the air mass flow measurement procedure using the orifice plate with D & D/2 tappings is described.27CZεEd 2 ∆pρ (Page 23. 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. In this section.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. BSI 1965) where W C Z ε = mass flow rate (kg/hr) = basic coefficient [Value read from C vs m graph (Page 120. BSI 1965)] 299 .

B. BSI 1965)] = the absolute pressure at the upstream tapping (lb/in²) = the absolute temperature at upstream tapping in degrees Rankine (°F + 456. 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 6.67) = gas law deviation coefficient at the temperature T and pressure P [taken as unity (Page 50.4482E . BSI 1965)] Reference British Standards Institution 1965. 1042 : Part 1 : 1964.6892E . BSI 1965)] = Pipe size correction factor [Value read from ZD vs m graph (Page 121. Page 48. Methods for the measurement of fluid flow in pipes: Part1.03T + 8.05T 2 + 8.S. BSI 1965) where δ P T K pv RH pvs = specific gravity of the dry gas [for air =1 (Page 41.06T 3 + 1. Nozzles and Venturi Tubes.3783E .62 pv / T ] (Page 40.02 ] m ZR ZD = area ratio (d²/D²) = Reynold number correction factor [Value read from ZR vs m graph (Page 120.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 = 2.9970E . Orifice Plates.7[δ (P − pv ) / KT + 0. BSI 1965] [ = 9. 300 .

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

56 350 mm above grate 13.36 11.7 350 976.30 52.18 1.47 17.8 N 11.05 3.9 Outlet gas 484.15 300 859.1 O 7.78 1.8 Gas flow rate 17.37 55.27 61.50 350 mm above grate 15.22 Flow rate (kg/hr) 14.51 1.38 11.67 12.46 11.93 12.4 800 22.2 200 702.82 4.1 600 97.22 250 mm above grate 46 Total 22.81 450 mm above grate 9.05 0.35 N 11.5 250 743.9 (MJ/hr) 100 581.93 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 467.61 12.7 50 533.4 (MJ/hr) 250 777.50 11.8 11.4 500 1188.80 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 3.35 16.33 1.3 400 1140.10 68.0 350 939.51 250 mm above grate 15.7 750 23.25 Tar 1.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 9.33 54.14 O 6.50 Outlet gas 15.6 Energy In 135.36 450 mm above grate 129 Dry wood 7.00E-03 350 mm above grate 117 Moisture 0.79 1.37 56.35 100.59 1.38 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 3416 Air 14.00 600 59.21 11.9 500 1159.4 300 816.37 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 21.9 650 25.68 93.80 Gas 20.33 88.17 19.6 Energy Out 80.99 150 654.50 17.52 17.15 82.49 53.4 Consumption of 8.68 outlet gas Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 22.1 550 804.0 100 626.59 450 mm above grate 11.Second sampling [45 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 4.14 1.4 200 717.50 84.84 C 3.8 Cold gas 59.76 4.6 450 1183.74 18.1 302 .4 Air/Fuel ratio 2.6 H 0.0 700 38.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) min after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of 4.04 450 1084.40 84.55 54.7 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 3.61 5.89 1.48 0.75 H2O 1.85 Outlet gas 14.58 Outlet gas 58 Closure (%) 94.31 750 22.1 150 671.76 9.9 (Nm³/hr) 700 23.47 H 0.0 50 553.30 Gauge pressure (kPa) 1.09 Dry gas composition (vol%) .42 Density (kg/m³) 1.8 Total 21.19 250 mm above grate 13.5 (-) 400 1023.0 wood (kg/hr) 550 527.7 650 57.

10 150 636.08 750 24.49 8.41 Outlet gas 17.05 450 mm above grate 8.75 350 mm above grate 13.26 14.69 14.6 (-) 400 1018.98 100.6 50 573.30 O 7.62 55.63 48.0 Energy In 159.95 1.92 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 1.96 Density (kg/m³) 1.43 250 mm above grate 129 Total 26.79 12.1 750 28.18 87.50 50.81 59.00 0.87 7.59 52.10 18.3 250 736.0 200 680.34 1.55 H 0.22 Flow rate (kg/hr) 16.00 250 mm above grate 17.9 350 977.8 Energy Out 106.2 50 542.38 Total 25.4 500 994.55 3.39 12.99 13.03 Outlet gas 17.9 (MJ/hr) 250 759.19 O 8.2 700 31.71 11.7 400 1046.98 250 mm above grate 16.42 49.8 150 642.58 1.73 82.6 800 26.2 650 28.2 200 683.8 303 .6 Outlet gas 509.46 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 2994 Air 16.36 350 mm above grate 15.54 14.55 99.9 Air/Fuel ratio 1.58 Tar 7.5 (MJ/hr) 100 554.17E-04 350 mm above grate 133 Moisture 0.2 650 36.06 1.5 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 4.1 Gas flow rate 21.70 14.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 9.03 outlet gas Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 23.7 (Nm³/hr) 700 25.76 450 mm above grate 250 Dry wood 8.69 N 12.41 H 0.71 450 mm above grate 11.71 56.19 Outlet gas 34 Closure (%) 95.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) min after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of 5.68 14.49 1.88 H2O 1.07 Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [45 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 2.7 350 920.35 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 487.70 Gauge pressure (kPa) 1.46 600 66.4 Consumption of 9.0 550 854.83 18.1 300 819.86 16.32 12.51 1.82 66.97 450 1210 450 1127.3 wood (kg/hr) 550 504.98 N 12.51 85.54 C 3.8 500 1170.0 Cold gas 66.60 1.82 1.9 100 599.9 600 122.32 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 21.02 12.91 3.75 1.63 6.90 300 844.92 Gas 23.92 95.98 19.

8 500 1112.67 14.20 250 mm above grate 17.7 50 538.04 150 604.45 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 4.65 68.65 O 10.52 Outlet gas 18.1 800 32.90 14.3 750 36.01 350 mm above grate 14.4 Energy Out 137.80 750 32.30 62.60 Gauge pressure (kPa) 2.30 48.9 Cold gas 76.8 (Nm³/hr) 700 76.7 650 569.19 13.33 1.98 H2O 1.05 13.4 Outlet gas 483.34 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 460.81 112.23 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 32.83 250 mm above grate 15.9 (MJ/hr) 250 630.8 350 726.10 C 5.2 300 620.18 Flow rate (kg/hr) 20.4 450 883.77 1.2 (-) 400 822.68 N 15.6 350 695.63 1.0 Consumption of 10.15 1.11 54.95 450 mm above grate 10.68 100.24 14.8 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 5.30 17.69 12.6 700 81.33 53.72 16.00 12.46 1.49 46.69 N 15.18 1.61 600 1017.12 450 950.45 Gas 30.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) min after ignition (40-50) min after ignition Net HV of 5.04 98.45 60.40 Density (kg/m³) 1.56 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 1547 Air 20.24 51.26E-03 350 mm above grate 233 Moisture 0.98 1.21 18.1 500 1035.34 17.89 450 mm above grate 7.44 18.9 100 572.4 wood (kg/hr) 550 1205.89 O 9.7 550 1189.84 11.43 450 mm above grate 322 Dry wood 9.52 300 678.71 114.8 304 .7 400 766.22 19.57 1.06 Total 32.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 9.4 600 1050.36 1.83 250 mm above grate 105 Total 31.56 62.08 Outlet gas 17.46 48.29 18.64 14.62 H 0.02 H 0.25 Outlet gas 47 Closure (%) 103.4 250 571.95 13.63 Tar 1.4 50 513.9 650 476.7 Air/Fuel ratio 2.72 Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [40 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 6.13 14.3 200 587.7 (MJ/hr) 100 545.1 150 573.1 Energy In 179.4 200 619.11 13.20 350 mm above grate 14.84 1.11 outlet gas Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 32.7 Gas flow rate 26.95 13.

3 50 482.2 (MJ/hr) 250 536.8 450 842.8 150 501.37 46.85 Total 21.57 12.28 18.2 (Nm³/hr) 700 355.1 (-) 400 769.22 72.27 Outlet gas 18.4 Consumption of 7.4 500 928.24 Outlet gas 18.43 44.32 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 11.3 550 1044.15 outlet gas Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 21.00 Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [45 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 8.70 46.40 20.21 14.41 Density (kg/m³) 1.46 350 mm above grate 17.32 1.26 1.1 200 531.21 250 mm above grate 107 Total 20.1 Gas flow rate 17.2 300 565.25 Flow rate (kg/hr) 13.5 Energy In 128.22 300 591.83 18.49 13.60 1.9 Energy Out 90.69 350 mm above grate 19.9 Outlet gas 471.9 600 1192.51E-04 350 mm above grate 134 Moisture 0.22 100.07 21.11 O 6.47 1.94 450 941.22 N 10.44 67.70 1.32 18.25 110.53 600 1140.65 H 0.50 47.9 750 39.10 6.7 400 714.79 12.32 Gas 20.2 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 3.65 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 17.67 49.45 15.5 650 971.21 250 mm above grate 18.7 Air/Fuel ratio 1.61 150 526.8 100 490.55 16.50 20.1 305 .55 450 mm above grate 16.14 1.2 800 31.89 N 10.65 H2O 1.64 C 3.74 18.44 H 0.67 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 472.32 47.83 11.10 13.31 Outlet gas 37 Closure (%) 102.4 250 530.36 92.24 8.78 250 mm above grate 18.49 110.75 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 637 Air 13.32 1.87 11.2 200 521.13 13.50 Gauge pressure (kPa) 2.6 (MJ/hr) 100 491.9 700 575.3 500 1050.35 450 mm above grate 16.61 750 23.9 wood (kg/hr) 550 1103.9 Cold gas 70.7 650 912.11 1.6 350 622.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 8.33 20.17 1.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) min after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of 5.10 450 mm above grate 151 Dry wood 6.88 Tar 6.43 47.0 50 496.53 1.2 350 685.20 48.55 O 7.

69 7.2 500 1185.70 13.71 18.35 13.64 150 627.01 14.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 8.5 650 24.7 Cold gas 64.5 450 897.75 1.4 Outlet gas 483.58 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 22.1 (MJ/hr) 100 583.29 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 464.81 Outlet gas 22 Closure (%) 95.30 65.94 Outlet gas 17.7 50 519.78 14.7 Energy In 209.84 81.99 1.78 5.87 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 3465 Air 22.4 Air/Fuel ratio 1.38 Total 32.11 11.86 250 mm above grate 80 Total 34.41 75.0 50 535.7 600 195.6 350 747.95 C 4.99 1.05 H2O 1.29 600 166.3 700 24.0 (Nm³/hr) 700 19.65 72.38 250 mm above grate 15.65 Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [45 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 3.2 100 607.95 450 mm above grate 219 Dry wood 11.71 H 0.7 Energy Out 134.94 N 16.56 52.88 1.50 12.22 Flow rate (kg/hr) 22.34 Density (kg/m³) 1.9 500 1090.6 650 47.24 Tar 5.86 H 0.8 200 667.94 100.5 350 809.99E-04 350 mm above grate 152 Moisture 1.24 750 19.43 300 785.86 17.73 1.2 Consumption of 12.97 1.7 800 20.0 (MJ/hr) 250 756.20 11.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) min after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of 4.77 1.42 12.46 17.49 18.99 350 mm above grate 12.40 Gauge pressure (kPa) 2.94 outlet gas Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 18.9 Gas flow rate 27.65 13.8 (-) 400 853.1 306 .8 150 650.09 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 4.8 200 652.24 O 10.5 wood (kg/hr) 550 938.09 Gas 30.0 550 1163.0 750 23.77 1.1 250 696.29 18.00 13.40 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 5.52 350 mm above grate 11.31 57.15 13.28 Outlet gas 16.65 13.97 450 1075.21 60.62 51.50 49.57 58.57 49.97 1.6 400 792.68 N 16.19 450 mm above grate 10.98 1.70 98.5 300 701.95 10.77 O 10.32 95.89 450 mm above grate 7.02 250 mm above grate 16.

3 700 25.38 Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [30 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 4.02 Outlet gas 20 Closure (%) 102.91 150 628.30 101.6 50 553.21 14.95 outlet gas Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 15.03 59.38 O 8.70 Gauge pressure (kPa) 1.9 350 1035.02 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 2874 Air 19.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 9.01 18.5 500 725.56 450 mm above grate 6.3 (-) 400 1138.60 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 0.04 Tar 4.57 124.89 16.89 11.84 18.77 13.83 12.30 12.74 H2O 1.66 17.16 O 8.76 49.91 2.24 350 mm above grate 9.00 73.0 450 1240.78 450 1047.89 Outlet gas 18.32 58.81 2.7 100 602.83 750 16.11 14.8 307 .47 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 20.1 0.00 64.0 (Nm³/hr) 700 17.20 15.46 H 0.60 Gas 26.4 wood (kg/hr) 550 59.94 450 mm above grate 419 Dry wood 7.74 H 0.03 N 15.89 Density (kg/m³) 1.61 2.2 350 1000.9 0.78 600 17.38 250 mm above grate 10.5 (MJ/hr) 250 859.42 71.5 200 708.04 17.08 250 mm above grate 94 Total 27.0 750 24.7 300 919.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (10-15) min after ignition (30-40) min after ignition Net HV of 4.81 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 342.3 Air/Fuel ratio 2.00 7.85 350 mm above grate 15.4 650 28.00 2.6 Energy Out 117.9 (MJ/hr) 100 523.29 300 955.67 52.2 650 17.03 100.7 600 43.23 Flow rate (kg/hr) 19.56 450 mm above grate 10.35 0.12 110.73 C 4.5 Outlet gas 482.8 1.23 1.44 50.66 13.8 200 748.8 250 818.05 9.13 1.99 14.12 16.1 400 1151.16 59.65 N 15.4 150 691.8 Cold gas 89.5 800 22.41 Outlet gas 11.3 Consumption of 7.3 550 85.18 13.16 59.70 16.8 50 404.3 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 3.1 Gas flow rate 23.38 Total 28.58 1.9 500 698.77E-04 350 mm above grate 81 Moisture 0.06 250 mm above grate 16.8 Energy In 131.

52 250 mm above grate 16.39 12.11 250 mm above grate 17.65E-04 350 mm above grate 79 Moisture 0.25 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 396.03 65.6 Consumption of 7.69 350 mm above grate 16.4 550 1188.35 100.46 54.68 13.91 55.53 350 mm above grate 16.30 750 19.7 200 556.86 Outlet gas 17.49 1.43 C 3.3 Gas flow rate 17.90 18.50 Gas 19.98 N 10.5 350 806.6 400 887.47 48.9 (MJ/hr) 100 482.20 450 mm above grate 14.5 Energy In 120.6 650 381.57 O 6.71 11.8 Outlet gas 405.81 H2O 1.89 150 532.5 650 831.00 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) min after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of 4.17 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 23.6 600 1125.9 500 1089.7 300 690.71 1.6 500 1145.7 50 445.5 Cold gas 71.60 50.55 17.32 17.2 wood (kg/hr) 550 1088.33 18.66 O 6.86 15.66 1.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 11.5 750 29.64 13.5 100 474.6 150 524.8 200 540.86 18.82 Outlet gas 17.50 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 7.32 12.77 450 mm above grate 228 Dry wood 6.47 Tar 8.33 47.73 H 0.45 103.01 65.75 1.29 50.55 13.75 1.82 1.09 450 1072.1 50 438.45 13.77 14.94 105.16 450 mm above grate 15.29 1.3 250 588.80 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 3.54 300 739.0 (Nm³/hr) 700 29.69 14.96 Outlet gas 50 Closure (%) 100.89 50.19 250 mm above grate 115 Total 20.46 1.67 11.33 Density (kg/m³) 1.0 Energy Out 85.4 450 1005.2 800 21.28 600 861.96 1.34 2.83 14.0 308 .65 Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [45 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 8.8 (-) 400 940.5 700 98.3 (MJ/hr) 250 629.35 N 10.78 Total 20.21 93.63 18.38 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 3982 Air 13.22 Flow rate (kg/hr) 13.1 350 859.2 Air/Fuel ratio 2.43 H 0.20 Gauge pressure (kPa) 2.79 10.26 14.96 outlet gas Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 18.63 49.

43 16.63 0.11 250 mm above grate 206 Total 37.83 Total 38.91 O 12.22 0.4 550 55.86 Outlet gas 17.50 46.2 Consumption of 13.96 1.00 0.1 150 658.43 14.2 350 932.4 Outlet gas 598.38 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 406 Air 24.12 53.55 250 mm above grate 16.80 1.6 250 898.42 150 675.7 (-) 400 1198.55 13.10 Gauge pressure (kPa) 4.75 1.00 81.00 2.03 outlet gas Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 22.79 450 mm above grate 4.00 97.67 Outlet gas 17.3 wood (kg/hr) 550 68.97 100.8 (MJ/hr) 250 757.9 Energy Out 162.99 H 0.7 100 631.70 Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [45 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 0.5 Gas flow rate 32.81 14.00 0.11 4.12 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 27.29 48.68 11.39 17.16E-04 350 mm above grate 185 Moisture 1.70 1.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 11.63 18.10 72.21 0.3 Cold gas 74.7 (Nm³/hr) 700 25.64 Tar 5.39 103.34 O 11.19 100.99 15.03 300 895.74 14.87 350 mm above grate 14.10 600 44.4 500 81.7 Air/Fuel ratio 2.6 50 622.56 18.97 N 18.78 H 0.20 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 6.19 56.73 Gas 37.27 Outlet gas 16 Closure (%) 101.9 350 1263.6 200 807.49 5.5 400 1061.2 300 1064.06 1.8 Energy In 217.84 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 580.4 500 448.99 15.4 200 724.00 99.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) min after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of 5.5 50 609.73 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 0.39 49.9 800 26.05 N 18.23 Flow rate (kg/hr) 24.73 93.39 Density (kg/m³) 1.59 14.37 450 mm above grate 2.99 350 mm above grate 12.3 600 36.17 C 6.16 1.0 450 665.0 750 27.28 1.9 309 .7 700 29.11 250 mm above grate 16.1 650 34.00 0.12 450 999.1 (MJ/hr) 100 661.46 H2O 1.16 450 mm above grate 1475 Dry wood 11.75 18.28 750 24.75 15.9 650 39.47 48.

14 15.44 45.31 H 0.07 350 mm above grate 14.90 12.1 (MJ/hr) 250 578.10 Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [45 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 5.83 1.3 450 1051.88 116.15 1.48 450 mm above grate 11.75 100.10 17.78 1.3 50 431.4 Outlet gas 404.7 (-) 400 983.49 18.25 56.2 500 1052.18 1.26 Flow rate (kg/hr) 7.5 Consumption of 5.60 750 18.0 600 523.20 Outlet gas 17.19 O 4.21 18.59 450 1049.13 1.8 400 915.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 10.74 250 mm above grate 135 Total 12.5 Cold gas 61.97 150 497.46E-04 350 mm above grate 211 Moisture 0.30 7.5 Energy In 87.61 46.38 74.5 100 448.5 800 18.50 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 2.25 600 37.50 Gas 12.3 650 22.21 88.78 80.59 17.58 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 3046 Air 7.39 450 mm above grate 307 Dry wood 4.07 58.17 Outlet gas 18.8 200 552.5 wood (kg/hr) 550 467.00 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 2.62 10.57 H 0.1 Air/Fuel ratio 1.82 13.20 N 5.88 0.17 16.31 46.90 1.56 17.0 550 872.5 150 502.61 4.43 49.30 18.4 200 534.00 1.0 650 53.98 18.53 O 4.70 17.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40-) min after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of 5.3 50 426.92 16.25 11.90 Gauge pressure (kPa) 4.1 300 661.5 350 746.50 C 2.53 43.09 outlet gas Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 17.61 Density (kg/m³) 1.84 16.45 250 mm above grate 16.9 350 748.9 700 28.80 250 mm above grate 17.14 350 mm above grate 15.35 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 393.6 310 .0 750 22.97 300 671.95 16.27 1.53 H2O 0.13 Outlet gas 61 Closure (%) 103.72 Tar 6.75 N 5.75 Total 13.51 16.2 500 1070.9 Gas flow rate 10.29 92.0 Energy Out 53.41 51.6 (Nm³/hr) 700 20.0 250 609.1 (MJ/hr) 100 440.11 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 20.91 1.79 450 mm above grate 12.

8 500 1130.68 54.49 250 mm above grate 17.56 60.82 Total 16.76 350 mm above grate 14.7 650 48.76 1.78 61.70 Gauge pressure (kPa) 1.9 Air/Fuel ratio 1.68 13.1 50 441.27 750 15.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 10.71 17.58 16.0 150 568.3 (MJ/hr) 250 660.45 1.93 14.78 450 mm above grate 10.38 16.3 700 25.29 Outlet gas 17.63E-04 350 mm above grate 161 Moisture 0.91 250 mm above grate 182 Total 16.41 O 5.9 650 62.20 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 2.02 10.36 81.40 53.79 14.52 55.24 1.5 (-) 400 938.24 18.78 49.3 350 793.52 13.14 0.71 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 1.43 49.04 15.85 14.39 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 406.09 13.54 1.3 750 17.87 11.54 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 19.35 Outlet gas 17.8 311 .35 O 5.15 51.9 Outlet gas 436.87 outlet gas Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 15.38 Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [45 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 2.6 Energy In 101.37 75.11 600 610.5 400 881.62 13.73 1.59 150 543.5 550 1083.96 450 1055.0 wood (kg/hr) 550 1035.47 Tar 8.21 N 8.15 16.8 450 1000.21 100.56 18.4 Energy Out 64.1 250 662.24 1.5 100 534.50 1.89 300 756.1 200 608.7 Consumption of 6.96 78.11 450 mm above grate 182 Dry wood 5.71 Gas 15.06 1.66 1.35 450 mm above grate 10.31 Density (kg/m³) 1.22 Flow rate (kg/hr) 10.87 250 mm above grate 16.8 500 1138.3 200 590.6 (Nm³/hr) 700 18.90 C 2.10 95.02 Outlet gas 65 Closure (%) 95.92 N 8.4 (MJ/hr) 100 499.08 14.34 94.64 H2O 0.8 50 479.3 800 17.37 H 0.13 350 mm above grate 13.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) min after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of 4.0 Gas flow rate 13.36 H 0.64 12.33 4.50 4.8 300 750.0 350 798.07 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 3332 Air 10.4 600 759.1 Cold gas 63.

34 94.50 12.29 51.94 N 8.6 (MJ/hr) 250 802.59 Tar 6.1 50 534.25 300 921.99 250 mm above grate 126 Total 17.85 450 mm above grate 9.4 Outlet gas 504.4 (-) 400 1148.6 50 559.62 15.26 H 0.22 56.90 750 14.31 Gas 16.3 wood (kg/hr) 550 49.71 1.91 0.4 Gas flow rate 13.15 600 18.51 Density (kg/m³) 1.6 650 15.25 2.1 100 599.19 10.26 1.2 Energy In 104.88 350 mm above grate 13.80 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 2.2 200 761.2 650 17.67 100.7 350 1076.29 Flow rate (kg/hr) 11.0 550 62.31 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 0.00 1.04 63.47 15.1 Cold gas 57.30 Gauge pressure (kPa) 7.67 N 8.5 450 1074.15 94.88 250 mm above grate 15.36 H 0.67E-04 350 mm above grate 145 Moisture 0.08 49.02 450 1039.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 9.07 16.1 400 1129.84 1.9 (Nm³/hr) 700 15.91 17.2 600 25.91 O 5.42 Outlet gas 48 Closure (%) 99.02 1.4 250 754.1 Air/Fuel ratio 2.36 15.3 312 .4 750 14.1 150 652.96 C 2.9 350 991.55 85.46 O 5.9 300 871.8 200 740.9 (MJ/hr) 100 596.3 800 14.86 107.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) min after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of outlet gas 4.37 16.2 Consumption of 6.4 500 750.7 Energy Out 60.32 Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 14.3 500 608.46 Total 17.02 150 659.2 700 16.65 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 674 Air 11.56 H2O 0.06 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 21.43 450 mm above grate 1016 Dry wood 5.57 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 488.47 Outlet gas 16.

02 102.34 47.43 450 1009.90 Gauge pressure (kPa) 2.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 9.5 50 534.3 (Nm³/hr) 700 23.2 Energy Out 98.08 1.5 Cold gas 83.84 13.2 (MJ/hr) 250 702.11 51.87 N 11.2 250 704.19 70.96 350 mm above grate 16.2 200 659.8 (MJ/hr) 100 553.45 H 0.97 Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 18.79 7.67 H2O 0.3 150 607.5 600 907.30 1.0 700 26.48 450 mm above grate 380 Dry wood 6.95E-04 350 mm above grate 84 Moisture 0.3 750 23.9 650 48.0 450 1006.87 100.85 O 7.48 Gas 22.9 313 .93 Outlet gas 35 Closure (%) 101.0 (-) 400 873.3 400 863.7 500 1093.51 Total 22.62 107.41 100.4 350 763.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) min after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of outlet gas 4.37 C 3.77 1.9 300 769.46 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 23.41 H 0.4 Air/Fuel ratio 2.57 150 593.00 1.50 56.43 O 6.06 16.7 500 1189.03 600 408.68 13.85 750 19.95 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 3278 Air 15.96 0.4 Energy In 118.40 15.92 250 mm above grate 15.8 50 515.7 550 1155.92 18.11 18.36 Tar 6.9 800 22.75 450 mm above grate 12.5 Gas flow rate 19.0 Consumption of 7.45 250 mm above grate 77 Total 22.32 15.08 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 423.79 14.21 Flow rate (kg/hr) 15.0 wood (kg/hr) 550 1027.64 300 767.33 Outlet gas 17.19 15.3 650 301.46 Density (kg/m³) 1.7 Outlet gas 445.60 N 11.74 50.1 100 570.90 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 3.7 350 773.48 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 5.4 200 666.

9 50 689.99 1.5 650 32.27 50.04 78. 314 .5 500 296.60 17.38 17.00 1.62 15.00 450 mm above grate 0.42 C 4.88 150 783.20 Gauge pressure (kPa) 1.66 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 16.0 Energy In 190.5 750 26.12 65.44 52.6 * Gas sample composition was not measurable due to a leakage in gas sampling container.99 Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [45 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 0.00 100.63 19.75 105.30 750 21.98 15.00 450 mm above grate 1.48 250 mm above grate 174 Total 34.9 Cold gas 69.42 Outlet gas 88 Closure (%) 97.5 650 28.00 0.0 (Nm³/hr) 700 25.2 300 1177.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 12.3 500 517.57 O 10.1 (MJ/hr) 250 968.24 Tar 2.00 0.71 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 0.55 97.13 1.2 Consumption of 11.80 300 1195.06 50.00 100.33 13.38 250 mm above grate 15.4 (MJ/hr) 100 735.48 2.06 1.00 0.00 0.9 Energy Out 131.24 Flow rate (kg/hr) 22.88 O 10.95 18.71 Gas 30.05 63.68 1.12 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 525.5 350 1186.40E-03 350 mm above grate 168 Moisture 1.89 8.4 700 31.10 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 5.98 N 17.48 H2O 2.00 H 0.83 outlet gas Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 20.6 400 958.71 350 mm above grate 8.24 250 mm above grate N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A* Outlet gas 15.7 450 618.42 100.22 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 2245 Air 22.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) min after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of 4.1 800 23.0 (-) 400 1094.68 90.41 0.00 0.5 600 66.79 12.09 5.4 Air/Fuel ratio 2.9 50 694.43 Total 33.94 450 mm above grate 376 Dry wood 10.8 200 903.1 550 103.34 350 mm above grate 9.22 450 962.3 200 958.69 86.1 Gas flow rate 27.23 10.59 2.9 100 761.72 600 42.72 Outlet gas 16.8 Outlet gas 572.00 0.41 13.2 wood (kg/hr) 550 117.50 1.4 350 1215.42 N 17.5 250 1101.4 150 830.71 H 0.94 Density (kg/m³) 1.

49 47.96 15.78 H2O 1.52 49.91 450 mm above grate 8.62 Outlet gas 45 Closure (%) 100.4 (MJ/hr) 100 603.48 Outlet gas 16.19 350 mm above grate 12.48 11.9 wood (kg/hr) 550 216.1 (MJ/hr) 250 809.2 350 1037.09 1.00 97.9 Energy In 102.5 500 665.62 N 8.20 15.13 55.3 350 965.6 550 156.86 60.0 300 901.5 600 38.5 200 755.4 150 710.33 350 mm above grate 17.1 (-) 400 1089.05 450 876.80 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 784 Air 11.17 250 mm above grate 15.21 Flow rate (kg/hr) 11.4 650 23.46 47.2 50 607.0 500 660.7 Air/Fuel ratio 2.9 Gas flow rate 14.06 1.35 1.00 450 mm above grate 11.50 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 0 100.28 Gas 16.9 Cold gas 68.94 250 mm above grate 16.40 Gauge pressure (kPa) 1.30 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 2.96 H 0.87 16.4 650 26.54 14.71 15.88 1.87 Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 18.89 16.92 C 2.75 1.68 91.60 1.8 Consumption of 6.62 450 mm above grate 395 Dry wood 5.7 400 1116.8 200 732.65 N 8.28 18.00 0.8 (Nm³/hr) 700 19.28 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 0.67 16.87 14.64 300 922.51 Tar 6.9 450 921.1 100 697.62 O 5.09 0.20 17.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) min after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of outlet gas 4.3 750 19.7 50 545.63 10.23 10.69 51.33 1.57 Total 17.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 12.52E-04 350 mm above grate 267 Moisture 0.48 Density (kg/m³) 1.79 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 471.90 104.17 Outlet gas 18.20 69.00 250 mm above grate 124 Total 17.4 Outlet gas 493.00 2.5 800 20.2 315 .98 14.51 15.61 49.49 750 19.27 16.39 101.6 Energy Out 70.29 600 38.9 700 21.65 100.80 O 5.61 150 707.46 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 23.8 250 838.38 H 0.10 1.

32 70.4 250 1103.77E-04 350 mm above grate 200 Moisture 0.00 0.4 500 122.00 100.42 N 11.50 H 0.71 250 mm above grate 8.08 Tar 3.00 450 mm above grate 0.00 450 mm above grate 0.1 (MJ/hr) 250 1105.8 500 97.48 1.57 450 462.35 150 1009.58 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 21.00 100.77 97.9 (-) 400 775.99 16.6 700 27.1 100 950.10 57.5 200 1058.41 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 122 Air 15.77 78.30 10.97 N 1.7 400 629.95 600 33.0 750 26.95 O 6.18 74.5 650 28.31 8.00 7.16 350 mm above grate 3.8 Cold gas 64.2 (MJ/hr) 100 863.9 Consumption of 6.00 0.0 200 1093.20 Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [45 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 0.22 Flow rate (kg/hr) 15.0 150 1012.35 84.5 50 752.54 57.12 59.30 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 3.00 350 mm above grate 3.2 Outlet gas 615.22 C 3.00 0.00 0.9 350 874.44 8.0 Energy In 113.43 1.08 95.00 0.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 12.60 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 0.15 1.88 25.7 Air/Fuel ratio 2.39 750 26.7 300 1131.21 22.7 350 979.97 100.94 1.5 800 26.07 18.3 550 53.5 Energy Out 73.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) min after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of 4.25 300 1138.86 11.00 0.8 50 833.00 0.33 14.55 Total 22.60 Gas 20.3 600 35.00 0.77 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 514.8 450 362.6 316 .6 wood (kg/hr) 550 57.60 O 6.90 Gauge pressure (kPa) 2.1 650 27.47 outlet gas Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 26.89 1.04 Density (kg/m³) 1.00 58.40 7.58 1.15 450 mm above grate 1772 Dry wood 6.00 0.6 Gas flow rate 16.87 H2O 2.6 (Nm³/hr) 700 25.72 250 mm above grate 7.02 250 mm above grate 167 Total 22.85 21.91 Outlet gas 7.42 H 0.00 100.30 Outlet gas 6.17 Outlet gas 23 Closure (%) 98.05 13.02 1.39 11.

28 102.11E-03 350 mm above grate 233 Moisture 1.3 750 22.3 550 65.3 100 943.35 250 mm above grate 97 Total 41.11 Outlet gas 15.9 500 264.79 1.8 350 1237.8 317 .0 200 1061.33 H 0.36 51.19 N 21.43 1.00 0.71 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 366 Air 27.3 300 1136.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 12.44 Density (kg/m³) 1.63 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 0.7 350 1155.00 450 mm above grate 3.6 (MJ/hr) 100 882.32 98.2 Air/Fuel ratio 2.48 19.57 12.40 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 6.41 Total 41.83 H 0.8 450 427.25 350 mm above grate 11.7 Energy Out 167.54 O 12.37 N 21.6 Energy In 225.3 650 17.2 600 51.92 12.00 100.98 O 13.9 500 204.78 600 56.93 Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 14.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) in after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of outlet gas 4.00 0.2 wood (kg/hr) 550 157.8 Gas flow rate 34.22 Flow rate (kg/hr) 27.60 Outlet gas 62 Closure (%) 100.0 (-) 400 1201.66 150 993.9 150 1057.41 15.37 1.95 1.41 C 6.1 650 38.63 Gas 39.2 (MJ/hr) 250 1076.04 750 13.8 250 1086.19 100.31 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 596.71 21.00 0.68 H2O 2.16 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 22.9 Cold gas 74.3 50 877.28 450 883.26 13.24 450 mm above grate 2492 Dry wood 12.0 200 1073.63 300 1092.2 50 740.6 Consumption of 13.60 Gauge pressure (kPa) 2.38 250 mm above grate 14.97 73.05 12.0 Outlet gas 675.27 59.81 97.10 Tar 2.3 (Nm³/hr) 700 14.2 400 965.10 49.0 800 21.5 700 23.91 7.

1 Cold gas 63.42 101.1 50 613.65 N 9.21 Gas 18.00 16.35 0.8 Gas flow rate 15.00 450 mm above grate 0.39 C 2.88 15.40 Tar 4.00 83.18 53.00 0.3 Outlet gas 474.9 350 1074.49 150 718.8 350 1068.91 250 mm above grate 14.55 16.12 1.9 Energy Out 75.67 17.76 19.9 650 15.0 Energy In 119.8 (MJ/hr) 250 880.5 (-) 400 983.0 Air/Fuel ratio 1.9 (Nm³/hr) 700 14.4 100 662.1 700 19.38 300 953.0 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 3.83 1.5 500 397.00 0.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) min after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of 4.26 12.80 Outlet gas 16.46 Density (kg/m³) 1.00 100.1 Consumption of 7.2 wood (kg/hr) 550 71.00 100.00 14.21 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 0.1 150 760.00 0.85 outlet gas Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 21.72 350 mm above grate 11.39 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 22.4 50 567.52 Total 19.13 18.62 H 0.9 500 469.08 250 mm above grate 88 Total 19.95 87.2 (MJ/hr) 100 627.62 1.13 1.86 59.6 200 799.17 Outlet gas 16.31 600 26.36E-04 350 mm above grate 149 Moisture 0.6 200 833.37 N 9.96 Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [45 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 0.7 250 878.97 1.1 400 985.21 14.6 800 27.44 H 0.39 88.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 12.09 14.1 600 37.4 550 88.91 450 772.66 0.77 17.08 13.00 0.00 450 mm above grate 0.1 450 778.18 59.00 0.4 650 23.14 2.21 Flow rate (kg/hr) 12.9 300 974.24 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 441.51 350 mm above grate 10.03 O 6.08 53.5 318 .32 O 6.28 0.31 47.96 13.4 750 18.91 H2O 1.00 0.56 750 13.00 0.37 100.48 14.05 450 mm above grate 243 Dry wood 6.55 78.90 Gauge pressure (kPa) 1.06 51.70 250 mm above grate 14.08 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 3847 Air 12.13 Outlet gas 28 Closure (%) 98.

02 73.23 Flow rate (kg/hr) 13.50 Gauge pressure (kPa) 3.69 0.06 15.1 (MJ/hr) 100 542.3 Consumption of 7.85 Gas 19.00 77.85 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 0.05 0.7 350 1177.24 Tar 5.49 450 mm above grate 3.15 Density (kg/m³) 1.90 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 355.48 49.62 100.3 Cold gas 68.7 100 868.4 Gas flow rate 16.6 (MJ/hr) 250 732.03 600 19.9 Energy Out 80.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 11.22 450 818.1 Outlet gas 500.2 wood (kg/hr) 550 143.57 15.68 102.87 0.9 750 20.42 9.79 Outlet gas 33 Closure (%) 99.4 (Nm³/hr) 700 19.53 O 6.42 11.52 61.7 550 100.51 15.12 54.00 95.85 Outlet gas 16.06 92.88 Total 20.3 200 619.8 650 20.72 8.5 250 1082.62 N 10.30 1.00 0.00 99.9 200 1011.1 (-) 400 976.29 1.79 450 mm above grate 2.40 69.24 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 22.73 outlet gas Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 19.41 250 mm above grate 14.21 Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [30 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 0.1 Air/Fuel ratio 2.29 6.0 800 20.4 700 21.69 350 mm above grate 3.90 350 mm above grate 9.6 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 3.88 15.18 250 mm above grate 86 Total 20.71 1.1 450 782.31 300 875.96 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 1198 Air 13.8 650 26.35 5.3 500 419.79 14.43 101.48 17.27 H 0.6 Energy In 116.98 4.58 13.00 0.6 350 928.9 500 429.94 1.94 15.1 600 43.14 150 580.3 150 952.6 319 .83 3.14 15.52 68.00 0.2 50 452.9 50 777.53 Outlet gas 5.91 14.60E-04 350 mm above grate 188 Moisture 0.61 450 mm above grate 708 Dry wood 6.65 N 10.42 H 0.21 0.71 1.53 O 6.4 300 1092.31 C 3.00 250 mm above grate 5.79 H2O 1.81 1.96 750 18.68 74.7 400 1092.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (10-15) min after ignition (30-40) min after ignition Net HV of 4.

8 300 913.9 (-) 400 1042.76 19.0 500 711.96 H2O 1.53 300 830.65 13.82 11.56 750 21.68 250 mm above grate 14.3 200 768.7 (MJ/hr) 250 767.95 Tar 1.2 wood (kg/hr) 550 481.34 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 0.41 13.3 650 38.08 17.34 18.03 54.7 320 .43 15.81 Outlet gas 15.16 450 mm above grate 7.3 50 587.29 0.31 51.86 350 mm above grate 12.45 13.61 150 658.57 0.71 0.0 Air/Fuel ratio 2.00 0.3 (MJ/hr) 100 610.34 Gas 21.91 1.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) min after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of 4.00 93.9 350 1048.85 H 0.46 96.81 15.27 250 mm above grate 162 Total 23.1 700 30.10 Gauge pressure (kPa) 3.71 250 mm above grate 14.15 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 24.21 450 1054.5 Cold gas 70.8 Gas flow rate 18.91 600 151.68 C 3.51 72.2 Energy Out 91.5 750 26.00 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 12.53 56.88 93.84 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 2782 Air 15.82 1.2 50 525.98 N 11.9 500 912.77 N 11.1 200 727.27 88.48 H 0.25 Total 22.82 1.72 11.7 550 257.40 16.7 Outlet gas 483.84 10.1 (Nm³/hr) 700 25.33 O 6.00 96.4 100 669.77 100.20 64.73 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 436.86 O 7.1 350 938.13 3.84 Outlet gas 16.00 6.43 450 mm above grate 3.6 400 1106.37 Outlet gas 59 Closure (%) 96.53 Density (kg/m³) 1.44 18.1 650 47.31 350 mm above grate 16.4 600 100.3 450 959.17 53.00 5.09E-03 350 mm above grate 245 Moisture 0.1 250 798.25 1.7 150 708.17 52.7 Energy In 129.72 11.0 800 25.23 Flow rate (kg/hr) 15.44 18.11 450 mm above grate 381 Dry wood 6.94 outlet gas Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 21.35 1.49 Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [45 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 0.84 1.68 1.5 Consumption of 7.25 50.2 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 3.

71 0.84 100.25 Tar 1.67 1.17 50.64 Tar content Material Balance Level Tar (mg/Nm³) Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) 550 mm above grate 3309 Air 10.1 321 .82 600 30.8 450 873.00 0.5 500 472.00 450 mm above grate 2.83 outlet gas Level above Temperature Level above Temperature (MJ/Nm³) grate (mm) (°C) grate (mm) (°C) 800 25.51 1.57 N 7.42 106.78 efficiency (%) Outlet gas 437.34 H 0.9 (Nm³/hr) 700 25.1 (-) 400 892.2 Energy In 97.65 15.15 1.91 250 mm above grate 153 Total 16.9 Outlet gas 413.28 81.27 1.3 wood (kg/hr) 550 37.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 9.24 250 mm above grate 12.34 O 5.0 Temperature profile(average) Temperature profile(average) Reactor performance summary (30-40) min after ignition (45-55) min after ignition Net HV of 4.00 96.22 1.2 Gas flow rate 12.23 13.8 Energy Out 62.2 50 571.84 10.3 Elemental Balance Input (kg/hr) Output (kg/hr) Closure (%) C 2.8 300 830.68 15.0 (MJ/hr) 250 810.0 650 28.22 Gas 15.08 Outlet gas 964 Closure (%) 100.08 17.0 100 620.10 Density (kg/m³) 1.82 300 906.16 450 mm above grate 7.8 200 742.00 0.0 600 35.39 150 690.40 Outlet gas 15.38 1.3 750 25.65 350 mm above grate 16.65 11.04 Total 16.95 450 467.54 59.44 18.13 3.7 200 783.22 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 0.78 C 2.56 0.08 14.6 500 68.1 550 53.00 100.59 54.7 (MJ/hr) 100 650.31 90.4 Cold gas 63.25E-02 350 mm above grate 310 Moisture 0.84 N 7.84 1.64 H 0.93 750 25.45 13.00 0.7 Air/Fuel ratio 1.53 48.3 Consumption of 5.72 15.20 63.9 150 650.9 800 25.81 16.21 Flow rate (kg/hr) 10.99 4.31 49.66 Dry gas composition (vol%) –first sampling [45 minutes after ignition] Level H2 CO CO2 CH4 Trace (O2+N2) 550 mm above grate 0.57 H2O 0.16 450 mm above grate 318 Dry wood 5.51 350 mm above grate 9.19 63.51 90.0 350 967.66 10.5 700 27.1 400 936.9 350 894.74 250 mm above grate 14.72 14.6 50 554.83 Inlet air (Average values) Temperature (°C) 19.00 19.00 0.08 O 5.35 14.41 Outlet gas 14.2 650 27.6 250 755.80 Gauge pressure (kPa) 1.

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

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

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

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

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.

7 Tar measurement system 327 .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.

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 .