Numerical Simulation of

Downdraft Gasifier

SUPERVISOR
VIPUL VIBHANSHU
Prof. Sangeeta Kohli 2016MEZ8270
Prof. M.R.Ravi
 INTRODUCTION
Biomass:

Biomass is a renewable and sustainable source of energy originated from

biodegradable organic materials.
As per United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, 2005): Non-fossilized and
biodegradable organic material originating from plants, animals and micro-organisms. This shall also include
products, by-products, residues and waste from agriculture, forestry and related industries as well as the non-
fossilized and biodegradable organic fractions of industrial and municipal wastes.
 Thermo-Chemical Conversion
Combustion: Thermal conversion of biomass in presence of excess air.
Pyrolysis: Thermo-chemical breakdown of biomass in the absence of oxygen.
Gasification: Thermo-chemical conversion of feedstock in oxygen deficient medium.
Liquefaction: Decomposition of large feedstock into liquid in presence of catalyst.

Process Temperature Pressure Catalyst Drying

(C) (MPa)
Liquefaction 250330 520 Essential Not required
Pyrolysis 380530 0.10.5 Not required Necessary
Combustion 7001400 >0.1 Not required Not essential, but
may help

Gasification 5001300 >0.1 Not essential Necessary

Source: Biomass Gasification and Pyrolysis, Prabir Basu
Gasification:
Gasification converts fossil or non fossil fuels (solid, liquid, or gaseous) into useful gases and chemicals. It requires a medium for
reaction, which can be gas or supercritical water .

Gaseous mediums include air, oxygen, subcritical steam, or a mixture of these.

Gasification of biomass also involves removal of oxygen from the fuel to increase its energy density.

The oxygen is removed from the biomass by either dehydration or decarboxylation.

yields
Dehydration: 2 + 2 2 removal through 2

yields
Decarboxylation: : /2 + 2 2 removal through C2
Typical Gasification Reactions at 25 C

Reaction Type Reaction

Carbon Reactions
R1 (Boudouard) + 2 2 + 172 /
R2 (water-gas or steam) + 2 + 2 + 131 /
R3 (hydrogasification) + 22 4 74.8 /
R4 + 0.5 2 111 /
Oxidation Reactions
R5 + 2 2 394 /
R6 + 0.52 2 284 /
R7 4 + 22 2 + 22 803 /
R8 2 + 0.5 2 2 242 /
Shift Reaction
R9 + 2 2 + 2 41.2 /
 Methanation Reactions
R10 2 + 22 4 + 2 247 /

R11 + 32 4 + 2 206 /

R14 2 + 42 4 + 22 165 /

Steam-Reforming Reactions
R12 4 + 2 + 32 + 206 /
R13 4 + 0.5 2 + 22 36 /
 AUTHOR COMMENT
Di Blasi Wood 0.32CH0.2525O0.0237+0.041CO+0.112CO2+0.0002H2+0.002CH4+0.11H2O+0.415CH1.522O0.02
(2013) As per the stoichiometric coefficients of volatiles and char composition given above the overall composition
does not matches of the wood.
composition of biomass (C6H6.34O2.63) is obtained by the above composition which is outside the range of
wood i.e. C6H8.74O3.567-C6H9.18O4.007.
Ragland Wood 0.0166Char + 0.0065CO + 0.0026CO2 + 0.005H2 + 0.0029CH4+0.0138H2O
(1991) +0.0024C6H6.2O0.2
These stoichiometric coefficient result in wood composition ( C6H8.7O3.67) which lies in the expected range.
Boroson Composition at three different temperature has been found at 873K, 973K and 1073K. All the composition of
(1989) biomass is within the range
Tar Reforming Reaction
Yucel (2016) 30000
0.3x109 2 value of activation energy is different in Tinaut (2008), Unit is not matched

with the reference taken i.e. Jones (1988).In literature Yucel expressed activation energy in KJ/Kmol.
Tinaut(2008) 16.736 0.25 1.25
70 20 There is inconsistency in exponent. Exponent in original literature of Corella is

0.25 1.75
20
Corella (2005) 16.736 0.25 1.75
112 20 Unit consistent and pre-exponential factor is also consistent using correction

factor. It is verified by Temp vs Kinetic constant plot.
Jones (1988) 30000
0.3x109
2 units of activation energy in calories.
 Methane Reforming Reaction
Yucel (2016) 30000
0.3x109 2 unit inconsistency with reference to Jones.

Tinaut(2008) 125.520
3015 2 expression inconsistency with Jones(1988)

Corella (2005) 125.520
3x1005
2 expression inconsistency with Jones(1988)
Liu (2003) 125.520
3x1005 2 expression inconsistency with Jones(1988)

Jones (1988). 30000
0.3x109 2 units of activation energy in calories.

Suyitno (2011) 3
131000 2 22700
9.1107 2 Where, Keq = 1.651013 is taken for

consideration.
Oxidation Reaction
H2+ 0.5O2 H2O: Blasi (2004) refers Blasi (2000) and found inconsistent. Blasi(2000) refers
Regland (1996) and found consistent.
CH4 +1.5O2 CO +2H2O: Blasi (2004) refers Blasi (2000) and there is inconsistency in exponent
further Blasi (2000) refers Regland (1996) and found consistent
C6H6.2O0.2 +4.45O2 6C +3.1H2O : Blasi (2004) refers Blasi (2000) and there is inconsistency in
exponent further Blasi (2000) refers Regland (1996) and found consistent.
CO+0.5 O2 CO2: Blasi (2004) refers cooper and Hallet (2000) and there is inconsistency in
exponent ,furthermore cooper and Hallet (2000) refer William Howard (1973) and found consistent.
Gasifier Simulation Models

Optimal conversion of chemical energy of the biomass or other solid fuel into the desired gas
depends on proper configuration, sizing, and choice of gasifier operating conditions.

Gasifier simulation models may be classified into the following groups:

Thermodynamic equilibrium
Kinetic
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
Artificial neural network
Thermodynamic Equilibrium Models
Thermodynamic equilibrium calculation is independent of gasifier design and so is
convenient for studying the influence of fuel and process parameters.

This model provides the designer with a reasonable prediction of the maximum achievable
yield of a desired product.

However, it cannot predict the influence of hydrodynamic or geometric parameters, like

fluidizing velocity, or design variables, like gasifier height.

The reaction is considered to be zero dimensional and there are no changes with time
(Li et al., 2001).

An equilibrium model is effective at higher temperatures (>1500 K),where it can show

useful trends in operating parameter variations (Altafini et al., 2003)
Kinetic Models

Gas composition measurements for gasifier often vary significantly from those predicted
by equilibrium models (Peterson and Werther, 2005; Li et al., 2001;Kersten, 2002).

A kinetic model gives the gas yield and product composition a gasifier achieves after a
finite time (or in a finite volume in a flowing medium).
CFD Models

A CFD-based code involves a solution of conservation of mass, momentum, species, and

energy over a defined domain or region.

A CFD code for gasification typically includes a set of sub-models for the sequence of
operations such as the vaporization of a biomass particle, its pyrolysis (devolatilization),
the secondary reaction in pyrolysis, and char oxidation (Di Blasi, 2008; Babu and
Chaurasia, 2004).

Recent progress in numerical solution and modeling of complex gassolid interactions

has brought CFD much closer to real-life simulation.
Modeling fluid and heat transport in the reactive, porous bed of downdraft (biomass)
gasifier: Sharma et.al (2007)
A fluid flow and heat transfer model has been developed for the reactive, porous bed of the biomass gasifier to
simulate pressure drop, temperature profile in the bed and flow rates.

Higher temperature profile in the gasifier bed predicts slightly higher value of pressure drop because at higher
temperature, the density of gases is lower resulting in slightly higher velocities for given gas flow rate.

Temperature of pyrolysis, oxidation and reduction zones decreases with increasing the gas flow rate due to
greater advection of heat.

As moisture content in dry biomass increases, the temperature near the drying zone decreases.

The temperatures in oxidation and reduction zone improve significantly with reduction in feedstock size.

The pressure drop in the bed decreases considerably with increase in particle size, due to increase in porosity

The contribution of radiation in the effective thermal conductivity of the bed increases with increase in particle
size
Modelling Product composition in slow pyrolysis of wood: Sharma et.al (2006)
For cellulose and hemicellulose Tar yield in pyrolysis product decreases significantly with CO and light
hydrocarbon(Methane Equivalent) increases.

Co2 and Moisture in volatile decreases while H content is low at all temperature.

For Pure lignin at temp of around 950K and higher Tar becomes zero. CO also decreases.
Modeling And Dynamic Simulation of Stratified Downdraft Gasifier: Lazaroiu et.al
(2011)
One-dimensional model for biomass gasification in a stratified concurrent (downdraft) reactor is presented.

Two mechanisms responsible for the global reaction rate are considered: diffusion through the gas film,
surrounding the particle, and intrinsic chemical kinetics.

Gas-phase combustion and primary pyrolysis appear to play a controlling role for the mode of stabilization
of the reaction.

For high values of the air-to-fuel ratio and of the primary pyrolysis rate, the process is top-stabilized,
resulting in a high conversion efficiency and good gas quality.
Modeling Biomass Gasification Using Thermodynamic Equilibrium Approach:
Huang et.al (2009)

Thermodynamic equilibrium models for biomass gasification applicable to various

gasifier types have been developed, with and without considering char.

Model 1, reported here can well describe the downdraft biomass gasifier at high
temperature when there is no formation of char.

Model 2, describe the Thermodynamic equilibrium model considering char.

Comparison has been made with experimental results.

Due to the complexities of including char, the equilibrium model 2 predictions do not
match well with experimental results.
Summary of Literature Review

Temperature plays a crucial role as it influences the chemical reaction rate, equilibrium
constants, pressure, superficial velocity, and residence time.

Gas production is favored with the increase in temperature and residence time.

High temperature favors tar cracking reactions, the yield of tar decreases with an increase
in gas temperature.[Stiles et.al (1989), Wang et.al (1993), Chaurasia (2016), ].

The increase in air flow rate increases the superficial velocity of gas, this reduces the
residence time of the gas inside the char bed, thereby reducing the rate of reduction
reactions in the char bed. Hence, the CO composition, decreased with an increase in CO2,
which is favored by an increased air flow rate.[Wang et.al (1993), Chaurasia (2016), Zhou
et al.(2005), Yamazaki et al.(2005), Tinaut et.al (2008)].
 The biomass consumption rate per gasifier section is directly proportional to the air flow
and inversely proportional to the size of biomass, due to the increasing reaction area
with reduced particle size. [Tinaut et.al.(2008)]

The reduction in the parameter air to wood weight ratio gave rise to successively higher
temperatures, enhancing the formation of volatile products at the expense of char during
the devolatilization stage.[Blasi et.al(2004), Boroson et.al (1989)].

The pressure losses at the top of gasifier diminish slowly, but after oxidation stage, this
parameter changes drastically due to reduction in particle diameter.[ Sharma et al(2007),
Tinaut et.al.(2008)]

Tar conversion depends on the time of residence in the presence of catalysts [Corella
(1999), Tinaut et.al.(2008)]
Effect of Various parameters(Design Aspect)

Tar removal technologies can be categorized into two approaches:

Improvement of the gasification process itself inside the gasifier (primary removal)
Gas cleaning outside the gasifier (secondary removal).
These methods involve proper gasification design, use of a suitable catalyst during
gasification, and the optimization of operational parameters.

Most of studies used indirectly heated gasifier and fluidized bed gasifier, have been
conducted on operational parameters such as temperature, residence time, equivalence ratio,
oxygen partial pressure, and gasification medium.

For directly heated downdraft gasifier that use air as a gasification agent, airflow rate is the
most important operating parameter.

Increasing the airflow rate achieves a high burning rate, resulting in increased temperature
and decreased residence time. So optimizing the airflow rate is essential for proper operation.
Effect of Various parameters(Superficial Velocity)

Superficial velocity (gas flow rate divided by the internal cross section of the gasifier) as
the most important measure of gasifier performance.
It controls gas production rate, fuel consumption rate, gas energy content, char and tar
production rate etc. [Reed et.al (1999)].

Superficial velocity increases with airflow rate, is independent of gasifier size and
permits comparison of gasifier of different dimensions. [Reed et.al(1999),(2001)].

Higher Superficial velocity leads to higher temperature, which has the positive effect of
increasing the conversion of tar but the negative effect of reducing the conversion of tar
by shortening the residence time.[Fagbemi et al.(2001), Corella et.al (1999)].

Higher Superficial velocity leads to greater linear velocity, which causes more fragments
of char to be conveyed from the char bed, and which in turn causes the particle yield to
become higher
 Chip size
The size of fuel wood chip is an important parameter which affects the char conversion
rate and hence the conversion efficiency.
The size of the chips used mainly depends on the diameter of the gasifier.
Larger particles need longer reactor lengths to achieve the maximum conversion.

Moisture content

The moisture content of the feed material is one of the main characteristics, which
affects the composition of the product gas.
For gasifier operations, fuel wood with a low moisture content is preferred because of its
higher gross energy content.
Moisture contents higher than 67% (d.b.) make the product gas too lean for
ignition.[Reed (1988)].
Conversion efficiency decreases with increasing moisture contents. This is due to the
fact that a higher amount of energy is consumed in evaporating the moisture in the
wood, which subsequently reduces the temperature of the gas.
OUTCOME

1. Basic idea of Biomass gasification and related aspects.

2. Effect of various parameters
3. Influence of various parameters on gasifier design.

Remaining Work

1. To identifying literature gap.

2. To identify statements of the problem.
3. More Literature survey.
4. Getting started with simulation software.