Biomass 16 (1988) 225-235

Development and Evaluation of a Fixed Dome Plug Flow

Anaerobic Digester
A n j a n K. Kalia
Bio-EnergyLaboratory, H. P. KrishiVishvaVidyalaya,Palampur, 176062 India
(Received7 October 1987; revisedversion received 13 May 1988;
accepted 23 May 1988)
ABSTRACT
A 3 m~fixed dome plugflow anaerobic digester has been developed and
its performance compared with that of a Janta biogas digester in a hill)'
region of cold climate. The new design, which costs 10% less than the
Janta digester promoted in the region, produces over 16% more biogas.
The gas production rate per unit of effective digester volume for the phtg
flow digester was 30% higher than that of the Janta plant due to the better
design, resulting in horizontal plug flow of the digesting slurry, as well as
to modifications of the inlet and outlet slurry displacement tanks. The
plug flow digester was also less subject to climatic variations, resulting in a
slightly higher temperature in the winter which also contributed to the
higher biogas production.
Key words: Plug flow, anaerobic digestion, biogas plant, volatile solids.

INTRODUCTION
Low rates of biogas production from existing designs of family size ( 1-6
m 3) biogas digesters is a major constraint to the adoption of biogas technology in cold hilly areas of India. Around 12 000 Janta biogas digesters
(an Indian version of the Chinese fixed dome digester) have been built in
such areas. This design has an advantage over the conventional Indian
design of not having a gas holder (which cannot be easily carried over the
hilly terrains) and gives almost the same rate of biogas production as do
conventional plants ~ when operated on the plains. However, the Janta
fixed dome biogas plant requires modifications in order to increase its
efficiency under cold climate in hilly regions.
225
Biomass 0144-4565/88/S03.50 - 1988 Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd, England.
Printed in Great Britain

226

A. K. Kalia

The major drawbacks in the design of the Janta biogas digester are as
follows: (i) The inlet and outlet openings of the digester are close to each
other resulting in short circuiting of the path of digesting slurry thus
reducing the actual hydraulic retention time (HRT) to less than half the
theoretical value from which the volume of the digester is calculated. (ii)
The lighter undigested slurry in the top part of the digester which is
approximately at the same level as the outlet, partially escapes to the outlet
tank 2 further decreasing the actual HRT. (iii) The dimensions of the inlet
and outlet slurry displacement tanks are incorrect resulting in a significant increase in gas pressure as a result of a collection of only a small
volume of gas. This results not only in higher losses of gas from the outlet
tank 3 but also in large variations in pressure of the delivered gas, affecting the efficiency of gas appliances used.
The aim of the work reported here was to develop a modified fixed
dome biogas digester with improved biogas production and to compare
it with the existing Janta design.

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE DIGESTERS

Anaerobic digester I (ADI)

A 3 m 3 Janta fixed dome biogas digester (Fig. 1 ) was constructed following the design specifications approved by the national project for biogas
development as detailed in a practical handbook, 4 with the exception that
the digester was constructed with 230 mm thick walls rather than 115
mm as recommended for hilly areas. All construction was carried out as
described in the manual. 5 This digester, of about 9 m 3, is designed for a
HRT of 55 days, with the slurry displacement capacities of its central gas
reservoir and the inlet and outlet as 42% and 37% respectively of its
rated gas production capacity (3 m3).

Anaerobic digester II (ADII)

To overcome some of the drawbacks of the Janta fixed dome digester
(ADI) as mentioned above, it is essential that the inlet and outlet slurry
displacement tanks should be positioned as far apart as possible so that
the actual retention time of the digesting slurry is increased without
increasing the overall HRT of the feed or the volume of the digester. On
the basis of a report 6 of a horizontal plug flow digester shown to produce
nearly 20% more biogas from manure as compared to conventional
mixed flow digester, a design which would have a nearly horizontal plug
flow was considered.

Development of a fixed dome plug flow anaerobic digester

115..610, ,115
Slorw=~ ~
~~2-~-~5

18 thick piaster
\
12 thick plaster ..
115
\ : I
J,1~51216 ','P

r---

3100 dia.

115_'

227

115

Li

LONGITUDINAL SECTION

~5
PLAN
Dimensions in mrn

Fig. I.

Janta biogas plant (3 m3)(ADI).

A number of horizontal plug flow type digesters have been developed.

These include a Trench type made up of red mud, 7 or of concrete with a
hypalon plastic cover, 8 while others are of iron as used by Hill. 9 These
designs cannot be easily adopted to the local conditions due to the
problem of short life of the plastics used and/or the additional cost of a
separate gas holder. Hence the principle of slurry displacement in the
inlet and outlet tanks as in the fixed dome digester was adopted. The
modified digester (ADII) as shown in Fig. 2 was designed using the
following assumptions:
(i) One kilogram cattle dung mixed with 1 litre water occupies about
1"95 litres and produces about 40 litres of biogas at 25-27C
during a retention period of 55 days.
(ii) The digester volume of about 8 m 3 is 55 times the daily feed consisting of 75 kg of cattle dung mixed with an equal amount of
water so as to produce 3 m 3 biogas/day.
(iii) To keep the inlet and outlet tanks far apart the length to width
ratio is set at about three.
(iv) As the gas produced from the digester will be used twice a day for

228

A. K. Kafia

I
Inlet
1600 115 115900 115
.
-i ~ ~ ~-~-~1 ~~" Gas outlet
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . rl ...... l=
r'L~F I~j
~
, ,, 1111111,!l,~. ,1~I., .......

Side

115
-~ I~-

II

Outlet
Side 2
1159C~~115 115
115
-'1 ~
~ "11~- 1600 =i~115 . . . . . ~l ..... rl
~
~sN

Ii

- -

II

230- - i ~ - - ~

t.._ .J

....i"1'"1'8oc125

Longitudinal section
230
0 -- -1!00-

1650 -

"i~
--6

115~-~

~ - 115
-1650 - -

-r
Plan

Dimensions in mrn

Fig. 2. Fixed dome plug flow anaerobic digester(3 m3)(ADII).

cooking and lighting purposes, the volume of the inlet and outlet
tanks was set at 46% of the rated capacity of the digester.
(v) The outlet opening was set at 300 m m below the datum (level of
initial feeding to digester) compared to 218 m m of ADI, in order
to provide an additional gas seal and restrict the movement of
undigested slurry from the top of digester to the outlet.
ADII was constructed in a similar way to A D I following the construction steps listed in the manual. 7 This digester is shown in Figs 2 and 3.
The material used and its construction cost are compared with A D I in
Table 1.
The lower labour required for the construction of ADII is due to the
nearly straight wall construction as compared to the cylindrical shape of
ADI. Thus ADII is easier to construct and cheaper than ADI by around
10%.

Experimental set up and operation of digesters

Both the digesters were installed in 1985 at the university biogas
research centre situated at 32 6' N and 76 3 ' E at an altitude of 1300 m
above mean sea level beneath the Dhauladhar range of the Himalayas.
The digesters were simultaneously filled up to datum with a cattle dung

Development of a fixed dome plug flow anaerobic digester

Fig. 3.

229

Top view of 3 m 3 fixed dome plug flow anaerobic digester (ADII).

TABLE 1
Comparative Construction Costs of ADI and ADII

Construction material

Bricks
Cement
Sand: Coarse
Fine
Hard stone blast
Labour: Mason
Helper

ADI

ADII

Quantity

Amount
(Rupees)

Quantity

Amount
(Rupees)

3 000
30 bags
6 m3
3 m3
3 m3
30
60

1 800
1 800
360
180
210
900
600

2 750
25 bags
3 m3
3 m3
2.5 m 3
25
50

1650
1500
360
180
175
750
500

5850"

~US $480
bUS $420

5115 ~,

230

A. K. Kalia

slurry containing 9-10% total solids. No further feeding took place for
one month after the initial feeding. Thereafter each digester was fed daily
with a slurry prepared from 60 kg fresh dung. The temperatures at the
centre of both digesters at position P1 and P2 (Figs 1 and 2) and of the
slurry in the inlet and outlet tanks were recorded hourly using Pt resistant probes and a datalogger which simultaneously recorded the ambient
temperature. The biogas produced from each digester was measured
daily after six months from the initial feeding once both digesters had
attained a steady state. Biogas production was measured twice a day at
7.00 am and 7.00 pm using wet type gas flow meters. The gas pressure
was measured with U type manometers and an orsat apparatus was used
to analyse the gas for CO2 and C H 4. The total volatile solids (VS) in the
feed and effluent slurry from each digester were analysed weekly using
standard methods.~

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The average of the digester temperature and mean ambient temperatures
for different months of 1986 is plotted in Fig. 4, which shows the highest
digester temperatures of 24C and 22.5C for ADI and ADII for the
month of June which had the highest mean ambient temperature of
26"5C. The lowest digester temperatures of 13.5C and 15C for the
ADI and ADII were observed for the month of December which had the
lowest mean ambient temperature of 10"5C. The lower temperature
observed in ADII as compared to ADI for the summer months when the

28
26
24

~22
~ 2o
3

12
10

Jan.

Fig. 4.

Feb. Mat',

A p t May

Jun. Jul.
Months

Aug. Sep. Oct.

Nov. Dec., Jan.

Variation in average temperatures of AD! (o) and A D I ! ( x ) as affected by

mean ambient temperature (rn) for different months of 1986.

Development of a fixed dome plug flow anaerobic digester

2 31

temperature was highest and the higher temperatures observed in ADII

as compared to ADI for winter months when the ambient temperature
was lowest indicate that the central zone of the modified digester ADII is
less influenced by the atmospheric temperature and keeps comparatively
stable. This may be due to the inlet and outlet tanks, where the digesting
slurry comes in contact with atmosphere, being further apart in ADII
compared to ADI. This effect was observed predominantly in winter as
shown in Fig. 5 which illustrates the hourly variation in both the
digesters as a function of ambient temperature for 40 h at the peak of
winter conditions.
The average daily biogas (55-60% CH4, 40-45% CO2) production
from ADI and ADII as well as the average mean ambient temperature
for different months of 1986 (19 January, 1986 to 11 January, 1987) are
illustrated in Fig. 6. The biogas production from both digesters was
highest for the months of May and June and lowest for the months of
December and January. Though the digester volume of the modified
ADII is 1 m 3 less than ADI, the gas production from ADII was always
higher than ADI. The mean daily biogas production from ADII for the
peak summer month of June and the peak winter month of December is
2300 litres (280 litres m 3 of digester) and 1300 litres (170 litres m 3 of
digester) as compared to 2000 litres (220 litres m 3 of digester) and 1140
litres (128 litres m 3 of digester) for ADI for the corresponding periods.
Biogas appliances designed in India work efficiently with biogas at
9-10 cm of H20 pressure and nearly 3-4 cm of H20 drop in pressure
occurs between the gas plant and the end user thus the gas from plant at
pressure less than 13 cm of H20 cannot be used effectively. The effec-

20.0
17.5
1.5.0
.,,)
St.., 12.5

lO.O
7.5
~" 5 . 5

2"5
0
II
l
I
I
12 14 16 18 2 0 24
2 9 D e c e m b e r '86

Fig. 5.

I
I
[
I
~)11
I
I
2 4
6 8 1
12 14 16 18
30 D e c e m b e r '86
T i m e (h)

I
[
I
2 0 22 24

I
l ;
[
~)
2 4
8 1
31 D e c e m b e r ' 8 6

Hourly variation in temperature of ADI (o) and ADII ( x ) as affected by

ambient temperature (o) in winter.

232

A. K. Kalia

250C

30

~225C

25

200C

2o ~

o
1750

ID

1500

<

1250
1000

Fig. 6.

10 ~
5

Jan. Feb. Mar.

19-25 2-8 2-8

Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan
6-12 4-10 1-7 6-12 3-9 7-13 5-11 2-8 7-13 4-11
1986
1987

Average daily biogas production from ADI (o) and ADI ( x ) for different
weeks of 1986 as affected by mean ambient temperature (n).

tive gas holding capacities of both the plants were measured by measuring the quantity of gas passed through the gas meters for each of the plants
during the drop in gas pressure from the highest attained in both biogas
plants to the pressure of 13 cm of H20. Figure 7 shows the amount of
effective gas holding capacity of ADII and ADI at various gas pressures.
The ADII has a maximum gas holding capacity of 1350 litres at 70 cm
H20 compared to 1200 litres at 80 cm of H20 for ADI.
The summary of performance of both the digesters is given in Tables 2
and 3. Gas production from ADII is 15% and 18% more in the peak
summer and winter months respectively as compared to the AD! for the
corresponding months. The rate of gas production per unit digester
volume is over 30% higher for ADII as compared to ADI for the corresponding months. This increased biogas production per unit digester
volume obtained with ADII reflects the modified geometry which results
in plug flow operation. These results are comparable with 20% more
biogas obtained by Hyes et al. 6 from the horizontal plug flow digester
compared to conventional mixed digester fed on cow manure. The
higher effective gas holding capacity at lower pressure resulting in higher
availability of gas with less pressure variation makes ADII more useful
because biogas obtained from it requires less manual regulation of pressure by the user to operate its biogas appliances efficiently at the optimum gas pressure.
Table 3 indicates that a higher percentage of VS were reduced in
ADII compared to ADI both in peak summer and winter months result-

Development of a fixed dome plugflow anaerobic digester

1.4

1.2

233

E
>,,
-U

1.0

.E 0 . 8
0
t-

tg

0"6
>
4=J
u

w 0-4

0.2

10
Fig. 7.

20

30
Water

40
column

50
60
Ap (cm)

70

80

Effect of gas holding capacity on digester pressures of ADI (o) and ADII (, x ).
TABLE 2
Functional Parameters of Digesters

A D1
Loading rate, kg VS/day
Retention time, days
Digester volume (m 3)
Maximum effective gas capacity (m ~)
Maximum gas pressure (cm of H~O)
Methane content (%)
Gas production (m 3)

A D 11

10"4-10-6

10"4-10-6

79
9"2
1"2
80
55-60

70
8"1
1-35
72
55-60

234

A. K. Kalia
TABLE 3

Digestion Parameters of Digesters

ADI

Daily gas production a

Gas (m3)/kgmanure fed day
Gas (m3)/voldigester day
Gas (m3)/kgVS loading
VS reduction (%)
Gas (m3)/kgVS destroyed

ADH

June

December

2.0
0"033
0.217
0"19
30.0
0.63

0.018
0.119
0.10
16.0
0.65

1.1

June

December

2.3
0"038
0.284
0.22
32.0
0-68

1.3
0.021
0.160
0.12
18.0
0.67

"Gas volume corrected to STP (OCand 1 atm. presure)

ing in higher rate of gas production per kg VS fed from A D I I compared
to ADI. The gas production per kg VS destroyed is comparable with the
values 0.64-0.65 m3/kg VS destroyed obtained by Hill et aL i1 for a 1 m 3
plug flow digester fed on dairy manure.
CONCLUSION
Although the A D I I has a lower digester volume and costs less than the
A D I being promoted it produces more biogas throughout the year. The
gas production rate per unit digester volume and per unit VS loaded is
also higher. The higher gas production and storage at comparative low
gas pressure and greater decomposition of VS is attributed to the design
modification resulting in apparent plug flow operation of the digester.
The modified digester A D I I is suggested as a replacement for A D I in
hilly regions of India.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research work is sponsored by the ICAR, Government of India
under its all India coordinated Project on Renewable Energy Sources for
Agriculture and Agro-based industries.
REFERENCES
1. Kalia, A. K. Comparative study of drumless and conventional plants for
production of biogas: water Hyacinth as Source. Indian Chemical Engineer,
25 (1983)22.

Developmentof afixed dome plugflow anaerobicdigester

235

2. Sasse, L. Discussion on fixed dome plants. Biogas Forum, 19, (1985) 1

BORDA, Bermen FRG.
3. Hamed, M. A., Abdel Dayam, A. M. & E1 Haiwagi, M. M. Evaluation of
performance of two rural biogas units of Indian and Chinese Design. Energy
in Agriculture, 1 (1981-83) 235.
4. Khandelwal, K. C. & Mahdi, S. S. Biogas technology. A practical hand
book. Tata McGow-Hill Publishing Co. Ltd, New Delhi, India (1986).
5. Myles, M. R. A practical guide to Janta Biogas plant Technology. Action for
food production (AFPRO), New Delhi, India (1986).
6. Hayes. T. D., Jewell, W. J., Dell'Orto, S., Fanfoni, K. J., Leuschnen, A. P. &
Shermon, D. E Anaerobic Digestion of Cattle Manure. In: Anaerobic Digestion ed. by D. A. Stafford, B. L. Wheatley and B. E. Hughes, Applied
Science Publishers, London ( 1980) pp. 255-88.
7. Hasse, P. R. Flexible biogas holders. In: Storage and Transport of Biogas
FAO/UNDP Regional Project RA/75/004 Project field document No. 23.
Indian National Science Documentation Centre, New Delhi, India (1984)
pp. 27-9.
8. ScheUer, W. A. Commercial experience with a plug flow anaerobic digester
for the production of Biogas from Agricultural and Food Processing Wastes.
In Energy from Biomass: Proceedings of International Conference on
Biomass, 20-23 September 1982, Berlin, ed. A. Strub, P. Chartier & G.
Schleser. Applied Science Publishers, London, (1982) p. 492.
9. Hills, D. J. Intermediate mixed and plug flow digestion of beef feedlot
manure at various water contents. Transactions of the American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, 26(3) (1983) 884.
10. Franson, M. A. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Water
Wastewater. 16th edition, American Public Health Association, Washington,
DC, (1985) 96-8.
11. Hills, D. J. & Mehlschau, J. J. Plug flow digestion of dairy manure at different solid concentrations. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 27(3) (1984) 889.