Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Research paper
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: A kinetic model was built to estimate the optimum working parameters of a downdraft gasifier, in which a set of
Downdraft gasifier chemical kinetics at each zone of the gasifier was described. The model deals with a wide range of biomass types
Kinetic model with elemental composition ranges of (38 ≤ C ≤ 52) %, (5.5 ≤ H ≤ 7) %, and (36 ≤ O ≤ 45) %. This model is
Producer gas able to predict gas composition, tar content, temperature and height of each zone, as well as temperature,
Gasification
velocity and pressure distribution at reduction zone with heating value of product gas. The model also gives full
Biomass
design dimensions of a downdraft gasifier. The final results, which proved to be in a good agreement with
experimental works under different working conditions of biomass type, moisture content, and air-to-fuel ratio,
are based on a new approach that includes calculation of the optimum height of the reduction zone. Calculation
based on the optimum height ensures that all the char produced is consumed in the reduction zone, thus leading
to the production of the maximum amount of gases. Results conclude that biomass with a moisture content less
than 10% and equivalence ratio of 0.3–0.35 leads to the production of higher yield of syngas with low tar
content. In particular, woody biomass materials are found to give the higher heating value for producer gas with
a reasonable amount of tar.
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: a.salem.2@research.gla.ac.uk (A.M. Salem), Manosh.Paul@glasgow.ac.uk (M.C. Paul).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.12.030
Received 12 October 2017; Received in revised form 18 December 2017; Accepted 29 December 2017
Available online 09 January 2018
0961-9534/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.M. Salem, M.C. Paul Biomass and Bioenergy 109 (2018) 172–181
noted that to the best of our knowledge, there appears to be no previous ⎝ RTd ⎠ (2)
model that includes the product gas composition, tar content and a full
design of gasifier. The model will address the gasifier design based on Where, the constants used in the drying model are summarised in
the key parameters like the throat diameter and fuel feeding rate and its Table 1.
effect on other working parameters.
2.2. Pyrolysis model
2. Modelling procedure
Biomass after drying first decomposes into volatiles and char, then
The proposed model is built through a set of chemical kinetic these components further react with each other to form char and vo-
schemes to predict the full design principles for a downdraft gasifier latiles again as shown in Fig. 2. Volatiles contain gases such as CO, CO2,
which depends on a series of reactions taking place in the gasifier. CH4, H2 and H2O, as well as other hydrocarbons, tar and sulphur
Biomass gasification is done through the four main steps: drying, pyr- components. The release of volatiles however depends on the ultimate
olysis, oxidation and gasification/reduction as shown in Fig. 1. A analysis of a biomass and its volatile and ash content. The chemical
schematic drawing of a downdraft gasifier is shown in which biomass is reaction processes occurring in the pyrolysis zone are described by the
fed from the top of the gasifier into the drying zone and air is fed into kinetic equations in Eqns. (3)–(9), [18].
the oxidation zone for combustion process and then the product gas is
driven from the down of the gasifier. The tar is collected in the bottom. Table 1
The model is assumed to be 1D, and all char is consumed in the Data for the drying model [10].
reduction zone and air is used as a gasifying medium. Modelling in-
volves an integration of the four zones and the thermochemical kinetic Ad (s−1) Kd, (s−1) Ed, (kJ mol−1) Td, (K)
processes associated with the main zone elaborately explained in the 5.13 × 10 6
0.1652 88 400
following sections. The output of each zone of gas composition is
173
A.M. Salem, M.C. Paul Biomass and Bioenergy 109 (2018) 172–181
Table 3
Optimum values of non-isothermal pyrolysis [18].
H2O, and tar. The importance of this part is that it gives the final
concentration of char and volatiles; after which the concentration of
char is known at the end of devolatization and is used for the next step
in which the volatiles concentration is predicted.
Sharma [16] introduced a new model to predict the percentage
composition of volatiles and he considered a one-step model for the
biomass pyrolysis as follows
Ca Hb Od → x1 C + x2 CO + x3 CO2 + x 4 CH4 + x5 H2 + x 6 H2 O
Fig. 2. Biomass devolatization.
+ x 7 C6 H6.2 O0.2, (10)
dCB Where Ca Hb Od represents biomass, x is the concentration of different
= −K1 CBn1 − K2 CBn1,
dt (3) species of pyrolysis products in mol, C6H6.2O0.2 is the tar chemical
formula as considered by many researchers e.g. Ref. [16]. The mass
dCG1
= K1 CBn1 − K3 CGn12 CCn13, fraction (Y/Y) empirical relations used are;
dt (4)
YCO 7730.3 5019898
dCC1 = exp ⎛−1.845 + − ⎞,
= K2 CBn1 − K3 CGn12 CCn13, YCO2 ⎝ T T2 ⎠ (11)
dt (5)
174
A.M. Salem, M.C. Paul Biomass and Bioenergy 109 (2018) 172–181
Table 5 Table 7
Rate expressions for oxidation reactions ([16,31]). Rate expressions for the reduction reactions [15].
R Reaction rate (mol m−3 s−1) R Reaction rates (mol m−3 s−1)
1 1 y 2CO
rH 2 = A1 T1.5 exp − ( Eco
RT ). [C co2][C H2]
1.5
( ). ⎛⎝y
r 1 = A1 exp −
E1
RT CO2 −
K eq,1
⎞
⎠
2
rco = A2 exp − ( ). [C ][C ] [C ]
Eco
RT co o2
0.25
H2 O
0.5
2
( )
r2 = A2 exp −
E2 ⎛y H O −
yCO y H2
⎞
RT 2 K eq,2
3
= A exp (− ). [C ] [C ]
ECH 4 0.8 0.7 ⎝ ⎠
rCH 4 3 o2 CH4
RT 3 yCH4
4
rtar = A T . P . exp (−
4
0.3
A ). [C ][C ]
Etar
RT o2 tar
0.5 ( )
r3 = A3 exp −
E3
RT
. ⎛y 2 H2 −
⎝ K eq,3
⎞
⎠
5 4 yCO y3 H2
rC = A5 exp ( E
− char
RT ). [C o 2] ( ). ⎛⎝y
r4 = A 4 exp −
E4
RT
⎜
CH4 y H2 O −
K eq,4
⎞⎟
⎠
same energy balance principle is made for the pyrolysis and reduction reduction zone are obtained and discussed in the result sections.
zones.
Based on the energy balance, assumptions only were made for the 2.5. Gasifier design principles
inlet temperature (298 K), then the temperature profile along the ga-
sifier was calculated. The velocity of pyrolysis gas flow through the gasifier is calculated
from the following equations [10];
2.4. Reduction model
n
2RTp
vg =
P
∑ Ng,i
Production of producer gases starts from the reduction zone and i (19)
hence, a detailed kinetic model was also used at this zone to determine
all the data required along the reduction zone length/height. The 4 x gi mb
Ngi =
change in mole fractions of any gas species at the reduction zone along π D2 (20)
the distance z (reduction height/length) is determined by Ref. [10]; The biomass feeding rate is calculated from Rathore [21] based on
dn x 1 dv the input thermal power (Wth) of a gasifier
= ⎛Rx − n x ⎞
dz v⎝ dz ⎠ (15) WTh
m˙ f =
The reactions considered for the reduction zone are illustrated in HHVf (21)
Table 6. Reaction rates ri are given in Table 7. Equation (22) describes how the throat diameter at the end of
Velocity, temperature, and pressure variations along the reduction combustion zone is calculated.
zone are obtained through the solution of the following differential
equations [15]. 2. 5 m˙ f
GH =
Ath (22)
dv 1 ⎡ ∑i ni Cpi ∑i Ri ∑ ri ΔHi dP ⎛ v v ∑i ni Cpi ⎞
= − i − ⎜ + ⎟ The hearth load (GH) is defined as the amount of produced gas at
dz ∑i ni Cpi ⎢ n T dz ⎝ T P ⎠
⎣ normal conditions per unit area of throat [21]. The recommended value
of GH is within the range of 0.1–1 [21,22], so a value of 0.35 is used in
− ∑ Ri Cpi ⎤⎥
(16) our calculations based on [22,23]. In addition, Ref. [24] reported that
i ⎦
the throat angle of around 45° gives a higher conversion efficiency
dT 1 ⎡ dP dv though in some studies a throat angle of 60° is also recommended. After
dz
= − ∑ ri ΔHi − v
v ∑i ni Cpi ⎢ i dz
−p
dz
− ∑ Ri Cpi T⎤⎥ calculating the throat diameter, the fire box (pyrolysis and drying) zone
⎣ i ⎦ (17)
diameter is estimated by (Ref. [21]),
dP ρgas ⎞ Dpyrolysis = 3.5 Dth (23)
= 1183 ⎛⎜ v 2 ⎟ + 388.19 v − 79.896
dz ⎝ ρair ⎠ (18) The height of drying and pyrolysis is calculated from the ratio of the
In the numerical solution procedure, the set of governing equations volume of biomass consumed to the cross-sectional area of pyrolysis as
stated above is discretized by dividing the reduction zone into equal follows
small zones and solved simultaneously. The initial conditions or the Vpy mbm
inlet conditions of the reduction zone are taken from the outputs of the Hpyrolysis = =
Apy ρbm Apy (24)
combustion zone. The initial pressure and temperature at the reduction
zone inlet were assumed to be 1.005 atm, and 1300 K based on The air nozzle area is given as a ratio of 0.05–0.09 from the throat
([16,20]). The equations were solved with a Matlab code ode45 which area and it is recommended that the air nozzles will be located around
is based on an explicit Runge-Kutta 4th order accurate scheme, giving the oxidation zone with a number of 4–6 nozzles in a position to pre-
the residual tolerances in the order of 10−6. Concentration of the vent any dark zones in combustion [21]. The diameter at which the air
product gases, velocity, temperature, and pressure distribution in the injection starts is in the position where the diameter of the oxidation
zone is 2–2.5 of the throat diameter [24]. Air injection at this diameter
Table 6 will keep away the dark zones at oxidation area. The reduction zone
Reduction reactions [15]. diameter is assumed to be the same diameter of the pyrolysis zone.
R Reactions A (1/s) E (kJ mol−1)
3. Results and discussion
1 Boudouard C + CO2 ↔ 2CO 36.16 77.39
2 Water-gas C + H2 O ↔ CO + H2 1.517 × 104 121.62
3.1. Optimum height of the reduction zone
3 Methane formation C + 2H2 ↔ CH4 4.189 × 10−3 19.21
4 Steam Reforming CH4 + H2 O ↔ CO + 3H2 7.301 × 10−2 36.15
Optimum height of the reduction zone is the height at which char in
175
A.M. Salem, M.C. Paul Biomass and Bioenergy 109 (2018) 172–181
Fig. 3. Effect of varying moisture content (a), equivalence ratio (b) and temperature (c)
on the height of reduction zone.
176
A.M. Salem, M.C. Paul Biomass and Bioenergy 109 (2018) 172–181
Table 8 for different feedstocks at a fixed working condition of power (20 kW)
Comparison between the present and theoretical work for gasifier dimensions. and air-to-fuel ratio (0.35). The results clearly show that a lower
amount of water content in biomass leads to a significant increase in the
Working parameters 20 kW power,
Palm shell, MC 14%, Φ = 0.3 heating value which has a good agreement with [8,11,12]. Moreover,
lower moisture content leads to a significant increase of CO and H2
Model Ojolo [26], which then leads to an increase of the heating value. In contrast, higher
−1 levels of moisture content require more energy for removal, which is
Fuel feed (kg hr ) 4.0 4.32
Hpyr (cm) 48.9 40 never recovered again. This energy loss affects the produced gas and
Hoxd (cm) 11 – reduces its heating value. The results further show that a decrease of
Hred (cm) 30.9 15 biomass moisture content from 20% to 5% leads to an increase of the
20–50 [10] produced gas heating value of 10–22%. On the other hand, Fig. 9 dis-
Dpyr (cm) 22.4 23.8
Dthroat (cm) 6.4 6.8
cusses the effect of moisture content on the produced gas quality. The
Dair injection (cm) 17.9 20 results show that the higher moisture content leads to an obvious in-
crease of tar content. Tar formation starts from the pyrolysis zone and
during combustion, and more water vapour tends to reduce the tar
Table 9 cracking reactions because of a slower reaction rate compared to the CO
Ultimate analysis for different feedstocks used in model. and H2 oxidation. The results also show that a decrease of biomass
moisture content from 20% to 5% leads to decrease of tar content of
Biomass type C% H% O% Experiment results from
about 18–26%. Based on the current study about the effect of moisture
1 Rubber wood 50.6 6.5 42 [27] content on the produced gas, lower amount of moisture leads to higher
2 Wood Pellets 50.7 6.9 42.4 [32] value gases with a lower amount of tar. Recommended values of
3 Gulmohar 44.43 6.16 41.9 [25]
moisture content those give a higher yield and quality of syngas must be
4 Bamboo 48.39 5.86 39.21 [25]
5 Neem 45.1 6 41.5 [25] no more than 10%.
6 Dimaru 44.85 5.98 41.84 [25]
7 Sisham 45.85 5.8 40.25 [25] 3.5. Effect of equivalence ratio on the producer gas quality
8 Saw Dust 52 6.07 41.55 [7]
9 Wood 50 6 44 [33]
10 Olive wood 46.43 5.63 44.91 [34]
Fig. 10 illustrates the effect of changing the equivalence ratio on the
11 Rice husk 38.5 5.5 36.6 [35] producer gas heating value for different feedstocks at fixed working
conditions of power (20 kW), and moisture content (10%). The results
show a gradual increase of the heating value with a decreasing
zone length. However, it was stated in Ref. [26] that the reduction equivalence ratio. Referring to the oxidation reactions and their
length was not based on any known calculations but was based on as- equivalent rate (Table 4), more air supply in the combustion zone en-
sumptions. While Ref. [10] shows that the reduction zone length varies courages the oxidation reactions to occur with more CO2 and H2O. This
from 20 to 50 cm which has a good agreement with the results derived also leads to a decrease in the tar content due to the tar cracking re-
from the present model. action that takes place with more oxygen supply in the oxidation zone,
Table 9 shows the ultimate analysis for different feedstocks used in as clearly seen in Fig. 11. Moreover, the results show an increase in the
the model. A wide range of biomass materials (38 ≤ C%≤52, 5.5 ≤ H producer gas heating value of 25–30% while decreasing Φ from 0.4 to
% ≤ 7, and 36 ≤ O% ≤ 45) are tested with various working conditions 0.2. Tar yield also increases from 16% to 50% with the same level of
to validate the model as presented in Fig. 5. The results of the producer magnitude drop in Φ. Complex tar compounds were not taken into
gases also show a fairly good agreement with other experimental re- account in the current study, and the tar cracking in model depends
sults, which further proves the ability of the kinetic model to operate only on the combustion reactions in Tables 4 and 5.
under different working conditions for a wide range of biomass com- In conclusion, an equivalence ratio of 0.3–0.35 with lower amounts
position. Tar formation is also taken into account which was not dis- of moisture content less than 10%, gives a higher yield of syngas
cussed clearly by any previous numerical models. Additionally, the composition with reasonable amounts of tar content. In particular,
experimental papers, used for the validation of the producer gases, do woody biomass materials give a higher yield of syngas while olive wood
not mention the tar formation, thus other experimental data [27] were has a heating value up to 6.4 MJ/Nm3 at Φ = 0.2 and MC of 10%.
used to validate the results of the tar formation predicted through the Higher value of Φ gives a lower heating value for wood pellets and saw
current model. Fig. 6 comparisons between the experimental [28] and dust. The tar content was also lower for wood (1.65%) at Φ = 0.4.
present work for the tar yield in producer gas. The results show good
agreement which further proves the ability of the present model to si- 3.6. Gasifier design and operating conditions
mulate tar content in the producer gas.
Fig. 7 (a, b) shows the variations of temperature along the gasifier Table 10 illustrates the effect of changing the biomass type on the
where the maximum temperature is located at the oxidation zone. gasifier design. The results show a variation in the fuel feeding rate
Higher moisture content levels require more heat for removal in the dependant on the biomass composition from C, H, and O. There are also
pyrolysis zone as shown in both the figures. The temperature profile small variations predicted in the oxidation and reduction height, pyr-
predicted by the kinetic model also has a very good agreement with that olysis and throat diameter, and air injection area. The gasifier dimen-
of the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) study of biomass gasifica- sions are quite similar for all the types except for the rice husk. Rice
tion carried out recently by Kumar et al. [29] in a downdraft gasifier husk has very low carbon and hydrogen content which affect the
with a volatile break-up approach. heating value of biomass. The decrease in the heating value (based on
equation (21)) leads to an increase in biomass feeding rate, and hence
3.4. Effect of moisture content on the producer gas quality an increase in the corresponding gasifier dimensions to accommodate
the higher mass and volume of biomass.
After validating the current model, it was used to address the op- Varying the thermal power is found to affect the gasifier dimen-
timum working conditions for a gasifier to get higher quality syngas. sions, but it has no effect on the gas composition. The effect of changing
Fig. 8 presents the results of the effect of changing the moisture content thermal power is related to the fuel feeding rate which is again related
on the output producer gas in terms of the higher heating value (HHV) to the volume occupied by biomass inside the gasifier and thus, it
177
A.M. Salem, M.C. Paul Biomass and Bioenergy 109 (2018) 172–181
Fig. 5. Comparison for gas volumetric composition (vertical axis) between the present work and other experimental work for same feedstock, ϕ , and MC. (a) Rubber wood [27], (b) Wood
pellets [36], (c) rice husk [37], (d) Bamboo [25], (e) Neem [25], and (f) saw dust [7].
changes the gasifier design. While changing both of the moisture con-
tent or equivalence ratio (Φ) analysed in the previous sections have a
great effect on the gas composition and its heating value, it is found to
have no effect on the gasifier design.
3.7. Key design parameters and its effect on the working conditions
Throat diameter and fuel feeding rate are the key parameters in
designing a gasifier. All the other dimensions can be generated using
these two parameters. As a result, studying the effect of varying thermal
power from 1 kW to 1 MW for different biomass types is shown in
Figs. 12 and 13. Fig. 12 shows the effect of changing required thermal
Fig. 6. Comparisons between the experimental [28] and present work for the tar yield in
power on the throat diameter design. The results show higher throat
producer gas. area for higher power. This is because higher power requires more
biomass feeding and hence, bigger volume for pyrolysis and combustion
zones.
Fig. 13 shows the effect of changing the required thermal power on
178
A.M. Salem, M.C. Paul Biomass and Bioenergy 109 (2018) 172–181
the biomass feeding rate. The results show a linear variation for the 4. Conclusion
feeding rate as it is calculated from equation (21) which is a linear
relation between the thermal power, feeding rate, and biomass heating The current work presents a four-zone kinetic model for a downdraft
value. gasifier in which the gasification products are determined using a novel
approach that includes an optimum length of the reduction zone. It
gives accurate results for the producer gas composition, tar content, and
179
A.M. Salem, M.C. Paul Biomass and Bioenergy 109 (2018) 172–181
Table 10
Effect of changing biomass on the gasifier design.
180
A.M. Salem, M.C. Paul Biomass and Bioenergy 109 (2018) 172–181
materials give a higher yield of syngas while olive wood has a heating and biomass components, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 67 (Feb 1989).
value up to 6.4 MJ/Nm3 at Φ = 0.2 and MC of 10%. The tar content was [31] F.V. Tinaut, A. Melgar, J.F. Pérez, A. Horrillo, Effect of biomass particle size and air
superficial velocity on the gasification process in a downdraft fixed bed gasifier. An ex-
also lower for wood (1.65%) at Φ = 0.4. perimental and modelling study, Fuel Process. Technol. 89 (2008) 1076–1089.
Future work on the model will try to incorporate a tar destruction [32] M. Fossum, M. Barrio, Operational characteristics of a small-scale stratified downdraft
gasifier, Technologies and Combustion for a Clean Environment Sixth International
system with new techniques to further increase the producer gas Conference, 2001.
heating value. [33] Z.A. Zainal, R. Ali, C.H. Lean, K.N. Seetharamu, Prediction of performance of a downdraft
gasifier using equilibrium modeling for different biomass materials, Energy Convers.
Manag. 42 (2001) 1499–1515.
Acknowledgments [34] R.C. Aiello, D.T. Pedroso, Biomass gasification on a new really tar free downdraft gasifier,
Rev. Ciênc. Exatas (2005) 59–62. Taubaté.
[35] S.J. Yoon, Y.I. Son, Y.K. Kim, J. Lee, Gasification and power generation characteristics of
The first author would like to thank the British Embassy in Egypt rice husk and rice husk pellet using a downdraft fixed-bed gasifier, Renew. Energy 42
and The Egyptian Cultural Affairs and Missions Sector for funding his (2012) 163–167.
[36] M. Barrio, M. Fossum, Operational characteristics of a small-scale stratified downdraft
PhD research study at the University of Glasgow. gasifier, Technologies and Combustion for a Clean Environment Sixth International
Conference, 2001.
[37] S.J. Yoon, Y. Son, Y. Kim, J. Lee, Gasification and power generation characteristics of rice
References
husk and rice husk pellet using a downdraft fixed-bed gasifier, Renew. Energy 42 (2012)
163–167.
[1] P. Basu, Biomass Gasification, Pyrolysis, and Torrefaction. Practical Design and Theory,
second ed., Academic Press, Amsterdam, 2013.
[2] A.M. Sepe, J. Li, M.C. Paul, Assessing biomass steam gasification technologies using a Nomenclature
multi-purpose model, Energy Convers. Manag. 129 (2016) 216–226.
[3] L. Yan, Y. Cao, B. He, On the kinetic modeling of biomass/coal char co-gasification with
steam, Chem. Eng. J. 331 (2018) 435–442. Upper case letters
[4] J. Li, M.C. Paul, P.L. Younger, I. Watson, M. Hossain, S. Welch, Prediction of high-tem-
perature rapid combustion behaviour of woody biomass particles, Fuel 165 (2016)
205–214. A: Pre-exponential factor, (s−1)
[5] X.T. Li, J.R. Grace, C.J. Lim, A.P. Watkinson, H.P. Chen, J.R. Kim, Biomass gasification in C: Concentration (mol/m3)
a circulating fluidized bed, Biomass Bioenergy (2004) 171–193. D: Diameter (m)
[6] A.M. Salem, U. Kumar, A.N. Izaharuddin, H. Dhami, T. Sutardi, M.C. Paul, Advanced E: Energy, (kJ/mol)
numerical methods for the assessment of integrated gasification and CHP generation H: Enthalpy, (kJ/mol)
technologies, in: S. De, A. Agarwal, V. Moholkar, B. Thallada (Eds.), Coal and Biomass K: Kinetic constant, (s−1)
Gasification. Energy, Environment, and Sustainability, Springer, 2018, pp. 307–330. M: Molecular mass, (kg/mol)
[7] C.R. Altafini, P.R. Wander, R.M. Barreto, Prediction of the working parameters of a wood P: Pressure, (Pa)
waste gasifier through an equilibrium model, Energy Convers. Manag. 44 (2003) GH: Hearth Load (Nm3/(h.m2))
2763–2777. T: Temperature, (K)
[8] R. Budhathoki, Three Zone Modeling of Downdraft Biomass Gasification: Equilibrium and
R: Net rate of formation, (mol m−3s−1)
Finite Kinetic Approach, MSC Thesis University of Jyväskylä, 2003.
V: Volume (m3)
[9] S.A. Channiwala, J.K. Ratnadhariya, Three zone equilibrium and kinetic free modeling of
biomass gasifier – a novel approach, Renew. Energy 34 (4) (April 2009) 1050–1058. W: Power (W)
[10] C. Dejtrakulwong, S. Patumsawa, Four zones modeling of the downdraft biomass gasifi-
cation process: effects of moisture content and air to fuel ratio, Energy Procedia 52 (2014)
142–149.
Lower case letters
[11] Z.A. Zainal, R. Ali, C.H. Lean, K.N. Seetharamu, Prediction of performance of a downdraft
gasifier using equilibrium modeling for different biomass materials, Energy Convers. cp: Specific heat at const. pressure, (J mol−1 K−1)
Manag. 42 (12) (August 2001) 1499–1515.
m: Mass, (kg)
[12] A. Dutta, S. Jarungthammachote, Thermodynamic equilibrium model and second law
n: no. of moles, (mol)
analysis of a downdraft waste gasifier, Energy 32 (2007) 1660–1669.
[13] C. Koroneos, S. Lykidou, Equilibrium modeling for a downdraft biomass gasifier for
r: Reaction rate, (mol m−3s−1)
cotton stalks biomass in comparison with experimental data, J. Chem. Eng. Mater. Sci. 2 t: Time, (s)
(4) (April 2011) 61–68. v: Velocity, (ms−1)
[14] M. Vaezi, M.P. Fard, M. Moghiman, On a numerical model for gasification of biomass y: composition fraction
materials, 1st WSEAS Int. Conf. On Computational Chemistry, Cairo, Egypt, 2007 z: Height, (m)
December 29-31.
[15] D.L. Giltrap, R. McKibbin, G.R.G. Barnes, A steady state model of gas-char reactions in a
downdraft biomass gasifier, Sol. Energy 74 (2003) 85–91. Abbreviations
[16] A.K. Sharma, Modeling and simulation of a downdraft biomass gasifier 1. Model devel-
opment and validation, Energy Convers. Manag. 52 (2011) 1386–1396.
[17] P.C. Roy, N. Chakraborty, Modelling of a downdraft biomass gasifier with finite rate ki-
B: biomass
netics in the reduction zone, Int. J. Energy Res. (2009) 833–851. C: char
[18] B.V. Babu, A.S. Chaurasia, Modeling, simulation and estimation of optimum parameters MC: Moisture content, (%)
in pyrolysis of biomass, Energy Convers. Manag. 44 (2003) 2135–2158. AF: Air to fuel ratio
[19] R. Bridgewater, A. Shand, Fuel gas from biomass: status and new modeling approaches, ER: Equivalence ratio
Thermochem. Process. Biomass (1984) 229–254. CRF: Char reactivity factor
[20] P.N. Sheth, B.V. Babu, Modeling and simulation of reduction zone of downdraft biomass HR: Heating rate, (K s−1)
gasifier: effect of char reactivity factor, Energy Convers. Manag. 47 (9) (2006) HHV: Higher heating value (kJ/kg)
2602–2611. G: gases
[21] N.S. Rathore, N.L. Panwar, Y.V. Chiplunkar, Design and techno economic evaluation of Nm3: Normal cubic meter
biomass gasifier for industrial thermal applications, Afr. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 3 (1) Py: pyrolysis
(2009) 6–12.
[22] T.B. Reed, A. Das, Handbook of Biomass Downdraft Gasifier Engine Systems, Solar Energy
Research Institute, USA, 1988. Subscripts
[23] S. Sivakumar, N. Ranjithkumar, S. Ragunathan, Design and development of down draft
wood gasifier, Int. J. Mech. Eng. 2 (2) (May 2013) 1–10.
[24] S. Sivakumar, K. Pitchandi, E. Natarajan, Modelling and simulation of down draft wood A: atmospheric
gasifier, J. Appl. Sci. 8 (1) (2008) 271–279. D: drying
[25] P.P. Dutta, V. Pandey, A.R. Das, S. Sen, D.C. Baruah, Down draft gasification modelling F: fuel
and experimentation of some indigenous biomass for thermal applications, Energy G: Gases
Procedia 54 (2014) 21–34.
I: Species
[26] J.I. Orisaleye, S.J. Ojolo, Design and development of a laboratory scale biomass gasifier,
L: liquid
J. Energy Power Eng. 4 (8) (Aug, 2010) 16–23.
[27] T.H. Jayah, L. Aye, R.J. Fuller, D.F. Stewart, Computer simulation of a downdraft wood
th: thermal
gasifier for tea drying, Biomass Bioenergy 25 (2003) 459–469.
[28] Y. Qin, A. Campen, T. Wiltowski, J. Feng, W. Li, The influence of different chemical
Greek letters
compositions in biomass on gasification tar formation, Biomass Bioenergy 83 (2015)
77–84.
[29] U. Kumar, A.M. Salem, M.C. Paul, Investigating the thermochemical conversion of bio- Ρ: Density
mass in a downdraft gasifier with a volatile break-up approach, Energy Procedia 142C ∑: Summation
(2017) 822–828 EGYPRO33517, PII S1876610217358605.
Δ: Change in state
[30] C.A. Koufopanosi, G. Maschio, A. Lucchesit, Kinetic modelling of the pyrolysis of biomass
181