Design, Fabrication and Testing of Biomass Gasifiers for Small

Sized Internal Combustion Engines

By

ENGR. MUHAMMAD USMAN GHANI

M.Sc. (Hons.) Agricultural Engineering

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

IN
Agricultural Engineering

Department of Farm Machinery & Power

Faculty of Agricultural Engineering & Technology
University of Agriculture,
Faisalabad, Pakistan
2014
With the name of Allah Who is
Most Merciful & Beneficent
 The Controller of Examinations,
University of Agriculture,
Faisalabad.

We, the supervisory committee certify that the contents and form of

thesis submitted by Muhammad Usman Ghani, Regd. No. 2003-ag-2333,

have been found satisfactory and recommend that it be processed for

evaluation by the external examiner (s) for the award of degree.

SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN
(Prof. Dr. Manzoor Ahmad)

MEMBER
(Dr. Anjum Munir)

MEMBER
(Prof. Dr. Asif Tanveer)
 Declaration
I hereby declared that the contents of thesis, entitled “Design, Fabrication and Testing
of Biomass Gasifiers for Small Sized Internal Combustion Engines” are product of
my own research and no part has been copied from any published source(except the
reference, standard mathematical or genetic models/formulae/protocols etc.). I further
declared that this work has not been submitted for award of any other degree/diploma.
The University may take action if the information provided is found inaccurate at any
stage. (In case of any default, the scholar will be proceeded against as per HEC
plagiarism policy).

Muhammad Usman Ghani

2003-ag2333
 DEDICATIONS

In the name of Allah, the most Gracious.

This humble effort is dedicated to
HAZRAT MUHAMMAD
(Sallallah-O-Allah-e-Wasallum)
Highest tower of knowledge and light...…
And to my loving and caring family.

i
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The whole appreciation and glory for ALLAH ALMIGHTY (Jalla Jalalaho), the
Partaker of this universe who lives not in temples, but in the human heart, something
not to be seen, but to be felt… Who has always taken a very special care of me by
blessing me with everything I ever wished or I ever required such as supporting family
members, well pruning by competent teachers, good opportunities and a strong will
power to avail the chances well in time. I offer my humblest thanks to the greatest
social reformer and Madina-tul-Ilm, the HOLY PROPHET HAZRAT MUHAMMAD
(Sallallah-O-Allah-e-Wasallum), for His humanity.

Its matter of utmost pride for me to express my extreme gratitude with the most sincere
prayers to Prof. Dr. Manzoor Ahmad, Chairman, Department of Farm Machinery &
Power, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan for providing me with strategic
and very beneficial advices to step ahead ever. He is just like a trendsetter and a role
model for his students. I feel extremely indebted to him for his most precious and
valuable tips which helped me to be here.

I wish to expose my feelings of pure gratitude to my supervisory committee member Dr.

Anjum Munir, Assistant Professor, Department of Farm Machinery & Power. I regard it
my utmost good fortune to avail his company. He remained much affectionate and
caring to me in spite of his tough routine and assisted me with his sage conference to
bring my little mind at this place. I would like to acknowledge the sincere co -operation
of Prof. Dr. Asif Tanveer, Department of Agronomy, who helped me by providing his
substantial guidance.

I am quite speechless and do have a shortage of words to acknowledge the credit to my

beloved family: my father Muhammad Saeed Ch., Mother Khalida Saeed, Brother Mehr
Shahzad Saeed, Sweet Sisters, beloved wife and caring sister in law for supporting
attitude, marvelous affections, encouragement, ever praying hands; the loving company
of my daughter Zukhruf Zanib, nephews Abdullah, Jawad, Bilal, Ahmad and nieces
Habiba, Meesham and Marwa Noor which makes me quite fresh. Owing to all these
facts, I got strength and boldness to achieve something.

My thanks are also due to the kindness and love of my friends Engr. Ch. Arslan, Dr.
Abdul Ghafoor, Dr. Amir Shakoor, Engr. Hamza Basharat, Engr. Iftikhar-ul-Hassan,
Engr, Kami Ikram, Engr. Ch. Mubi, Engr. Mian Zuhair, Engr. Mian Riaz, Engr.
Shahzad, Engr. Asghar, Engr. Sohail Babar and Muhammad Umair who always
encouraged and supported me

Finally, I apologize if I have caused anger or offense to any body and the errors that
remained in the manuscript are mined alone. May Allah bless all the people with long,
happy and peaceful life (Ameen).

ii
 Abbreviations
BFB Bubbling fluidized bed
C2H2 Acetylene
C2H4 Ethylene
C2H6 Ethane
CFB Circulating fluidized bed
CH4 Methane
cm Centimetres
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CxHx Hydrocarbons
DDFBG Downdraft fixed bed gasifier
EFG Entrained bed gasifier
ER Equivalent Ratio
FBG Fluidised bed gasifier
H2 Hydrogen
HHV High Heating Value
hp Horse Power
KJ kilo joule
KW Kilo Watt
m Meters
m3 Cubic meters
MJ Mega Joule
mm Millimetres
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
MW Mega Watt
N2 Nitrogen
O2 Oxygen
SAES Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences
SO2 Sulphur dioxide
UDFBG Updraft fixed bed gasifier
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Title Page

No. No.
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Biomass energy conversion processes 3
1.1.1 Pyrolysis reactions enthalpy 4
1.1.2 Air gasification reactions enthalpy 5
1.2 Biomass gasifier technologies 5
1.2.1 Downdraft fixed bed gasifier 5
1.2.2 Up-draft fixed bed gasifier 6
1.2.3 Fluidized bed gasifiers 7
1.2.4 Entrained flow gasifier 7
1.2.5 Indirect gasifier 7
1.3 Processing of producer gas 8
Objectives 9
2 Review of Literature 10
3 Materials and Methods 31
3.1 Downdraft gasifier 31
3.1.1 Designing of downdraft gasifier 32
3.1.1.1 Specification of the downdraft gasifier 33
3.1.1.2 Fabrication of throat 34
3.1.1.3 Nozzles adjustment 35
3.1.1.4 Construction of gasifier body 35
3.1.1.5 Safety valve 35
3.1.1.6 Circular grate 36
3.1.1.7 Air regulating valves 36

3.1.1.8 Firing valve 36

3.1.1.9 Ash removal outlet 36

iii
 3.1.1.10 Gas outlet pipe 37
3.1.1.11 Modified blower with speed controller 37
3.1.2 Production of the producer/syn gas downdraft gasifier 38
3.1.2.1 Operation of downdraft gasifier 39
3.1.2.2 Starting up 40
3.1.2.3 Closing down 40
3.2 Design and development of updraft gasifier 41
3.2.1 Construction of updraft gasifier 42
3.2.1.1 Reaction chamber with insulation cover 45
3.2.1.2 Gas collection/outlet unit 45
3.2.1.3 Ash pit with grate 45
3.2.1.4 Blower with speed controller 45
3.2.1.5 Fuel hopper for fuel storage 46
3.2.1.6 Fuel conveying screw auger 46
3.2.1.7 Stand for supporting the whole unit 46
3.3 Comparison of updraft to downdraft gasification systems 48
3.4 Producer gas upgrading unit 48
3.4.1 Gas quality requirements for trouble free operation of engine 48
3.4.1.1 Water showering/cooling unit 50
3.4.1.2 Gas cleaning unit 51
3.5 Testing evaluation of the gasification system 53
3.5.1 Evaluation of the gasifiers 53
3.5.1.1 Gas analysis 53
3.5.1.2 Temperature of the gas 54
3.5.1.3 Velocity of gas 54
3.5.1.4 Volume of gas produced 55
3.5.1.5 Tar contents 55
3.5.2 Performance evaluation of the cooling and cleaning unit 55
3.5.2.1 Temperature 55
3.5.2.2 Tar contents 55

iv
3.6 Engine test 56
3.7 Statistical analysis 56
3.8 Factors effecting on gasification 57
3.8.1 Energy Content of the fuel 57
3.8.2 Fuel moisture contents 57
3.8.3 Size Distribution of the Fuel 57
3.8.4 Temperature of the Reactor 58
3.8.5 Volatile matter content of the fuel 58
3.8.6 Ash content and ash chemical composition 58
3.8.7 Reactivity of the fuel 59
3.8.8 Bulk density of the fuel 59
3.9 Assessment of the suitability of various types of biomass as gasifier 59
fuel
3.9.1 Wood 59
3.9.2 Coal and charcoal 59
3.9.3 Agricultural crop residues 60
3.9.4 Corncobs (pith) 60
3.9.5 Rice husk 61
3.10 Conversion of gasoline engine to producer gas 61
3.11 Conversion of diesel engine to producer gas 62
3.12 Operating hazards of gasifiers 62
3.12.1 Environmental hazard 62
3.12.2 Toxic hazards 63
3.12.3 Fire hazards 63
3.12.4 Explosion hazards 63
3.13 Safety measures 63
3.14 Calibration of instruments 64
3.14.1 Calibration of Gas Analyser 64
3.15 Effect of varying conditions on gasifier performance 65
3.15.1 Air flow rate 65
3.15.2 Effect of the feed-air temperature on tar content 65

v
 3.15.3 Effect of biomass type 65
4 Results and Discussions 66
4.1 Design and fabrication of downdraft gasifier 66
4.1.1 Fabrication of throat section 66
4.1.2 Nozzles adjustment 66
4.1.3 Construction of gasifier body 67
4.1.4 Safety valve 69
4.1.5 Air regulating valves 69
4.1.6 Ash removal outlet 69
4.1.7 Gas outlet pipe 70
4.2 Design and development of updraft gasifier 70
4.2.1 Construction of updraft gasifier 70
4.2.2 Reaction chamber with insulation cover 70
4.2.3 Gas collection unit 72
4.2.4 Ash pit with grate 73
4.2.5 Bolted flange 74
4.2.6 Fuel hopper for fuel storage 74
4.2.7 Fuel conveying screw auger 76
4.3 Producer gas upgrading unit 77
4.3.1 Water showering/cooling unit 77
4.3.2 Gas cleaning unit 79
4.4 Performance evaluation of the gasification system 82
4.5 Performance evaluation of downdraft gasifier 82
4.5.1 Running time of downdraft gasifier 82
4.5.2 Volume of gas produced 84
4.5.3 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 85
4.5.4 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 86
4.5.5 Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) 88
4.5.6 Nitric Oxide (NO) 89
4.5.7 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 90

vi
 4.5.8 Hydrocarbons 91
4.5.9 Tar contents 93
4.6 Performance evaluation of updraft gasifier 94
4.6.1 Running time of updraft gasifier 95
4.6.2 Volume of gas produced with different Biomass in updraft gasifier 96
4.6.3 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 97
4.6.4 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 99
4.6.5 Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) 100
4.6.6 Nitric Oxide (NO) 101
4.6.7 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 102
4.6.8 Hydrocarbons (CxHx) 103
4.6.9 Tar contents 105
4.7 Evaluation of conditioning unit 107
4.7.1 Cooling efficiency of conditioning unit 107
4.7.2 Cleaning Efficiency of Conditioning Unit 108
4.8 Cost analysis 110
4.8.1 Fixed cos 110
4.8.1.1 Depreciation cost 110
4.8.1.2 Interest cost 111
4.8.1.3 Housing cost 111
4.8.1.4 Insurance cost 112
4.8.1.5 Taxes 112
4.8.2 Variable costs 112
4.8.2.1 Repair and maintenance cost 112
4.8.2.2 Fuel and lubrication cost 113
4.8.2.3 Labour cost 113
4.8.3 Assumptions for the cost analysis 113
4.8.4 Cost analysis for downdraft gasifier 114
4.8.5 4.8.5 Cost analysis for updraft gasifier 115
5 Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations 117

vii
References 121
Appendix 131

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page

No. No.
2.1 Size distribution of wood chips for gasification 24
3.1 Suitable nozzles for biomass gas generator operating with four stroke engines 34
4.1 Analysis of variance for running time of downdraft gasifier for different fuels 82
4.2 Analysis of variance for the volume of gas produced in downdraft gasifier 83
4.3 Analysis of variance for Carbon Monoxide (CO) present in the producer gas 85
4.4 Analysis of variance for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the Producer Gas 86
4.5 Analysis of variance for Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) Present in the Producer Gas 87
4.6 Analysis of variance for Nitric Oxide (NO) Present in the Producer Gas 89
4.7 Analysis of variance for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Present in the Producer Gas 90
4.8 Analysis of variance for Hydrocarbons (HxCx) in the producer gas 91
4.9 Analysis of variance for tar contents present in the producer gas 92
4.10 Analysis of variance for running time of updraft gasifier for different fuels 94
4.11 Analysis of variance for the volume of gas produced in updraft gasifier 96
4.12 Analysis of variance for Presence of Carbon Monoxide in the Producer Gas 97
4.13 Analysis of variance for Presence of Carbon Dioxide in the Producer Gas 98
4.14 Analysis of variance for Presence of Sulphur Dioxide in the Producer Gas 100
4.15 Analysis of variance for Presence of Nitric Oxide in the Producer Gas 101
4.16 Analysis of variance for Presence of Nitrogen Dioxide in the Producer Gas 102
4.17 Analysis of variance for presence of Hydrocarbons in the producer gas 103
4.18 Analysis of variance for presence of tar contents in the producer gas 104
4.19 Cooling efficiency of conditioning unit 106
4.20 Cleaning efficiency of conditioning unit 108
4.21 Fixed cost per year for the downdraft gasifier 113
4.22 Variable cost per year for downdraft gasifier. 113
4.23 Total variable cost including fuel price per hr. 114

ix
4.24 Fixed cost per year for the downdraft gasifier 114
4.25 Variable cost per hour of updraft gasifier 115
4.26 Total variable cost including fuel price per hr for updraft gasifier 115

x
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page

No. No.
1.1 Gasification Process: temperature ranges of each stage are illustrated 4
1.2 Downdraught gasifier 6
1.3 Updraft gasifier 7
2.1 Combustible gas production in catalytic gasification of rice straw 10
2.2 Composition of producer gas during the experiment 11
2.3 Volume of gas produced 14
2.4 Gas composition of wood chips experiments during a batch operation 16
2.5 Gas composition of hazelnut shells experiments during a batch operation 16
2.6 Effect of equivalence ratio on producer gas production rate per unit weight 22
of biomass and on cold gas efficiency
2.7 Effect of equivalence ratio on calorific value of producer gas 22
3.1 Schematic of a downdraft gasifier 32
3.2 Circular grate provided below hearth zone 36
3.3 Isometric view of modified blower fan with speed controller 37
3.4 Schematic of an updraft gasifier 42
3.5 Schematic of updraft, batch gasifier designed by Bowser et al. (2005). 43
3.6 Isometric view of the blower 46
3.7 Front and top view of stand for supporting fuel hopper 47
3.8 Front and top view of stand for supporting updraft gasifier 47
3.9 Schematic Diagram of sand bed filter to clean producer gas 51
3.10 IMR 2800P Gas Analyzer with sampling probe 53
3.11 Kane automotive 2 gas analyzer 54
3.12 ETI 2002 K-type thermocouple 54
3.13 TECPEL AVM-715 digital anemometer 55
3.14 Copper tube condenser used to measure the tar quantity 56
4.1 Front and top view of throat section 66

xi
4.2 Isometric view of the throat 66
4.3 Front and top view of downdraft gasifier showing the dimensions of the 67
gasifier body
4.4 Isometric view of the downdraft gasifier 67
4.5 Inside view of the downdraft gasifier 68
4.6 Front and top view of reaction chamber 69
4.7 Isometric view of the reaction/gasification chamber 70
4.8 Front and top views insulation cover 70
4.9 Isometric view of the insulation cover 70
4.10 Front view of gas collection chamber 71
4.11 Isometric view of gas collection chamber with outlet pipe and valve 71
4.12 Front and top view of the ash chamber 72
4.13 Isometric view of the ash pit 73
4.14 Top view of bolted flange 73
4.15 Front and top view of the fuel hopper 74
4.16 Isometric view of the fuel hopper 74
4.17 Front view of pipe connecting the fuel hopper with gasifier assembly 75
4.18 Side view of pipe connecting the fuel hopper with gasifier assembly 75
4.19 Front vie of the screw auger conveyor 76
4.20 Side view of the screw auger with handle 76
4.21 Front and top view of the cooling unit/tower 77
4.22 Isometric view of the cooling unit/tower 77
4.23 Gas cooling unit/tower attached with the downdraft gasifier 78
4.24 Front view of the gas cleaning unit 79
4.25 Top view of the gas cleaning unit 79
4.26 Isometric view of the producer gas cleaning unit 79
4.27 Wire meshes used in filter 80
4.28 Schematic of complete downdraft gasification system 80
4.29 Schematic of complete updraft gasification system 80
4.30 Graph for the effect of treatments on running time of downdraft gasifier 82
4.31 Graph for effect of treatments on volume of gas produced 84

xii
4.32 Graph for the effect of treatments on the production of CO 85
4.33 Graphical presentation of the effect of treatments on CO2 86
4.34 Graphical presentation of the effect of treatments on SO2 88
4.35 Graphical presentation of the effect of treatments on NO 89
4.36 Graphical presentation of the effect of treatments on NO2 90
4.37 Graph for the effect of treatments on the production of CxHx 91
4.38 Graph for the effect of treatments on tar production in downdraft gasifier 93
4.39 Graph for the effect of treatments on running time of updraft gasifier 95
4.40 Graph for effect of treatments on volume of gas produced 96
4.41 Graph for the effect of treatments on the production of CO 97
4.42 Graph for the effect of treatments on the production of CO2 99
4.43 Graph for the effect of treatments on the production of SO2 100
4.44 Graph for the effect of treatments on the production of NO 101
4.45 Graph for the effect of treatments on the production of NO2 102
4.46 Graph for the effect of treatments on the production of CxHx 103
4.47 Graph for the effect of treatments on tar production in downdraft gasifier 105
4.48 Graph for the cooling efficiency of conditioning system 107
4.49 Graph for the tar removal efficiency of the conditioning system 108

xiii
 ABBREVIATIONS
BFB Bubbling fluidized bed
C2H2 Acetylene
C2H4 Ethylene
C2H6 Ethane
CFB Circulating fluidized bed
CH4 Methane
cm Centimetres
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CxHx Hydrocarbons
DDFBG Downdraft fixed bed gasifier
EFG Entrained bed gasifier
ER Equivalent Ratio
FBG Fluidised bed gasifier
H2 Hydrogen
HHV High Heating Value
hp Horse Power
KJ kilo joule
KW Kilo Watt
m3 Cubic meters
MJ Mega Joule
mm Millimetres
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
MW Mega Watt
N2 Nitrogen
O2 Oxygen
SAES Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences
SO2 Sulphur dioxide
UDFBG Updraft fixed bed gasifier

xiv
 ABSTRACT
Energy is necessary for human beings existence, which supports for the modernization of the
community. Biomass has been one of the main energy sources of mankind ever since the dawn of
civilization, though its significance subsided after the Second World War due to the cheaper and
easily useable fossil fuels (oil and gas). In developing countries, biomass is a main source of energy
in rural areas. Mostly the biomass is burned open to the atmosphere to get heat energy, which lost
a huge amount of energy and also increases the air pollution. Due to the depletion and excessive
use of fossil fuel resources, the prices of petroleum products are increasing day by day. In Pakistan,
agriculture sector is suffer very badly due to unavailability and high cost of energy as the major
source of farm power are diesel engines and tractors, which increases the cost of production.
Gasification is the most reliable and best alternate to get the energy from the biomass. Gasifiers
are the reactors which converts the solid fuels into the gaseous fuels. The biomass can easily be
converted into useful gas which can be used to run engines comprehensively. Keeping these points
in mind, a research study was carried out at the workshop, Department of Farm Machinery and
Power, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. In this study, complete small scale
gasification system was designed and fabricated to run 15 to 18.64 kW (20-25 hp) diesel engine
for tube well to reduce the cost of operation. Downdraft and updraft type gasifiers were designed
and fabricated for the production of producer gas. A conditioning unit (cooling and cleaning units)
was also fabricated for upgrading producer gas to internal combustion engine quality fuel. The
whole system was then evaluated for its performance with different aspects. Completely
randomized design (CRD) was used to statistically analyze the collected data. The average gas
produced in the downdraft gasifier was found to be 74.26 m3 and in updraft gasifier was 69.72m3
with same (30 kg) quantity of different biomass fuel. The data revealed that in downdraft gasifier,
2.64 m3/kg, 2.21 m3/kg and 2.58m3/kg of producer gas was produced from charcoal, corncobs and
coal respectively. While the burning of ricehusk, ricehusk + saw dust and saw dust produced 2.13
m3/kg, 2.30 m3/kg and 2.54 m3/kg producer gas respectively in updraft gasifier. The engine running
time (hours) was recorded 1.96, 1.61, 1.91, 1.66, 1.78 and 1.90 with charcoal, corncobs, coal,
ricehusk, ricehusk + sawdust and with sawdust respectively. The downdraft gasifier produces less
tar contents as compared to the updraft gasifier. The cooling and cleaning efficiency of newly
fabricated conditioning unit was 84 % and 98 % respectively. The gas produced was used to run a

xv
15 kW single cylinder diesel engine with dual fuel (25% diesel and 75% producer gas) at rated
rpm successfully. The cost analysis shows that it is economically beneficial to run engine on dual
fuel mode as compared to use diesel only.

xvi
 List of Figures
Figure Title Page
No. No.
1.1 Gasification Process: temperature ranges of each stage are illustrated 4
1.2 Downdraught gasifier 6
1.3 Updraft gasifier 7
2.1 Combustible gas production in catalytic gasification of rice straw 10
2.2 Composition of producer gas during the experiment 11
2.3 Volume of gas produced 14
2.4 Gas composition of wood chips experiments during a batch operation 16
2.5 Gas composition of hazelnut shells experiments during a batch operation 16
2.6 Effect of equivalence ratio on producer gas production rate per unit 22
weight of biomass and on cold gas efficiency
2.7 Effect of equivalence ratio on calorific value of producer gas 22
3.1 Schematic of a downdraft gasifier 32
3.2 Circular grate provided below hearth zone 36
3.3 Isometric view of modified blower fan with speed controller 37
3.4 Schematic of an updraft gasifier 42
3.5 Schematic of updraft, batch gasifier designed by Bowser et al. (2005). 43
3.6 Isometric view of the blower 46
3.7 Front and top view of stand for supporting fuel hopper 47
3.8 Front and top view of stand for supporting updraft gasifier 47
3.9 Schematic Diagram of sand bed filter to clean producer gas 51
3.10 IMR 2800P Gas Analyzer with sampling probe 53
3.11 Kane automotive 2 gas analyzer 54
3.12 ETI 2002 K-type thermocouple 54
3.13 TECPEL AVM-715 digital anemometer 55
3.14 Copper tube condenser used to measure the tar quantity 56
4.1 Front and top view of throat section 67

vii
4.2 Isometric view of the throat 67
4.3 Front and top view of downdraft gasifier showing the dimensions of the 68
gasifier body
4.4 Isometric view of the downdraft gasifier 68
4.5 Inside view of the downdraft gasifier 69
4.6 Front and top view of reaction chamber 70
4.7 Isometric view of the reaction/gasification chamber 71
4.8 Front and top views insulation cover 71
4.9 Isometric view of the insulation cover 71
4.10 Front view of gas collection chamber 72
4.11 Isometric view of gas collection chamber with outlet pipe and valve 72
4.12 Front and top view of the ash chamber 73
4.13 Isometric view of the ash pit 74
4.14 Top view of bolted flange 74
4.15 Front and top view of the fuel hopper 75
4.16 Isometric view of the fuel hopper 75
4.17 Front view of pipe connecting the fuel hopper with gasifier assembly 76
4.18 Side view of pipe connecting the fuel hopper with gasifier assembly 76
4.19 Front vie of the screw auger conveyor 77
4.20 Side view of the screw auger with handle 77
4.21 Front and top view of the cooling unit/tower 78
4.22 Isometric view of the cooling unit/tower 78
4.23 Gas cooling unit/tower attached with the downdraft gasifier 79
4.24 Front view of the gas cleaning unit 80
4.25 Top view of the gas cleaning unit 80
4.26 Isometric view of the producer gas cleaning unit 80
4.27 Wire meshes used in filter 81
4.28 Isometric view of the complete downdraft gasification system 81
4.29 Isometric view of the complete updraft gasification system 81
4.30 Graph for the effect of treatments on running time of downdraft gasifier 83
4.31 Graph for effect of treatments on volume of gas produced 85

viii
4.32 Graph for the effect of treatments on the production of CO 86
4.33 Graphical presentation of the effect of treatments on CO2 87
4.34 Graphical presentation of the effect of treatments on SO2 88
4.35 Graphical presentation of the effect of treatments on NO 90
4.36 Graphical presentation of the effect of treatments on NO2 91
4.37 Graph for the effect of treatments on the production of CxHx 92
4.38 Graph for the effect of treatments on tar production in downdraft gasifier 93
4.39 Graph for the effect of treatments on running time of updraft gasifier 95
4.40 Graph for effect of treatments on volume of gas produced 96
4.41 Graph for the effect of treatments on the production of CO 98
4.42 Graph for the effect of treatments on the production of CO2 99
4.43 Graph for the effect of treatments on the production of SO2 100
4.44 Graph for the effect of treatments on the production of NO 101
4.45 Graph for the effect of treatments on the production of NO2 102
4.46 Graph for the effect of treatments on the production of cxhx 104
4.47 Graph for the effect of treatments on tar production in downdraft gasifier 105
4.48 Graph for the cooling efficiency of conditioning system 107
4.49 Graph for the tar removal efficiency of the conditioning system 108

ix
 List of Tables
Table Title Page
No. No.
2.1 Size distribution of wood chips for gasification 24
3.1 Suitable nozzles for biomass gas generator operating with four stroke engines 34
4.1 Analysis of variance for running time of downdraft gasifier for different fuels 83
4.2 Analysis of variance for the volume of gas produced in downdraft gasifier 84
4.3 Analysis of variance for Carbon Monoxide (CO) present in the producer gas 86
4.4 Analysis of variance for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the Producer Gas 87
4.5 Analysis of variance for Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) Present in the Producer Gas 88
4.6 Analysis of variance for Nitric Oxide (NO) Present in the Producer Gas 89
4.7 Analysis of variance for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Present in the Producer Gas 91
4.8 Analysis of variance for Hydrocarbons (HxCx) in the producer gas 92
4.9 Analysis of variance for tar contents present in the producer gas 93
4.10 Analysis of variance for running time of updraft gasifier for different fuels 95
4.11 Analysis of variance for the volume of gas produced in updraft gasifier 96
4.12 Analysis of variance for Presence of Carbon Monoxide in the Producer Gas 97
4.13 Analysis of variance for Presence of Carbon Dioxide in the Producer Gas 99
4.14 Analysis of variance for Presence of Sulphur Dioxide in the Producer Gas 100
4.15 Analysis of variance for Presence of Nitric Oxide in the Producer Gas 101
4.16 Analysis of variance for Presence of Nitrogen Dioxide in the Producer Gas 102
4.17 Analysis of variance for presence of Hydrocarbons in the producer gas 104
4.18 Analysis of variance for presence of tar contents in the producer gas 105
4.19 Cooling efficiency of conditioning unit 106
4.20 Cleaning efficiency of conditioning unit 108
4.21 Fixed cost per year for the downdraft gasifier 113
4.22 Variable cost per year for downdraft gasifier. 113
4.23 Total variable cost including fuel price per hr. 114
4.24 Fixed cost per year for the downdraft gasifier 114

x
4.25 Variable cost per hour of updraft gasifier 115
4.26 Total variable cost including fuel price per hr for updraft gasifier 115

xi
 ABSTRACT
Energy is necessary for human beings existence, which supports for the modernization of the
community. Biomass has been one of the main energy sources of mankind ever since the dawn
of civilization, though its significance subsided after the Second World War due to the cheaper
and easily useable fossil fuels (oil and gas). In developing countries, biomass is a main source
of energy in rural areas. Mostly the biomass is burned open to the atmosphere to get heat
energy, which lost a huge amount of energy and also increases the air pollution. Due to the
depletion and excessive use of fossil fuel resources, the prices of petroleum products are
increasing day by day. In Pakistan, agriculture sector is suffer very badly due to unavailability
and high cost of energy as the major source of farm power are diesel engines and tractors,
which increases the cost of production. Gasification is the most reliable and best alternate to
get the energy from the biomass. Gasifiers are the reactors which converts the solid fuels into
the gaseous fuels. The biomass can easily be converted into useful gas which can be used to
run engines comprehensively. Keeping these points in mind, a research study was carried out
at the workshop, Department of Farm Machinery and Power, University of Agriculture,
Faisalabad, Pakistan. In this study, complete small scale gasification system was designed and
fabricated to run 15 to 18.64 kW (20-25 hp) diesel engine for tube well to reduce the cost of
operation. Downdraft and updraft type gasifiers were designed and fabricated for the
production of producer gas. A conditioning unit (cooling and cleaning units) was also designed
for upgrading producer gas to internal combustion engine quality fuel. The whole system was
then evaluated for its performance with different aspects. Completely randomized design
(CRD) was used to statistically analyse the collected data. The average gas produced in the
downdraft gasifier was found to be 74.26 m3 and in updraft gasifier was 69.72m3 with same
(30 kg) quantity of different biomass fuel. The data revealed that in downdraft gasifier, 2.64
m3/kg, 2.21 m3/kg and 2.58m3/kg of producer gas was produced from charcoal, corncobs and
coal respectively. While the burning of ricehusk, ricehusk + saw dust and saw dust produced
2.13 m3/kg, 2.30 m3/kg and 2.54 m3/kg producer gas respectively in updraft gasifier. The engine
running time (hours) was recorded 1.96, 1.61, 1.91, 1.66, 1.78 and 1.90 with charcoal,
corncobs, coal, ricehusk, ricehusk + sawdust and with sawdust respectively. The downdraft
gasifier produces less tar contents as compared to the updraft gasifier. The cooling and cleaning
efficiency of newly fabricated conditioning unit was 84 % and 98 % respectively. The gas
produced was enough to run a 15 kW diesel engine with dual fuel (25% diesel and 75%
producer gas) at rated rpm successfully. The cost analysis shows that it is economically
beneficial to run engine on dual fuel mode as compared to use diesel only.
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
Energy is fundamental to the quality of our lives. Nowadays, we are totally
dependent on abundant and uninterrupted supply of energy for living and working. It is a
key ingredient in all sectors of modern economies. We know that energy demand will
increase significantly in the future. How then will we satisfy this huge energy requirement
in an environmentally friendly way? The answer is alternate energy. Alternative energy is
any energy that is produced from sources other than fossil fuel energy. Renewable energy
is any source of energy that doesn't consume the finite resources of the Earth and can be
easily and quickly replenished. At present only a small proportion of the world's energy
needs come from alternative and renewable energy sources. These exist in many forms
including solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, hydro, tidal/wave and bioenergy (including
biomass, biogas and biofuels).

For countries like Pakistan (rich in natural resources and with a population of over
180 millions), the importance of alternate/renewable energy becomes even more critical
due to the fact of limited hydro potential and water resource management. Furthermore a
growing disparity between energy demands and supply in Pakistan over a period of time,
further poses threat to our long term survivability and existence as a just nation (Nawaz,
2013).

In Pakistan the shortage of electricity and natural gas is up to 5,300 MW and 17

million m3/day respectively (Asif, 2011). The electricity is generated by sources such as
hydropower, oil, coal, gas and nuclear were used 33.60%, 35.10%, 0.10%, 27% and 3.90%
respectively in 2010 to 2011. It is understandable that for large scale power production in
Pakistan hydropower is the only sustainable energy source (Mirza et al., 2011).

This shortage of energy creates a negative impact on industry and agricultural

performance. It also affects the economy and living hood of the residents. To overcome the
problem the government implements its first renewable energy policy in 2006. The
availability of solid waste in Pakistan as biomass, crop residue and animal/poultry manure
is about 0.05, 0.225 and 1 million tons on daily basis respectively and of about 5700 MW
electricity can be produced from fibrous residue remaining after sugarcane. This shares
approximately 6.6% of Pakistan’s existing power production level (Harijan et al., 2008).

1
 In many parts of the world biomass is utilized /used as energy source especially for
remote areas where supply of high quality fossil fuels is not possible or costly. Biomass is
a central substitute energy basis. The word biomass means the natural substances which are
obtained from plant. The availability of biomass for energy purpose includes herbaceous
and woody energy crops, agriculture food and feed crops, agriculture crops waste and
residue, sawdust and other carbonaceous waste materials include municipal wastes. The
major sources which are helpful in producing alternative resources are sun, wind, water and
biomass. The supply of energy from these resources is available in plenty (Masud, 2009).

Biomass is the cheapest and easily available material that can be used as alternative
energy resource. Two types of biomass resources are wet biomass and dry biomass. Wet
biomass includes molasses, starches and manure while dry biomass includes woody,
agricultural materials and residues. The biomass can be obtained via natural process or as
a result of human activities. Water contents, energy heating values, percentage of fixed and
volatiles, ash/residue content, alkali metal content are the properties to be assessed during
the process of converting biomass into energy.

The chemical energy stored in organic materials can be converted to more usable
forms through one of three conversion schemes: biochemical, chemical or thermo-
chemical. Biochemical and chemical conversion methods are only possible with certain
types of biomass material, but most biomass materials can be thermo-chemically converted,
making it a favourable option (Sims, 2003).

Pyrolysis and gasification from biomass energy conversion technologies have been
considered to promote utilization of renewable/alternate energy and helps in solving
environmental issues. After the process of gasification producer gas is a reliable product
obtained from biomass. The exploitation of energy obtained from biomass gasification in
power plants can generate maximum efficiencies up to 40%.

Energy generated from biomass act as main alternative energy source to luxurious
energy assets. By use of burning and cleaning techniques it can be converted into an
economical fuel. The internal combustion engine operation would be possible by using
wood, charcoal and coal gasifiers. Almost 9 million vehicles were fuelled by gasifiers all
over the world during Second World War (Breag and Chittenden, 1979).

2
 The biomass can be converted to liquid fuels by three different ways i.e. direct
liquefaction of biomass, fast pyrolysis and gasification of biomass to synthesis gas and then
converted to liquid fuels by catalytic conversion or indirect liquefaction.

Biomass resources includes different types of residues such that wood wastes from
wood industry and forestry, animal manure, agricultural residues, residues from paper and
food industries, municipal wastes, sludge from sewage, dedicated energy crops such as the
grasses, sugarcane, sorghum, maize, wheat, rice, cotton, sunflower, jatropha and palm oil.

It is estimated that annually about 146 billion metric tons of biomass material is
generated throughout the world. To meet the power requirement and ensure fuel supply
biomass can be well thought-out as the most reliable option because it has a capability to
meet up the power requirements. (Balat and Ayar, 2005).

Gasification is a process of conversion of solid carbonaceous fuel into combustible

gas by partial combustion. The resulting gas, known as producer gas, is more versatile in
its use than the original solid biomass (Sheth and Babu, 2009). Producer gas consists of
carbon monoxide, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, methane, traces of higher hydrocarbons such
as ethane and ethylene, water vapour, nitrogen (if air is the oxidizing agent) and various
contaminants such as small char particles, ash, tar and oil. This producer gas must contain
enough carbon monoxide, hydrogen, acetylene and other hydrocarbons to be combustible
(Mayer, 1988).
The generation of burnable gases from biomass is an aged skill. The ignition of
biomass in the insufficient supply or absence of oxygen is termed as pyrolysis. Coal gas
was used for heating and cooking function from last few centuries. In France 1840 first
commercial gasifier was built. In 1861 Siemens Gasifier was introduced and a real
breakthrough was made. In Paris, first 448 kW engine was operated with gasifier and was
exhibited in 1900. Up to 1939 in Sweden, there were 250,000 vehicles which were
registered. About 90% of them were running on producer gas. The fuel used for gasification
was 40% wood and 60% charcoal (Rajvanshi, 1986).

1.1 Biomass energy conversion processes

Biomass is the solar energy stored in chemical form in plant and animal materials
and is among the most precious and versatile resources on earth. It provides not only food
but also energy, building materials, paper, fabrics, medicines and chemicals. Today,
biomass fuels can be utilized for tasks ranging from heating to fuelling automobiles. In this

3
respect, biomass is considered the renewable energy source with the highest potential to
contribute to the energy needs of modern society for both the developed and developing
economies world-wide because the prospects for production at competitive costs are vast
(Anonymous, 2004). Figure 1.1 shows the gasification processes at different stages and
temperature ranges for the production of syn gas.

Figure 1.1 Gasification process: temperature ranges of each stage are illustrated

It is estimated that at standard temperature about 2.5m3 of gas is obtained from 1

kg of biomass after gasification progression. About 1.5m3 of air is required for burning of
fuel. For complete burning of wood as a fuel about 4.5m3 of air is mandatory. Concerning
33% of theoretical stoichiometric ratio for wood ignition is utilized by biomass through
gasification process (Schapfer, 1937).

Many different chemical reactions are involved in the processes of pyrolysis and
gasification. These reactions, which depend on the process parameters and use C6H10O5 to
model biomass, includes (Klass, 1998).

1.1.1 Pyrolysis reactions enthalpy

1. C6H10O5 → 5 H2 + 5 CO + C 209 kJ @ 727°C

2. C6H10O5 → 3 H2 + 5 CO + CH4 120 kJ @ 727°C

3. C6H10O5 → 2 H2 + 4 CO + CH4 + H2O + C -16 kJ @ 727°C

4. C6H10O5 → H2 + 3 CO + 2 CH4 + CO2 -140 kJ @ 727°C

5. C6H10O5 → H2 + 3 CO + CH4 + 2 H2O + 2C -152 kJ @ 727°C

6. C6H10O5 → 2 CO + 2 CH4 + CO2 + H2O + C -276 kJ @ 727°C

4
1.1.2 Air gasification reactions enthalpy

1. C6H10O5 + 0.5O2 → 5H2 + 6CO 96 kJ @ 727°C

2. C6H10O5 + O2 → 4H2 + 6CO + H2O -142 kJ @ 727°C

3. C6H10O5 + O2 → 5H2 + 5CO + CO2 -180 kJ @ 727°C

4. C6H10O5 + 1.5O2 → 3H2 + 6CO + 2H2O -389 kJ @ 727°C

5. C6H10O5 + 1.5O2 → 5H2 + 4CO + 2CO2 -464 kJ @ 727°C

6. C6H10O5 + 2O2 → 5H2 + 3CO + 3CO2 -745 kJ @ 727°C

Gasification is the most efficient process for utilizing biomass as energy. A syngas
with less heating contents have been produced from simple gasification. The product
obtained from this simple gasification can be used to run engines for small scale power
production. Gasifiers coupled to engines, provide mechanical power which can be used for
running automobiles and other stationary engines which can run a number of machines.

The use of downdraught gasifiers using wood and charcoal as fuel to power cars,
buses, trains, boats and ships have already proved their worth in the last century. Before
and during World War II, gasifiers were the major source to power the vehicles in many
parts of the world. Most of the gasoline and diesel driven engines were converted to run on
producer gas during that period (Onchieku et al., 2011).

Gasification process produced different products like solid ashes, partially oxidised
material like soot, tars and syn/producer gas. The main flammable components of the
resulting syn gas are carbon mono oxide (CO), hydrogen (H2) and methane (CH4).

1.2 Biomass gasifier technologies

Different gasification technologies exist now a days. The major ones include; down-
draft fixed bed gasifier (co-current fixed bed), up-draft fixed bed (counter current fixed
bed), fluidised bed, entrained flow, slurry bed and some other minor technologies includes
Lurgi dry ash, BGL slagging, blue tower, vertical vortex, screwing two stage and plasma
gasifier.

1.2.1 Downdraft fixed bed gasifier

In this type of gasifier, a reactor consists of a fixed bed of carbon rich fuel, which
is oxidising medium flows through downward. The gas is produced at high temperature so
5
the thermal efficiency is relatively high. The significant advantage of this type is that the
formed tar levels are low (Anonymous, 2008). Schematic of downdraft gasifier is shown in
the Figure 1.2.

Figure 1.2 Downdraught gasifier (Skov, 1974)

1.2.2 Updraft fixed bed gasifier

The updraft fixed bed gasifiers (UDFBG) are same as DDFB gasifiers except that
the air, oxygen or steam flows through the bed upwards. The throughput of this type of
gasifier is relatively low but the thermal efficiency will be same as down draft gasifiers.
The volumetric percentage of methane in the producer gas is significant which facilitates
the methanation for SNG (Synthetic Natural Gas) production. Tar production is at high
during normal operations. (Anonymous, 2008).

The first commercial updraft gasifier for continuous gasification of solid fuels with
air was developed and installed in 1839. Updraft gasifiers were subsequently further
developed for different fuels and were widespread used in specific industrial power and
heat applications up to the 1920’s, when their function was gradually taken over by oil
fuelled engines and furnaces. Schematic view with different sections of updraft gasifier is
shown in Figure 1.3.

6
 Figure 1.3 Updraft Gasifier (Skov, 1974)

1.2.3 Fluidised bed gasifiers

The fluidised bed gasifiers (FBG) are divided into two types, such as bubbling
fluidised bed (BFB) and circulating fluidised bed (CFB). The fluidised bed gasifiers are
very common for combustion of biomass, coal and waste in medium to high thermal power
plants (>5 MW). In this type the fuel is kept in fluidised state by the oxidising agent. The
operational temperature in this type is lower, meaning that the fuel needs to be reactive.
These gasifiers requires more careful feedstock operations, considering moisture contents
and size of solid fuel particles (Anonymous, 2008).

1.2.4 Entrained flow gasifier

In this technology, the solid or liquid fuel fed to the entrained flow gasifier is
gasified with oxygen (O2). Reaction occurs in dense cloud of aerosol at high temperatures
and usually at high pressures. A very high throughput can be achieved but the thermal
efficiency is reduced due to high temperature. The methane and tar production is low but
the requirements of the oxygen are other features of the EF gasifier which makes it more
suitable for Hydrogen (H2) rich gas production. These are the only option for extremely
large (>1,000 MW thermal) bio refinery systems.

1.2.5 Indirect gasifier

In this type of gasifier, heat is supplied from an external source which may be any
source of the right temperature. The objective is to transfer the heat generated in external

7
heater/source to the gasification reactor. This can be done by circulating and heating the
fluidising fluid bed reactors and by heating the reactor walls in fixed bed reactors (Karlsson
and Malm, 2005).

1.3 Processing of producer gas

In order to utilize the raw gas produced by the gasifier as a fuel for sustained
operation of an internal combustion engine, it is necessary to remove the condensable
organic compounds and reduce the moisture content. Conventional gas processing
techniques separates these two undesirable components from raw gas to leave the useful
fuel gas.

Tar is the major impurity present in the producer gas. Tar is black in colour and is
a mixture of hydrocarbons and free carbon. It is obtained from variety of organic materials
through destructive distillation. Dependable gasification system related to the character of
the gas in provision of energy and tar contents and solid particulate material in the gas.
Albeit the poor energy transformation of biomass to the producer gas was satisfactory, the
tar contents and solid particulate matter create the problems using the gas for engine
operations (Chaplin and Joseph, 1989).

Tar presence in the producer gas largely changes from one formation to another,
fuel type, the agent of oxidizing (air or steam or oxygen), type of gasifier, type of fuel and
forms, from about 1-180 g/Nm3. Tar is a source of choke and corrosion of bore and piston
of engines, accessories, environmental pollution and serious health damage (Nair et al.,
2003).

Keeping in view the importance of the gasification system, a study was planned and
carried out at the workshop, Department of Farm Machinery and Power, University of
Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. The downdraft and updraft gasifiers were designed and
fabricated. A gas conditioning system including cooling and cleaning of gas was also
designed and developed to upgrade the producer gas for IC engine quality fuel. The
complete system was designed to run 15 to 18.6 kW (20-25 hp) four stroke diesel engine
for tubewell operation.

8
Objectives

The complete research work was based on the following objectives

1. Design and fabrication of downdraft and updraft gasifiers.

2. Design and fabrication of conditioning unit (cooling and cleaning units) for
upgrading producer gas to internal combustion engine quality fuel.

3. Performance evaluation of the complete gasification system.

9
 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
It is every time significant to manufacture the gasifier according to its uses, type
of fuel availability and quantity of gas necessary. Types of fuel chosen may alter the
fabricated design. Particular installation is necessary in the gasifier for fluffy and low
density fuel. In the same way moisture contents, volatile matter, energy contents etc.
have to be considered during the designing. In the same way gasifier uses also
influence the design. In the past, a variety of experiments had been done to reduce the
operational troubles of gasifier. A number of these experiments are stated under.

Chiang et al. (2013) conducted a study to check the feasibility of the

gasification system to use rice straw as fuel and using Mn/Fe as a catalyst agent. The
Mn/Fe sludge was a mixture of manganese and iron compounds obtained from a plant
for water purification. The temperature of gas was set at 900 Degree Celsius and the
ER (equivalent ratio) was 0.30. An increase of 0.11 m3/kg (from 0.61 m3/kg to 0.72
m3/kg) in the production of producer gas was concluded from obtained results of
various experiments. The lower heating value (LHV) of burnable gas increased from
14.76 MJ/Nm3 to 15.82 MJ/Nm3 and Energy Density (ED) also increased from 1.37
MJ/MJ to 1.47 MJ/MJ. They concluded that catalytic gasification of rice straw was
very effective way to increase energy yield by using Mn/Fe catalyst.
Combustible Gas Yield (Nm3/kg
biomass)

Catalyst amended ratio (wt. %)

Figure 2.1 Combustible gas production in catalytic gasification of rice straw

10
 Pedroso et al. (2013) conducted an experimental study on the bottom fed up
draught gasifier. They stated that the conventionally available gasifiers produced
higher tar concentration in the producer gas and for use of this gas in engine or other
applications requires to remove or reduce this tar. They studied a modified up draft
gasifier for less concentration of tar contents in the gas produced. In that system the
conventional feeding system was altered to reduce tar concentration, the fuel was fed
at the bottom of the reactor just above the grate section. The results indicated that the
calorific value of the producer gas was slightly lower as compared to the conventional
gasification system and the highest gas efficiency was found to be 77% using wood
chips as fuel. During the first hour of experiment run the highest tar concentration was
1652.7 mg m-3 comparable with the smaller values reported for the up draft gasifiers.
As the experiment progressed the value further decreased. The smaller value of tar
concentration found to be 21 mg m-3.

Figure 2.2 Composition of producer gas during the experiment

Fuel consumption per hour was found to be 12.71 kg, gas flow rate was 27.64
m3/hr, CO, H2, CH4 CO2 and O2 calculated on volume % was found to be 28.90, 6.76,
4.66, 23.39 and 0.42 respectively. Cold gas efficiency was 0.77 and calorific value of
gas was 6.05 MJ m-3.

Pandey et al. (2012) stated that among the renewable energy resources biomass
plays an important role. Due to the exhaustion of the non-renewable fuel resource and
continuously increasing environmental pollution bring about by rising energy

11
demands the biomass utilization as an alternative source had been on burst for several
years. Gasification of biomass was the highly efficient and major way of biomass
discharge through endothermic thermal exchange technology in which the solid fuel
indoctrinated into gaseous fuel. The heating value of the producer gas produced in
conventional air blasted gasifier was found to be only 47 MJ m-3 due to dilution of
nitrogen and lower char conversion efficiency. A two-staged biomass gasifier was
designed and developed for 25 kW (thermal) capacity.

Seggiani et al. (2012) conducted a research and concluded that co-gasification

of sewage sludge with wood pellets was attainable gasification facilities up draught
gasifier of pre-existing conditions. However, the high content of sewage sludge (P70
w / w%) and excessive dross formation of clinker accumulation can take place in the
oxidation zone due to higher slag fusion temperatures and low slag sludge causing the
fluctuating gasification action. Furthermore, the accumulation of a layer of slag on the
grate discharge needed continuous instabilities presents operating conditions of the
gasifier. Increasing the equivalent ratio compel to greater yields of gas and carbon and
cold gas efficiency. In the equivalent ratio of 0.25 optimal related to the gasification
of wood pellets, the addition of sewage sludge with 20 wt. water content % to 70 w /
w% resulted in decreased dry gas production from 1.56 to 1.07 m3/kg raw material
because of high water and ash content of sewage sludge and contraction inferior
calorific value of gas and cold gas effectiveness 5:08 to 4:09 m3 dry MJ = 60% to
55% respectively to moderate.

Antonopoulos et al. (2012) conducted a research on a non-stoichiometric model

for a fixed bed down draught gasifier using crop residue as fuel, in consideration of to
stimulate the actions of gasification. Consumption of producer gas produced in that
gasifier was figured out by calculating the mass and energy balance of the reactor.
0.5MW was the assumed capacity of the modelled gasifier, with 0.45 Equivalence
Ratio (EQ). The model amalgamate the verities having Carbon, Hydrogen and
Oxygen, or any another controlling element and chemical reactions. For a temperature
range of 800 – 1200°C olive wood and cardoon were tested in the formulated model,
in order to check the configuration of the producer gas and the impact of moisture on
the supplied fuel. An olive wood down draft gasifier was then designed by using the
results conducted from the model.

12
 Zhang et al. (2012) made a study to investigate the energy of biomass
utilization. They reported that the two major processes for gas production are steam
gasification and partial oxidation. Their research data indicated that the energy for
steam generation was much higher than the heating of oxygen. But on the other hand
it was observed that the heat produced by both of these processes was less than the
heat input by biomass. Moreover it was also noticed that the temperature was raised
from 800°C to 1200°C, while the product gas, tar and unreacted carbon had
efficiencies ranging from 49.31%-58.48%, 0-16.15% and 5.17-9.53% respectively.
These values were found must less in case of partial oxidation. These values were
found of range 35.45-43.49%, 4.77-8.76% and 0-8.03% for gas, unreacted carbon and
tar respectively. These results indicated that the proper increase in temperature of
gasification was a major factor to improve the efficiency of gas production process by
biomass through gasification.

Chen et al. (2012) proposed the gasification process results during the use of
adiabatic bed gasifier along with air as gasification medium. They used two types of
wood, mesquite and reberry juniper, obtained from Southern Plains of USA. They
measured the effects of Particle size, ER and moisture contents over temperature
profile and gas composition. With a decrease in ER from 4.2-2.7, the mole
composition was found in mesquite wood gas of range 13-21% for CO, 1-2% for
oxygen, 1.6-3% for hydrogen, 1-1.5% for methane, 60-64% for nitrogen and 11-25%
for carbon dioxide. On the other hand this composition was found 21-25% for CO, 1-
2% for oxygen, 2.5-3.5% for hydrogen, 1.5-1.8% for methane, 58-61% for nitrogen
and 9-12% for carbon dioxide in case of juniper. The mole % for hydrogen and
carbon monoxide was decreased with increase in ER ratio. After removing the
nitrogen the HHV of gas was 26 and 27.5% for both two woods respectively wit
ER=2.7.

Ahmed et al. (2011) concluded that energy shortage in Pakistan was the prime
reason which lowers the economy. The most reliable solution for meeting the energy
demands in the industry was a renewable energy basis. The availability of biomass in
Pakistan from wheat, corn, sugarcane, rice, cotton waste, etc. was millions of tons.
The investigation was done in Farm Machinery and Power department, Faculty of
Agricultural Engineering University of Agriculture Faisalabad. During this
investigation manufacturing and assessment of a downdraft gasifier was under

13
consideration. The fuels used were biomass including coal, corn cobs and charcoal.
The fuel used weighs 18 kg. The gas produced after gasification process of corn cobs
(pith), coal and char coal was 34.65 m3, 39.7 m3, and 40.37 m3 respectively as shown
in figure , this produced gas was used to power 12 kW engine.

Figure 2.3 Volume of Gas produced (Ahmad et al, 2011)

Bhavanam and Sastry (2011) concluded that biomass after passing through
some chemical processes during gasification can be changed into suitable gaseous
fuels. It had emerged as capable tools to fulfil the rising energy burden of the world. It
also helped significantly to minimize the level of biomass generated in developing
societies. This study comprises of various aspects of research and expansion in
biomass gasification in downdraft fixed bed reactor like advances in downdraft
gasification system. Various parameters like equivalence ratio, moisture content,
operating temperature, gasifying time, residence time and gas composition were under
consideration.

Vitasari et al. (2011) made study through indirect gasification over energy
analysis of biomass to synthetic natural gas processes. They used various feed stock
as virgin, municipal waste, sludge, biomass and waste biomass. Indirect gasification
mean that the heat energy required for burning of biomass fuel was obtained from
separate chamber of gasifier by burning char in it. This heat produced was then
shifted to the combustion chamber of gasifier. This process was composed of different
parts which included the biomass gasification, syngas cooler, cleaning and
compression, methanation reactors and SNG conditioning. They used various
methods to investigate the energy produced. Their results indicated that the woody
biomass exhibited the highest energy efficiency of biomass-to-SNG process than the
waste biomass. The energy efficiencies were found on increasing trend with increase
14
in gasification pressure whereas inverse trend was found among wood and waste
biomass for methanation pressure and temperature.

Antonopoulos et al. (2011) projected an innovator, recently patented three-stage

bed gasifier proper constant for biomass and municipal solid waste (MSW). This
innovative technology basically involved an innovative gas flow management system
between pyrolysis and combustion zones. By introducing the management of the gas
flow in this existing area of separation between the pyrolysis and combustion zones, it
resulted in a synthesis gas having low values of tar and the concentration of dioxins.

Pestana (2011) studied that producer gas had been identified as having the
highest potential. It used effectively for energy gain and have workable efficiency.
The actual process which produces gas was thermal gasification of biomass followed
by methanation. But before reaching at the producer gas, producer gas should be neat
and cleaned from the presence of organic hydrocarbons called tars. This was the
severe material in the gas which causes major problem by using the producing gas for
energy process. But there were some also other contaminates, like ash particles.
Which should be eliminated from the mixture of producer gas? Condensable
hydrocarbon was Tar that start to condense already at a temperatures around 350o C.
But condensation of the tar in the gasifier also happened .This causes major problem
during the gasification process. Clogging and blocking the parts of gasifier like sieve
of gasifier from which air passes with the help of blower.

Jaojaruek et al. (2011) conducted experiment to check the approaches of

gasification in downdraft gasifier including one stage, conservative two step and
innovative two step air supply approach. There were two nozzle locations in
innovative two stage first nozzle supplies air at the combustion zone and the second
nozzle provides mixture of air and producer gas at the reduction region. The mixture
of air and by-product in pyrolysis zone was a side step for burning. The experiment
shows that the quality of synthesis gas obtained from the innovative two stages was
better in contrast to conventional two stage approach. There was an increase in
heating values of gas from 5.4 to 6.5 MJ m-3 and the tar contents were reduced to 45
mg m-3. This quality of obtained gas was able to feed directly to the engines in which
combustion of fuel take place inside the cylinder. The thermal efficiency of the

15
gasification was improved by 14%. This approach gave quality gas and energy saving
benefits.

Olgun et al. (2011) conducted a research on forestry and agricultural residues

fed downdraft gasifier (bench scale). They designed, developed and conducted
research work using that gasifier. The downdraught gasifier had four zones i.e. drying,
pyrolysis, oxidation and reduction zones. In that type of gasifier both the fuel and gas
moved in the same way (downward). They designed the gasifier throat in such a way
to minimize the tar production. The conditioning unit consists of a cyclone filter, a
filter box and a scrubber. The producer gas was burnt in flare made in the gasification
system. The fuel used was wood chips and hazelnut shells.

Figure 2.4 Gas composition of wood chips experiments during a batch operation

Figure 2.5 Gas composition of hazelnut shells experiments during a batch operation

16
 They concluded that the combustion of wood chips as fuel gives good results at
equivalent ratio of 0.35. Maximum gas temperature was found to be 600 °C and the
throat temperature was about 900 °C. Heating value of the gas when using hazelnut as
fuel was found to be 4MJ/Nm3 in 10 minutes while wood chips took 15 minutes for
the same. Also from the figures 2.4 and 2.5 it was observed that methane production
was more in case of wood chips but for lesser time.

Coronado et al. (2011) stated that the gasification of wood was the best
technology to convert the wood/biomass into useful gas i.e. producer or syn gas.
Moreover, stationary engine electricity production system were widely spread in the
remote areas where electricity was not available. This system was used as an alternate
to supply the electricity in those areas. The gas produced in the gasification system
will be a cheap fuel to run that electricity generation system. Engine exhaust gases
recovery was a possibility making the system attractive when compared with the same
components used to obtain individual heat. In this article they presented an energetic
alternative to acclimate a fixed bed gasification system to overcome the thermal and
electrical demands of the rural areas with a compact cogeneration system to present a
solution to overcome energy problems for small communities using biomass as fuel.
They conducted an economic analysis for a cogeneration system generating
electricity, cold and hot water, in which producer gas was used as fuel, produced in a
small-sized gasification system using wood as raw fuel. To incorporate the energy
efficiency energy balance was calculated. Yearly interest rate and restitution periods,
electricity production costs were considered to prepare the report, also took into
consideration the investment, the repair maintenance and operation costs of the
equipment.

Chawdhury and Mahkamov (2010) assessed that the concentration towards the
use of biomass as renewable energy had increased. These studies lead towards the
design, development and testing of small downdraught biomass gasifier JRB-1 (6-7
kW) at Durham University, UK. The fuels used in gasifier were wood chip and
pallets. Temperature inside the reaction zone was (950-1150°C), and primary air flow
rate was (0.0015 m3s-1) while the producer gas’ exit temperature was (180-220°C).
The concentration of different gases in producer gas were Nitrogen (50-56%),
Carbon monoxide (19-22%), Carbon dioxide (10-12%), Hydrogen (12-19%) and a
small fraction of Methane (1-2%).The calorific value of syngas/producer gas was

17
found to be 4424-5007 kJm-3 and the thermal efficiency was found to be 92.4%. He
concluded that this type of technology was suitable for development in agricultural
sector and a source of decentralized power supply.

Ojolo and Orwasaleye (2010) conducted a research on design and development

of a biomass down draft gasifier (laboratory scale) having capacity of 15kW th and 4
kW mechanical power. The gasifier was designed and made as a single piece with a
cover and water seal. The gasifier was evaluated with forced and natural down draft
modes. The fuel in the gasifier was ignited from beneath the grate. Producer gas was
burnt for 15 minutes with blue flame when the wood chips were used as fuel in
natural down draft mode. Ignition at the throat the reactor did not produce any
synthesis gas during natural downdraft mode. Palm kernel shells used in the forced
down draft mode gasifier and the produced gas was burnt with luminous flame for 15
minutes per kilogram of the fuel fed into the gasifier. Bridging problems occurred
when the wood chips were used as fuel into the forced down draft gasifier. The fuel
(palm kernel shells) conversion rate was 4 kg/hr was recorded in the forced downdraft
gasifier. The conversion rate and the gas yield was better in the forced downdraft
gasifier as compared to the natural down draft gasifier.

Kumararaja et al. (2010) used the downdraught gasifier with fixed bed to run
internal combustion engine. The study was conducted to developed throat type
biomass gasifier in which bed temperature and pressure are noted continuously.
Cyclone separator, dust filter and gas cooler were used to cool and clean the producer
gas. Characteristics like bed temperatures and bed char properties like weight,
volume, density and volatile matter content were monitored during the gasification.
The gasification rate for wood pieces was found to be 75 kg h-1 m-2. The volume of
wood piece was decreased by as high as 86% even before it entered the reduction
zone of the gasifier.

Leu (2010) conducted a study on changed up draught fixed bed gasifier; to fully
combust the synthesis gas generated in the gasifier he employed an entrenched
combustor inside the gasifier. The flue gas; resulting from the burning of synthetic gas
inside the combustion tube, was provided directly into the heater head of Stirling
engine through a pipe. The engine was then automatically extracting and converting
the heat contained in the flue gas into the electric power. Output energy was

18
dependent on the heat input. While the heat input was proportional to the temperature
and flow rate of the flue gas. The study resulted that full power output could be
produced by the current system after direct coupling of an updraft gasifier with a 25
kW Stirling engine. A viable solid biomass power system could also be considered
here according to this study.

Leu (2010) stated that the biomass was one of the biggest sources of renewable
energy in the world. Its value was increasing evenly in the upcoming energy market.
As most of the biomass energy sources have low energy density and were extensive in
space, so rather than a large not compatible conversion plant small scale biomass
conversion systems were more useful.

Xu et al. (2010) made their research to find out the modern techniques to use a
catalyst for hot gas and ammonia removal from tar produced during the process of
gasification. They reported that biomass gasification process produce a gas with low
to medium BTU value. This produced gas ha major constituents as hydrogen,
methane, carbon dioxide and carbon mono oxide and ammonia, tar, hydrogen
sulphide and sulphur dioxide as by-products. For usage of this gas in internal
combustion engine it was necessary to remove all these by-products otherwise they
will produce dangerous effects on heat engine and may cause reduction in heat
efficiency. They studied the catalysis’s which were dolomite, iron, nickel and some
other metal based. Their results showed that Dolomite was best for tar removing and
not much better for ammonia removal. The reason behind this efficiency for tar
removal was the presence of CaO in Dolomite. Fe-based catalysts as limonite and
hematite were found on the same trend as Dolomite but Australian Limonite was
found most effective for ammonia removal. Nickel based catalysts were found most
suitable for both ammonia and tar decomposition in industry at temperature less than
800°C. Hot gas clean-up catalysts had the least efficiency against the tar and ammonia
decomposition.

Munir (2010) stated that during the last decades a special attention was given to
“Energy from Biomass” in the perspective of clean electricity generation. The less use
of engineering applications in that age it was still a rising field. The physical and
chemical constituents in biomass lengthened this task. The co firing of agricultural
residue in coincidence with air and fuel production was scarce. The globe currently

19
food shortage needs a review to the idea regarding energy crops for combustion. So
there was a need to investigate the power prospective and environmental settlement
allied with the agriculture waste coal co firing. This study suggests the ideas and
policy to solve energy crises in Pakistan by using assets of coal and agriculture waste.

Sivakumar and Mohan (2010) conducted different experiments to investigate

the combustible gases that were generated after the gasification technique in
downdraft gasifier by using various biomass matters. The combustible gases produced
from gasification include H2, CO, CH4, CO2 and N2. The fuel used for gasification
includes coconut shell, ground nut shell and rice husk. The result shows that the gas
which was generated by gasifying coconut shell had high heating values as in contrast
to other fuels used. After the experiment he concluded that coconut fuel was the best
fuel used for gasification.

Sharma (2009) carried out a developmental study on biomass fed downdraft

gasification system having capacity of 75 kW. The objectives of the study were to
obtain the gas composition, calorific value, temperature profile and trends for the
pressure drop through the bed gasifier porous clean-up train and cooling throughout
the system whole, both in the kitchen, as well as non-combustion mode. In the
gasifier, the fuel and producer gas moved down as the reaction goes forward. As long
as the biomass moves down because of weight, air was injected with the aid of a
blower. The experiments were carried out to get the characteristics of fluent flow
reactor and also to acquire the temperature figure in the bed reactant gas configuration
and calorific value. For non-combustion gasifier bed extinct showed high drop in
pressure distinguished with a newly charged gasification reactor bed. It was observed
that the drop in pressure during the absorptive bed to be acquainted to changes in the
rate of gas flow. When used in the shooting mode, the highest temperature in the bed
lead toward a better alteration of non-combustible components in the producer gas
and hence improved the calorific value of the product gas.

Purohit (2009) studied that the downdraught gasifier used for power production
comprises biomass gasifier and conditioning unit. Gasifier may be stationary or
mobile and classified on the type of fuel used. The gasifier had cylindrical shape
having combustion chamber. The fuel (biomass) feeding was from top while its
gasification occurred under controlled thermal environment. Ultimately the product

20
after gasification was producer gas. Producer gas was composed of Methane (CH4),
Carbon monoxide (CO), Carbon dioxide (CO2), Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Tar and Ash.
The producer gas was firstly cooled and then cleaned in the respective units. It was
founded that about 65-70% diesel consumption was replaced by producer gas.

Bram et al. (2009) stated that the use of renewable fuels for transport in
particular aims at a minimum proportion of liquid bio fuels and other alternative fuels.
Studies related to energy and greenhouse gas balance of bio fuels were done but some
time from these studies it was difficult to extrapolate the conclusions. Different
varieties of bio fuel conversion technologies were available. The selection includes
available short term possibilities and medium term possibilities.

Guo et al. (2009) concluded that the attractive feed stock for producing fuel gas
was biomass. As it contribute little or no carbon dioxide to its surroundings.
Alternative energy adaptation technologies have been studied to promote renewable
energy consumption. A cyclone gasifier perception had been well thought-out for
gasification of biomass. Biomass micron fuel (BMF) with particle size less than 250
µm. for producing high quality gas concepts like partial oxidation, gasification, tar
cracking, fast pyrolysis have been considered. In this study experiments of BMF air
stream gasification were carried out. During this investigation the consequence size of
biomass particle on the performance of BMF and gasification were studied. During
the experiment, parameters like temperature, quantity of gas, heating value of gas
fuel, carbon conversion efficiency were under concern. The experiment reflects that
the best results were obtained with small particles, as well as H2 contents.

Sheth and Babu (2009) conducted experiments on a downdraft gasifier to

generate the producer gas using waste of wood resulted in furniture making in the
workshop of carpentry section of the Birla Institute of Technology and Science.
Sesame wood/ Rose wood (Dalbergia sisoo) was used in manufacturing of furniture
and wastage of this wood was used as fuel/biomass material for gasification. They
calculated the results for the effects of air flow rate and moisture contents over the
consumption rate of biomass and on the producer gas quality, which produced during
the gasification process experiments. The biomass downdraft gasification system’s
performance was evaluated in terms of ER, CV, producer gas composition, the rate of
gas production, temperatures of different zones of the gasifier and the cold gas

21
efficiency. To check the reliability of the results, obtained from the experiments,
Material balance study was carried out and they were also compared with the results
present in the literature. The optimum equivalence ratio of that system was found to
be 0.205 and the cold gas efficiency was found to be 0.25.

Figure 2.6 Effect of equivalence ratio on producer gas production rate per unit
weight of biomass and on cold gas efficiency

Figure 2.7 Effect of equivalence ratio on calorific value of producer gas

22
 Banapurmath and Tewari (2008) studied the interest towards the use of
alternative fuels had to increase in order to compete the energy necessities. Biomass
was composed of C, H, and O. The biomass can be converted in to combustible gases
which can be used in internal combustion engines. IC engine coupled with
Downdraught gasifier was a reliable choice for producing power up to 500 kW.

Karallas and Karl (2008) declared that the oldest source for cooking and heating
was biomass particularly the wood. Presently the newest technologies concerning the
consumption of biomass and waste remains were in insist and also that was a time to
make use of these methods in transformation of power from central to local
establishment and significance for generating heat and energy. Burning was the most
common method for changing biomass into energy. During the Biomass energy
production the temperature of the burning process, Chlorine stain, sugar, and low
melting temperature must always be considered. The formation and numbering of the
floating waste in the gas determines the gas quality. The monitoring of quality and
quantification was very significant because it optimizes effectiveness of energy
production.

Pathak et al. (2008) investigates 125 kghr-1 biomass gasifier with a modular
design. Based on these studies he fabricated 375 kghr-1 modular throat typed
downdraught gasifier. The smaller gasifier when assessed with wood as a fuel of
burning rate of 55 kg hr-1 produce a gas with energy heating values of 4.24 MJ m-3 .
The achieved efficiency was 63%. The efficiency of larger gasifier running with
agricultural residue had 70-73%. The systems were tested for 10 hour running
continuously without any hurdle.

Kramreiter et al. (2008) stated that keeping in view the heat and power
production different gasifier deigns have been developed. The producer gas after
cleaning was supplied to the engine or turbine. For small ranges fixed bed gasifiers
were used. Different types of fixed bed gasifier include downdraught and updraft
gasifier. The downdraught gasifier was fed from top and air leaves from bottom.

Mook and Alimuddin (2008) declared that in those countries where plant
remains from agriculture and wood industry were plentiful, fluidized bed gasifier had
potential for rural electrification. The gas composition was checked by Gas
chromatography. The wood chips were of uneven size having 30 mm in length and

23
30mm width. The thickness of these particles was 3mm. The energy contents of the
formed gas were 4.74 MJm-3 and the temperature at the bed was 733°C. It was here
that the efficiency of 61.32% was acquired. The production was 355.55 kW. The table
2.1 showing beneath provides the various sizes of wood chips. It can be observed
from the table that the majority of the wood chips had been of 30 mm both in length
and width and represented 73.49% of the mass. The mean breadth of chips was 3 mm.
The small (Fine) particles had been 8.59% of the mass. The uneven shaped fuel used
would boost up the custody period which was mandatory to completely alter into gas.

Table 2.1 Size distribution of wood chips (Mook and Alimuddin)

Length (mm) Width (mm) Mass (gm) Percentage by

Mass
30 30 200.17 73.49
40 30 16.41 6.02
50 20 16.64 6.11
60 20 6.56 2.41
100 20 5.69 2.09
>100 20 3.51 1.29
Fines Fines 23.41 8.59
Sum 272.39 100.00

Chopra and Jain (2007) concluded that biomass after going through the
gasification technique gave useful by-product in the form of producer gas. The
generation of useful by-products increases its prospective as an alternative power
basis. The gasification were done via updraft, Imbert downdraft, throat less draft,
cross draft and two stage gasifiers. Biomass containing ash contents in range 12 to
15%, water contents in range up to 50% and high tar contents up to 100 g m-3 for this
type of biomass gasification updraft gasifier was appropriate. The gasification of
biomass by using higher temperature enhances the lower energy values of product gas
and minimizes the tar contents. For gasification of bark, wood blocks, chips, pallets
etc updraft gasifier was suitable with air and oxygen as gasifying agent. For moisture
and ash contents less than 20% and 5% Imbert downdraft gasifier was appropriate.
After modification in the sieve design and fuel inlet fuels like soft biomass, residue of
cotton crop, wheat residue and sludge etc. were also used as fuel in Imbert downdraft
gasifier. The producer gas from downdraft gasifier had tar contents 1-2 g m-3. To
eradicate the trouble of bridging and channelling in Imbert downdraft gasifier throat

24
less downdraft gasifier had been developed. The throat less gasifier was suitable for
the rice husk, wood chip, sugarcane residue etc. gasification. The throat less gasifier
can reduce the tar contents up to 50-250 g m-3. The two stage gasifier can reduce the
tar contents up to 20-50 g m-3. The gasification and pyrolysis of biomass in two stage
gasifier take place in separate chamber resulting in low tar.

Pathak et al. (2007) stated that the producer gas which was used in the engine
must be almost free of solid particles and tar (organic contaminants) for the smooth
and trouble free engine operations. Because these particles caused the engine wear
and tear very badly and reduce the engine’s life. There are no tar removal system
commercially available except catalytic tar crackers which can surely removes tar
more than 90 %, hence new methods and systems require to remove the tar and other
impurities from the producer gas. This research presented the design and development
work of sand bed filter for tar and solid particulate matter (SPM) free engine quality
gas. This filter was then evaluated for its performance with SPRERI’S 20kWe
downdraft circular throat type fixed bed gasifier with the engine setup. The results
showed that the above 90% tar and solid particulate matter was removed. The total
amount of tar and SPM was 319 mg m-3 and 53 mg m-3 before and after filter
respectively.

Lv et al. (2007) made study to investigate the gas production, rich in hydrogen,
from bio mass air and oxygen gasification in downdraft type gasifier. Their main
objective was to get a producer gas having maximum hydrogen and to reduce the heat
consumption. In this regards they used the air and oxygen streams as gasifying agents.
This method increased the gas production depending upon volume of gasifier and
heating value of gas. They obtained the maximum energy of 11.11 MJ m-3. It was
notified that for biomass oxygen/steam gasification the hydrogen and carbon mono
oxide contents were 63.27-72.56% and these contents for biomass air gasification
were 52.19-63.31%. The ratios of these two gases (hydrogen and carbon mono oxide)
were of ranges 0.70-0.90 and 1.06-1.27 for oxygen/steam and biomass air gasification
respectively. Their final results indicated that the oxygen/steam gasification was much
better in down draught gasifier than the biomass air gasification.

Mandwe et al. (2006) developed a system for filtration of producer gas for a 20
kW engine system applications and evaluated it for its performance. It was found that

25
the tar contents in the synthesis gas was found to be in a range of 12.4 to 85 mg m-3
and it was on higher side of the safe limit for engine running. Some cases it was
considered safe or in accepted limit of 50 mg m-3. The system for producer gas
purification was designed by making different calculations like flow rate of gas and
the withholding time of gas in the filter. The diameters of wet filter, dry filter and
water scrubber were found to be 0. 40, 0.50 and 0.20m respectively with filter height
of 0.80m and were computed from velocity and the detainment time of the gas in the
filter. The evaluation of the filters was resulted that the tar contents varied from 24 to
53.52 mg m-3 after filtration. The removal of tar contents using the filter was found to
be 99.35%, and the drop in pressure was recorded between 0.98 to 2.45 milibars water
column. The gasification system was also coupled with an I.C. engine and the diesel
replacement was 65.66%.

Kumabe et al. (2006) used gasifying media for performing experiments on

gasification. The gasifying media used was air. The fuels used during this experiment
were both coal and biomass. The aim of this experiment was to utilize biomass with
coal and deliver producer gas for the production of liquid fuels. To carry out this
experiment downdraft gasifier with fixed bed was used. The conversion of biomass to
by-product gas increase on carbon basis due to enhancement in the biomass ratio, this
increase causes an increase in char and causes the tar to decrease. The hydrogen
composition falls down with boost up in the biomass ratio while the carbon dioxide
constituents decrease. The gas efficiency was found to be in range of 65 to 85%
during this experiment. the of The presently researches shows that the combination of
biomass and coal minimizes the carbon dioxide secretion but also avoids the troubles
produced due to ash contents and sulfur obtained by burning of coal. This was due to
the reason that the woody biomass had insignificant sulfur and ash contents. This co-
gasification will lead to the following conclusions.

(1) With increase in biomass quantity the production of gas

increases this lead to decrease in the production of char and tar. No gas was
produced in terms of carbon sharing while using Japanese cedar and Mulia
coal as fuel.

(2) Hydrogen, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide were the main
products obtained during the experiment. The hydrogen composition decreases

26
 due to increase enlargement in the biomass proportion, this also lead to
enhance the carbon dioxide fraction. The carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon
were not dependent on biomass ratio.

(3) Low biomass ratio makes the producer gas reliable for the
production of methnol and hydro carboneous fuel. Raising the biomass ratio
makes the producer gas valuable for the DME creation.

(4) In this investigation concluded that the equilibrium state was

attained quickly as compared to the shift reaction. The stability of shift
reaction was free of biomass fraction. The utmost valve of 0.5 for biomass was
obtained during the shift reaction. The obtained effectiveness as a result of co-
gasification was 65 to 85%.

Henriksen et al. (2006) stated that many researches from past to present were
done for getting improvements in thermal gasification. Presence of tar in producer gas
was one of the main problems. Presence of tar defectively affects the engines and
turbine. In many new research projects gas cleaning and tar reduction was the main
aim. Gasification was the only process that had the potential of producing low tar
contents during its operation. The gasification process in two stage had the advantage
of producing low tar in the producer gas as compared to other gasifiers. Different
experiments were executed to manually operate the two stage pilot plant. Then a small
scale automatic plant for 1000 working hours was established. The small scale plant
of capacity 75 kW was chosen on economic basis. In this gasifier wood chip was
used. The gasifier used was usually a two phase gasifier. The two phase means that
char gasification and pyrolysis takes place in split reactors. The pyrolysis product was
partially oxidized by means of air between the gasification and pyrolysis. Tar contents
were reduced by 100 factors and for char gasification thermal energy was produced.
In the producer gas the tar contents were less than 15mmgNm-3. The system was 25%
efficient.

Sivakumar et al. (2006) stated that gasification technology was considered to be

an advance stage of progress. A lot of expectation was present from the industry
toward the utilization of its applications. This study was concentrated on the
investigation of reduction cavity having different designing. The integral part of the
reduction cavity was itself choking plate, so the investigation of choke plate or

27
reduction zone was same. Using empirical data and derived quantities a 100 kW
downdraft biomass gasifier system was designed. The variations in choke plate
include quantity of nozzles, nozzle opening size and nozzle inclination angle. During
this study air flow investigation, temperature of various portion of chamber and raw
material used for gasification and product obtained were also under concern.

Henriksen et al. (2006) stated that many researches from past to present were
done for getting improvements in thermal gasification. Presence of tar in producer gas
was one of the main problems. Presence of tar defectively affected the engines and
turbine. In many new research projects gas cleaning and tar reduction was the main
aim. Gasification was the only process that had the potential of producing low tar
contents during its operation. The gasification process in two stage had the advantage
of producing low tar in the producer gas as compared to other gasifiers. Different
experiments were executed to manually operate the two stage pilot plant. Then a small
scale automatic plant for 1000 working hours was established. The small scale plant
of capacity 75 kW was chosen on economic basis. In this gasifier wood chip was
used. The gasifier used was usually a two phase gasifier. The two phase means that
char gasification and pyrolysis takes place in split reactors. The pyrolysis product was
partially oxidized by means of air between the gasification and pyrolysis. Tar contents
were reduced by 100 factors and for char gasification thermal energy was produced.
In the producer gas the tar contents were less than 15mmgNm-3. The system was 25%
efficient.

Carlos (2005) claimed the updraft gasifier as the simplest form of fixed bed
gasifier. Rather than any other fixed bed gasifiers biomasses with high ash (up to
20%) and high moisture content (up to 50%) can be handled efficiently in it. It shows
less sensitivity to variations in quality and size of biomass. The biomass fuel enters
from the top of chamber and the air enters from bottom of the unit from below a grate.
The fuel flows down slowly through the drying, pyrolysis, gasification and
combustion zones. The ash was removed from bottom.

McKendry (2001) concluded that the most common type of renewable energy
material was the biomass. Biomass with high energy outputs requires concentration in
order to replace fossil fuel energy resources. The study evaluated the gasification
technologies and the biomass potential for gasification. The gas obtained as a result of

28
gasification of landfill organic waste was also used to run internal combustion
engines.

Barrio et al. (2000) conducted laboratory experiment by fabricating stratified

downdraft. To get heat and energy from biomass a gasifier was attached with a gas
engine. The height of the stratified downdraft gasifier was 500 mm and 100 mm
diameter. The gasifier was designed in such a way that there was a possibility of
supplying air at different positions and also allows injecting the preheated air. The
diesel engine was modified to make it running possible with the producer gas. The
system of fuel injection and compression ratio was affected after the modification.
Wood pallets were used in the gasifier for gasification. The gasifier was feeding at a
rate of 5 kg hr-1 producing energy of 30 kW. The amount of air supplies to the gasifier
during operation varies. The composition of the gas was measured with gas
chromatography. The producer gas produced at a rate of 12.5 m3 hr-1. The energy
heating value of the gasifier by-product gas was 4.9 MJ m-3. The predictable energy
generated by the gas engine was 5 kW. By using blend of synthesis gas and normal
gas, the gas engine was operated. Cylinder pressure, compression ratio, engine heat
released by carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons, such as the emission was
also measured under study.

DiBlasi (1999) stated that Gasification performance depends on biomass

characteristics because different biomasses can produce different syngas high heating
values, reaction temperatures, tar content, etc. In the same way, gasification
operational parameters can affect gasification performance. Gasification agent flow
rate, gasification agent type, temperature of the feed air, reaction temperatures, and
gasifier design are some examples of gasification parameters that can be adjusted to
improve gasification performance. Experiments on laboratory scale counter current
gasifier revealed that wood and crop residue gives different results of heating values
in between the range of 5 to 5.5 MJ m-3 with 28-30% carbon mono oxide, 5-7%
carbon dioxide, 6-8% hydrogen, 1-2% methane and small amount of other
hydrocarbons. Also concluded that the gasification of crop residues was very difficult
as compared to wood and coal due to non-uniform flow distribution, partial ash
sintering and the presence of mud in the effluents, so the proper pre- treatments are
required for crop residue to be used in the gasifier at large scale.

29
 Amur and Bhattacharya (1999) concluded that the major source of energy in
Pakistan was biomass. Like other developing countries a consistent estimate of
biomass energy utilizes in different sectors of the country were not available. In
Pakistan about 65.07 billion kg of biomass was utilized which was equal to 22.57
MTOE contributes 44% of total primary energy needs. Fire wood shares 56% of
customary energy need. About 86% of total biomass energy was consumed by the
household sector. 80% of the total quantity of biomass energy was utilizes by the
conventional cook stoves.

Venselaar (1982) conducted an experiment to determine the time required

between complete heating and complete devolatization of fuel in gasifier. During the
investigation the size of the particles shows influence on the maximum load outcome.
Evaluations of already commercially fabricated gasifiers were done. The comparison
basis was on “throat less”, “sole throat” and “dual throat” designs. He concluded from
the experiment that maximum hearth load allowable values of Bmax of 0.03, 0.11 and
0.4 for “throat less”, “solo throat” and “dual throat” designs were obtained. He also
concluded from his experiment that the nozzles air inlet velocities should be 30-35 m
s-1. The throat inclination angle should be 45-60 degrees. The reduction zone height
should be more than 20 cm.

30
 CHAPTER 3

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All the research work for the fabrication and performance evaluation of the gasification
system was carried out at the Workshops of Department of Farm Machinery and Power,
Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, University of Agriculture,
Faisalabad, Pakistan.

The whole study was divided into following four phases

Phase-I: Design and fabrication of downdraft gasifier

Phase-II: Design and fabrication of updraft gasifier

Phase-III: Design development of cooling and cleaning unit (Conditioning unit)

Phase-IV: Performance evaluation of the complete gasification system

3.1 Downdraft Gasifier

The downdraft gasifiers are comparatively easy to build and operate. The downdraft
gasifier produces the almost tar free producer/syn gas which is the basic requirement of the
internal combustion engine for trouble free operations. In downdraft gasifiers, on their way
down the acid and tarry distillation products from the fuel must pass through a glowing bed
of charcoal. Therefore, they are converted into permanent gases hydrogen, carbon dioxide,
carbon monoxide and methane. The downdraft gasifier makes it possible to use biomass
like wood and other crop residues as fuel. It is likely to be the most appropriate type of the
gasifier for developing countries as a source of decentralized power supply to rural
communities and small industries. Figure 3.1 shows the schematic view of the downdraft
gasifier with different zones and temperature ranges.

31
 Figure 3.1 Schematic of a downdraft gasifier (Capareda, 2006).

3.1.1 Designing of downdraft gasifier

The design of downdraft gasifier was intimately related to Hearth Load perception.
The Hearth load is defined as the ratio of amount of synthesis gas compacted to normal
conditions to the surface area of the throat at the smallest circumference (Brandini, 1983).
It is measured in volume per unit area per unit time. The hearth load can also be defined as
the ratio of quantity of dry fuel utilized to the surface area at the narrowest constraint (Bs).
The hearth load in this case can be expressed as kg cm-2 hr-1. Under normal conditions one

kilogram of dry fuel produces about 2.5m3 of producer gas. The relationship between Bg

and Bs is shown in Equation 3.1.

𝐵𝑔 = 2.5𝐵𝑠

As the information provided by Brandini during the continuous operation of

“Imbert” type gasifier Bg reaches a maximum value of about 0.9, when Bs = 0.36 (Brandini,
1983). A high pressure drops occurs at the reduction zone of the gasifier if the value of Bg
is high. Least value of Bg depends basically on the insulation of heating zone of the gasifier.
The temperature in the hot zone below a certain hearth load is lower much so that the tar
production becomes unavoidable.

Better insulated gas producers can operate tar free at Bg values of 0.15 to 0.18.
Designing of any type of gasifier now boils down to estimating the maximum amount of
gas needed. This is easily done by taking into account the cylinder volume and number of
revolutions as well as the volumetric efficiency of an internal combustion engine attached

32
to a system. For the required gas amount as well as for B maximum value the area of the
smallest restriction and the diameter of the throat can be calculated.

3.1.1.1 Specification of the downdraft gasifier

The designing of the gasifier was based on its use and power requirement. The
gasifier was designed and fabricated for running 14.9 kW (25 hp) four stroke single cylinder
diesel engine.

The maximum rpm of the engine = 2500

Engine swept volume in one stroke = 898 cc = 898000 mm3

4-Stroke engine, the air entered once during one cycle and it required 2 revolutions

Gas/ Air intake in two revolutions = 898 cm3 = 898000 mm3

Maximum air intake for 2500 rpm = ½ x (rpm) x (swept volume)

= ½ x 2500 x 898

= 1122500 cc/ min

For a well design and clean air inlet manifold the volumetric efficiency (A) is nearly 80%

Therefore;

Actual air intake = 1122500 cc/min x (A)

= 1122500 cc/min x 0.80

Actual air intake = 898000 cc/min

The air gas stoichiometric ratio = 1.1:1

Maximum gas intake = 1/1.1 x (898000)

= 816363.6 cc/min
= 48.98 m3/hr

According to the hearth load concept

Area of throat at narrowest section = 48.98/ 0.9

= 54.42 cm2 = 5442 mm2

33
 4 ×54.42
Diameter of throat = √( )
𝜋

= 8.3 cm = 83 mm

The number, size and height of the nozzles opening for different capacities of
downdraft gasifier were taken from the empirical data presented by “Swedish Academy
of Engineering Sciences”. The data presented by SAES is shown in Table 3.1 (SAES,
1979).

Table 3.1 Suitable nozzles for biomass gas generator operating with four stroke engines
(SAES, 1979).
dt dn N
(mm) (mm)
70 10.5 3
80 9 3
90 10 3
100 11 5
120 12.7 5
130 13.5 5
150 15 5
170 14.3 7
190 16 7
220 18 7
270 22 7
300 24 7
dt = Diameter of throat at smallest cross-sectional area; dn = Nozzle diameter; N = No of
nozzles

3.1.1.2 Fabrication of throat section

For the designing of gasifier the diameter of the throat was calculated. A designed
throat was fastened in the gasifier in such a way that it might take out easily from the
gasifier for repair maintenance and for further modifications. The throat was adjusted
lowered as much as possible so the tar production should be minimized.

34
3.1.1.3 Nozzles adjustment

The nozzle height was calculated from the relation presented by SAES shown
below

1.15 = H/dt

H = 1.15 x 8.3

H = 9.5 cm

H = 95 mm

The suitable numbers and size of the nozzles opening were selected from Table 3.1.

Number of nozzles = 3

Diameter of the nozzle at narrowest section = 9.3 mm

3.1.1.4 Construction of gasifier body

The gasifier was constructed with mild steel (MS) sheet 1.52 mm thickness
(Number 16 Gauge) and having weight 11.9 kg/m2. The gasifier was in cylindrical shape
and was made light weight for easy transportation purpose. The downdraft gasifier was
sealed in such a way that there would be no leakage of air/gas. The large size of fuel hopper
has the advantage that the fuel which have moisture content more than the requirement for
gasification can be placed at the top layer in the gasifier so that it can dry with the internal
heat of the gasifier. This can preserve the top of gasifier from excessive heating and also
reduces the heat loss. The throat in the gasifier was adjusted in such a way that the hopper
area may be increased or decreased by raising or lowering the throat.

3.1.1.5 Safety valve

The gasifier was provided with the pressure relief safety valve at the top in the cap
of the fuel hopper so that if there any positive pressure develops in the gasifier, the
excessive pressure may release form this point. The positive pressure develops in the
gasifier if there is problem or blockage occurs in the gas outlet pipe or improper function
of the blower. This positive pressure may cause a blast, so to avoid this situation a safety
valve was provided.

35
3.1.1.6 Circular grate

A circular grate was provided in the reduction zone so that ashes should fell down
in the ash pit and unburned biomass should stay in the pyrolysis zone. The circular grate
(Figure 3.2) was attached with the throat section with the help of screws for easy separation
and attachment for cleaning purposes.

Figure 3.2 Circular grate provided below hearth zone

3.1.1.7 Air regulating valves

The air regulating valves were provided to change the production rate when the
gasifier was in operation. These valves also used to stop the gasifier operation by stopping
the air intake flow.

3.1.1.8 Firing valve

One firing valve was provided in the throat of the gasifier. This valve helps to start
the burning of the fuel in the pyrolysis zone. When the burning of fuel starts the firing valve
was closed.

3.1.1.9 Ash removal outlet

The purpose of ash removal port/outlet is to remove the ash and dust collected in
the ash pit during the gasifier operation. It is necessary to remove the ash from the gasifier

36
after every 10 hours operational time. But in the case of downdraft gasifier the most of ash
and dust contents moves with the producer gas to the cleaning unit.

3.1.1.10 Gas outlet pipe

For removing the produced gas from the gasifier, a pipe was provided at the bottom
part of the gasifier below the throat section. This pipe was connected to the gas conditioning
unit for the purification of the producer gas.

3.1.1.11 Modified blower with speed controller

A variable speed blower was modified (Figure 3.3) according to the requirements and
provided to the system to create the negative pressure into the reactor so that the air can be
sucked through the nozzles. This blower attached to the system after the cooling tower/unit.

This blower is single stage centrifugal type look more like centrifugal pumps than fans.
The impeller is typically gear-driven and rotates as fast as 15,000 rpm. In single-stage
blower, air does not take many turns, and hence it is more efficient. The blower was
operated against pressures of 0.35 to 0.70 kg/cm. One characteristic is that airflow tends to
drop drastically as system pressure increases, which can be a disadvantage in material
conveying systems that depend on a steady air volume. Because of this, they are most often
used in applications that are not prone to clogging.

Figure 3.3 Isometric view of modified blower fan with speed controller

37
3.1.2 Production of the producer/syn gas in downdraft gasifier

Beginning with a ‘start-up’ charge of solid biomass fuel in the combustion space of
the hearth and air-dry fuel piled on top, gasification proceeds as follows:

Along with the restricted supply of primary air admitted laterally into the hearth
zone, through air inlets. A momentary flame, which is caused by the burning of oil-soaked
cloth brought near the air inlet valves, due to negative pressure build up in the gasifier, it
sucks the fire inside to ignite the solid fuel and within about one to two minute, combustion
is established.

Heat radiating upward from the combustion zone, carried moisture from the fuel
and as solid fuel is consumed beneath; the dried fuel sinks closer to the source of heat. At
this point, the higher temperature promotes the distillation of volatile substance from the
wood, which then carbonized to charcoal. In the lower levels of this carbonization zone
some of the volatile substances may ignites, producing a much more rapid temperature rise.

The process at this level produces much heat when oxygen in the air admitted to the
combustion zone, contacts and reacts with the incandescent fuel surface to produce carbon
mono oxide. Carbon monoxide diffuses back into the gas filled spaces between the solid
fuel pieces where it oxidizes to form carbon dioxide. These reactions all take place in the
oxidation zone.

As the amount of carbon dioxide in the gas spaces builds up, there is a
corresponding reduction in the amount of free oxygen available in the gas spaces and
concentration of both these gases will approach constant levels. At this point in the system,
the carbon monoxide concentration reached a constant low level that is maintained.

Simultaneously, steam also contacts and reacts with the incandescent charcoal
surfaces to produce carbon monoxide and hydrogen. A little carbon dioxide may be
produced. The additional carbon monoxide and the hydrogen diffuse back into the gas
spaces where they oxidized to form carbon dioxide and steam respectively. The net effect
of the steam reaction is to supplement the carbon-oxygen reaction provided. It is not
excessive, the presence of steam confers the same result as an increase in the available
oxygen.

As the reactions continue, the amount of oxygen available for combustion decreased
until eventually the amount of heat produced at this level in the system balance the amount

38
of heat produced needed to run it. Here the flame temperature reaches its maximum and the
amount of oxygen remaining is very small.

The process below this level, which is referred to as the reduction zone, consumes
much heat. After the maximum flame temperature has been reached and practically all the
oxygen consumed, the temperature in the system begin to fall because less heat is being
produced than required to run it. At this stage, the carbon dioxide and steam in the gas
spaces penetrates to and reacts with the hot charcoal surfaces to produce carbon monoxide
and hydrogen, drawing heat from charcoal bed in the course of the reactions. As the system
temperature continues to decrease, the rates of these reactions also decrease. Until when
the temperature falls sufficiently or when the charcoal supply is exhausted, the gasification
process stopped.

The product of the chemical reactions that take place in the reduction zone is a
combustible gas that can be used as fuel gas in burners and after dust removal and cooling
is suitable for internal combustion engines.

The product gas leaves the gasifier hot, moist and dirty to undergo the degree of
cleaning, cooling and drying appropriate to the end use intended for it.

3.1.2.1 Operation of downdraft gasifier

The gasifiers operate at negative pressure, which result from the suction of either
the engine or a blower. The first thing in the gasifiers operation is the fuel preparation.
Gasifier’s efficiency is as best as the fuel is well prepared. A best-prepared fuel is that
which contains moisture contents within 14% to 20% on dry weight basis. For better results
fuels having moisture content more high should be dried before feeding. To accelerate the
drying process it is advantageous to spread the fuel in open air. Using wood fuel a fresh cut
wood has a moisture content of 40-42% and it dries in sixty days to moisture content about
20% it means for safety at least wood fuel should be stored for roughly three months
consumption in the site.

The fuel was fed into the gasifier from the top and it descended through the gasifier
by gravity. At start-up, some charcoal was loaded in and below the hearth zone for quick
gas production. It was recommended to put charcoal in the gasifier from the bottom grate
to 10 cm above the nozzle plane, with wood or other biomass on top.

39
 It is better and advantageous to fill the gasifier up to full capacity. In this way the
oxygen present in the empty place of fuel hopper is removed and the risk of blasting
decreased. For lightening, first the blower is started, it run for some time so that the excess
air in the gasifier is removed, then the air regulating inlet valves are opened and a cloth
soaked with kerosene oil is lighted with a simple match and it bring near the firing valve.
Due to negative pressure in the reactor, it will sucked the air with fire inward and the
burning of the fuel will fully started in about 4-5 minutes. The full gas supply started after
about 15-20 minutes.

3.1.2.2 Starting up

In order to start-up the unit, the following operation were performed

1. First, the gasifier was filled with the fuel to its full capacity.
2. Fasten the airtight covers (top cover and ash removal cover) with the help of screws.
3. All the sealing were checked carefully for air leakage.
4. Closing of valve which was on the gas delivery pipe to engine and opening of valve
of blower suction pipe. The both valves were manually operated.
5. Started the blower by switching the fan button control.
6. Waited about 2 to 3 minutes so that all the accumulated gases in the gasifier should
release.
7. Open the firing valve and brought the fire near it, as there were negative pressure in
the gasifier so it sucks the fire inside the gasifier and the fuel was started to burn. It
took about 3-5 minutes to ignite the fuel inside the gasifier.
8. Producer gas was escaped through the blower exhaust with whitish appearance.
9. After about 8-10 minutes the produced gas was lighted with a match, if it caught the
fire it’s OK.
10. Close the valve for blower suction and open the engine delivery valve for engine
suction of the gas.

3.1.2.3 Closing down

1. Close the air inlet valves.

2. The blower/engine was switched off after 2 to 3 minutes after closing the valves.
3. Close the air outlet valve.
4. The gasifier was turned down after 5 to 10 minutes because there were no oxygen
which helped the fuel to burn.
40
3.2 Design and development of updraft gasifier
Updraft gasifiers are also known as counter-current gasifiers, as biomass feedstock
flows in the opposite direction to the gasifying agent. Feedstock enters from the top of the
reaction chamber and moves slowly downward through the drying, pyrolysis, gasification
and combustion zones. Finally ash exits downward through the grate and is removed (Reed
and Das, 1988). The gasifying agent enters through the grate at the bottom of the chamber,
undergoes thermo-chemical reactions with feedstock as it moves upward through the zones,
and producer gas exits through the top of the reaction chamber. The direct heat exchange
from gas to entering feedstock produces high thermal efficiency in updraft gasifiers
(Stassen and Knoef, 1993). Producer gas exits at a relatively low temperature (80-300°C)
and contains high amounts of oils and tar (10-20%) because the products of the pyrolysis
and drying zones exit directly with producer gas rather than being decomposed
(Anonymous, 2002). Dust content in producer gas is generally low due to low gas velocities
and the filtering effect of the upper zones (Carlos, 2005).
In an up-draft fixed bed gasifier the fuel is fed into the reactor from top and the air
or steam is blown from bottom. It is upward passage of air/steam that gives the gasifier its
name. In the gasifier/reactor the fuel undergoes five distinct processes each merging
gradually to its next. First of all the drying zone where moisture is removed from the fuel
with the contact of upward flowing hot gases at about 600oC slowly vaporises the volatile
components of the fuel into upward flowing gases. In this zone the fuel produces a charcoal
which in contact with CO2 reacts endothermically producing carbon mono oxide CO and
reducing the temperature of the flowing gas.

The reaction rate reduces as the temperature decreases and below 600oC, the
reaction becomes insignificant. This zone is called reduction zone. Carbon which is not
consumed in the reduction zone gravitates into the oxidation zone where it reacts with the
oxygen (O2) present in the air blast producing carbon dioxide (CO2) and the heat needed in
the upper zone of the gasifier. Ash containing a small quantity of unreacted carbon leaves
the oxidation zone and collects in the Ash Zone on the gasifier grate. The ash protects the
gasifier grate from the high temperature of oxidation zone and helps in the even distribution
of air blast. The raw fuel gas exits at the top of the reactor. The schematic of updraft gasifier
with different zones and temperature range is shown in Figure 3.4.

41
 Figure 3.4 Schematic of an updraft gasifier (Capareda, 2006).

3.2.1 Construction of updraft gasifier

The sizes of components used for this gasifier design were chosen based on the
conversion rate desired for the system and the desire to use off-the-shelf sizes for
components. The conversion rate of biomass to producer gas per square inch of cross-
sectional area in the gasification chamber was estimated based on the conversion rate in the
Bowser et al. (2005) updraft gasifier.
The basic design of the gasifier was inspired by the work of Bowser et al. (2005).
The Bowser et al gasifier, shown in Figure 3.5 is an updraft, batch type gasifier with the
basic design inspired by the work of Patil and Rao (1993). Bowser et al. made
improvements to the Patil and Rao gasifier including a motorized scraper blade, improved
sensors, off-the shelf pipe and pipe fittings for body components, portability and quick
disassembly.

42
 Figure 3.5 Schematic of updraft, batch gasifier designed by Bowser et al. (2005).
All dimensions in mm.

The body of the Bowser et al. gasifier is mild steel, 200 mm and 100 mm (8 inch
and 4 inch) diameter, schedule-40 pipe, with pipe fittings welded or bolted together and
insulated with a calcium silica insulation blanket. The upper section of the gasifier body
provides storage for feedstock, which is loaded through the biomass charging port. The
body diameter has a reduction from 200 mm to 100 mm (8 inch to 4 inch) intended to
reduce pressure on the lower column during operation and to provide some headspace
where the flue pipe attaches to the gasifier body. However, this reduction acts as a
bottleneck to feedstock during operation, compressing the biomass as it moves down and
stopping flow. The midsection of the gasifier body includes the combustion chamber,
thermocouple ports, producer gas exhaust pipe, and access port. The combustion chamber
was fabricated from a 10 cm (4 inch) Tee with flange ends. The projecting end of the Tee
was used as an access port. Thermocouple fittings were pass-through, compression fittings.
The producer gas exhaust pipe included a “dirt leg” to help remove condensed tar. The
lower portion of the gasifier included an ash grate, rotating motorized scraper assembly,

43
ash receptacle, compressed gas inlet, and ash cleanout port. Ash particles fell through the
grate and accumulated in the ash receptacle. This design is also design and fabricated by
Sarah Rowland during her masters research work. The updraft gasifier was designed and
fabricated for using eastern red cedar wood as fuel. (Rowland, 2010)
Notable changes were made in this design to make it convenient for low bulk density fuels,
includes
 An air-locked hopper and screw conveyor to deliver feedstock and make the system
capable of operating as a continuous system for short periods of time rather than
batch.
 A larger diameter 254 mm (10 inch) rather than 100 mm (4 inch) inner diameter
combustion chamber to reduce the effects of the walls on biomass movement.
 No bottlenecks in the gasification chamber. Removal of the bottlenecks allows
material to move downward through the system more freely rather than packing
into the reduced area.
 An insulation shell comprised of a 400 mm (15.75 inch) diameter pipe, provides
around the combustion chamber.
 The producer gas outlet is straight, allowing tar to drip back into the gasifier rather
than collecting in the elbow and causing pressure build-up when producer gas
cannot escape. Also, there is no “dirt leg” on the producer gas arm.
 There is no side access port on the gasifier. This port was difficult to insulate and
keep from leaking producer gas. Instead, the combustion zone is initially lit through
the ash port.
The gasifier was constructed with mild steel (MS) sheet 1.519 mm thickness (No. 16
Gauge) and having weight 11.9 kg/m2.

The gasifier was constructed into a complete unit by divided into following different parts

1. Reaction chamber with insulation cover

2. Gas collection/outlet unit
3. Ash collection unit with grate
4. Fuel hopper for fuel storage
5. Fuel conveying screw auger
6. Stand for supporting the whole unit

44
3.2.1.1 Reaction chamber with insulation cover

The main body of the gasifier was manufactured by bending mild steel sheets in
cylindrical shape. The reaction or gasification chamber was designed and developed to
provide favourable environment for the production of producer gas. This reaction chamber
was surrounded by another cylindrical shell in which the insulation material was filled.
Glass wool was used as insulation material with average thermal conductivity of 0.04
W/m.°C and temperature resistance well above 1000 °C (Anonymous, 2014).

3.2.1.2 Gas collection/outlet unit

The gas collection unit was also made in cylindrical shape. The gas collection unit
was fastened with gasification chamber with a bolted flange which help in easy attach and
detach for cleaning and maintenances purposes of the gasifier.

The gas outflow pipe and the hopper connection with the gasifier was also made in
this section. The producer gas outlet pipe was fabricated from mild steel and includes a gas
shut off valve and gas sampling port sealed with the dead end cork for the sampling of the
produced gas. A direction control valve also provided in this pipe for controlling the gas
supply. This pipe was connected to the conditioning unit to clean and cool the raw gas
generated in the gasifier.

3.2.1.3 Ash pit with grate

After combustion of biomass ash fall in ash pit that was located at the bottom of the
gasifier. A grate was provided in the reduction zone for the air entry in to the reduction
section and for the ash to fall into the ash chamber. The grate was not permanently attached
to the gasifier body, but rather rests on a steel ledge to allow for easy further improvements.

3.2.1.4 Blower with speed controller

A blower (Figure 3.6) with variable speed controller was provided for forced air
supply to the gasifier was connected in the ash collection chamber below the grate. The
blower supplied air for gasification and its flow rate was measured by anemometer. Air was
supplied by blowers into the riser and during the start-up period also into the gasification
zone.

45
 Figure 3.6 Isometric view of the blower

3.2.1.5 Fuel hopper for fuel storage

A fuel hopper was designed for the feeding of the biomass to the updraft gasifier.
This section was attached to the gasifier to convert it from batch type to continuous feeding
type gasifier. This is necessary to make the gasifier for continuous operated because in
batch type it will be refiled with biomass after shutting it down completely. This hopper is
connected to the updraft gasifier through gas collection chamber with a fuel delivery pipe.

3.2.1.6 Fuel conveying screw auger

A fuel conveying screw auger was designed and fabricated for the easy feeding of
biomass from hopper to the gasifier. This auger conveyor is necessary to provide the system
in terms of stopping any leakage through this unit. The auger was mounted in the pipe
connecting hopper with gasifier, with the help of ball bearings for easy rotation. The rod
was extending out of the hopper and a handle was connected with it for easy rotation of the
auger.

3.2.1.7 Stand for supporting the whole unit

The stands were fabricated with the angle iron for the support to the hopper and the
gasifier. They were made strong enough to support the whole system.

46
 Figure 3.7 Front (left) and top (right) view of stand for supporting fuel hopper
(All dimensions in mm)

Figure 3.8 Front (left) and top (right) view of stand for supporting updraft gasifier
(All dimensions in mm)

47
3.3 Comparison of updraft to downdraft gasification systems
The oldest and simplest fixed bed gasification system, updraft gasifiers are more
robust than other types of fixed bed gasifiers (Chopra and Jain, 2007). Updraft systems can
handle feed stocks with ash content of up to 15% compared with 5% for Imbert downdraft
systems. They can also handle higher moisture content feed stocks, up to 50% compared to
20% in downdrafts (Anonymous, 2002). Updraft gasifiers are also less sensitive to
variations in particle size and quality in feedstock. Downdrafts have lower overall
efficiency due to the high amount of heat carried out by the hot gas (Clarke, 1981).
However, downdraft gasifiers are suitable for both thermal and engine applications while
updraft gasifiers are generally only suitable for thermal applications without considerable
clean-up of producer gas (Reed and Das, 1988).

3.4 Producer gas upgrading unit

3.4.1 Gas quality requirements for trouble free operation of engine

When a gasifier system is used in conjunction with an internal combustion engine or

cold gas transfer is used, an important requirement is that the engine is supplied with a gas
that is sufficient free from dust, tars and acids. The tolerable amounts of these substances
will vary depending on the types and outfit of the engine. Tiedema et al. (1983) gave as
tolerable average amounts for currently available engines the following values:

Dust: Lower than 50 mg m-3 gas preferably 5 mg m-3 gas.

Tar: Lower than 500 mg m-3 gas

Acids: Lower than 50 mg m-3 gas (measured as acetic acid)

A well designed downdraft and updraft gasifier, as mentioned, are able to meet the criteria
for cleanliness at least over a wide capacity range (from 20 – 100% of full load). To achieve
the required quality of the gas a cleaning and cooling unit is provided. When suitable fuels
are used, the gasifier and cleaner are well designed and the gasifier is operated above
minimum capacity, tar contamination of the gas does not present a major problem.

Gas cleaning is a general term for removing the unwanted impurities from biomass
gasification product gas and generally involves an integrated, multi-step approach that
depends on the end use of the product gas. It is possible to have a tar content of up to 50-
100mg/Nm3 in the produced gas. The biomass ashes and sulphur compounds have the most

48
deleterious effect on gas turbines by corroding the blades. Particulate matters such as char
and ash also have a damaging effect on any moving part. But gas turbines are less sensitive
to tar than IC engines as the gas temperature is usually high and tars are in vapour form.
(Baratieri et al., 2009)

Before use in many applications, producer gas must be cleaned and cooled,
generally using a filtration system of cyclones, wet scrubbers and dry filters (Demirbas,
2002; Rajvanshi, 1986).
Dependent on the application, type of gasifier and contaminants in the fuel, a certain
level of gas conditioning (cleaning and cooling) is required. The most frequent impurities
are hydrocarbons (tar), dust (particulates), ammonia, sulphur, chloride, alkalis, etc. which
need to be removed or converted. Tars may condensate on valves and fittings hampering
the valves to function properly; alkaline metals, dust and tars cause corrosion and erosion
of cylinder walls and pistons. When the gas used in heat applications, the requirements on
gas quality are not that strict, especially when the gas remains at high temperatures during
transportation to the burner, which prevents tars and alkaline metals to condensate. Dust is
usually removed by scrubbers, the most critical component to be handled is tar.

Tar is the major impurity present in the producer gas. Tar is a black in colour and a
mixture a hydrocarbons and free carbon. It obtained from variety of organic materials
through destructive distillation. (Chaplin and Joseph, 1989). Tar presence in the producer
gas largely changes from one formation to another, fuel type, the agent of oxidizing (air or
steam or oxygen), type of gasifier, type of fuel and forms, from about 1-180 g/Nm3. Tar
source of choke and corrosion of bore and piston of engines, accessories, environmental
pollution and serious health damage (Nair et al., 2003).

Ashes can cause a variety of problems in up or downdraft gasifiers because

slagging, caused by melting and agglomeration of ashes, can lead to excessive tar formation
and to air-channelling which can lead to a risk of explosion, especially in updraft gasifiers.
Whether or not slagging occurs depends on the ash content of the fuel, the melting
characteristics of the ash, and the temperature pattern in the gasifier. In general, no slagging
is observed with fuels having ash contents below 5 to 6 percent, and ash content of wood
is normally 0.75 to 2.5 percent (FAO, 1986).
Therefore, the main issue to syngas use in internal combustion engine is the removal
of tarry product, ash and corrosive gaseous compounds. The producer gas must be free

49
from tar and particulate matters and it should be cooled up to the ambient temperature for
IC engine application.

The conditioning unit (cooling and cleaning unit) for the cooling and purification
of the engine quality producer gas was designed for a range of 15-20 kW Internal
Combustion engines.
3.4.1.1 Water showering/cooling unit

The tar is present in vapour form at the gasifier exit where the temperature of the
producer gas ranges from 350 ºC to 450 ºC. But as the gas cools to less than 150 ºC, the tar
condenses and solidifies. For IC Engine application, the gas needs to be cooled to around
40 ºC i.e. ambient temperature. As stated earlier cooling of producer gas to this temperature
will condense tar which affect the engine operation.

Cooling unit was developed for cooling the hot gas coming from the gasifier. Hot
gases come out from the gasifier which is not proper fuel for engine. Cooling the gas
increases the efficiency of the engine. This water showering unit also remove the impurities
from the gas to some extent.

Cooling unit was constructed in cylindrical container shape, from which gas was
pass through. Hot gas was entered in to the unit from the bottom and go out from the top
of the showering unit. Cool water spray cylinder was constructed according to the
requirements of the system. Calculations were made by using the formula 3.2 (Mandwe et
al., 2006)

𝐵𝐻
𝑅𝑇 =
𝑉𝑔

Where,

RT= retention time (Sec); BH = Bed Height (m) and Vg = Velocity of gas (m/s)

The gas was introduces into the tower from bottom of the unit through pipe and
collected from top of it. The producer gas was passed through the shower of fresh water to
remove impurities from it. 4 number of spraying nozzles were installed and adjusted in
such a way that there was no part of the unit escape from the shower of water. Pressure of
water was created by using a small sized pump and pressurised water was passed through
the nozzles to create a uniform and finer water particle distribution shower. The
contaminated water was collected from the bottom of the unit.

50
The whole unit was air-tight and sealed so that there would be no leakage of the gas from
the cooling unit.

3.4.1.2 Gas cleaning unit

The design philosophy behind the gas cleaning filter is as follows:

1. The additive material is neutral and non-reactive material.

2. It is inexpensive and easily available.

3. It is easily available in different grain size grades.

4. It can withstand high gas temperature

5. It is easy to clean and recycle i.e. regenerative material.

The basic idea of this filter was taken from Sand Bed Filter (Pathak et al., 2007) which
was designed and fabricated at Sardar Patel Renewable Energy Research Institute
(SPRERI) for upgrading the producer gas.

Figure 3.9 Schematic Diagram of sand bed filter to clean producer gas (Pathak et al., 2007)

In this filter the wood sheaves, fine and coarse sand was used as filtering medium and
separated by stainless steel 304 no size meshes.

The new filter was designed with some modifications in size and filtration material. The
different biomass materials were used to avoid the excessive pressure drop across the
filtration unit.

51
 The gas cleaning filter was designed, developed and tested with the existing updraft
and downdraft type gasifiers with IC engine set up for power generation. The area of gas
cleaning filter was designed for superficial velocity of 0.1 ms-1 and for maximum gas flow
rate of 50 m3 h-1 i.e. the designed flow rate of the gasifier. The sand/biomass bed filter was
designed and fabricated in rectangular shape from 3 mm thick mild steel sheet and wire
meshes fabricated from stainless steel were used to separate filter bed. Experimental
investigations suggest a liner relationship between bed height and the pressure drop across
the bed. This in turn, increases power consumption of the blower. Experience shows that
most of the gas contaminants (SPM and tar) were deposited in the initial 20 to 30 mm layers
of bed height (Pathak et al., 2007). Therefore, to be on safe side the bed height of each bed
in the present filter was taken as 85 mm.

The filter consists of following five compartments:

First compartment: Raw gas collection

Second compartment: 1st filtration material

Third compartment: 2nd filtration material

Fourth compartment: 3rd filtration material

Fifth compartment: Clean producer gas collection

The second, third and fourth compartment were filled with, wood sheaves, small
pieces of charcoal and sawdust respectively and each bed having bed height of 590 mm and
width of 20 mm. The sun dried wood shave was used to remove the moisture from the
producer gas. The coal was used to remove coarse particulates and tar while the wood saw
dust was used to remove fine particulates and tar. Wire meshes having size equivalent to
that of respective material size was used to separate the beds. The three beds of wood
shaves, charcoal and fine wood saw dust can be easily removed and replaced by fresh
material by opening the door provided at the upper side of the filter.

The filter was designed rectangular in shape. Gas entry and exit holes were made at
both sides respectively for the entrance and exit of the producer gas and pipes were welded
at these holes for connection with gasifier and engine system.

52
3.5 Testing evaluation of the gasification system

After the complete fabrication of the whole gasification unit, the system was
evaluated for its performance. Following tests were conducted to evaluate the system.
3.5.1 Evaluation of the gasifiers
Both down draft and updraft gasifiers were evaluated for the gas production,
running time, and temperature of the gas, quantity of different gases present in the produced
gas, tar contents and solid particulate material (like ash and unburned fuel particles) present
in the producer gas.
3.5.1.1 Gas analysis
The gas produced in the gasifier was analysed using gas analyser IMR 2800P
(Figure 3.12) and KANE Automotive 2 Gas Analyser (Figure 3.13), which gave the
composition of producer gas such as hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide,
oxygen, nitric oxides and oxides of sulfer.

Figure 3.10 IMR 2800P Gas Analyser with sampling probe

53
 Figure 3.11 KANE Automotive 2 Gas Analyser

3.5.1.2 Temperature of the gas

The temperature of the gas was also recoded with the help of k-type thermocouple
(Figure 3.14). The gas analyser also gave the atmosphere and gas temperature readings.

Figurev3.12 ETI 2002 K-type thermocouple

3.5.1.3 Velocity of gas

The gas velocity coming out from gasifier was measured in m/s with the help of
AVM-715 digital anemometer (Figure 3.15).

54
 Figure 3.13 TECPEL AVM-715 digital anemometer used for air/gas velocity
measurement
3.5.1.4 Volume of gas produced

The volume of gas produced was measured with the help of simple procedure.
Velocity of gas and also the area of pipe from where the gas comes out was measured and
the gas flow rate was calculated with the help of following formula (Mandwe et al., 2006)

𝑄 = 𝑉 ×𝐴

Where

Q=Gases flow rate, m3/s, V=Velocity of gas, m/s, A=Area of pipe, m2

3.5.1.5 Tar Contents

Tar contents present in the produced gas were measured for both updraft and downdraft
gasifiers with a copper helical shaped, tar condenser was used of the following dimensions:
Inner Diameter 8 mm and length 3000 mm.

3.5.2 Performance evaluation of the cooling and cleaning unit

The conditioning unit was evaluated for its performance by measuring following
parameters.
3.5.2.1 Temperature
Temperature of the producer gas was measured before entering the cooling and
cleaning unit and after the exit from cleaning unit with the help of thermocouples.
3.5.2.2 Tar Contents
A copper helical shaped, tar condenser was used of the following dimensions: Inner
Diameter 8 mm and length 3000 mm. The gas was passed through the condenser and it
submersed in the chilled water. The condenser cooling temperature was kept between 4 and

55
6 degrees. The con- denser system was efficient if temperature of water was maintained
well around 4°C.

Tar and dust particulates collected in the copper condenser were collected by
dissolving them in acetone and then draining from the condenser tube. Tar dissolved easily
in acetone and the tube gets cleaned. The dissolved tar was dried at 50°C in the oven, the
acetone gets evaporated and tar with dust particulates remain. Tar in milligrams is present
in one cubic meter gas, and was calculated by using the gas flow and the tar content. The
tar obtained at the outlet of filter was very negligible in amount.

Figure 3.14 Copper tube condenser used to measure the tar quantity

3.6 Engine test

The gasification system was tested by running a 15 kW (20 hp) single cylinder
diesel engine for water pumping. The fuel was 25% diesel and 75% was producer gas.
3.7 Statistical analysis

Data collected was statistically analysed using CRD design. PROG GLM (General
Linear Mode) procedures of the SAS System (1989) was used to analyse the data. When
the F-test indicates statistical significance, treatment means were separated by the LSD test
(Steel and Torrie, 1984).

56
3.8 Factors effecting on gasification

The form in which fuel is fed to gasifier has an economic impact on gasification.
The performance of gasifier mainly depends on the biomass fuel form. The biomass fuel
size varies according to the gasifier size. A large sized gasifier may utilize those big pieces
of wood, which cannot be gasified by a small gasifier. Studies have shown that there are a
number of factors affecting the gasification process. These include the following
(Raveendran et al., 1996).

3.8.1 Energy content of the fuel

Fuel with higher energy contents favours easier combustion to sustain the
endothermic gasification reactions because they can burnt at higher temperatures. Fuel with
higher energy content is always better for gasification. The much higher the energy content
fuel is used better results will be observed. The most of the biomass fuels (wood, straw and
agricultural crop residue) has heating value in the range of 10-16 MJ kg-1.

3.8.2 Fuel moisture contents

Water is a non-burnable component in the biomass. It is very important that the

moisture contents should be kept minimum before burning. All water in the feed stock
should be vaporized in the drying phase before combustion otherwise there will be
difficulty in sustaining combustion because the heat released will be used to evaporate the
moisture. Wood with higher moisture contents should be dried first before it can be used
as fuel in the gasifier. Updraft gasifiers are also adequate of operating with fuels that have
moisture contents of up to 50% (Beenackers, 1999).

3.8.3 Size distribution of the fuel:

Bridging in the reactor is one of the major problems in the fixed bed gasifiers. It
occurs when unscreened fuels do not flow freely downward in the reactor. Therefore
particle size of the fuel is an important parameter in biomass gasification because it
determines the bed porosity. On the other hand, fine grained fuels led to considerable
pressure drops in the fixed bed gasifiers.

57
3.8.4 Temperature of the reactor

To reduce the heat losses, the reactor should be properly insulated. If the heat losses
are higher than the heat requirement of the endothermic reactions, the gasification reactions
will not occur (Hobs et al., 1993).

3.8.5 Volatile matter content of the fuel

The amount of volatiles in the feedstock determines the necessity of special

measures in order to remove tars from the product gas in engine applications. Volatile
matter and inherently bound water in the fuel are given up in the pyrolysis zone at the
temperatures of 100-150 ºC formatting a vapor consisting of water, tar, oil and gases. Fuel
with high volatile matter produces more tar causing problems to internal combustion
engine. Volatile matters in the fuel determine the design of the gasifier for removal of tar.
In practice, the only biomass fuel that does not need this special attention is good quality
charcoal.

The volatile matter content in charcoal however is often underestimated and in

practice may be anything from 3 to 30 percent or more. The volatile matter content of Crop
Residue is as 63 – 80%, Wood 72 – 78%, Peat 70%, and Coal up to 40%. Compared to
other biomass materials charcoal contains least percentage of volatile matter (3 – 30%).

3.8.6 Ash content and ash chemical composition

Mineral content of fuel, which remains in oxidized form after combustion of fuel,
is called ash. In practice, ashes also contain some unburned fuel. Ash content and ash
composition have impact on smooth running of the gasifier. Ashes can cause a variety of
problems particularly in up or downdraft gasifiers. Slagging or clinker formation in the
reactor, caused by melting and agglomeration of ashes, at the best will greatly add to the
amount of labour required to operate the gasifier. If no special measures are taken, slagging
can lead to excessive tar formation and/or complete blocking of the reactor. Ash content
varies fuel to fuel. In general, no slagging is observed with fuels having ash contents below
5 – 6%. Severe slagging can be expected for fuels having ash contents of 12 % and above.
For gasification purposes, the melting behaviour of the fuel ash should be determined in
both oxidation and reducing atmospheres. As far as ash content is occurred, raw wood and
wood charcoals seldom present problems, the ash content being normally from 0.75 to 2.5
percent.

58
3.8.7 Reactivity of the fuel

The reactivity is an important factor determining the rate of reduction of carbon

dioxide to carbon monoxide in a gasifier. Reactivity influences the reactor design insofar
as it dictates the height needed in the reduction zone. Reactivity depends upon the type of
fuel. It has found that wood and charcoal are more reactive than coal. There is relationship
between reactivity and the number of active places on the char surfaces.

3.8.8 Bulk density of the fuel

Bulk density defined as the weight per unit volume of loosely tipped fuel. Bulk
density varies significantly with moisture content and particle size of the fuel. It is also
recognized that bulk density has considerable impact on gas quality, as it influences the
fuel residence time in the firebox, fuel velocity and gas flow rate. Fuels with high bulk
density are advantageous because they represent a high energy for volume value.
Consequently, these fuels need less bunker space for a given refuelling time and vice versa.
Bulk densities can be improved by briquetting or palletizing.

3.9 Assessment of the suitability of various types of biomass as gasifier

fuel

3.9.1 Wood

The main combustible components of wood are cellulose and lignin which are
compounds of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Other minor combustible in wood are resins
and waxes. The major non-combustible component of wood is water, which is present up
to 50 % in freshly cut wood. Though the ash content is low (less than 1 %), but because of
high oxygen content, the calorific value is low (16 – 20%). Most wood species have ash
contents below 2 % and are therefore suitable fuels for gasifier. Downdraft system delivers
a virtually tar free product gas in a certain capacity range when fuelled by wood chips of
low moisture content. After passing through a relatively simple clean-up train the gas may
be used in internal combustion engines.

3.9.2 Coal and Charcoal

Charcoal is a product of wood carbonization (absence of air). By burning around 4

ton of firewood, 1 ton of charcoal is produced. Charcoal offers twice as much as heat
produced by wood. Energy lost during the conversion of wood to charcoal can be

59
compensated by using efficient charcoal oven or cook stove. Unlike firewood, it burns
slowly and does not produce any smoke. Because good quality charcoal contains almost no
tar, it is a feasible fuel for gasification. Good gasifier charcoal is low in mineral matter and
does not crumble or disintegrate easily. The major disadvantage of this fuel is the relatively
high cost of the charcoal, which reduces competitiveness as compared to liquid fuel and
the energy losses which occurs during charcoal manufacture (up to 50 % of the energy
originally present in the wood may be lost). This latter factor may be of special importance
for those developing countries which already suffer from an insufficient biomass energy
base to cater for their domestic energy requirements. But on the other hand charcoal
produces 2.5 times more gas than wood and gives more energy for equal weight of wood
i.e. wood has energy 16MJ/kg and charcoal has 30 MJ kg-1.

3.9.3 Agricultural crop residues

In principle, developing countries have a wide range of agricultural residues

available for gasification. There is no study has been made for the calculation of the
quantity of crop residue available annually in Pakistan, but it produces millions of tons of
biomass in the form of crop residues. Agricultural residues with moisture contents of 5 –
30% can be gasified for successful gasification as the basic composition of carbon,
hydrogen and oxygen is same. Usually in most of the areas in Pakistan, the agricultural
residues are burnt in the fields after harvesting or feed to the animals as a fodder. By
utilizing them for gasification purposes, a lot of energy, which is usually lost, can
participate in the betterment of farming practices i.e. for running the engines. In our country
where the wheat is harvested with combine harvesters the residues are burnt in the field, at
that time the straw/chaff are at the moisture content that are good for gasification. In case
of rice, the residual straws are at high moisture content at the time of harvesting but after
small drying, they can be used in gasifier.

3.9.4 Corncobs (Pith)

Corn Cobs are the most appropriate fuel, which can be used in the gasifier without
palletizing it. They are at the suitable moisture contents when the maize is shelled, which
can be directly used in the gasifier without further drying them. It can be use directly in the
gasifier because of its proper size and it does not need to chop or palletizing like wheat
straw and other crop residues. It is the most appropriate crop residue for downdraft gasifier.
It has very low ash contents as compared to other crop residues. It does not create the

60
slagging or bridging problems in the gasifier. It is also available at very low prices as
compared to wood, coal and charcoal. It is available in huge quantities about millions of
tons.

3.9.5 Ricehusk

Rice husk is the most suitable fuel for the updraft gasifiers which can be used in
gasifier without palletizing it. They are at the appropriate moisture contents when the rice
is shelled, which can be directly used in the gasifier with no further drying them. It can be
used directly in the gasifier because of it suitable size and it does not require to chop or
palletizing like wheat straw and other crop residues. It is the most appropriate crop residues
for updraft gasifier. It has very low ash contents as compared to other crop residues. It does
not generate the slagging or bridging problems in the updraft gasifier. It is also available at
very low prices as compared to wood, coal and charcoal. It is available in huge quantities
about millions of tons.

3.10 Conversion of gasoline engine to producer gas

The producer gas has gaseous fuel properties and burns only by spark. Therefore, for
running gasoline engine on producer gas needs no special changing. Unaltered gasoline
engine run with producer gas experiences the power loss of 30 – 50% depending upon the
producer gas quality and engine load. Unaltered gasoline engine run with producer gas
sound good from economical point of view. This approach is beneficial, for some
application such as irrigation pump, which works at constant load and even at low load
also. This approach is not practically workable for variable working load conditions
(Dasappa et al., 2007).

The efficiency of producer gas driver gasoline engine is 20% less than the engine
running on petrol alone. Gas should introduce into the engine after mixed with the air in a
gas carburettor. Gas-fuel mixture in case of engine run on gasoline, gasoline-air mixture is
adjusted automatically by carburettor and controlled by accelerator. Finding the correct
gas- air ratio in producer gas derive engine is difficult as gas composition changes.

Power loss in gasoline engine run on producer gas may be recovered by increasing
the compression ratio. Commonly gasoline engine operating on producer gas are usually
operated at the compression ratio of 6.5 to 7.5. Keeping in mind hydrogen content in

61
producer gas and its effect on flame speed, compression ratio as high as 10 is said to be
technically and economically feasible.

3.11 Conversion of diesel engine to producer gas

A diesel engine cannot be operated on producer gas alone, it need to be operated on

dual fuel (a little diesel about 10% to 25% of full load consumption is applied only for
irrigation and a little power addition) or converted completely into spark ignition engine.
Complete rebuilding of entire engine is expensive and time-consuming job. Therefore, it is
better to use it on dual fuel system.

The maximum power output of such an engine depends on the gas heating value the
injected diesel fuel amounts and engine characteristics. The efficiency of a diesel engine
operating in dual fuel mode is less (up to 25% less) than the efficiency in single (diesel)
fuel mode.

3.12 Operating hazards of gasifiers

Producer gas, the mixture of carbon monoxide, hydrogen, methane and other gases,
is hazardous if it is not handled and used properly. Poisonous component of producer gas
is carbon monoxide, tar and some other acids. Some of their hazards are discussed below
(Stassen and Knoef, 1999)

3.12.1 Environmental hazard

Moisture and smoke are vented through the blower chimney, which is sufficiently
high not to cause pollution. Wastewater and ashes may be discharged downhill to remote
swamp. During the gasification of the wood or agricultural residues, ashes and condensate
as product. The latter can be polluted by phenolic and tar.

The ashes do not constitute an environmental hazard and can be disposed of safely
in the normal way. For the tar containing condensate the situation is different and disposal
of those from gasifiers can have undesirable environmental effects. The properties of
exhaust emissions from engines run on producer gas are generally considered acceptable,
comparable to those of diesel engine.

Materials recycling and gas composting cannot handle mixed waste feeds today
only landfill and incineration can do this which both are hazards to environment. There are
few pyrolysis and gasification system can handle un-segregated municipal solid waste,

62
although operational reliability has not yet been fully demonstrated for most of these
processes. (Timmerer and Lettner, 2005)

3.12.2 Toxic hazards

An important constituent of producer gas is carbon monoxide, an extremely toxic

and dangerous gas because of its tendency to combine with haemoglobin of the blood and
in this way prevent oxygen absorption and distribution. Carbon monoxide concentration of
50 ppm produces no effect. As concentration increases, there arise problems of headache,
dizziness and even death also. (Bridgwater et al., 1999)

3.12.3 Fire hazards

The fire hazard problems caused by the following reasons:

1. High surface temperature of the equipment;

2. Risk of spark during refuelling;
3. Refuelling of the gasifier when some pieces of hot burning fuel are present and
the blower is turned off.

3.12.4 Explosion hazards

The explosion in the system can occurs due to the following reasons:

1. Air leakage into the gas system;

2. Operating gasifier without putting the fuel up-to the full capacity of fuel hopper
3. Air leakage into a cold gasifier still containing gas, which subsequently ignites
4. Backfire from the fan exhaust burner when the system is filled with a combustion
mixture of air and gas during start-up.

3.13 Safety measures

The gasifier installation should provide with the following features, which helped to
minimize the usual hazards of gasifier operation:

1. Pressure relief valve should be provided at the top of the gasifier to reduce the
excessive internal pressure because in most cases pressure builds up in the bunker
section.

63
 2. The gasifier should be housed and operated in an open shed so that concentration
of the carbon monoxide cannot develop.

3. Gas is produced and takes out from the gasifier by suction of the blower/engine, as
they created the negative pressure in the gasifier, so there is less risk of blasting.

4. The gasifier should be sited at a sufficient distance from the exploding material.

5. Care must be taken to avoid inhaling smoke and fumes of the system.

6. The gasifier should be started after being filled completely up to the top.

7. Gasifier should be sealed completely in such a way that the air cannot entered in to
the system except through regulated valves.

8. The hot gasifier always refilled by keeping the blower running.

9. Cold system should always be carefully ventilated by running the blower for 2 to 3
minutes before igniting the fuel.

3.14 Calibration of instruments

Calibration is a comparison between a known measurement (the standard) and the

measurement using your instrument. Typically, the accuracy of the standard should be ten
times the accuracy of the measuring device being tested.

Calibration of your measuring instruments has two objectives. It checks the

accuracy of the instrument and it determines the traceability of the measurement. In
practice, calibration also includes repair of the device if it is out of calibration. A report is
provided by the calibration expert, which shows the error in measurements with the
measuring device before and after the calibration.

3.14.1 Calibration of Gas Analyser

The IMR2800P gas analyser was calibrated before its use for the following
calibration standards by the professional lab engineers.

Gases: Oxygen (O2), Carbon monoxide (CO), Carbon dioxide (CO2), Nitric oxide
(NO), Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), Sulphur dioxide (SO2) and Hydrocarbons (CxHx)

Other Parameters: Temperature and pressure

64
 It was found that after the calibration that the analyser was about working at about
92% accuracy level.

After the lab experiments it was found that there were no such issues that the
accuracy of the measurement of the gas analyser was affected in varying operating
conditions, when it was used by experienced person.

3.15 Effect of varying conditions on gasifier performance

There are many parameters which effects the gasifier performance in the field

3.15.1 Air flow rate

Tar content in syngas increasing as the air flow rate increases. High air flow rate presents
the highest tar content when crop residue used for feeding material and in contrast with
woody materials which had its highest tar content at medium air flow. An increment in the
air flow leads the formation of tar species. Variation in the air flow can affect tar yield in
biomass gasification, they found that tar content has a linear increment with air flow.
3.15.2 Effect of the feed-air temperature on tar content
Increase the temperature of feed air consequently decreases the production of tar contents
in the produced gas. High temperature feeding air increase the bed temperature of the
reactor and promote decrement in tar.
3.15.3 Effect of biomass type
The different types of biomass materials comprehensively affected the production of tar
contents and composition of the produced gas. (Discussed in 4th chapter under the heading
of evaluation of gasifiers)

65
 CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter is divided into two phases i.e. design and development of gasification
unit for running a small sized internal combustion engine and then to evaluate the newly
fabricated gasifiers and the conditioning unit. The gasifiers were evaluated using different
fuels and the running time, volume of gas produced and the composition of produced gas
were recorded. The conditioning unit consists of cooling and cleaning unit. This unit was
evaluated for producer gas cooling and cleaning efficiency using different instruments.

4.1 Design and fabrication of downdraft gasifier

The downdraft gasifier was designed and fabricated according to the calculations
made in previous chapter. In this section, the development work for the downdraft
gasifier has been explained with the help of drawings and dimensions for each
component.

4.1.1 Fabrication of throat section

A throat was designed and fabricated with a slope of about 50o and 83 mm
diameter (calculated in previous chapter) at the narrowest section. It was fastened in the
gasifier in such a way that it might take out easily from the gasifier for repair maintenance
and for further modifications. Under the narrowest section of throat, 80 mm deep and 83
mm diameter cylinder was welded at the upper end of reduction zone.

4.1.2 Nozzles adjustment

For the selected diameter of throat section, three nozzles of 9.3 mm diameter were
selected (Table 3.1). These nozzles were adjusted in throat at a height of 95 mm above the
narrowest constriction, for the air supply in the reduction zone of the gasifier. The front
and top views of the throat section are shown in Figure 3.2 while the isometric view is
shown in Figure 3.3.

66
 Figure 4.1 Front (left) and top (right) View of throat section
(All Dimensions are in mm)

Figure 4.2 Isometric view of the throat

4.1.3 Construction of gasifier body

The gasifier was constructed with mild steel (MS) sheet 1.52 mm thickness (No.
16 Gauge) and having weight 11.9 kg/m2. The gasifier was in cylindrical shape with 580
mm diameter and 880 mm height. The opening of the hopper for feeding of solid fuel into
the gasifier was taken as 580 mm diameter. The front and top views of the downdraft
gasifier is shown in Figure 4.3. The isometric and cut section views of downdraft gasifier
is shown in Figure 4.4 and 4.5 respectively.

67
Figure 4.3 Front (left) and top (right) view of downdraft gasifier showing the dimensions
of the gasifier body
(All Dimensions are in mm)

Figure 4.4 Isometric view of the downdraft gasifier

68
 Figure 4.5 Cut section view of the downdraft gasifier

4.1.4 Safety valve

The gasifier was provided with safety valve having diameter 50.8 mm at the top in
the cap of the fuel hopper to prevent the system against any positive pressure in the
gasifier. In case of excessive pressure, it releases from this point and saves the gasifier
from blasting.

4.1.5 Air regulating valves

The air regulating valves were provided to vary the input air flow rate when the
gasifier was in operation. The air intake pipes were fastened in the sockets welded in the
throat at the outer end and in the inner end of these sockets the selected nozzles were
fixed firmly. Three air supply valves were adjusted into the gasifier throat at an angle of
120o from each other. These valves were adjusted in the pyrolysis zone at a height
calculated in chapter 3 above the narrowest cross section of the throat.

4.1.6 Ash removal outlet

An ash removal hole (127 mm diameter) with air tight cap was provided just
above the bottom of the gasifier for the purpose of removing ash and dust collected in the
ash pit during the gasifier operation

69
4.1.7 Gas outlet pipe

A pipe was fixed at 90 mm above the bottom for the exit of gas produced in the
gasifier. The diameter of this outlet pipe was 50 mm. This pipe was connected to the
conditioning unit to clean and cool the raw gas obtained during the gasification process.

4.2 Design and development of updraft gasifier

4.2.1 Construction of updraft gasifier

The updraft gasifier was designed and fabricated by dividing it into various parts. The
details of the fabricated parts is as under

4.2.2 Reaction chamber with insulation cover

The gasification chamber was constructed in cylindrical shape having 250 mm

diameter. The main body of the gasifier was manufactured by bending mild steel sheets in
cylindrical shape. The front and top view of reaction chamber is shown in Figure 4.6,
while the isometric view is shown in Figure 4.7. The 610 mm high gasification chamber
section was surrounded by a 400 mm diameter shell of mild steel for the insulation of the
chamber. About 76 mm (3 inch) glass wool was used as insulation material. Figure 4.8
shows the front and top view of the insulation cover and Figure 4.9 shows the isometric
view of the insulation cover.

Figure 4.6 Front (left) and top (right) view of reaction chamber
(All Dimensions in mm)

70
Figure 4.7 Isometric view of the reaction/gasification chamber

Figure 4.8 Front (left) and top (right) views Insulation Cover
(All Dimensions in mm)

Figure 4.9 Isometric view of the insulation cover

71
4.2.3 Gas collection/outlet unit

The gas collection unit (Figure 4.10) was also made in cylindrical shape having
130 mm diameter. This section was 468 mm high for providing the space for the
produced gas to stay in this chamber for a short period of time to cool it a little bit. The
isometric view of the gas collection unit is shown in Figure 4.11.

Figure 4.10 Front view of gas collection chamber

(All Dimensions in mm)

Figure 4.11 Isometric view of gas collection chamber with outlet pipe and valve

72
 The gas outflow pipe and the hopper connection with the gasifier was also made
in this section. The producer gas outlet pipe was fabricated from mild steel and attached
to this unit 81 mm below from top of the gasifier having 25.4 mm diameter. A direction
control valve was also fastened in this pipe for controlling the gas supply. The entire
producer gas outlet pipe was 647 mm long to allow gas to be flared off during operation.
This pipe can be connected to the conditioning unit to clean and cool the raw gas
generated in the gasifier.

4.2.4 Ash pit with grate

After combustion of biomass, ash falls in ash pit located at the bottom of the
gasifier. The height of ash pit was 400 mm and 250 mm diameter. A 188 mm diameter
ash removal hole was made just above the bottom of the ash pit with an air tight cap
fastened on it. An 88 mm diameter hole was made in the cover to connect the blower
through it. A grate was provided in the reduction zone. The grate was made of 6.35 mm
thick carbon steel plate with various 3.2 mm diameter circular holes cut through it. The
front and top views are shown in Figure 4.12 and the isometric view of the ash chamber is
shown in figure 4.13.

Figure 4.12 Front (left) and top (right) view of the ash chamber
(All Dimensions in mm)

73
 Figure 4.13 Isometric view of the ash pit

4.2.5 Bolted flange

A bolted flange (Figure 4.14) was located 38 mm above the ash grate to allow
gasifier disassembly for cleaning and maintenance, a bolted flange also join the gas
collection unit to the reaction chamber. These flanges are made from mild steel. Two
flanges are used to join the reaction chamber to the gas collection unit.

Figure 4.14 Top view of bolted flange

(All Dimensions in mm)

4.2.6 Fuel hopper for fuel storage

A fuel hopper was designed for the feeding of the biomass to the updraft gasifier
for continuous operation of the gasifier. The hopper was fabricated with mild steel sheet
with the dimensions of 650 mm height, 320 mm in length and 320 mm wide. Figure 4.15
shows the front and top view and the Figure 4.16 shows the isometric view of the fuel

74
hopper. This hopper is connected to the gas collection chamber of the gasifier unit with a
70 mm diameter and 571 mm long pipe. Figure 4.17 and 4.18 show the front and side
views of the fuel delivery pipe respectively.

Figure 4.15 Front (left) and top (right) view of the fuel hopper
(All Dimensions in mm)

Figure 4.16 Isometric view of the fuel hopper

75
 Figure 4.17 Front view of pipe connecting the fuel hopper with gasifier assembly
(All Dimensions in mm)

Figure 4.18 Side view of pipe connecting the fuel hopper with gasifier assembly
(All Dimensions in mm)

4.2.7 Fuel conveying screw auger

A fuel conveying auger was designed and fabricated for the easy feeding of
biomass from hopper to the gasifier. The screw of the conveyor was made on 20 mm
diameter pipe and 1.2 mm thick steel sheet was cut and mounted on the pipe/rod. The
screw was 480 mm long and the pitch distance between two screws was 40 mm. The
auger was mounted in the pipe connecting hopper with gasifier with the help of ball
bearings for easy rotation. The rod was extending out of the hopper and a handle was
connected with it. Figure 4.19 and 4.20 show front and side views of screw conveyor
auger with handle respectively.

76
 Figure 4.19 Front view of the screw auger conveyor
(All Dimensions in mm)

Figure 4.20 Side view of the screw auger with handle

(All Dimensions in mm)

4.3 Producer gas upgrading unit

The producer gas conditioning/upgrading unit (cooling and cleaning unit) for the
cooling and purification of the engine quality producer gas was designed for a range of
15-20 kW internal combustion engines.
4.3.1 Water showering/cooling unit
Cooling unit was fabricated in cylindrical container shape, from which gas was
passed through. Hot gas was entered into the unit from the bottom and exited from the top
of the showering unit. Cool water spray cylinder was constructed according to the
requirements of the system. Height of the water showering unit was 880 mm and the
internal diameter of this cylindrical unit was 580 mm. The gas was introduced into the

77
tower from 78 mm above the bottom of the unit through a 50 mm pipe and collected from
top of it. The whole unit was airtight and sealed so that there should be no leakage of the
gas from the cooling unit. Figure 4.21 show the front and top views and Figure 4.22 and
4.23 show the isometric view of the showering tower and the showering tower with
downdraft gasifier respectively.

Figure 4.21 Front (left) and top (right) view of the cooling unit/tower
(All Dimensions in mm)

Figure 4.22 Isometric view of the cooling unit/tower

78
 Figure 4.23 Gas cooling unit/tower attached with the downdraft gasifier

4.3.2 Gas cleaning unit

The filter was designed and fabricated in rectangular shape from 3 mm thick mild
steel sheet and wire meshes fabricated from stainless steel were used to separate filter
bed. Each bed having bed height of 590 mm and width of 20 mm. The sun dried wood
sheaves were used to remove the moisture from the producer gas. The coal was used to
remove coarse particulates and tar while the wood saw dust was used to remove fine
particulates and tar.

The filter was fabricated in rectangular shape with dimensions 590 mm height, 457
mm width and 490 mm length. It has 4 sieves of 3 mm thick mild steel sheet wire meshes
fabricated from stainless steel (304 mesh size) were used to separate filter bed. Gas entry
and exit holes were made at both sides respectively for the entrance and exit of the
producer gas and pipes of diameter 60 mm were welded at these holes for connection
with gasifier and engine system. Figure 4.24, 4.25 and 4.26 show the front, top and
isometric views of the filter respectively, while the Figure 4.27 shows the wire meshes
used to separate the filtering medium.

79
 Figure 4.24 Front view of the gas cleaning unit
(All Dimensions in mm)

Figure 4.25 Top view of the gas cleaning unit

(All Dimensions in mm)

Figure 4.26 Isometric view of the producer gas cleaning unit

80
 Figure 4.27 Wire meshes used in filter

Figure 4.28 Schematic of complete downdraft gasification system

Figure 4.29 Schematic of complete updraft gasification system

81
4.4 Performance evaluation of gasification system

After complete development and fabrication, gasification system was evaluated for its
performance. Both the gasifiers were evaluated with different types of biomass feed stock
and carried out the analyses of their effects on the production of producer gas, engine
running time and the composition of different gases present in the producer gas. The
impurities like tar contents were also calculated/recorded in the producer gas. Then the
cleaning and cooling unit were tested for their cooling and cleaning efficiency. The
evaluation process was further divided into following steps

1. Evaluation of downdraft gasifier

2. Evaluation of updraft gasifier
3. Evaluation of cooling and cleaning unit

4.5 Evaluation of downdraught gasifier

The gasifier was evaluated by using different fuels like charcoal, corn cobs and
coal. The running time and quantity of gas produced with same quantity (30 kg) of fuel
and effect of the fuels on the composition of producer gas (CO, CO2, SO2, NO, NO2 in
the producer gas) was observed and statistically analyzed. Average tar contents present in
m3 of the produced gas for each treatment were also observed.

The data collected for the evaluation with the following treatments and each
treatment was replicated 4 times to minimize the experimental error.

T1 = Charcoal

T2 = Corn Cobs

T3 = Coal

4.5.1 Running time of downdraft gasifier

The duration for same quantity (30 kg) of each fuel burning in the gasifier was
recorded in seconds with the help of stopwatch. The data collected were then statistically
analyzed on personal computer using PROG GLM (General Linear Model) procedures of
the SAS systems (1989). Table 4.1 shows that ANOVA for time of running the gasifier
for different fuels of same quantity at 5% level of significance.

Figure 4.30 shows that the running time of charcoal and coal were not
significantly different statistically at 5% level of significance, while the running time of

82
gasifier with corn cobs was significantly different from other fuels at α = 0.05. The graph
showed that the running time of gasifier using charcoal as fuel was more (7070 sec) than
running of the gasifier with corn cobs (5930 sec) and coal (6891 sec). The standard
deviation was observed as 173.2, 77.5 and 143.6 for T1, T2 and T3 respectively. While the
grand mean was 6630.33 seconds and the standard error for treatments comparison was
calculated as 97.152. The mean values of charcoal and coal are not significantly different
as compared to corn cobs. It is due to the difference in the calorific values as well as bulk
density of different fuel used.

Charcoal, specifically, because of being tar free and having relatively low ash
content property, more volatile matter and more running time as compared to other fuels
was the preferred fuel during the World War II and remains so (Remulla, 1982).

Table 4.1 Analysis of variance for running time of downdraft gasifier with different fuels

Source DF SS MS F P

Fuel 2 3007404 1503702 79.66 0.0001

Error 9 169895 18877.22

Corrected
Total 11 3177299

8000
7070 A 6891 A
7000
5930 B
6000
Time (Seconds)

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Charcoal Corn Cobs Coal

Figure 4.30 Effect of treatments on running time of gasifier

Error bars show standard deviation.

83
4.5.2 Volume of gas produced

Schapfer (1937) stated that on an average one kg of biomass produces about 2.5
m3 of producer gas at standard temperature and pressure. In this process, it consumes
about 1.5 m3 of air for combustion. The volume of producer gas produced by the gasifier
was measured by the following formula (Mandwe et al., 2006)

Vol. of gas produced (m3) = Time (sec) x Area of pipe (m3) x Velocity of gas (m/s)

The velocity of the gas leaving the blower pipe was measured with an
anemometer and time was recorded with the help of a stopwatch. The analysis of variance
was carried out for the volume of gas produced with different fuels while the quantity of
the fuel remained same (30 kg).

The ANOVA of the treatments presented in Table 4.2 at 5% level of significance.

The means of treatments are shown in Figure 4.31, which shows that T1 and T3 were not
significantly different from each other while their difference with T2 was significantly
different at 5% level of significance. The data reveals that the T1 (Charcoal) produced the
more volume of gas 79.235 m3 as compared to the other treatments, T3 (Coal) produced
77.318 m3 of gas and T2 (corn cobs) produced 66.215 m3 with the same quantity of the
fuel. The mean value was 74.26 m3 with standard error of 0.68. The standard deviation of
the observed data calculated as 1.44, 0.55 and 1.78 for charcoal, corncobs and coal
respectively.

This difference in the gas production was due to the reason that the corn cobs have
low bulk density and difference in the calorific values as compared to coal and charcoal.
The charcoal, corn cobs and coal have calorific values of 29.6, 16.8 and 23.25 MJ/kg
respectively. (Anonymous, 2005).

Table 4.2 Analysis of variance for volume of gas produced by different fuels

Source DF SS MS F P

Fuel 2 395.28 197.64 106.74 0.001

Error 9 16.67 1.85

Corrected
Total 11 411.95

84
 90
79.235 A 77.318 A
80
Volume of Gas (m3) 70 66.215 B

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Charcoal Corn Cobs Coal

Figure 4.31 Effect of treatments on volume of gas produced

Error bars show standard deviation.

4.5.3 Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a combustible gas. However it is highly poisonous and

rapidly reacts with the oxygen present in the human blood. Its quantity in producer gas
depends upon the combustion limit of the fuel. If the fuel is fully burned in the gasifier
then its quantity will be very low. But if the burning of the fuel in the combustion zone is
in controlled atmosphere (incomplete combustion) then its quantity will be more in the
producer gas (Prins et al., 2007).

ANOVA for volume of gas produced by different fuels of same quantity is shown
in Table 4.3 and the effect of treatment on the presence of carbon monoxide in the
producer gas is shown in Figure 4.32 at 5% significance level.

The data in Figure 4.32 shows that the production of CO with charcoal and corn
cobs was not significantly different from each other while the difference with the CO
produced with coal was significant. The analysis showed that on average charcoal
produced 1137.5 ppm of CO, corn cobs produced 1166.0 ppm and the coal produced
1055.80 ppm carbon monoxide gas in the producer gas. The difference in the amount of
CO was due to the difference in amount of volatile matter present in the solid fuels. The
mean of carbon monoxide gas produced in all treatments was 1119.77 ppm and standard
error was 19.17 with standard deviation values of 47.2, 18.1 and 43.0 for charcoal,
corncobs and coal respectively.

85
Table 4.3 Analysis of variance for carbon monoxide (CO) present in the producer gas

Source DF SS MS F P

Fuel 2 49507.16 24753.58 8.19 0.0094

Error 9 27189.75 3021.08

Corrected
Total 11 76696.91

1400
1137.5 A 1166 A
1055.8 B
1200
Carbonmonoxide

1000
(ppm)

800

600

400

200

0
Charcoal Corn Cobs Coal

Figure 4.32 Effect of treatments on production of Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Error bars show standard deviation.

4.5.4 Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Carbon dioxide was produced in the gasification operations in very less amount.
In the case of complete combustion (excess air in oxidation zone) of the fuel in the
gasifier, the carbon monoxide reacts with excess oxygen and is converted in to carbon
dioxide. If the amount of the oxygen is controlled then the amount of carbon dioxide can
be reduced significantly in the producer gas (Skov and Paperworth, 1974; DiBlasi and
Branca, 2013).

The ANOVA for production of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the producer gas is shown
in Table 4.4 which shows the significance results for all fuel types. The effect of
treatment on the presence of carbon dioxide in the producer gas is shown in the Figure
4.33 at 5% significance level. The statistically analyzed data in Figure 4.33 indicates that

86
the means of all treatment were not significantly different from each other. The mean CO2
production in the producer gas was 5.90, 5.00 and 6.53 for charcoal, corn cobs and coal
respectively. The production of carbon dioxide in the gasifier is not the property of the
fuel; it is only the function of the controlled amount of air supply to the gasifier. The
mean value was found to be 5.81 ppm and standard error was calculated as 0.68. The
standard deviation in the statistically analyzed data was 0.560, 2.279 and 0.310 for T1, T2
and T3 respectively. A controlled amount of air/oxygen effects the production of the
carbon dioxide because it forms only when the complete combustion of the fuel occurs in
the gasification system. Excess amount of the oxygen reacts with the CO and converted it
into CO2.

Table 4.4 Analysis of variance for presence of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the producer gas

Source DF SS MS F P

Fuel 2 4.7017 2.35085 1.26 0.3296

Error 9 16.8075 1.87

Corrected
Total 11 21.5092

8
6.525 A
7
Carbondioxide (ppm)

5.9 A
6
5A
5
4
3
2
1
0
Charcoal Corncobs Coal

Figure 4.33 Effect of treatments on Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Error bars show standard deviation.

87
4.5.5 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
SO2 is a non-combustible, colorless and toxic gas present in the producer
gas. At standard atmosphere, it is a toxic gas with a pungent, irritating and rotten smell.
The data collected for the production of sulfur dioxide in the downdraft gasifier during
gasification process with different biomass fuels was statistically analyzed. The analysis
of variance (ANOVA) for the production of sulfur dioxide (SO2) in the producer/syn gas
is presented in Table 4.5 and the effect of treatments on presence sulfur dioxide (SO2) is
shown in the Figure 4.34. The data indicates that the average sulfur dioxide produced
with T3 (coal) was 3756.5 ppm, which was very high as compared to T2 (corn cobs)
3141.8 ppm and T1 (charcoal) 2700.5 ppm. The mean of the treatments was 3199.60 ppm
and standard error for a mean was calculated as 135.70. The standard deviation in the
analyzed data was found to be 66.7 for coal, 44.4 for corncobs and 463.2 for charcoal.

The statistically analyzed data indicates that the production of the sulfur dioxide in
the producer gas was significantly differing in each fuel. This was due to the presence of
the sulfur contents in the fuel. The highest value of sulfur dioxide was recorded in
Charcoal than Corn cobs. The coal produced the least amount of the sulfur dioxide as
compared to the other two treatments. The SO2 presence in the producer gas is on high
side. As this is non-combustible gas and it should be removed before entering the engine.

Table 4.5 Analysis of variance for sulfur dioxide (SO2) present in the producer gas

Source DF SS MS F P

Fuel 2 2250340 1125170 15.28 0.0013

Error 9 662877 73653.00

Corrected
Total 11 2913217

88
 4500
3756.5 A
Sulphurdixoide (ppm) 4000
3500
2700.5 C 3141.8 B
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Charcoal Corn Cobs Coal

Figure 4.34 Effect of treatments on sulfur dioxide (SO2)

Error bars show standard deviation.

4.5.6 Nitric Oxide (NO)

Nitric oxide is a brown toxic gas which is produced during the gasification
process. The analysis of variance was carried out for the presence of nitric oxide in the
producer gas produced with different fuels. The results of statistical analysis are given in
the Table 4.6. The graphical presentation of the effect of treatments of the production of
nitric oxide in the producer gas is presented in Figure 4.35.

The results have shown that charcoal and corn cobs produced very less amount of
NO as compared to the coal. The graph showed that the mean values for T1 and T2 are not
significantly different from each other but both are significantly different from T3 at 5%
level of significance. The mean nitric oxide presence in the producer gas was found to be
64, 108 and 246 ppm for charcoal, corncobs and coal respectively with the mean value for
all treatments was 129.33 ppm and standard error for treatment comparison was 22.14.
The standard deviation in the statistically analyzed data was found to be 5.89, 3.65 and
76.37 for coal, corncobs and for coal respectively.

89
Table 4.6 Analysis of variance for nitric oxide (NO) present in the producer gas

Source DF SS MS F P

Fuel 2 48938.7 24469.35 12.48 0.0025

Error 9 17640 1960.00

Corrected
Total 11 66578.7

350

300
Nitric Oxide (ppm)

250
216 A
200

150
108 B
100
64 B
50

0
Charcoal Corncobs Coal

Figure 4.35 Effect of treatments on nitric oxide (NO)

Error bars show standard deviation.

4.5.7 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

Nitrogen dioxide is a toxic brown gas. When it dissolves in water, gives a mixture
of nitric acid and nitrous acid. California Energy Commission (1979) and Schapfer (1937)
found that charcoal and coal, when used as a fuel in the downdraught gasifier produces
nitrogen oxides up to 60 percent on volume basis.

The data collected for the presence of the nitrogen dioxide in the producer gas was
statistically analyzed. ANOVA for the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) present in the producer gas
is presented in Table 4.7. The effect of treatments on production of nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) in the producer gas has been shown in Figure 4.36.

The statistical analysis of the data collected reveals that the quantity of nitrogen
dioxide in the producer gas was significantly different for each every treatment. The
charcoal produced the mean value of 69.75 ppm of NO2 in producer gas and burning of

90
coal as a solid fuel in the downdraught gasifier yielded mean quantity 198.75 ppm of NO2
in the producer gas while the corn cobs produced 163 ppm nitrogen dioxide in the
produced gas in downdraft gasifier. The grand mean of all treatments was calculated as
143.83 ppm with standard error of treatment comparison 7.6. The standard deviation in
the statistically analyzed data was found to be 2.50, 9.27 and 24.50 for charcoal, corncobs
and coal respectively.

Table 4.7 Analysis of variance for presence of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in the producer gas

Source DF SS MS F P

Fuel 2 35486.2 17743.1 76.87 0.00018

Error 9 2077.5 230.83

Corrected
Total 11 37563.7

250

198.75 A
200
Nitrogen dioxide (ppm)

163B
150

100
69.75 C

50

0
Charcoal Corncobs Coal

Figure 4.36 Effect of treatments on nitrogen dioxide (NO2)

Error bars show standard deviation.

4.5.8 Hydrocarbons (CxHx)

The data collected to find the quantity of hydrocarbons (CH4, C2H2 and other
higher hydrocarbons) was collected and statistically analyzed using PROG GLM (General
Linear Model) procedures of the SAS systems. Table 4.8 shows that the Analysis of
variance for production of hydrocarbons with different treatments.

91
 Figure 4.37 shows the graphical presentation of the mean data for each treatment.
It indicated that the production of hydrocarbons in the producer gas using different fuels
in the downdraft gasifier significantly not different from each other in case of charcoal
and corncobs while they both are significantly different from coal. The analysis showed
that the charcoal produced 283.75 ppm, corncobs produced 290.75 ppm and the coal
produced 254 ppm of hydrocarbons in the produced gas. The mean of hydrocarbons
produced in all treatments was 276.77 ppm with standard error of 2.41. The standard
deviation in the data was found to be 7.14, 2.99 and 3.16 for T1, T2 and T3 respectively.
The difference in the amount of hydrocarbons was due to the presence of volatile matter
in the fuel.

Table 4.8 Analysis of variance for presence of hydrocarbons (CxHx) in the producer gas

Source DF SS MS F P

Fuel 2 3046.17 1523.085 65.43 0.0000

Error 9 209.5 23.28

Corrected
Total 11 3255.67

350
283.75 A 290.75 A
300
Hydrocarbons (ppm)

254B
250

200

150

100

50

0
Charcoal Corncobs Coal

Figure 4.37 Effect of treatments on hydrocarbons (CxHx)

Error bars show standard deviation.

92
4.5.9 Tar Contents

Tar can be defined as “the organics, produced under thermal or partial-oxidation regimes
(gasification) of any organic material. Tar is generally assumed to be largely aromatic”
(Milne et al., 1998). A well designed throat section in the downdraft gasifier produces
much lower amount of tar as compared to the other types of gasifiers.

The collected data were statistically analyzed using completely randomized design
(CRD). ANOVA is shown in Table 4.9 and the effect of treatments on the production of
tar contents (mg/m3) in the downdraft gasifier is presented in Figure 4.38 at 5% level of
significance.

The results showed that the charcoal produced less amount of tar contents as
compared to other treatments. The graph showed that the mean values for T1, T2 and T3
are significantly different from each other at 5% level of significance. The mean tar
contents presence in the producer gas was found to be 1201.8, 2144.3 and 2949.8 mg.m-3
of produced gas from charcoal, corncobs and coal respectively with the mean value for all
treatments and standard error for treatment comparison was calculated as 2098.63 mg.m-3
and 36.94 respectively. The standard deviation in the statistically analyzed data was found
to be 55.4, 93.20 and 67.9 for charcoal, corn cobs and coal respectively.

Table 4.9 Analysis of variance for presence of tar contents in the producer gas

Source DF SS MS F P

Fuel 2 6123521 3061760 561 0.00

Error 9 49132 5459

Corrected
Total 11 6172653

93
 3500
2949.8 A
3000
Tar Contents (mg/m3)

2500
2144.3 B
2000

1500 1201.8 C
1000

500

0
Charcoal Corn Cobs Coal

Figure 4.38 Effect of treatments tar contents in producer gas

Error bars show standard deviation.

4.6 Performance evaluation of updraft gasifier

The newly fabricated updraft gasifier was tested and evaluated for its performance
for different loose biomass fuels such as ricehusk and sawdust. These fuels have different
properties and calorific values. The evaluation was done with three different treatments
and all these treatments were repeated 4 times and then statistically analyzed to get the
accuracy in the results.

There different treatments were as follows

T1 = Burning of ricehusk as fuel in the updraft gasifier

T2 = A mixture of ricehusk and saw dust was used

T3 = Using sawdust as fuel

The updraft gasifier was evaluated for its performance by observing different
parameters such as quantity of gas, time for engine running and the composition of
different gases (CO, CO2, SO2, NO, NO2 and CxHx) produced in the gasifier with the
same quantity of different fuels i.e. 30 kg. Also the tar contents present in per cubic meter
of gas produced with different fuels were also observed. Thereafter, all the collected data
were statistically analyzed using completely randomized design (CRD).

94
4.6.1 Running time of updraft gasifier

The running time of the updraft gasifier was recorded in seconds. The mass of all
fuels (rice husk, saw dust, mixture of rice husk and sawdust) used for gasification was 30
kg each. The data recorded were statistically analyzed with PROG GLM (General Linear
Model) procedures of the SAS systems (1989). Table 4.10 shows that ANOVA for
running time of the gasifier by using different fuels of same weight. The ANOVA shows
that the results are significant by using completely randomized design (CRD). Figure 4.39
graphically presented the effect of treatments on time at 5% level of significance.

Figure 4.39 shows that the working time of all treatments were significantly
different from each other at 5% level of confidence. The graph revealed that the operation
time of the updraft gasifier with using ricehusk as fuel was 5979.0 seconds, rice husk and
sawdust mixture fuel was 6400 seconds and found to be 6847.5 seconds when using
sawdust as fuel. The grand mean time was recorded as 6409.2 seconds and the standard
error for the treatment comparison was calculated as 128.91. The standard deviation in
the collected data was calculated as 320.5, 271.9 and 150.8 for treatments T1, T2 and T3
respectively. The difference in operation time was due to the higher calorific value and
bulk density of sawdust as compared to the ricehusk. This data also reveals that the gas
production in updraft gasifier was 38.49, 38.83 and 40.05 m3 per hour of gasifier
operation.

Table 4.10 Analysis of variance for running time of updraft gasifier for different fuels

Source DF SS MS F P

Fuel 2 1508141 754070.5 11.34 0.0035

Error 9 598246 66471.78

Corrected
Total 11 2106387

95
 8000
6400.8 B 6847.5 A
7000
5979.3 C
6000
Time (Seconds)

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
Ricehusk Ricehusk + Sawdust Sawdust

Figure 4.39 Effect of treatments on running time of gasifier

Error bars show standard deviation.

4.6.2 Volume of gas produced with different biomass in updraft gasifier

The volume of gas produced through the gasification of biomass in updraft

gasifier was calculated by using the following relationship (Mandwe et al., 2006).

Volume of Gas Produced = Time (sec) x area of pipe (m2) x velocity of gas (m/s)

The velocity of the gas was calculated by using anemometer. The velocity was
calculated at the exit face where the gas was leaving the gasifier. The gasifier working
time was measured by using the stopwatch. ANOVA for the production of producer gas
with different biomass fuels is presented in Table 4.11.

The means of treatments are presented in Figure 4.40 at 5% level of significance.

It shows that the treatments T1 and T2 are significantly not different from each other while
the treatment T3 is significantly different from other treatments at given level of
significance. The treatment ricehusk only produced 63.94 m3 of producer gas while the
ricehusk + sawdust and sawdust only produced 69.05 m3 and 76.18 m3 of producer gas in
the updraft gasifier respectively. The grand mean for all treatments was 69.723 m 3 and
standard error for the treatment comparison was calculated as 1.654. The standard
deviation in the data was found to be 3.349, 3.939 and 2.467 for treatments T1, T2 and T3
respectively. From the data it is concluded that treatment T1 produced 2.13 m3, treatment
T2 produced 2.30 m3 and the treatment T3 produced 2.54 m3 producer gas per kg of fuel in

96
updraft gasifier. Schapfer (1937) concluded that one kg of biomass produces about 2.5 m3
of producer gas at standard temperature and pressure. The method requires 1.5 m3 of air.

Table 4.11 Analysis of variance for the volume of gas produced in updraft gasifier

Source DF SS MS F P

Fuel 2 302.355 151.1775 13.82 0.0018

Error 9 98.451 10.94

Corrected
Total 11 400.806

90
76.18 A
80
63.94 B 69.05 B
70
Volume of gas (m3)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Ricehusk Ricehusk + Sawdust Sawdust

Figure 4.40 Effect of treatments on running time of gasifier

Error bars show standard deviation.

4.6.3 Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Carbon monoxide is an important constituent of the producer gas because it is a

flammable gas. The quantity of carbon monoxide created depends upon the ignition
environment of the fuel i.e. open burning or controlled burning of the fuel. If the burning
of biomass in the gasifier takes placethen the quantity of carbon monoxide will be more.
However, in case of burning in open atmosphere or with excess air supply then it reacts
with oxygen and converted into carbon dioxide. Carbon monoxide is a very poisonous gas
and quickly reacts with the oxygen present in the human blood.

The production of carbon monoxide in the producer gas was measured using a
“Gas Analyzer”. The recorded data were then statistically analyzed. ANOVA for the

97
production of CO in the producer gas by burning different but same quantity of fuels in
the updraft gasifier is shown in Table 4.12. The effect of treatments on the concentration
of carbon monoxide in the producer gas is shown in Figure 4.41 at 5% level of
significance.

Figure 4.41 shows that the production of CO with different treatments was
significantly not different from each other. The data showed that saw dust, mixture of
sawdust + ricehusk and ricehusk produced 1047.5 ppm, 1031.5 ppm and 965.5 ppm of
carbon monoxide through this gasification process respectively. The mean value and
standard error for all treatments was found to be 1014.8 ppm and 29.91 respectively. The
standard deviation in the statistically analyzed data was calculated as 33.6, 66.6 and 71.9
for treatments T1, T2 and T3 respectively

Table 4.12 Analysis of variance for presence of Carbon Monoxide in the producer gas

Source DF SS MS F P

Fuel 2 15114.7 7557.35 2.11 0.177

Error 9 32207 3578.56

Corrected
Total 11 47321.7

1200
1100 1031.5 A 1047.5 A
965.5 A
1000
Carbonmonoxide

900
800
(ppm)

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Ricehusk Ricehusk + Sawdust Sawdust

Figure 4.41 Effect of treatments on carbon monoxide (CO)

Error bars show standard deviation.

98
4.6.4 Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

During the gasification of biomass the amount of carbon dioxide created was very low. In
case of total combustion of fuel means surplus air is supplied to the oxidation zone then
the carbon monoxide reacts with surplus air and altered into carbon dioxide. The supply
of restricted oxygen in the oxidation zone led the carbon dioxide to its smallest amount
(Skov and Paperworth, 1974).

ANOVA for production of carbon dioxide in the producer gas formed by different
fuels is shown in Table 4.13. The effect of treatments on the presence of carbon dioxide
in the producer gas is shown in Figure 4.42 and the significance level was taken at α
=0.05.

Data reveals that T1 and T2 were statistically not different form each other but
both treatments were significantly different from T3 at 5% level of significance. The mean
values were recorded as 2.375, 2.825, 4.525 ppm for T1, T2 and T3 respectively. The
grand mean of all treatments was 3.2417 ppm and the standard error for the treatment
comparison was calculated as 0.2175. The standard deviation for the collected data was
calculated as 0.1708, 0.2062 and 0.7042 for treatments T1, T2 and T3 respectively.

The formation of carbon dioxide in the gasifier was not because of fuel
properties, it was only because of quantity of oxygen introduced in the gasifying
chamber. Carbon dioxide was only formed when complete combustion of fuel take place
in the gasifier.

Table 4.13 Analysis of variance for presence of carbon dioxide in the producer gas

Source DF SS MS F P

Fuel 2 10.2867 5.14335 27.19 0.0002

Error 9 1.7025 0.19

Corrected
Total 11 11.9892

99
 5.5
5
4.525 A
4.5
Carbondioxide (ppm)

4
3.5
2.825 B
3
2.375 B
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Ricehusk Ricehusk + Sawdust Sawdust

Figure 4.42 Effect of treatments on carbon dioxide (CO2)

Error bars show standard deviation.

4.6.5 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

It is colorless and toxic gas produced during the gasification process. SO2 is a
non-combustible gas. Because of non-flammable property it should be removed from the
producer gas. Sulfur dioxide can be separated from producer gas without any difficulty by
showering of water on producer gas. ANOVA for creation of sulfur dioxide in updraft
gasifier by different treatments is shown in Table 4.14.

The effect of treatments on the presence of sulfur dioxide in the producer gas is
shown in Figure 4.43 at 5% level of significance. The data indicates that the average
sulfur dioxide formed with T3 was very high as compared to treatment T1. The average
sulfur dioxide produced from T3 was 3688.3 ppm. Sulfur dioxide formed from T2 and T1
was 3327.5 and 2759.0 ppm respectively. The grand mean and standard error of treatment
comparison was calculated as 3258.3 ppm and 219.1 respectively. The result shows that
the standard deviation in the data for treatments T1, T2 and T3 was 271.4, 658.3 and 262.6
respectively. The graph also presented that the treatments T1 and T3 are significantly
different from each other but both are significantly not different from T2 at 5% level of
confidence.

100
Table 4.14 Analysis of variance for presence of sulfur dioxide in the producer gas

Source DF SS MS F P

Fuel 2 1755785 877892.5 4.57 0.0426

Error 9 1728132 192014.67

Corrected
11 3483917
Total

4500
4000
3688.3 A
3327.5 AB
3500
Sulphurdioxide (ppm)

2759 B
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Ricehusk Ricehusk + Sawdust Sawdust

Figure 4.43 Effect of treatments on sulfur dioxide (SO2)

Error bars show standard deviation.

4.6.6 Nitric Oxide (NO)

Nitric oxide is a harmful brown colored gas. Nitric oxide is a by-product of combustion of
substances in the air, as in automobile engines and fossil fuel power plants. From a
thermodynamic perspective, NO is unstable with respect to O2 and N2, although this
conversion is very slow at ambient temperatures. (Anonymous, 2014b)

The recorded readings were then statistically analyzed by using PROG GLM (General
Linear Model) methods of the SAS system (1989). ANOVA for the production of nitric
oxide in the producer gas is shown in Table 4.15. The effect of treatments on the presence
of nitric oxide in the producer gas is shown in Figure 4.44.

The data indicated that the average nitric oxide formed with treatments T1, T2 and T3 are
not significantly different at 5% level of significance. Nitric oxide created from T1, T2 and
T3 was 202, 182 and 213.5 ppm respectively. The grand mean for all treatments and the

101
standard error for treatments comparison were calculated as 199.17 and 21.838
respectively. The standard deviation in the collected data was calculated as 69.78 for T1,
28.58 for T2 and 6.14 for T3.

Table 4.15 Analysis of variance for presence of nitric oxide in the producer gas

Source DF SS MS F P

Fuel 2 17169 8584.5 38.01 0.6044

Error 9 2032.7 225.86

Corrected
11 19201.7
Total

275
250
225 213.5 A
202 A
Nitric Oxide (ppm)

200 182 A
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
Ricehusk Ricehusk + Sawdust Sawdust

Figure 4.44 Effect of treatments on nitric oxide (NO)

Error bars show standard deviation.

4.6.7 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

Nitrogen dioxide is a toxic gas produced during the gasification of biomass having
reddish brown color and harsh odor. It is the major constituent of pollution in the air. Its
reaction with water makes nitric acid and nitrous acid. Nitrogen dioxide is a paramagnetic
gas. Nitrogen dioxide along with other nitrogen oxides is involved in the declining of
stratospheric ozone layer. It is present in very little quantity in producer gas and can be
removed by shower of water. (Hussain et al., 2007). ANOVA for the production of
nitrogen dioxide in the gas produced in updraft gasifier is shown in Table 4.16. The effect
of treatments on the presence of nitrogen dioxide in the producer gas is shown in Figure
4.45.

102
 The data indicate that the average nitrogen dioxide formed with T1 was high as
compared to treatment T2 and T3. Nitrogen dioxide was calculated as 143, 78.75 and 122
ppm for T1, T2 and T3 respectively. This shows that the treatment T1 is significantly
different from treatment T2 at 5 % level of significance but both were significantly not
different from treatment T3. The grand mean was 114.58 ppm and the standard error for
treatments comparison was calculated as 16.631. The standard deviation in the collected
data was found to be 48.52, 13.82 and 27.82 for treatments T1 (ricehusk), T2 (ricehusk +
sawdust) and T3 (sawdust) respectively.

Table 4.16 Analysis of variance for presence of nitrogen dioxide in the producer gas

Source DF SS MS F P

Fuel 2 8586.2 4293.1 3.88 0.0609

Error 9 9956.8 1106.31

Corrected
11 18543
Total

200
180
160 143 A
Nitrogen Dioxide

140 122 AB
(ppm)

120
100
78.75 B
80
60
40
20
0
Ricehusk Ricehusk + Sawdust Sawdust

Figure 4.45 Effect of treatments on nitrogen dioxide (NO2)

Error bars show standard deviation.

4.6.8 Hydrocarbons (CxHx)

The data collected to find the quantity of hydrocarbons (CH4, C2H2 and other
higher hydrocarbons) were statistically analyzed using PROG GLM (General Linear

103
Model) procedures of the SAS systems. Table 4.17 shows that the analysis of variance for
production of hydrocarbons with different treatments.

Figure 4.46 shows the graphical presentation of the mean data for production of
hydrocarbons from each treatment. It is indicated that the production of hydrocarbons in
the producer gas using different fuels in the updraft gasifier significantly different from
each other for all treatments. The analysis show that the burning of ricehusk, ricehusk +
sawdust and sawdust in updraft gasifier produced 229.5, 290 and 306.5 ppm of
hydrocarbons in the produced gas. The mean of hydrocarbons produced in all treatments
was 275.50 ppm with standard error of treatment comparison was 3.051. The standard
deviation in the data was found to be 7.42, 6.24 and 4.2 for treatments T1, T2 and T3
respectively.

Table 4.17 Analysis of variance for presence of hydrocarbons in the producer gas

Source DF SS MS F P

Fuel 2 13208 6604 177.42 0

Error 9 335 37.22

Corrected
11 13543
Total

350
306.5 A
290.5 B
300
Hydrocarbons (ppm)

229.5 C
250

200

150

100

50

0
Ricehusk Ricehusk + Sawdust Sawdust

Figure 4.46 Effect of treatments on hydrocarbons (CxHx)

Error bars show standard deviation.

104
4.6.9 Tar Contents
Tar is the major impurity present in the producer gas. Tar is black in colour and is
a mixture of hydrocarbons and free carbon. It is obtained from variety of organic
materials through destructive distillation. Tar presence in the producer gas largely
changes from one formation to another, fuel type, the agent of oxidizing (air or steam or
oxygen), type of gasifier, type of fuel and forms, from about 1-180 g/m3. Tar production
in updraft gasifier is on higher side as compared to other types of gasifiers and in many
cases it is more than 100 g/m3 (Basu, 2013)

The collected data were statistically analyzed using completely randomized design
(CRD). ANOVA is shown in Table 4.18 and the effect of treatments on the production of
tar contents (mg/m3) in the downdraft gasifier is presented in Figure 4.47 at 5% level of
significance.

The results showed that the T1 produced less amount of tar contents as compared
to other treatments. The graph showed that the mean values for T1, T2 and T3 are
significantly different from each other at 5% level of significance. The mean tar contents
presence in the producer gas for treatments T1, T2 and T3 was found to be 3093.3, 3701.5
and 4004 mg m-3 of produced gas from charcoal, corncobs and coal respectively. The
grand mean value and standard error for treatment comparison was calculated as 3599.6
mg.m-3 and 50.74 respectively. The standard deviation in the statistically analyzed data
was found to be 60.3, 107.6 and 125.2 for ricehusk, mixture of ricehusk + sawdust and for
sawdust respectively.

Table 4.18 Analysis of variance for presence of tar contents in the producer gas

Source DF SS MS F P

Fuel 2 1721253 860626.5 83.57 0.0003

Error 9 92680 10297.78

Corrected
11 1813933
Total

105
 4500
4004 A
4000
3701.5 B
Tar Contents (mg/m3)

3500
3093.3 C
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Ricehusk Ricehusk + Sawdust Sawdust

Figure 4.47 Effect of treatments on tar production

Error bars show standard deviation.

106
4.7 Evaluation of conditioning unit
The conditioning unit (cooling and cleaning) was designed and fabricated to
upgrade the producer gas for engine quality fuel for the operation of 20 kW diesel engine
on dual fuel mode. After the fabrication, the unit was evaluated for its cooling and
cleaning efficiency.

4.7.1 Cooling efficiency of conditioning unit

Table 4.19 presented the average data collected for the temperature of the gas at various
stages for calculating the efficiency of conditioning unit (cooling and cleaning). The
average temperature of the gas at entrance of the conditioning unit was found 285°C and
at exit it was measured 44.67°C. The average difference in temperatures was 240.33°C
and the average cooling efficiency of the system was 84.13%. Figure 4.47 show the
graphical presentation of the data.

Table 4.19 Cooling Efficiency of Conditioning Unit

S. Gas temperature Gas Temperature at Difference Cooling
No. before entering the exit of (°C) Efficiency
conditioning unit conditioning unit (%)
(°C) (°C)
1 230 46 184 80.00

2 280 42 238 85.00

3 310 48 262 84.52

4 260 38 222 85.38

5 290 49 241 83.10

6 340 45 295 86.76

Avg. 285 44.67 240.33 84.13

107
 350

300

250
Temperature °C

200

150

100

50

0
1 2 3 4 5 6

Gas temperature before entering conditioning unit (°C)

Gas Temperature at the exit of conditiong unit (°C)
Difference (°C)
Cooling Efficiency %

Figure 4.48 Cooling efficiency of conditioning system

4.7.2 Cleaning efficiency of conditioning unit

The major problem in producing a quality gas for an I.C engine is the presence of tar and
dust particles in it. The amount of tar and dust that is present in the producer gas at the
outlet of the gasifier depends on the design of the equipment, the load of the gasifier and
the type of fuel used.

Table 4.20 and the Figure 4.48 shows that the average tar and dust contents
measured at exit of gasifier and were found to be 2844.95 mg/m3 for both updraft and
downdraft gasifiers. After passing through showering tower (cooling unit), it was
measured as average value of 514.82 mg/m3 and at the exit of the cleaner it was found to
be 46.73 mg/m3.

The average tar and dust particles removal efficiency was found to be 77.76% and
85.63% for cooling and cleaning unit respectively. The cleaning efficiency of the whole
conditioning unit was calculated to be 98.16%.

108
Table 4.20 Cleaning efficiency of conditioning unit
Initial Tar Tar after Tar Final Tar Tar
at exit of showering absorption in after absorption in Total Tar
S. gasifiers tower Showering Cleaner Cleaning Unit Removed
No. (g/m3) (mg/m3) tower (%) (mg/m3) (%) (%)
1 1176.8 495.4328 57.9 39.8 91.97 96.62

2 2144.3 745.14425 65.25 33.21 95.54 98.45

3 2949.8 991.1328 66.4 48.36 95.12 98.36

4 3093.3 154.665 95 52.32 66.17 98.31

5 3701.5 222.09 94 53 76.14 98.57

6 4004 480.48 88 53.69 88.83 98.66

Avg. 2844.95 514.82 77.76 46.73 85.63 98.16

110
100
90
Tar Removal Efficiency

80
70
60
%

50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Tar absorption in Showering tower % Tar absorption in Cleaning Unit %
Total Removed %

Figure 4.48 Tar removal efficiency of the conditioning system

109
4.8 Cost Analysis
A systematic approach to determining the optimum use of scarce resources,
involving comparison of two or more alternatives in achieving a specific objective under
the given assumptions and constraints is called cost analysis.

Economic analysis takes into account the opportunity costs of

resources employed and attempts to measure in monetary terms the private and social
costs and benefits of a project to the community or economy.

Cost analysis of owing and using a machine/equipment is very crucial for any
business. Cost analysis reveals that how much profit or return can be made by minimizing
the machinery cost.

The total cost is divided into two types of costs

1. Fixed cost
2. Variable cost

4.8.1 Fixed cost

Fixed cost also called as ownership costs. Ownership costs are locked into the machine
once it is purchased. These costs are therefore considered fixed and are independent of
the use of machine. Fixed costs are those outlays that do not vary with machine use. Other
terminologies commonly used interchangeably with fixed costs are ownership and
overhead costs. These costs include in the following headings:

i. Depreciation cost
ii. Interest (on investment) cost
iii. Housing cost
iv. Insurance cost#
v. Taxes

4.8.1.1 Depreciation cost

Depreciation is the deterioration in the value of machinery because of age,

obsolescence and use. It may be argued that depreciation depends on machine use and
therefore, should be classified as a variable cost. While this argument has some merit,
researchers have found that age is the overriding factor in explaining losses in value.

110
Consequently, annual depreciation is considered to be essentially fixed, regardless of use.
Depreciation was calculated by using straight line method as given below (Dalsted, 2008)

𝑃−𝑆
𝐷=
𝐿

Where D is the depreciation cost, P is the purchase cost of the machine (gasifier), L is the
years of useful life and S is the salvage value

Salvage Value is the cost that could be recovered from the sale of used equipment when
removed or scrapped. The actual market value of a specific facility or equipment at a
particular point in time. (Anonymous, 2014a)

4.8.1.2 Interest cost

Investment in machinery ties up capital and should be assigned as capital cost. If

capital is borrowed to finance the machinery investment, that cost should be at least large
enough to cover the interest paid on the loan. Equity capital investments carry an indirect
cost in the form of earnings foregone by not investing in the best alternative use of funds
either within or external to the business. It is also called as opportunity cost. This means
that by investing in machinery, one has to lose the opportunity for the money to earn
interest in a saving account or other interest earning investments. Interest on capital
investment was calculated by using following formula (Dalsted, 2008)

𝑖
𝐼 = (𝑃 + 𝑆) ×
2

Where

I = Interest cost on capital per year

i = Annual interest rate (11 % per year)

P and S = Purchase and salvage values respectively

4.8.1.3 Housing cost

Many types of machinery are commonly housed to provide protection against the
weather. Such protection yield benefits in the form of longer machine lives, reduced
repairs, better appearance and greater convenience in working on machinery. The costs
associated with the ownership and use of machine shed should be charged against the

111
housed machinery. Housing for machinery may include the service center for
maintenance and repair. For this reason the annual 1-2% of initial cost charged annually.

4.8.1.4 Insurance cost

It is often choose to protect the capital investments in machinery due to theft,

vandalism, injury etc. so an insurance should be purchased to have this protection. Cost of
insurance should be considered an expense of machinery ownership. Insurance cost vary
according to the type and extent of coverage and the kind of machinery. Insurance was
charged at the rate of 2% of initial cost of the machine.

4.8.1.5 Taxes
Machinery is considered as personal property and is taxed at the rate of about
1.5% of purchase price per year. Taxes rate are variable because they are
regulated by state government.
4.8.2 Variable costs

As the name implies, variable costs include those expenses that vary as machine
use varies. These costs are the result of using machines. The following costs are
commonly considered variable costs

i. Repair and Maintenance Cost

ii. Fuel and lubricants Cost
iii. Labour Cost
4.8.2.1 Repair and maintenance cost

Annual repair costs for a given machine normally increase as use increases.
However, accurate predictions of machinery repair costs are difficult to obtain. Even the
repair costs required for identical machines used the same number of hours vary with
different types of work or working conditions. In addition, the amount and effectiveness
of preventive maintenance can also influence repair costs. Despite the sizeable problems
encountered in specifying repair costs, researchers have estimated accumulated repair and
maintenance costs at various stages in the life of most machinery. The repair and
maintenance cost was calculated using the following formula

R & M Cost = 1 * Initial cost/useful life in hours.

112
 As the gasifier operation was continuous during its life period, so it was charged
equal to initial cost (100%) of the machine per year.

4.8.2.2 Fuel and lubricants cost

Fuel and lubricants costs for machinery are variable because they relate to the number of
hours the machine is operated. Fuel expenditures also depend on the amount of fuel
consumed per hour and fuel price. In turn, the rate of fuel consumption varies according
to size of machine, kind of work performed (i.e. the load factor), and type of fuel, among
other things. The fuel prices were obtained for various fuel types used in the gasifier for
the production of producer gas (i.e. corncobs, charcoal, coal, rice husk and sawdust) and
then compared to the value of diesel.

4.8.2.3 Labour cost

While machinery operating labour is an important variable cost. Skilled labour is

required to operate the machinery in correct order and to minimize the losses and
breakage chances. A person who can maintain the correct fuel rate and keep a close eye
on the uncertainties will reduce the running cost of machine. Prevailing labour costs
(Government recommended wages) were used in calculations. In Pakistan, the daily
labour cost was considered @ Rs.500 for 8 hour daily work.

4.8.3 Assumptions for the cost analysis

Following assumption were made during the cost analysis of the gasification unit

Useful life = 10 Years

Daily use = 8 hr/day

Use per year = 2000 hr

Total usage during 10 years = 2000×10= 20000 hours

Daily wages for skilled labour = Rs. 500/day (8 hrs. daily)

Housing @ 2%, Insurance @ 2%, Taxes @ 1.5%, Annual Interest rate @ 11% per year of
initial cost and salvage value of the downdraft gasifier was @ 10%.

113
4.8.4 Cost analysis for downdraft gasifier

Fixed Cost

The initial or purchase price of the downdraft gasifier with cleaning and cooling
unit was Rs. 10000. Table 4.21 illustrated that the depreciation cost of the downdraft
gasifier was Rs. 900, Interest rate was Rs. 605, insurance @ 2% was Rs. 200, taxes are
Rs. 150 and the housing price was found to be Rs. 200 per year. Total fixed cost was
calculated as Rs. 2055 per year and the total fixed cost was Rs. 1.03/hr. @ 2000 hours run
per year

Table 4.21 Fixed cost per year for the downdraft gasifier

Total
Fixed
Salvage Depreci Insura Taxes Housin Cost
Initial Value Annual Useful ation Interest nce @ @ g@ per
Cost @ 10% Interest Life Cost @ 11% 2% 1.5% 2% year
(Rs) (Rs) Rate (Years) (Rs) (Rs) (Rs) (Rs) (Rs) (Rs)
10000 1000 11% 10 900 605 200 150 200 2055

Variable Cost

Variable cost of the downdraft gasifier was calculated according to the

assumptions and tabulated as under Table 4.22. The analysis revealed that for 8 hours.
Daily run of the gasifier was about Rs. 63 per hour without including biomass fuel prices
because the every biomass has its own cost.

Table 4.22 Variable cost per year for downdraft gasifier.

Repair &
Use of Labour Maintenance Variable
Gasifier Labour Cost per Use Cost Fuel Cost
hrs./day Charges/day hr. hr./year Rs. /hr. Cost Rs/hr.
8 500 62.5 2000 0.5 63

Table 4.23 indicates the total variable cost including the different biomass fuel
prices per hour of engine run. The results indicated that the minimum variable cost was
observed in case of corncobs using as fuel in the gasifier. When the engine was run on
only diesel fuel, it consumes 4 liters of diesel which costs about Rs. 468 @ Rs. 117/liter.

114
Table 4.23 Total variable cost including fuel price per hour.
Price of produced gas Price (Gas + Diesel) Total Variable cost
Fuel Rs. /hr. Rs. /hr. Rs. /hr.
charcoal 191.40 308.40 371.40
corncobs 22.86 139.86 202.86
coal 144.00 261.00 324.00

Total cost per hour for downdraft gasifier

The total cost per hour to run 20 hp diesel engine on dual fuel mode (producer gas
(75%) + Diesel (25%)) was calculated using different biomass fuels in gasifier. The total
fixed cost was Rs. 1.03/hr and the total variable cost for running an engine was calculated
as Rs. 371.4/hr, Rs. 202.86/hr. and Rs. 324/hr. for charcoal, corncobs and coal
respectively, while if the same engine was run with diesel fuel only it costs Rs. 468/hr.

4.8.5 Cost analysis for updraft gasifier

Fixed Cost

The initial or purchase price of the updraft gasifier with cleaning and cooling unit
was Rs. 15000. The table 4.24 revealed that the depreciation cost of the updraft gasifier
was Rs. 1350, Interest rate was Rs. 907.5, insurance @ 2% was Rs. 300, taxes are Rs. 225
and the housing price was found to be Rs. 300 per year. Total fixed cost was calculated as
Rs. 3082.5 per year and the total fixed cost was Rs. 1.54/hr. @ 2000 hours gasifier run
per year

Table 4.24 Fixed cost per year for the downdraft gasifier

Total
Annual Useful Depre Insura Taxes Fixed
Initial Salvage Interest Life ciation Interest nce @ @ Housing Cost
Cost Value Rate (Years) Cost @ 11% 2% 1.5% @ 2% year-1
15000 1500 11% 10 1350 907.5 300 225 300 3082.5

Variable Cost

Variable cost of the updraft gasifier was calculated according to the assumptions
and tabulated as under in Table 4.25. The analysis revealed the data for the 8 hour daily
run of the gasifier. It showed that the variable cost of updraft gasifier was about Rs. 63.25

115
per hour without including biomass fuel prices because the every biomass has its own
cost.

Table 4.25 Variable cost per hour of updraft gasifier

Daily Use Labour Labour Repair

of Gasifier Charges Cost Use Cost Variable
in hr./day Rs. / day Rs. / hr. hr./year Rs. /hr. Fuel Cost Cost
8 500 62.5 2000 0.75 63.25

Table 4.26 indicates the total variable cost including the different biomass fuel
prices per hr. of engine run. The data calculated indicated that the minimum total variable
cost to run a 20 hp diesel engine was observed, when sawdust was used as fuel in the
updraft gasifier. The use of rice husk as a fuel in updraft gasifier was costs Rs. 277.75/hr
and the mixture of ricehusk and sawdust was 260.75 Rs. /hr. While the cost of fuel, using
diesel only to run 20hp engine was very high (Rs. 468/hr)

Table 4.26 Total variable cost including fuel price per hr for updraft gasifier

Price of Gas Price (Gas + Diesel) Total Variable cost

Biomass Fuel Rs./hr Rs. /hr. Rs. /hr.
Rice husk 97.50 214.50 277.75
Ricehusk + Sawdust 80.50 197.50 260.75
Sawdust 65.79 182.79 246.04

Total cost per hour for updraft gasifier

The total cost per hour to run 20 hp diesel engine on dual fuel mode (producer gas
(75%) + Diesel (25%)) was calculated using different biomass fuels in updraft gasifier.
The total fixed cost was Rs. 1.54/hr and the total variable cost for running an engine was
calculated as Rs. 277.75/hr, Rs. 260.75/hr. and Rs. 246.04/hr. for biomass fuels ricehusk,
ricehusk + sawdust and sawdust respectively, while if the same engine was run with
diesel fuel only it costs Rs. 468/hr @ 117 Rs/liter.

116
 CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Modern agriculture is an extremely energy intensive process. However high

agricultural productivities and subsequently the growth of green revolution have been made
possible only by large amount of energy inputs, especially those from fossil fuel. With recent
price rise and scarcity of these fuels there has been a trend towards use of alternative energy
sources like solar, wind, geothermal etc. From crop waste gasification, in particular, it is
feasible to produce hydrogen, which may see as an increasingly valuable resource.

Gasification can be used in conjunction with gas engines to obtain higher conversion
efficiency than conventional fossil-fuel energy generation. By displacing fossil fuels, waste
pyrolysis and gasification can help meet renewable energy targets and address concerns about
global warming. Biomass gasification is almost two-century-old technology, which flourished
quite well before and during the Second World War. The technology disappeared soon after
the Second World War, when liquid fuel became easily available. The interests in the biomass
gasification technology have undergone many ups and downs in the previous century. Today,
due to increase in fuel prices and environmental concerns, there is renewed interest in this
technology. Biomass gasification has become more modern and quite sophisticated technology.
The advantages of this technology is decentralized energy conversion system which operates
economically even for small scale. Because of great concern for conservation of forests and
availability of fossil fuels, gasification is not seen as universally applicable technology, but act
as a component within range of available regenerative energies. It can be a valuable supplement
to wind, solar and hydropower.

A gas producing device is very simple consisting of usually cylindrical container with
space for the fuel, air inlet, gas exit and grate. It can be made of firebricks, steel or concrete
and oil barrels. The design and type of the gasifier depends upon type of fuel used and whether
it is stationary or portable. Gasifier alone itself is of little use only for lighting stoves, boilers,
lamps, etc. the complete gasification system consists of gasification unit (gasifier),
conditioning unit and energy converter (i.e. engine). Biomass gasification is a thermo-chemical
process, which converts biomass materials in to gaseous component called syn gas or producer
gas. The result of gasification of the biomass is the producer gas, a mixture of the carbon
monoxide, hydrogen, methane and some other inert gases. The producer gas can be used in

117
gasoline or diesel engines with little modification or in burners. Based on the fuel properties
gasifier efficiency ranges of 67% to 75%. Almost all kinds of biomass with moisture contents
of 5-30% can be gasified; however, not every biomass fuel can lead to the successful
gasification. Most of the development work is carried out with common fuels such as coal,
charcoal, sawdust and crop residue like corncobs and ricehusk.

In present study, complete gasification system was designed and developed for small
sized internal combustion engines. Downdraft and updraft type gasifiers was designed and
fabricated along with producer gas cooling and cleaning unit to make the producer gas internal
combustion engine quality fuel. After the completion the whole system was evaluated for its
performance. The downdraft gasifier was evaluated by using charcoal, corn cobs and coal as
fuel for the production of producer gas. Results indicated that on an average the gas production
was 79.24 m3, 77.32 m3 and 66.22 m3 producer gas and running time was 1.96 hr, 1.91 hr and
1.93 hr with charcoal, coal and corncobs respectively with the same quantity (30 kg) of the
fuel. The composition of the producer gas was also recorded as 1137.5, 1166.0 and 1055.80
ppm of CO; 5.90, 5.00 and 6.53 ppm of CO2; 3756.5, 3141.8 and 2700.5 ppm of SO2; 64, 108
and 246 ppm of NO; 69.75, 198.75 and 163 ppm of NO2; and 283.75, 290.75 and 254 ppm of
Hydrocarbons (HxCx) for charcoal, corncobs and coal respectively. The tar contents were also
measured as 1201.8, 2144.3 and 2949.8 mg.m-3 for charcoal, corncobs and coal respectively in
downdraft gasifier.

The updraft gasifier was evaluated with low bulk density fuels which cannot be used in
downdraft gasifiers. These fuels includes ricehusk, sawdust (sometimes called as saw wood)
and the mixture of ricehusk + sawdust. The results shows that the average running time for
these fuels in updraft gasifier was found to be 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9 hours while the gas production
was 63.94, 69.05 and 76.18 m3 for ricehusk, mixture of ricehusk + sawdust and from saw dust
respectively with the same quantity (30 kg) of biomass fuel. The composition of the produced
gas in updraft gasifier was found to be 965.5, 1031.5 and 1047.5 ppm of CO; 2.375, 2.83 and
4.53 ppm of CO2; 2759, 3327.5 and 3688.3 ppm of SO2; 202, 182 and 213.5 ppm of NO; 143,
78.75 and 122 ppm of NO2 and 229.5, 290.5 and 306.5 ppm of Hydrocarbons (HxCx) for
ricehusk, mixture of ricehusk + sawdust and for sawdust respectively. Similarly the tar contents
in the producer gas from updraft gasifier was on higher side as compared to the downdraft
gasifier. Tar contents were found to be 3093.3, 3701.5 and 4004 mg.m-3 for ricehusk, ricehusk
+ sawdust and for sawdust respectively.

118
 The conditioning unit was also tested for its cooling and cleaning efficiency. The
average temperature of the gas at entrance of the conditioning unit was found to be 285 °C and
at exit it was measured 44.67 °C. The average difference in temperatures was calculated as
240.33 °C. The results indicated that the average cooling efficiency of the conditioning system
was 84.13%. Similarly the average cleaning efficiency of showering tower was found to be
77.76% and the cleaning efficiency of the filter was 85.63%. The overall cleaning efficiency
of the whole system was calculated as 98.16%.

The cost analysis indicated that, it is economical to run engine on dual fuel mode (25%
diesel and 75% producer gas) as compared to run it with only diesel. Total fixed cost with the
conditioning unit was calculated as 2055 Rs. /year and 3083 Rs. /year for downdraft and updraft
gasifiers respectively. While the variable cost varies with the price of biomass fuels. In case of
downdraft gasifier, it was calculated that the total cost to run the 20kW diesel engine on dual
fuel mode costs 371.4, 202.86 and 324 Rs. per hour operation of the said engine using charcoal,
corncobs and coal as fuel respectively. While in updraft gasifier, per hour cost was calculated
as 277.75, 260.75 and 246.04 Rs. /hour for ricehusk, mixture of ricehusk + sawdust and for
sawdust respectively. On the other hand, when we use only diesel to fuel the same engine, it
costs Rs. 468/hr @ 117 Rs/liter. From this analysis it is cleared that lot of money can be saved
to use the crop residue to run an engine via gasification.

119
 Conclusions

The objectives of design and fabrication of downdraft, updraft gasifiers and the
conditioning unit was successfully achieved. The following conclusions were observed after
the completion of the research work.

1. If crop residue or biomass are available in sufficient amount without any

danger to forest and animal feed, gasifier can serve as an option for energy
supply in remote areas.
2. The downdraft gasifier was more efficient for gas production with higher bulk
density fuels.
3. The updraft gasifier was found to be the best for the low bulk density and fluffy
fuels such as rice husk and saw dust.
4. Tar production was more in updraft gasifier as compared to downdraft gasifier.
5. The average cooling efficiency of the conditioning unit was found to be 84.13%.
6. The average tar and dust removal efficiency was found to be 60.18 %, 96.74 %
and 98.74 % for Cooling Unit, Cleaning unit and the whole conditioning system
respectively.

Recommendations

1. Another way to make the biomass gasification more economical and with less
impurities in future, is to develop lower cost ways to produce the gas from only
oxygen.
2. Low cost water scrubber type cooling and cleaning unit need to be designed and
fabricated for upgrading the producer gas.
3. Membranes may also become an important new technology for separating gases
produced by coal gasifiers. These membranes can selectively remove hydrogen
from syn gas so that it can used as a fuel for future fuel cells or for refineries or
perhaps one day, as a substitute for gasoline in a hydrogen-power automobile.
4. Research work needed for the design and development of low cost fluidized bed
gasifiers.

120
 REFERENCES
Ahmad, M., M.U. Ghani, A. Munir, M. Iqbal and M. Umair. 2011. Fabrication and
Evaluation of a Downdraught Gasifier Running with Biomass for Sustainable
Agriculture. Pak. j. life soc. Sci. 9(1): 52-57.

Amur, G.Q., and S.C. Bhattacharya. 1999. A study of Biomass as a Source of Energy in
Pakistan. School of Environment resource and development, Asian Institute of
Technology, Thailand. RERIC International energy journal: volume 21.

Anonymous. 2002. Review of Finnish biomass gasification technologies. OPET Report No.
4. Technical research centre of Finland, Finland.

Anonymous. 2004. World Energy Outlook. International Energy Agency (IEA) 9, rue de
la Federation 75739 Paris Cedex 15 France.

Anonymous. 2005. Higher calorific values for some common fuels.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-higher-calorific-values-d_169.html.
(Accessed on dated 12-06-2013).

Anonymous. 2007. International Energy Agency. International Energy Agency,

Pakistan:Statistics.http://www.iea.org/stats/countryresults.asp?COUNTRY_C
ODE=PK&Submit=Submit (accessed May 12, 2012).

Anonymous. 2008. Biomass Engineering. The clean and renewable energy resource.
Website: http//www.biomass.uk.com. (Accessed 15 Oct 2013).

Anonymous. 2013. What is Energy>Renewable Energy>Renewable Resources.

http://www.solarschools.net/resources/stuff/renewable_resources.aspx.
(Accessed on dated: 21-12-2013)

Anonymous. 2014. Thermal Properties of Glass wool Insulation material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_insulation_wool. Accessed on
02-01-2014.

Anonymous. 2014a. Salvage Value. McGraw-Hill Science & Technology Dictionary:

Home > Library > Science > Sci-Tech Dictionary
http://www.answers.com/library/Sci%252DTech+Dictionary-cid-1068392

121
Anonymous. 2014b. Nitric Oxide. Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitric_oxide.

Antonopoulos, I.S., A. Karagiannidis, A. Gkouletsos and G. Perkoulidis. 2012. Modeling

of a downdraft gasifier fed by agricultural residues. Waste Management. 32:
710-718.

Antonopoulos, I.S., A. Karagiannidis, L. Elefsiniotis, G. Perkoulidis and A. Gkouletsos.

2011. Development of an innovative 3-stage steady bed gasifier for municipal
solid waste and biomass. Fuel Process. Technol. 92:2389 – 2396.

Asif, M. 2011. Energy crisis in Pakistan origins challenges and sustainable Solutions,
Karachi: Oxford University Press. September 17, 2011.

Balat, M. and G. Ayar. 2005. Biomass energy in the world, Use of biomass and potential
trends. Energy sources, 27:931-940.

Baratieri, M., P. Baggio, B. Bosio, M. Grigiante, and G.A. Longo (2009).The use of
biomass syngas in IC engines and CCGT plants: A comparative analysis.
Journal of Applied Thermal Engineering. 29: 3309-3318.

Barrio, M., M. Fossum and J.E. Hustad. 2000. A small-scale stratified downdraft gasifier
coupled to a gas engine for combined heat and power production. Norwegian
University of Science and Technology, Department of Thermal Energy and
Hydro Power, Trondheim, Norway.

Basu, P. 2013. Biomass Gasification, Pyrolysis and Torrefaction: Practical Design and
Theory. Second Edition. Published by Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier,
32 Jamestown Road, London NW1 7BY, UK.

Beenackers, A. A. C. M. 1999. Biomass gasification in moving beds, a review of European

technologies. Renewable Energy. 16(1-4): 1180 – 1186.

Bhavanam, A., and R. C. Sastry. 2011. Biomass Gasification Processes in Downdraft Fixed
Bed Reactors. International Journal of Chemical Engineering and Applications.
2(6): 425-433.

122
Bowser, T.J., P.R. Weckler, K.N. Patil, C. DeWitt. 2005. Design and testing of a low-cost,
pilot-scale batch gasifier for food processing by-products. Applied Engineering
in Agriculture. 21(5): 901−906.

Bram, S., J.D. Ruyck and D. Lavric. 2009. Using Biomass: A system perturbation analysis.
Applied Energy 86(2): 194-201.

Brandini, A. 1983. Experiencias con gasificadores en al Brazil. Manual del curve de

gasificacion de la Madera en Centro America y el Caribe. Pp. 308-320. Olade,
Costa Rica (FAO, 1986 Wood gas as engine fuel).

Breag, G. R. and A. E. Chittenden. 1979. Producer Gas; Its Potential and Applications in
Developing Countries, Report No. G130, Tropical Products Institute, London.

Bridgwater, A.V., A.A.C.M. Beenackers and K. Siplia. 1999. An Assessment of the

Possibilities for Transfer of European Biomass Gasification Technology to
China. Part I. China-EU Energy Working Group (EWG), EC DGXVII
THERMIE Programme.

Capareda, S. 2006. Unpublished data. College Station, Tex.: Texas A&M University.

Carlos, L. 2005. High temperature air/steam gasification of biomass in an updraft fixed

batch type gasifier. Ph.D. thesis. Royal Institute of Technology, Energy
Furnace and Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.

Carlos, L. 2005. High temperature air/steam gasification of biomass in an updraft fixed

batch type gasifier. Ph.D. thesis. Royal Institute of Technology, Energy
Furnace and Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.

Chaplin, J. and S. Joseph. 1989. A producer gas scrubber and generator set for developing
countries. Applied Engineering In Agriculture, 5(3): 311-315.

Chawdhurya, M.A. and K. Mahkamovb. 2011. Development of a Small Downdraught

Biomass Gasifier for Developing Countries. J. Sci. Res. 3 (1): 51-64. ISSN:
2070-0237

Chen, W., K. Annamalai, R.J. Ansley and M. Mirik. 2012. Updraft fixed bed gasification
of mesquite and juniper wood samples. Energy. 41(5): 454-461.

123
Chiang, K.Y., Y.X. Lin, C. H. Lu, K. L. Chien, M.H. Lin, C. C. Wu, S. S. Ton and J. L.
Chen. 2013. Gasification of rice straw in an updraft gasifier using water
purification sludge containing Fe/Mn as a catalyst. International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy. : 1 -7. Article in press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.07.041.

Chopra, S., and A.K. Jain. 2007. A review of fixed bed gasification systems for biomass.
Agricultural Engineering International: the CIGR E- journal. Invited Overview.
9(5).

Clarke, S.J. 1981. Thermal biomass gasification. Agricultural Engineering. 62(5):14-15.

Coronado, C.R., J.T. Yoshioka and J. L. Silveira. 2011. Electricity, hot water and cold water
production from biomass. Energetic and economical analysis of the compact
system of cogeneration run with woodgas from a small downdraft gasifier.
Renewable Energy 36 (12) 1861-1868.

Dalsted, N. 2008. The Cost of Owning and Operating Farm Machinery. Agriculture and
business management notes. Dept. of Ag. & Resource Economics, Colorado
State University. USA

Dasappa, S., G. Sridhar, H.V. Sridhar, N.K.S. Rajan, P.J. Paul and A. Upasani. 2007.
Producer gas engines-Proponent of clean energy technology. 15th European
Biomass Conference and Exhibition, May 7-11, Berlin, Germany: 976-980.

Demirbas, A. 2002. Hydrogen production from biomass by the gasification process. Energy
Sources. 24:59-68.

DiBlasi, C. and C. Branca. 2013. Modelling of a stratified wood gasifier with primary and
secondary air entry. Fuel 104: 847-860.

Enovi, N.N., T. Kram, A. Makarov, B. Sorensen, K. Yokobori and Z. Fengqi. 2000. World
Energy Assessment: Energy and the Challenge of Sustainability, Austria. 10-
04-2012.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 1986. Wood gas as engine fuel. FAO Forestry
Paper 72. FAO Corporate Document Repository.

124
Guo, X.J., B. Xiao, X.L. Zhang, S.Y. Luo and M.Y. He. 2009. Experimental study on air
stream gasification of biomass micron fuel in a cyclone gasifier, Bioresource
Technology. 100(2): 1003-1006.

Harijan, K., M.A. Uqaili and M. Memon. Renewable Energy for Managing Energy Crisis
in Pakistan. Jamshoro: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008.

Henriksen, U., J. Ahrenfeldt, T.K. Jensen, B. Gobel, J.D. Bentzen, C. Hinhsgual and L.H.
Soresen. 2006. The design, construction and operation of 75 kW two stage
gasifier. Energy 31(10-11): 1542-1553.

Hobbs, M.L., P.T. Radulovic and L.D. Smoot. (1993). Combustion and gasification of coals
in fixed-beds. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science. 19(6):505 – 586.

Hussain, A., F. N. Ani, L. X. Yi and A. F. Mohamed. 2007. Biomass Utilization for Green
Environment: Co-Combustion of Diesel Fuel and Producer Gas in Thermal
Applications. Pak. J. Sci. Ind. Res. 50(6): 370-376.

Jaojaruek, K., S. Jarungthammachote, M.K.B. Gratuito and H. Wongsuwan. 2011.

Experimental study of wood downdraft gasification for an improved producer
gas quality through an innovative two-stage air and premixed air/gas supply
approach. Bioresource Technology. 102(7): 4834-4840.

Karlsson, S. and D. Malm. 2005. Renewable Natural gas - Gasification of biomass for the
production of methanol or hydrogen. Malmö: Swedish Gas Centre.

Klass, D. L. (1998). Biomass for renewable energy, fuels, and chemicals. San Diego:
Academic Press.

Kramreiter, R., M. Url, J. Kotik and H. Hofbauer. 2008. Experimental investigation of a

125 KW twin fire fixed bed gasification pilot plant and comparison to the result
of 2 MW combined heat and power plant. Fuel processing technology 89(1):
90-102.

Kumabe, K., T. Hanaoka, S. Fujimoto, T. Minowa and K. Sakanishi. 2006. Co-Gasification

of woody biomass and coal with air and steam. Fuel 86(5-6): 684-689.

Kumararaja, L., P.G. Reddy, M.V. Ramanan and R. Sethumadhavan. 2010. Experimental
investigation on the change in bed properties of a downdraft biomass gasifier.
International Journal of Engineering, Science and Technology. 2(6): 98-106.

125
Leu, J.H. 2010. Biomass power generation through direct integration of updraft gasifier
and Stirling engine combustion system. Hindawi Publishing Corporation,
Advances in Mechanical Engineering. Volume 2010.

LV, P., Z. Yuan, L. Ma, C. Wu, Y. Chen and J. Zhu. 2007. Hydrogen – rich gas production
from biomass air and oxygen/steam gasification in a downdraft gasifier.
Renewable Energy. 32(2007): 2173-2185.

Mandwe, D.S., S. R. Gadge, A. K. Dubey and V. P. Khambalkar. 2006. Design and

development of a 20 kW cleaning and cooling system for a wood-chip gasifier.
Journal of Energy in Southern Africa 17(4): 65-69.

Masud, J. 2009. Clean Energy Development in Pakistan. The Economics of Climate

Change in Southeast Asia: A Regional Review. Bangkok, Thailand. ISBN:
978-971-561-787-1.

Mayer, E.F. 1988. Gasifier apparatus. U.S. Patent No. 4,764,185.

McKendry, P. 2002. Energy production from biomass (part 1): overview of biomass
Bioresource Technology. 83(1): 37–46.

Milne, T. A., R.J. Evans and N. Abatzoglou. 1998. Biomass gasifier “tars”: Their nature,
formation, and conversion. Report NREL/TP570-25357.

Mirza, I.A., S. Ahmed and M.S. Khalil. 2011. Renewable energy in Pakistan: Opportunities
and challenges. Science Vision. 16(17): 13-20

Mook, T.L. and Z. Alimuddin. 2008. Bubbling Fluidized bed biomass Gasification
Performance, process findings and energy analysis. Elsevier Renewable Energy
33(10): 2339-2343.

Munir, S. 2010. A Review on Biomass–Coal Co-Combustion: Current State of Knowledge.

Proc. Pakistan Acad. Sci. 47(4): 265-287.

Nair, S. A., A. J. M. Pemen, K. Yan, F. M. Van Compel, H. E. M. Van Leuken, E. J. M.

Van Heeseti, K. J. Ptasinki and A. A. H. Oninkenbur. 2003. Tar removal from
biomass derived fuel gas by pulsed carona discharges. Fuel Processing
Technology, 84(1-3): 161-173.

126
Nawaz, M. 2013. Why renewable energy is important to Pakistan? Article published in
Pakistan Today on 26-08-2013 issue.
http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/08/26/business/why-renewable-
energy-is-important-to-pakistan.

Ojolo, S.J. and J.I. Orisaleye. 2010. Design and development of a laboratory scale biomass
gasifier. Energy and Power Engineering. 4(8): 16-32.

Olgun, H., S. Ozdogan and G. Yinesor. 2011. Results with a bench scale downdraft biomass
gasifier for agricultural and forestry residues. Biomass and bioenergy. 35: 572
- 580.

Onchieku, J. M., F. Odongo, M. M. C. Ondieki, K. M. Gladys, A. Mayaka, J. Wanjiku and

R. Chiteva. 2011. Biomass gasification and technology utilization: Proceedings
of biomass gasification workshop, Wida Highway Motel, Kenya, 24th – 27th
May.

Pandey, S., B. Baral, S.P. Lohani, A. Bhusal and A. Upreti. 2012. Development of biomass
gasifier for small sized internal combustion engines. Rentech Symposium
Compendium. Volume 1.

Pathak, B.S., D.V.Kapatel, P.R. Bhoi, A.M. Sharma and D.K. Vyas. 2007. Design and
development of sand bed filter for upgrading producer gas to IC engine quality
fuel. International Energy Journal. 8(1): 15-20.

Pathak, B.S., S.R. Patel, A.G. Bhave, P.R. Bhoi, A.M. Sharma, N.P. Shah. 2008.
Performance evaluation of agriculture residue based modular throat type down
draft gasifier for thermal application. Biomass and Bio energy 32:72-77.

Patil, K. N., and C. S. Rao. 1993. Updraft gasification of agricultural residues for thermal
applications. In Proc. of IV International Technical Meet on Biomass
Gasification and Combustion. Bangalore, India: Interline Publishing.

Pedroso, D. T., E.B. Machin, J.L. Silveria and Y. Nemoto. 2013. Experimental study of
bottom fed updraft gasifier. Renewable Energy. 57: 311-316.

Pestana, M.I.A.2011. Development of a tar decomposition model for application in a

Chemical-Looping Reformer operated with raw gas from a biomass gasifier.
Department of Energy and Environment, Division of Energy Technology,

127
 Chalmers University of Technology Goteborg, Sweden, Master’s Thesis:
T2011-363.

Prins, M. J., K. J. Ptasinski and F. J.J.G. Janssen. 2007. From coal to biomass gasification:
Comparison of thermodynamic efficiency. Energy 32:1248–1259

Rajvanshi, A.K. 1983. Potential of Briquettes from Farm Residues as Rural Energy Source,
Proceeding workshop on Biomass Energy Management, Hyderabad, December
27-29.

Rajvanshi, A.K. 1986. Biomass gasification. Alternative energy in agriculture 2nd Volume,
D.Y. Goswami, CRC Press: 83-102.

Raveendran, K., A. Ganesh and K.C. Khilar. 1996. Pyrolysis characteristics of biomass and
biomass components. Fuel. 75(8): 987 – 998.

Reed, T.B. and A. Das. 1988. Handbook of biomass downdraft gasifier engine systems.
Colorado: Solar Energy Research Institute, Sweden.

Remulla, J.A. 1982. Gasifier Manufacturers in the Philippines: Status and

Prospects, Presented at Technical Consulation meeting between
Prople’s Republic of China and Philippines, Manila, June 23 -30.

Riva, G. 2006. Utilization of biofuels on the farm. Agricultural Engineering International:

the CIGR E-journal. Invited Overview. 15(8).

Rowland, S. 2010. Design and testing of a small-scale updraft gasifier for gasification of
eastern red cedar. Master’s thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate
College of the Oklahoma State University.

Schapfer, P. and J. Tobler. 1937. Theoretical and Practical Investigation upon the driving
of Motor Vehicles with Wood Gas. Bern, Switzerland

Seggiani, M., S. Vitolo, M. Puccini and A. Bellini. 2012. Cogasification of sewage sludge
in an updraft gasifier. Fuel. 93(2012): 486-491.

Sharma, K.A. 2009. Experimental study on 75 kWth downdraft (biomass) gasifier system.
Renewable Energy. 34 (7): 1726-1733.

128
Sheth, P.N. and B.V. Babu. 2009. Experimental studies on producer gas generation from
wood waste in a downdraft biomass gasifier. Bioresource Technology. 100
(2009): 3127–3133.

Sims, R. 2003. Climate change solutions from biomass, bioenergy, and biomaterials.
Agricultural Engineering International: the CIGR Journal of Scientific
Research and Development. Invited Overview. Vol. V.

Sivakumar, K. and N.K. Mohan. 2010. Performance analysis of downdraught gasifier for
agri waste biomass materials. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 3(1):
58-60. ISSN: 0974- 6846.

Sivakumar, S., K.Pitchandi and E. Natarajan. 2006. Design and Analysis of Downdraft
Biomass Gasifier using Computational Fluid Dynamics. Department of
Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, Guindy, Anna University,
Chennai-25. INDIA.

Skov, N. A. and M.L. Paperworth. 1974. The Pegasus Unit, Pegasus Publishers, Olympia,
Washington, Chapter 9.

Stassen, H.E.M. and H.A.M. Knoef. 1995. UNDP/WB small-scale biomass gasifier
monitoring programme-final findings. Energy for Sustainable Development.
2(1):41-48.

Stassen, H.E.M. and H.A.M. Knoef. 1999. SMALL SCALE GASIFICATION SYSTEMS.
Biomass Technology Group BV P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, the
Netherlands.

Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences. 1979. Generator Gas-The Swedish Experience

from1939-1945, Translated by the Solar Energy Research Institute, U.S.A.
SERI/SP-33-140.

Tahir, A. R., M.S. Sabir and F.H. Khan. 2006. Chapter 19. Cost Analysis. Fundamentals of
Tractors and agricultural machinery. Department of Farm Machinery & Power,
University of Agriculture, Fiaslabad-Pakistan. : 129-132.

Tiedema, P., J. van der Weide and H.J. Dekker. 1983. Converting diesel engines to the use
of gaseous fuels. Producer Gas, p. 39-414. The Beijer Institute, Stockholm,
Sweden.

129
Timmerer, H. and F. Lettner. 2005. Overview on risk assessment of biomass gasification
plants. Proceedings of International Workshop on Health, Safety and
Environment of Biomass Gasification. September 28, Hilton Hotel Innsbruck
Salurnerstrabe 15 A-6010, Innsbruck, Austria.

Venselaar, J., 1982. Design rules for Downdraft gasifier, a short review, IT Bandung,
Indonesia.

Vitasari, C.R., M. Jurascik and K.J. Patsinski. 2011. Exergy analysis of biomass-to-
synthetic natural gas (SNG) process via indirect gasification of various biomass
feedstock. Energy. 36(2011): 3825-3837.

Xu, C., J. Donald, E. Byambajav and Y. Ohtsuka. 2010. Recent advances in catalysts for
hot gas removal of tar and NH3 from biomass gasification. Fuel. 89: 1784-1795.

Zhang, Y., B. Li, H. Li and B. Zhang. 2012. Exergy analysis of biomass utilization via
steam gasification and partial oxidation. Thermochimica Acta. 538: 21-28.

130
 APPENDIX
Mean tables for downdraft gasifier
Table 1 Effect of Treatments on Time
Homogeneous Standard
Fuel Mean
Groups Deviation
Charcoal 7070 173.2
A
Corn Cobs 5930 77.5
B
Coal 6891 143.6
A
Grand Mean 6630.33

St. Error 68.70

Table 2 Effect of Treatments on Volume of Gas Produced

Homogeneous Standard
Fuel Mean
Groups Deviation
Charcoal 79.235 A 1.44

Corn Cobs 66.215 B 0.55

Coal 77.318 A 1.78

Grand Mean 74.26

St. Error 0.68

Table 3 Effect of treatments on Carbon Monoxide (CO) present in the producer gas
Homogeneous Standard
Fuel Mean
Groups Deviation
Charcoal 1137.50 A 47.2

Corn Cobs 1166.00 A 18.1

Coal 1055.80 B 43.0

Grand Mean 1119.77

St. Error 19.17

131
Table 4 Effect of treatments on Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Homogeneous Standard
Fuel Mean
Groups Deviation
Charcoal 2700.5 A 66.7

Corn Cobs 3141.8 B 44.4

Coal 3756.5 C 463.2

Grand Mean 3199.60

St. Error 135.70

Table 5 Effect of Treatments on Presence of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the Producer Gas

Homogeneous Standard
Fuel Mean
Groups Deviation
Charcoal 5.90 A 0.56

Corn Cobs 5.00 A 1.27

Coal 6.53 A 0.31

Grand Mean 5.81

St. Error 0.68

Table 6 Effect of Treatments on Nitric Oxide (NO)

Homogeneous Standard
Fuel Mean
Groups Deviation
Charcoal 64.00 B 5.89

Corn Cobs 108.00 B 3.65

Coal 216.00 A 76.37

Grand Mean 129.33

St. Error 22.14

132
Table 7 Effect of Treatments on Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

Homogeneous Standard
Fuel Mean
Group Deviation
Charcoal 69.75 C 2.50

Corncobs 163.00 B 9.27

Coal 198.75 A 24.50

Grand Mean 143.83

St. Error 7.60

Table 8 Effect of Treatments on Hydrocarbons

Homogeneous Standard
Fuel Mean
Group Deviation
Charcoal 283.75 A 7.14

Corncobs 290.75 A 2.99

Coal 254.00 B 3.16

Grand Mean 276.17

St. Error 2.41

Table 9 Effect of treatment on tar production downdraft gasifier

Homogeneous Standard
Fuel Mean
Group Deviation
Charcoal 1201.80 C 55.4

Corn Cobs 2144.30 B 93.2

Coal 2949.80 A 67.9

Grand Mean 2098.63

St. Error 36.94

133
 Mean tables for updraft gasifier
Table 10 Effect of Treatments on running Time.
Homogeneous Standard
Fuel Mean
Group Deviation
Ricehusk 5979.3 C 320.5
Ricehusk +
6400.8 B 271.9
Sawdust
Sawdust 6847.5 A 150.8

Grand Mean 6409.2

St. Error 128.9

Table 11 Effect of Treatments on Volume of Gas Produced.

Homogeneous Standard
Fuel Mean
Group Deviation
Ricehusk 63.94 B 3.349
Ricehusk +
69.05 B 3.939
Sawdust
Sawdust 76.18 A 2.467

Grand Mean 69.72

St. Error 1.65

Table 12 Effect of Treatments on Presence of Carbon Monoxide in the Producer Gas

Homogeneous Standard
Fuel Mean
Group Deviation
Ricehusk 965.5 A 33.6
Ricehusk +
1031.5 A 66.6
Sawdust
Sawdust 1047.5 A 71.9

Grand Mean 1014.8

St. Error 29.91

134
Table 13 Effect of Treatments on Presence of Carbon Dioxide in the Producer Gas
Homogeneous Standard
Fuel Mean
Group Deviation
Ricehusk 2.375 B 0.1708
Ricehusk +
2.825 B 0.2062
Sawdust
Sawdust 4.525 A 0.7042

Grand Mean 3.242

St. Error 0.218

Table 14 Effect of Treatments on Presence of Sulfur Dioxide in the Producer Gas

Homogeneous Standard
Fuel Mean
Group Deviation
Ricehusk 2759.0 B 271.4
Ricehusk +
3327.5 AB 658.3
Sawdust
Sawdust 3688.3 A 262.6

Grand Mean 3258.3

St. Error 219.1

Table 15 Effect of Treatments on Presence of Nitric Oxide in the Producer Gas

Homogeneous Standard
Fuel Mean
Group Deviation
Ricehusk 202.0 A 69.78
Ricehusk +
182.0 A 28.58
Sawdust
Sawdust 213.5 A 6.14

Grand Mean 199.2

St. Error 21.8

135
Table 16 Effect of Treatments on Presence of Nitrogen Dioxide in the Producer Gas
Homogeneous Standard
Fuel Mean
Group Deviation
Ricehusk 143.00 A 48.52
Ricehusk +
78.75 B 13.82
Sawdust
Sawdust 122.00 AB 27.82

Grand Mean 114.58

St. Error 16.63

Table 17 Effect of treatments on production of hydrocarbons

Homogeneous Standard
Fuel Mean
Group Deviation
Ricehusk 229.50 C 7.42
Ricehusk +
290.50 B 6.24
Sawdust
Sawdust 306.50 A 4.20

Grand Mean 275.50

St. Error 3.05

Table 18 Effect of treatments on tar production updraft gasifier

Homogeneous Standard
Fuel Mean
Group Deviation
Ricehusk 3093.3 C 60.3
Ricehusk +
3701.5 B 107.6
Sawdust
Sawdust 4004.0 A 125.2

Grand Mean 3599.6

St. Error 50.7

136