Fluidized Bed Gasifier Design Report Public)

18 MAY 2007[Energy from Biomass and Wastes] | 421‐825
DESIGN OF A LOW COST FLUIDIZED BED

GASIFIER FOR SAWDUST GASIFICATION IN
RURAL CHINA

[Vigneswaran KUMARAN] | 277492
Digitally signed by V
----------------------------------------------
V Kumaran
DN: cn=V Kumaran, c=MY
Coordinator: Dr. Lu Aye Reason: I am the author of
Department of Civil and Environmental Kumaran this document

Date: 2009.06.18 12:09:44
+07'00'
DESIGN OF A LOW COST FLUIDIZED BED GASIFIER FOR SAWDUST GASIFICATION IN RURAL CHINA
Abstract

The task of designing a low cost gasifier to be applied in rural China had been the motivation
of this report. The specification of 8 hour per day operation for 200 kW heat output for
heating purpose has been made as the basis of the design work. The feedstock has been
specified as pine wood sawdust from timber mills in rural China, and this feedstock is pre‐
dried before feeding to the gasifier. Due to the nature of the feedstock, a fluidized bed
gasifier had been thought appropriate for the design requirement. A simple economic
analysis was performed for the designed unit to determine the feasibility of the unit’s
application. In addition, some of the barriers related to the implementation of gasification
technology in rural China had also been addressed.
Keywords: Low cost gasifier, heating, design work, rural China, fluidized bed, feasibility,
barriers.

2 | P a g e

Aim
The following objectives are delineated in this design report:
• A low cost gasifier design (exclude auxiliaries) is attempted for an output of
1600kWht per day
• The gasifier is to be used for gasification of sawdust in rural society of China for the
purpose of heating
• A simple economic analysis was attempted to verify the applicability of the design
• An overview of technical and non‐technical barriers are presented
3 | P a g e


Contents
Abstract 2
Aim 3
1.0 Introduction 6
2.0 Gasifier Types 7
3.0 Design Methodology for Fluidized Bed Gasifier 9
4.0 Gasifier Design Economics 16
5.0 Technical and Non‐Technical Barriers 18
6.0 Discussion and Conclusion 19
References 20
Appendix
A1 Summary of Sawdust Fluidised Bed Gasifier Design 21
A2 Thermodynamic Properties and Estimates Worksheet 25
A3 Process Parameters Calculation 27
A4 Gasifier Sizing WorkSheet 30
Figures
Figure 1 Type of gasifier and elements of operation 8
Figure 2 Fluidized Bed Gasifier Diagram 15

Tables
Table 1 Intermediate values for solving equation (1) to (5) 10
Table 2 Predicted product gas composition at gasifier bed temperature 11
Table 3 Higher heating value as a function of product gas temperature 12
Table 4 Process parameters and other estimates 12
4 | P a g e

Table 5 Fluidized bed gasifier design calculation and various author’s design figures 14
Table 6 Economic data of sawdust gasification and heating system in rural China 16
Table 7 Sensitivity analysis for sawdust gasification at different operating hours 17

5 | P a g e

1.0 INTRODUCTION
There are various technologies for the conversion of biomass to cleaner energy medium. In
this particular analysis, the gasification technology is specifically identified and discussed.
Biomass constitutes among others, three major elements which are carbon (C), hydrogen
(H) and oxygen (O). Elemental carbon and hydrogen are reactive and are combustibles that
can produce energy in the form of heat and light when reacted with oxygen. Thus, primarily
biomass is an alternative energy source that can be utilized to produce useful secondary
energy forms such as electricity and derived‐fuels. As shown on the map of China in this
page, the green fields are the massive area of biomass available in this highly populated
country.
Source: www.travelchinaguide.com
In this large developing
country, gasification
technology has been in use in
many biomass related
industries such as agricultural
production and timber
industry. However, this
practice is not widespread [8]
contrary to what could be
expected for a country with 38
million m3 of forest residues and 0.65 billion tones of agricultural residues per annum [1].
Forest residues in the form of wood waste such as sawdust has been used in rural China [1]
and this report intends to produce a low cost gasifier unit using sawdust as the solid fuel for
gaseous fuel production which will be used for heating purposes.

6 | P a g e

2.0 GASIFIER TYPES
Gasification for this design purpose is defined as a thermochemical conversion process
whereby biomass is heated in a sub‐stoichiometric oxygen, air or steam to produce gaseous
fuel. There are various types of gasifiers and the design is specified by the feedstock type,
preparation and end‐use of product gas. The four major characteristics of the feedstock [2]
that has impact on the gasifier operation is described as follows:
2.1 Moisture content
High moisture content (above 30 %wt) in feedstock is not suitable for
gasification due to production of low heating value gaseous fuel.
2.2 Ash content
Ash in biomass tends to form solid fuses that blocks feed passage, especially
at higher combustion temperature.
2.3 Volatile compounds such as tar and higher chain hydrocarbons that needs
further removal or treatment to provide cleaner gaseous fuel.
2.4 Particle size
Depending on the type of gasifier, the particles size plays an important role in
ensuring proper flow of feedstock in the gasifier and gasification of the
feedstock.
The following figure summarizes some of the common type of gasifier and the associated
elements that could be considered for selection.

7 | P a g e

Figure 1: Type of gasifier and elements of operation

(Source: www.gasnet.co.uk )

The fluidized type bed is selected for this design study due to the characteristic of the
feedstock and the ease of control in terms of handling of feedstock in the gasifier.

8 | P a g e

3.0 DESIGN METHODOLOGY FOR FLUIDIZED BED GASIFIER
The design methodology uses a three step approach whereby the thermodynamic and
process parameters are estimated from the predicted value of product gas composition as a
function of process temperature. These estimates are used for the sizing of the fluidized bed
gasifier for sawdust gasification.
3.1 Prediction of product gas composition using thermodynamic properties
The composition of the product gas is predicted using several sets of
equation as a function of gasifying temperature. The feedstock chosen for the
design is Pine Wood sawdust [3] with the physical properties and elemental
composition given in Appendix 1. The universal gasification reaction equation
[4] is given below.
CH aOb + wH2O + mO2 + 3.76mN2 → x1H2 + x2CO + x3CO2 + x4H2O + x5CH4
+ 3.76mN2

The elemental mass balance provides the following sets of equation.
C: 1 = x2 + x3 + x5 (1)
H: 2w + a = 2x1 + 2x4 + 4x5 (2)
O: w +b + 2m = x2 + 2x3 + x4 (3)

The gasification equilibrium constants [4] for methane and shift gas reaction
are as below:
Methane formation: K1 = x5/(x2)2 (4)
Shift gas reaction (CO and H2): K2 = x1x3/(x2x4) (5)
The values of K1 and K2 are determined using the following temperature
dependent equilibrium equation which requires the heat of formation and
standard Gibbs function constants.
lnK = ‐(J/RT) + ΔA lnT + (ΔB/2)T + (ΔC/6)T2 + ΔD/2T2 + I) (6)
ΔH0 = (J/R) + ΔA lnT + (ΔB/2)T2 + (ΔC/3)T3 ‐ ΔD/2T (7)
ΔG0 = J ‐ RT(ΔA lnT + (ΔB/2)T + (ΔC/6)T2 + ΔD/2T2 + I) (8)
9 | P a g e

The calculations for above constants are provided in Appendix 2. Thus,
solving the equation (1) to (5) forms a polynomial function, that can be
resolved using Excel spreadsheet as shown in the Appendix 2.

The following stoichiometric equation is used to determine the
stoichiometric combustion air required for the Pine sawdust.
CH aOb + mstcO2 + 3.76mstcN2 → CO2 + H2O +3.76mstcN2 (9)

The intermediate values for the above sets of equation are provided in Table
1.

Table 1: Intermediate values for solving equation (1) to (5)
Moisture content, w (mol) 0.120
Gasification oxygen, m (mol) 0.336
Stoichiometric combustion air, mstc.air (mol) 3.864
Gasification air, mair (mol) 1.264
o
Bed temperature, TB ( C) 750.00
TB (K) 1023.15
Equilibrium constant, K1 0.076
Equilibrium constant, K2 0.199
Hydrogen content in Wood, a (mol) 1.459
Oxygen content in Wood, b (mol) 0.676

The temperature dependent product gas composition is shown in Table 2.
Interestingly, the composition agrees with most value ranges provided in
many referenced literatures.

10 | P a g e

Table 2: Predicted product gas composition at gasifier bed temperature
Predicted Mole
Gas Components Variables Values fraction Percentage (%)
H2 x1 0.5200 0.1693 16.93
CO x2 0.7794 0.2537 25.37
CO2 x3 0.2000 0.0651 6.51
H2O x4 0.2885 0.0939 9.39
CH4 x5 0.0206 0.0067 0.67
N2 3.76*m 1.2634 0.4113 41.13
Total 3.0719 1.0000 100.00

3.2 Process parameter calculation and other estimates
The process parameters are calculated to determine the required air flow for
the amount of feedstock fed to the gasifier to produce 200 kW of thermal
output for heating using a gas fired boiler with an assumed thermal efficiency
of 82 %. The gasifier efficiency is assumed to be 76 %, and complete
gasification of sawdust fed is anticipated. Also, since the sawdust obtained
from the timber mill is expected to be wet, it is pre‐dried to a value below 10
% wt moisture on a wet basis, to allow proper gasification with good heating
value of product gas. The following equation [5] is used to define the
gasification efficiency and to derive the values for the feedstock required to
produce the specified output.

ηth = [(Hg * Qg) + (Qg * ρg * cp * ΔT)]/(Hs * Ms) (10)

The higher heating value (HHV) for the predicted composition of product gas
is calculated using the mole fraction and individual HHV. This value is
subsequently converted to lower heating value (LHV) of gas using the rule of
thumb that LHV is approximately 90 % of the HHV for gaseous combustibles.
This is shown in Table 3 and the process parameters are tabulated in Table 4.
The complete calculation steps are shown in Appendix 3.

11 | P a g e

Table 3: Higher heating value as a function of product gas composition
Gas Volume Molecular HHV Mol. Wgt. Weighted
Component Fraction Weight Btu/scf Contribution Values
(= mole HHV,
fraction) Btu/scf

C1 0.00671 16 1013.2 0.107 6.798

CO2 0.06511 44 0 2.865 0.000
CO 0.25372 28 320.5 7.104 81.316
H2 0.16928 2 325 0.339 55.015
H2O 0.09392 18 0 1.691 0.000
Inerts (N2) 0.41127 28 0 11.515 0.000
Total
T 1 23.621 143.129
Using the above table and the following table, the next step is approached,
whereby the fluidized bed gasifier sizing is undertaken.

Table 4: Process parameters and other estimates
Design Parameters Value Unit
Thermal efficiency, η 76 %
Gasifier output, PD 321 kW
Heating value of gas, Hg 4763.80 kJ/Nm3
Gas volumetric flow, Qg 0.0641 Nm3/s
*Gas volumetric flow, Qg 230.7 Nm3/h
Gas density, ρg 0.2816 kg/m3
Gas Specific Heat, cp 1.391 kJ/kg oC
1
Heating value of Solid, Hs 15120 kJ/kg
Solid Fuel Consumption, Ms 0.0279 kg/s
*Solid Fuel Consumption, Ms 100.5 kg/h
o
Solid Fuel Inlet Temp, Tis 27 C
o
Gas Outlet Temp, Tos 650 C
2
Air Density, ρa 1.171 kg/m3
Air Ratio, ER 0.3271
Air volumetric flow, Qa 0.0334 Nm3/s
Sensible Heat Recovered, H 244.06 kJ/Nm3
Specific Consumption, Uc 0.33 kg/kWh
Boiler Rated Efficiency 82 %
Boiler Output 200 kW
1
LHV, 2 @ 27 0C, 101.325 kPa
12 | P a g e

3.3 Fluidized bed gasifier sizing
The sizing of the fluidized bed is established via several sets of assumption
and equations. These assumptions are important to enable a practical design
of the gasifier. The air flow (and the gas flow) through the bed is assumed to
be well distributed and homogeneous mixture of product gas is obtained at
averaged bed temperature of 750 0C. The minimum fluidization voidage (εmf)
of the bed [6] is assumed 0.66 (ranging between 0.5 to 0.85). The fluidized
bed is assumed to be operated with silica sand which has a particle density
(ρp) of 2600 kg/m3 and average particle diameter (dp) of 300 microns. The
bed operates at slightly above atmospheric pressure due to the air delivered
by the blower above atmospheric pressure. The first step in sizing activity is
the determination of the fluidized bed diameter [7], which uses the following
correlation:
mair = ρair * ((π * Dg^2)/4 )* Us (11)

The air flowrate (mair) through the bed is given as a function of bed diameter
(Dg) and the gas superficial velocity (Us). The following sets of equations are
required to determine the superficial velocity [7], which necessitates the
information on the bed minimum fluidization velocity (Umf).
Us = 2 * Umf (12)
Umf = [dp^2 / (150* μg)]*[g*(ρp‐ ρg)*(εmf^3)/(1‐ εmf)] (13)
Using the superficial value calculated from the above equations, the bed
diameter is determined, whereby the air flow rate had already been
established in previous section. The next step will require the determination
of bed dynamic height (HB), which is the section of the bed where the
B
fluidized particles (including sawdust) will rise when air is injected for
reaction. This is determined using the relationship [8] between bed residence
time (t) and Umf. The overall reaction bed height (H) is the sum of the height
of sawdust feeding point and dynamic bed height.
HB = t * Umf
B (14)
H = HB + Hf
B (15)
13 | P a g e

Table 5: Fluidized bed gasifier design calculation and various authors’ design figures
Parameters ValueD Value[11] Value[9] Value[8] Value[12]

Units Sugarcane Sugarcane Rice
Type of biomass fuel Sawdust bagasse bagasse husk Sawdust
Feeding rate kg/s 0.0279 0.03 0.0290 0.4167 0.0085
Moisture (d.b.) % wt 8.9 15 11.7
Feeding point M 0.26 0.3 0.26 1.8 0.89
Bed section internal diameter M 0.459 0.57 0.417 1.8 0.1
Dynamic bed height M 1.549 2 1 7.4 6.5
Freeboard internal diameter M 0.459 0.75 0.417 ‐ ‐
Freeboard height M 0.860 3 1 ‐ ‐
Disengaging Zone Diameter M 0.689 ‐ 0.835 ‐ ‐
Disengaging Zone Height M 1.362 ‐ 1.585 ‐ ‐
Air volume flow Nm3/s 0.0334 0.0320 0.0271 ‐ 0.0146
3
Air volume flow m /s 0.1069 0.1366 0.0938 ‐ 0.0525
0
Bed temperature C 750 1000 760 800 800
3
Exiting gas flow Nm /s 0.064 0.052 0.07 0.917 ‐
0
Exiting gas temperature C 650 800 760 527 700
3
Gas LHV kJ/Nm 4764 4.7 4.3 4.4 4.7
Total thermal output kW 321 245 280 1000 105
Hot gas efficiency % 76.0 75 60 65
Superficial velocity, Us m/s 0.6447 0.535 0.75 2.8 6.681
Air Ratio 0.3271 0.28 0.22 0.25 0.29
Particle diameter, dp Micron 300 330 379 ‐ ‐
Viscosity kg/m/s 4.01E‐05 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Gravitational acceleration, g m/s2 9.81
Particle density, ρd kg/m3 2600 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Voidage at min. fldzn, εmf 0.66 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Velocity (min. fluidization) m/s 0.322 0.268 0.375 1.4 3.340
Reynolds Number, Remf 0.6783 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Velocity (max. fluidization) m/s 1.17 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Terminal velocity, Ut m/s 2.15 1.78 2.50 9.33 22.27
D [11] [9] [8] [12]
‐ Design Values; ‐ van de Enden, et al.; ‐ E. Olivares Gomez, et al.; – Yin X.L., et al.; ‐ Li X. T. et al.
The freeboard zone [9] is where the bed particles with terminal velocity
higher than the gas superficial velocity will leave the upper reaction bed
surface. The diameter is assumed to be equal to reaction bed diameter,
however the freeboard height (Hfb) is taken as a function of superficial
velocity ratio (between design, UsD and reference value, Us(ref)).
14 | P a g e

Hfb = Hfb(ref) * UsD/Us(ref) (16)
Disengaging zone [9] is defined as the area above freeboard where the gas
and entrained particles ascend to before their speed is reduced. Most of the
particles will fall back into the bed zone [10]. The height (HZ) and diameter
(DDZ) is determined using the following functions.
HDZ = UtD/Ut(ref) * HDZ(ref) (17)

DDZ = 1.5 * DB B (18)
(Us/Ut) = 0.3 (19)
The last function is the relationship [6] between superficial velocity and
terminal velocity (Ut) for a fluidized bed operation. The major section of the
above calculations is shown in Appendix 4 (as part of Excel worksheet). The
output of the design calculation is shown in Table 6.
Fig 2: Fluidized Bed Gasifier Components
Burner for
Boiler
Disengaging Cyclone
Zone
Feeding point m 0.26
Bed section internal
diameter m 0.459
Freeboard Dynamic bed height m 1.549
Freeboard internal
Reactor diameter m 0.459
Freeboard height m 0.860
Screw Feeder
1.8 m3 (1.3m x Ash Barrel Disengaging Zone
1.3m x 1m) Diameter m 0.689
Ash Grate Blower Disengaging Zone
Height m 1.362
Bed temperature 0C 750
Source: Adapted and enhanced from Gomez EO et al.(10) * Refractory thickness = 160mm
The gasifier will be constructed from carbon steel of 2‐3mm thickness, and
provided with internal heat insulation along the bed and freeboard made of
cement cylinders with thickness at 160mm. The bottom distributor will be of
bubble‐cap type to prevent clogging of feedstock or sand particles.
15 | P a g e

4.0 GASIFIER DESIGN ECONOMICS
The feasibility of sawdust gasifier application in China is very much dependent on the cost of
biomass and comparative biomass energy cost. However, for the purpose of this design
study, the biomass cost is assumed negligible, as the sawdust available in the vicinity of the
timber mills is assumed to have no other functional value other than as waste product. A
model utilised by Leung YC et al. [1], has been used here for the economic analysis. Table 7
shows an adjusted economic value to suit the capital cost and operational cost for the
gasifier specific to this design study. The operating hours had been set to 2920 hours on
annual basis against the actual analysis of 6000 hours/year basis.
Table 6: Economic data [1] of Sawdust gasification and heating
System in rural China (2004$) 1
Capacity 200 kWt
Purpose Heating
Capital Cost (103 US$)
Gasifier and Fittings 6.2
Control Unit 0.6
Base and Buildings 0.6
Installation 0.6
Design and Regulations 1.3
Total Capital Cost 9.3
Capital Cost US$/kW 46.5
Operation Cost (103 US$)1
Power consumption 0.5
Maintenance 0.3
Labour Cost 1.2
Total Operation Cost 1.9
Operation Cost 10‐7 US$/kJ 9.3
Based on the table, the total capital cost is US$ 9300, and the operation cost is US$1300 per
year. The operations cost per unit of energy output is US$ 9.3E(‐07) for operating the
gasifier for 2920 hours annually in southern China. However these figures do not provide a
valuable perception of the exact economic outcome anticipated. Thus the following simple
equation [1] had been used to determine the profit of the biomass energy.

1
Value for 200kW is for the overall heating system
16 | P a g e

Pr = (P1 ‐ P2/η) ‐ (C1 + C2)
Pr is defined as the profit of biomass energy, and has to be above zero to enable the project
to be feasible. The sawdust biomass energy [1] in China is taken as 1.7E(‐06) US$/kJ and
defined by P1. The cost term for sawdust is neglected in this analysis due to the reasons
stated earlier in the section of this report. A sensitivity analysis was carried out using the
above principle and the following table was established.
Table 7: Sensitivity analysis for Sawdust gasification at different operational hours in a
year
Operational Hours 2920 4380 5840 8760
Capital Cost (C1) US$/kJ 4.42E‐06 2.95E‐06 2.21E‐06 1.47E‐06
Operation Cost (C2) US$/kJ 9.26E‐07 6.17E‐07 4.63E‐07 3.09E‐07
Pr ‐3.65E‐06 ‐1.87E‐06 ‐9.75E‐07 ‐8.31E‐08

Based on the above analysis, the project encounters loss even for 24 hour operation on
annual basis. However, the need to consider the viability of the design application will be
further elaborated in the discussion part of the report.
17 | P a g e


5.0 TECHNICAL AND NONTECHNICAL BARRIERS
The implementation of gasification in a small scale such as this design work would face
considerable amount of challenges, technically and non‐technically. The rural society of
China will have to benefit from the gasification project, however, the initial investment and
subsequent operations cost will have to be borne by an institution which has the capacity to
undertake the project. The timber mills in the rural areas, closer to the logging area would
effectively be the suitable owner of such undertakings. However, the technicalities involved
in defining the design efficacies, operating conditions and maintenance of the gasifier will
be outside the expertise of this mill operators. There has to be an interface between the
engineering, construction and management of the gasifier to enable the society to absorb
the technology and sustain it. As such, no frill designs need to be developed and marketed
at the least cost.
In terms of cost of operation, efficiency of fluidised bed gasifier will play a vital role since
biomass consumption would be largely affected by losses in the gasifier in the form of heat
or carbon loss. Significant improvement need to be seen in this area to make gasifier use
attractive and rewarding economically. There has to be more small‐scale higher efficiency
gasifiers developed cost effectively to suit particular need of the rural society in China,
parallel to the development and construction of medium to large scale gasifiers.
Apart from these considerations, the sustainability of fluidised bed gasifier utilisation will
depend very much on the support policy by the government of China [1], especially to
provide fund allocation for smaller units, tax reduction or relaxation for major sponsors (or
timber mill operators), and to focus on effective use of waste biomass such as sawdust.
Waste management using small scale gasifier unit (as proposed in this design work) could be
undertaken by the government to make timber industry cost effective and environmentally
sustainable.
18 | P a g e

6.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The design of a fluidized bed gasifier using sawdust as feedstock had been demonstrated for
a heating output of 200 kWt to be used for rural society in China. The design output in terms
of product gas composition, heating value of gas and gasifier size, by large, agrees with
design work done by other authors’ referenced. The conversion of sawdust produces 3.0
kWh/kg of feedstock and consumes approximately 800 kg per 8h operation. The overall
system efficiency is 62.3 % when the efficiency of heating equipment is combined with
thermal efficiency of the fluidised bed gasifier.
The economic analysis was complemented with a sensitivity analysis and was found to show
that the gasifier designed may not be suitable for rural usage in terms of profitability. This is
largely due to the cost‐ineffectiveness of smaller scale gasifiers (less than 1000 kWt) in
China, whereby the total cost of implementation becomes larger and thus reduces the
profitability of biomass energy production. However, the benefits of pursuing the
application would allow cost savings in terms of biomass waste storage, transport and
pollution control which have not been included in the sensitivity analysis. Pragmatism
makes this secondary factor as a driving force for the small‐medium scale gasifier to be
installed and used in many parts of rural China, as can be proven by the hundreds of small
scale gasifiers already in use in China since late 20th century.
The technical and non‐technical aspects will be met by China as it progresses towards a
dynamic nation with large energy consumption bill in coming years. This factor will provide
the motive force for engineering, construction and operation of low cost small scale gasifiers
in rural China in future.

19 | P a g e

REFERENCES

[1] Leung YC Dennis, Yin XL, Wu CZ. A review on the development and
commercialization of biomass gasification technologies in China. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 2004; 8: 565‐580
[2] McKendry P. Energy production from biomass (part 3): gasification technologies.
Bioresource Technology 2002; 83: 55‐62
[3] Thermodynamic Data for Biomass Conversion and Waste Incineration, National
Bureau of Standards, Solar Energy Research Institute, US
[4] Zainal ZA, Ali R, Lean CH, Seetharamu KN. Prediction of performance of a downdraft
gasifier using equilibrium modeling for different biomass materials. Energy
Conversion and Management 2001; 42: 1499‐1515
[5] Wood Gas as Engine Fuel, FAO
[6] El‐Mahallawy F, El‐Din Habik S. Fundamentals and Technology of Combustion.
Elsevier 2002; 677‐693
[7] Venkata Ramayya A, Eyerusalem M, Endalew M, Melaku M. Design and Simulation of
Fluidized Bed Power Gasifier for a Coffee Hulling Center. Advances in Energy
Research 2006; 83‐89
[8] Yin XL, Wu CZ, Zheng SP, Chen Y. Design and operation of a CFB gasification and
power generation system for rice husk. Biomass and Bioenergy 2002; 23: 181‐187
[9] Gomez EO, Cortez LAB, Lora ES, Sanchez CG, Bauen A. Preliminary tests with a
sugarcane bagasse fueled fluidized‐bed air gasifier. Energy Conversion and
Management 1999; 40: 205‐214
[10] Gomez EO, Lora ES. Constructive features, operation and sizing of fluidized‐bed
gasifiers for biomass. Energy for Sustainable Development 1995; (2) 4: 52‐57
[11] van den Enden PJ, Lora ES. Design approach for a biomass fed fluidized bed gasifier
using the simulation software CSFB. Biomass and Bioenergy 2004; 26: 281‐287
[12] Li XT, Grace JR, Lim CJ, Watkinson AP, Chen HP, Kim JR. Biomass gasification in a
circulating fluidized bed. Biomass and Bioenergy 2004; 26: 171‐193
[13] El‐Mahallawy F, El‐Din Habik S. Fundamentals and Technology of Combustion.
Elsevier 2002; 764‐765

20 | P a g e

Appendix 1: Summary of Sawdust Fluidized Bed Gasifier Design

Table S1: Sawdust Composition
Component wt% Normalized MW Mole Amount Mole fraction C basis
C 49.25 49.45 12 4.12 0.3190 1
H 5.99 6.01 1 6.01 0.4655 1.459
O 44.36 44.54 16 2.78 0.2155 0.676
Total 99.6 100 12.92 1
Source: Thermodynamic data for biomass conversion and waste incineration, National Bureau of
Standards, Solar Energy Research Institute, US

Table S2: Calculated Stoichiometric Component and
Equilibrium Constant
Gasification oxygen, m (mol)
0.336
Stoichiometric combustion air, mstc.air (mol)
3.864
Gasification air, mair (mol)
1.264
Bed temperature, TB (oC)
750
B
TB (K)
1023.15
Equilibrium constant, K1
0.0762
0.1986

Table S3: Sawdust Properties
Properties of Sawdust Value Unit
Lower Heating Value, Hs 15120 kJ/kg
Bulk density, ρb 300 kg/m3
Moisture Content (d.b.) 8.9 % wt
Ash Content 0.4 % wt
Average Diameter, dave 2 mm
Source: Thermodynamic data for biomass conversion
and waste incineration, National Bureau of Standards,
Solar Energy Research Institute, US

21 | P a g e

Table S4: Predicted Product Gas
Composition
Predicted Mole Percentage
Gas Components Variables Values fraction (%)
H2 x1 0.5200 0.1693 16.93
CO x2 0.7794 0.2537 25.37
CO2 x3 0.2000 0.0651 6.511
H2O x4 0.2885 0.0939 9.392
CH4 x5 0.0206 0.0067 0.671
N2 3.76*m 1.2634 0.4113 41.13
Total 3.0719 1.0000 100

Table S5: Process Design Parameters
Design Parameters Value Unit
Thermal efficiency, η 76 %
Gasifier output, PD 321 kWt

Heating value of gas, Hg 4763.8 kJ/Nm3
A
Gas volumetric flow, Qg 0.0644 Nm3/s
Gas density, ρg 0.2816 kg/m3

Gas Specific Heat, cp 1.391 kJ/kg oC
1
Heating value of Solid, Hs 15120 kJ/kg
B
Solid Fuel Consumption, Ms 0.0279 kg/s
o
Solid Fuel Inlet Temp, Tis 27 C
o
Gas Outlet Temp, Tos 650 C
2
Air Density, ρa 1.1714 kg/m3
Air Ratio, ER 0.327
Air volumetric flow, Qa 0.0334 Nm3/s
Sensible Heat Recovered, H 244.1 kJ/Nm3
Specific Consumption, Uc 0.3293 kg/kWh

Boiler Rated Efficiency 82 %
Boiler Output 200 kW
1 A
LHV 143.8 Nm3/h
2
at 27 0C, 101.325 kPa B
62.7 kg/h

22 | P a g e

Table S6: Economic data of Sawdust gasification
and heating system in rural China (2004 $)
Capacity 200 kWt
Purpose Heating
3
Capital Cost (10 US$)
Gasifier and Fittings 6.2
Control Unit 0.6
Base and Buildings 0.6
Installation 0.6
Design and Regulations 1.3
Total Capital Cost 9.3
Capital Cost US$/kW 46.5
3 1
Operation Cost (10 US$)
Power consumption 0.5
Maintenance 0.3
Labour Cost 1.2
Total Operation Cost 1.9
Operation Cost 10‐7 US$/kJ 9.3
Adapted from D.Y.C. Leung et al. / Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews 8 (2004) 571
and adjusted for 12920h operations against
6000h operations annually

Table S8: Volume of Sawdust Storage for Screw Feeder
Daily 8hrly Volume m3 2.68
Volume (with 10% Safety Factor) m3 2.95
Dimension (L x W x H) M 1.7 x 1.7 x 1

23 | P a g e


Table S7: Gasifier Design Parameters and Comparative
References
Design Element Unit ValueD Value1 Value2 Value3 Value4
Sugarcane Sugarcane Rice
Type of biomass fuel ‐ Sawdust Bagasse Bagasse Husk Sawdust
Total thermal output kWt 200 245 280 1000 105
Feeding rate kg/s 0.0279 0.03 0.0290 0.4167 0.0085
Moisture (d.b.) % 8.9 15 11.7
Feeding point m 0.26 0.3 0.26 1.8 0.89
Bed section internal diameter m 0.459 0.57 0.417 1.8 0.1
Dynamic bed height m 1.549 2 1 7.4 6.5
Freeboard internal diameter m 0.459 0.75 0.417 ‐ ‐
Freeboard height m 0.860 3 1 ‐ ‐
Disengaging Zone Diameter m 0.689 ‐ 0.835 ‐ ‐
Disengaging Zone Height m 1.362 ‐ 1.585 ‐ ‐
0
Bed temperature C 750 1000 760 800 800
Exiting gas flow Nm3/s 0.064 0.052 0.070 0.917 ‐
0
Exiting gas temperature C 650 800 760 527 700
3
Air volume flow Nm /s 0.0334 0.0320 0.0271 ‐ 0.0146
Hot gas efficiency, η % 76 75 60 65
Air Ratio m3/m3 0.327 0.28 0.22 0.25 0.29
Particle diameter, dp micron 300 330 379 ‐ ‐
3
Particle density, ρd kg/m 2600 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Velocity (at min fluidization) m/s 0.322 0.268 0.375 1.4 3.34
D
‐ Design Values; 1 ‐ van de Enden, et al.; 2 ‐ E. Olivares Gomez, et al.; 3 ‐ Xiu L. N., et
al.; 4 ‐ Li X. T. et al.

24 | P a g e

Appendix 2: Thermodynamic Properties and Estimates Worksheet

A. Prediction of Product Gas Composition based on Biomass Composition using Universal Gasification Reaction Equation,
Reaction Equilibrium Constants' Equation, Gibbs function of Formation and Heat of Formation Estimation
A1: Universal Gasification Reaction
CH aOb + wH2O + mO2 + 3.76mN2 → x1H2 + x2CO + x3CO2 + x4H2O + x5CH4 +3.76mN2
Mole Balance of Component:
C: 1 = x2 + x3 + x5 (1)
H: 2w + a = 2x1 + 2x4 + 4x5 (2)
O: w +b + 2m = x2 + 2x3 + x4 (3)

A2: Equilibrium Constants in Gasification reaction:
A2.1 Methane formation
2
K1 = x5/(x2) (4)
A2.2 Shift reaction (CO and H2 formation)
K2 = x1x3/(x2x4) (5)

Solving the simultaneous sets of equations:

From Eq. (1) x5 = 1 – x2 – x3 (6
From Eq. (2) x4 = w + 0.5a ‐ x1 ‐ 2x5 (7
Using x5 from Eq.(1) to Eq. (2) x4 = – x1 + 2x2 + 2x3 + w‐2+a/2 (8
From Eq. (4) x1 2 K1 = 1 – x2 –x3 (9
Substituting value of x4 from the Eq. (7) to Eq. (3) – x1 + 3x2 + 4x3 = 2m + 2+b‐a/2 (1
Substituting x4 in Eq.(7)to Eq.(5) x1x3 = K2 x2 [ – x1 + 2x2 + 2x3 + w –2+a/2] (1

Generating the Equilibrium Constant equation from the general equations:

Standard Gibbs Function
0 2 2
ΔG = J ‐ RT(ΔA lnT + (ΔB/2)T + (ΔC/6)T + ΔD/2T + I)
Heat of Formation
ΔH0 = (J/R) + ΔA lnT + (ΔB/2)T2 + (ΔC/3)T3 ‐ ΔD/2T
Equilibrium Constant
2 2
lnK = ‐(J/RT) + ΔA lnT + (ΔB/2)T + (ΔC/6)T + ΔD/2T + I)

The values for J and I are determined by substituting the constants A,B,C and D, and
the values of standard Gibbs and heat of formation at 298.15K. These values are tabulated
as follows:

25 | P a g e


Component Condition ΔG298.15 (kJ/kmol) Component Condition

H2O l ‐237129 H2O l
H2O g ‐228572 H2O g
CO2 g ‐394359 CO2 g
CO g ‐137169 CO g
CH4 g ‐50460 CH4 g
H2 g 0 H2 g
N2 g 0 N2 g

Component A B C D
CH4 1.702 9.08E‐03 ‐2.164E‐06
H2 3.249 4.22E‐04 8300
CO2 3.376 5.57E‐04 ‐3100
CO 5.457 1.05E‐03 ‐115700
N2 3.28 5.93E‐04 4000
H2O 3.47 1.45E‐03 12100
C 1.771 7.71E‐04 ‐86700
Source: Z.A.Zainal et al., Energy Conversion and Management, 42 (2001) 1499‐1515

The following intermediate values have been generated to derive the
final equilibrium
constant equation:

R (kJ/kmol.K) 8.314
T (K) 298.15
For K1 For K2
ΔA ‐6.567 Del A ‐2.302
ΔB 7.47E‐03 Del B ‐1.52E‐03
ΔC ‐2.16E‐06 Del C 0
ΔD 70100 Del D 108800

ΔH ‐74520 Del H ‐41166
ΔG ‐50460 Del G ‐28618

ΔH/R ‐8963.19 ΔH/R ‐4951.41
Alfa (lumped
Alfa (lumped constant) ‐1880.35 constant) ‐1118.73
J ‐58886.80 J ‐31864.89
26 | P a g e


Gamma (lumped
Gamma (lumped constant) ‐35.941 constant) ‐12.730
I 32.541 I 11.420

Lambda (lumped
Lambda (lumped constant) 7082.85 constant) 3832.68
ΔA ‐6.5670 ΔA ‐2.302
ΔB/2 3.73E‐03 ΔB/2 ‐7.59E‐04
ΔC/6 ‐3.61E‐07 ΔC/6 0
ΔD/2 35050.00 ΔD/2 54400

Substituting the above calculated values, the following sets
of equilibrium constant
equations are formed:

2
ln K1 =[ 7082.848/T – 6.567 ln T + 7.466E‐3 T/2 – 2.164E‐6 T /6 +
0.701E‐5/(2 T2)+32.541] (12)
ln K2 = [ 3832.679/T ‐ 2.302 ln T – 7.6E‐4 T
+ 54400/(T2) + 11.42] (13)

The values of a and b in the Gasification Reaction is
determined using the Sawdust
composition from literature:

Mole Mole C
Component wt% Normalized MW Amount fraction basis
C 49.25 49.45 12 4.121 0.319 1.000
H 5.99 6.01 1 6.014 0.466 1.459
O 44.36 44.54 16 2.784 0.215 0.676
Total 99.6 100.00 12.918 1.000
Source: Thermodynamic data for biomass conversion and waste incineration, National Bureau of
Standards, Solar Energy Research Institute, US

The set of equations (7) to (11) can be solved as follows. Firstly, the value of m and w is specified. Then for a
known
temperature T(isothermal), K1 & K2 is determined using Eq. (12) and Eq. (13). Next x1, x2, & x3 are found
using Eq. (9), (10), & Eq. (11) respectively. Subsequently x4 & x5 are determined using Eq. (6) & Eq. (7)
respectively.
Solving the above sets of equations will produce polynomial equations. In order to determine the values of x1,
x2 and x3,
a trial‐and‐error method was used via this Excel spreadsheet.

Gasification oxygen, m (mol) 0.336
27 | P a g e

Stoichiometric combustion air, mstc.air (mol)
3.864
Gasification air, mair (mol)
1.264
Bed temperature, TB (oC)
750.00
B
TB (K)
1023.15
0.076
0.199

Gas Components Variables Predicted Values Mole fraction Percentage (%)

H2 x1 0.5200 0.1693 16.93
CO x2 0.7794 0.2537 25.37
CO2 x3 0.2000 0.0651 6.51
H2O x4 0.2885 0.0939 9.39
CH4 x5 0.0206 0.0067 0.67
N2 3.76*m 1.2634 0.4113 41.13
Total 3.0719 1.0000 100.00

Equation No. Error LHS RHS
Eqn (9) 0.000 0.021 0.021
Eqn (10) 0.000 2.618 2.618
Eqn (11) 0.059 0.104 0.045
Eqn (7) 0.000 0.289 0.289
Eqn (6) 0.000 0.021 0.021

Appendix 3: Process Parameter Calculation

28 | P a g e

B1.1: Specific heat of product gas is calculated using the following equation and constants:

cp,I(T) = ai,0 + ai,1*T
where ai,0 and ai,1 are constants obtained from Fundamentals and Technology
of Combustion, El‐Mahallawy F., El‐Din Habik S.(p764‐765)

Specific heat calculation
Gas mixture at Bed Temperature T= oC 750.00
Kelvin 1023.15
Gas Composition % vol Cp Weighted cp MW Weighted MW
CO 25.37 33.252 8.436 28.01 7.107
H2 16.93 30.261 5.122 2.02 0.342
CH4 0.67 35.062 0.235 16.04 0.108
CO2 6.51 43.168 2.810 44.01 2.865
N2 41.13 32.769 13.477 28.02 11.524
H2O 9.39 29.888 2.807 18.016 1.692
Total 100.00 32.888 23.64
Gas cp 32.888 kJ/kmole.degC
Gas cp 1.391 kJ/kg.degC

B1.2: The Heating Value of Product Gas is calculated using the composition generated from the Thermodynamic
estimation and the Heating Values of individual component

HHV Mol. Wgt.
Volume Molecular Weighted
Contribution
Fraction Weight Values
(= mole
Gas Component fraction) Btu/scf HHV, Btu/scf
C1 0.00671 16 1013.2 0.107 6.798
CO2 0.06511 44 0 2.865 0.000
CO 0.25372 28 320.5 7.104 81.316
H2 0.16928 2 325 0.339 55.015
H2O 0.09392 18 0 1.691 0.000
Inerts (N2) 0.41127 28 0 11.515 0.000
Total 1 23.621 143.129
HHV 143.13 Btu/scf
LHV 128.8 Btu/scf
Heating Value of Gas (LHV) 4763.8 kJ/Nm3
Appendix 4: Gasifier Sizing Worksheet

29 | P a g e

The following sets of equation had been used to formulate the sizing of the gasifier

A.3 The air flow rate through the gasifier as a function of superficial velocity (Us) and gasifier internal diameter (Dg)
mair = ρair * ((π * Dg^2)/4 )* Us
Ref: Venkata Ramayya A., et. al; Design and Simulation of Fluidised Bed Power Gasifier for a Coffee Hulling Center
A.4 Relation between superficial velocity (Us) and minimum fluidisation velocity (Umf)
Us = 2 * Umf
Ref: Venkata Ramayya A., et al.; Design and Simulation of Fluidised Bed Power Gasifier for a Coffee Hulling Center
A.5 The relationship between minimum fluidisation velocity, minimum dynamic bed height (HB) and residence time (t)
HB = t * Umf
H = HB + Hf
B
Ref: Yin X. L., et al.; Biomass and Bioenergy 23 (2002) 181 – 187
A.6 The determination of minimum fluidisation velocity, Umf
Umf = [dp^2 / (150* μg)]*[g*(ρp‐ ρg)*(εmf^3)/(1‐ εmf)]
where, μg is gas viscosity
ρp is bed fluidising particle density
ρg is gas density
εmf is bed voidage at minimum fluidization
A.7 Maximum fluidisation velocity, Umax
Umax = (8/6)*([dp*(ρp‐ ρg)*g/(Cd*ρg)]^0.5)
where, Cd is drag coefficient
Ref: El‐Mahallawy et al.; Fundamentals and Technology of Combustion, 677 ‐ 693
A.8 Drag coefficient determination
Remf = (ρg * Umf * dp)/μg Remf is Reynolds number for minimum fluidization
Cd = 24/Re for low Re
Cd = 0.44 for Re>= 10^3
A.9 Bed pressure drop, DelP
ΔP = (ρp ‐ ρg)*g*H*[1 ‐ εmf]

A.10 Gas viscosity (μg) for the predicted composition is estimated using on‐line software available at www.firecad.net
μg = 4.014E‐05 kg/m.s

A.11 The assumed relationship between disengaging zone height and terminal velocity
(Us/Ut) = 0.3
30 | P a g e

HDZ = UtD/Ut(ref) * HDZ(ref)
(2)
where, Ut(ref) is Ut reference from literature
(2)
HDZ(ref) is HDZ reference from design

A.12 The disengaging zone diameter and bed internal diameter
Dz = 1.5 * DB
Ref: E. Olivares Gomez et al.; Energy Conversion & Management 40 (1999) 205 ‐ 214

A.13 The assumed relationship between freeboard height and superficial velocity
Hfb = Hfb(ref) * UsD/Us(ref)
(2)
where, Us(ref) is Us reference from literature
(2)
Hfb(ref) is Hfb reference from literature

31 | P a g e

Fluidized Bed Gasifier Design Report Public)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fluidized Bed Gasifier Design Report Public)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

18 MAY 2007[Energy from Biomass and Wastes] | 421‐825

DESIGN OF A LOW COST FLUIDIZED BED

Department of Civil and Environmental Kumaran this document

2.0 Gasifier Types 7

4.0 Gasifier Design Economics 16

5.0 Technical and Non‐Technical Barriers 18

6.0 Discussion and Conclusion 19

References 20

Parameters ValueD Value[11] Value[9] Value[8] Value[12]

Fig 2: Fluidized Bed Gasifier Components

Gasifier output, PD 321 kWt

Gas density, ρg 0.2816 kg/m3

Specific Consumption, Uc 0.3293 kg/kWh

Component Condition ΔG298.15 (kJ/kmol) Component Condition

Gas Components Variables Predicted Values Mole fraction Percentage (%)

You might also like