Proceeding of International Conference on Sustainable Energy Engineering and Application

Inna Garuda Hotel, Yogyakarta, Indonesia 6 8 November 2012

ISBN 978-602-18167-0-7

Consideration of selection floating roof model for biogas digester mass construction on household scale
Satriyo Krido Wahono*
Technical Implementation Unit for Development of Chemical Engineering Processes Indonesian Institutes of Sciences, Yogyakarta 55861, Indonesia Received 9 July 2012; accepted 11 October 2012

Abstract One of the alternative energy sources being developed in Indonesia today is biogas from organic waste, particularly dung from the farm. The commonly used model construction is dome, balloon and floating roof models. Dome construction was mostly built, but at mass amounts dome construction was found some obstacles. The evaluation of models of biogas digester construction can be done through the assessment of construction management factors (cost-quality-time) and another construction factors such as labor expertise, ease of design, lifetime and maintenance of construction. Based on the evaluation of an assessment of these factors using matrix consideration, floating roof model have the highest consideration than other models. Therefore, Floating roof model of biogas digester construction can be used as recommendations for the working reference on household scale construction procurement mass on another various site and construction activities.
Keywords: biogas digester; floating roof models; household scale; mass construction; construction management factors; matrix considerations.

Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Research Centre for Electrical Power and Mechatronics, Indonesian Institute of Sciences

1. Introduction Indonesia is a country with rich agricultural potential, one of which is a farms resource. They have potential for food resource, also has potential as energy source by utilization of livestock dung into biogas. Biogas that has been widely used in the community comes from cows dung as raw material. Biogas is made by feeding cow dung from the stables to the mixing tub. After evenly, the mixture was put in a digester tank through the input pipe. The formation of methane from biogas mainly sludge (activated sludge) is influenced by the activity of microorganisms in the reactor/digester. The process of biogas formation is influenced by several factors such as anaerobic conditions, substrate, pH, temperature, agitation, moisture content, solids concentration, C/N ratio, toxic materials, and length of fermentation substrate in the digester [1, 2]. Biogas has main gas composition is methane (CH4) on 40-75%; most of residual gas is carbon dioxide (CO2); and another gas in little such as Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S), Water Vapors (H2O), Nitrogen (N2), Hydrogen (H2) and Oxygen (O2)
* Corresponding author: Tel: +62-274-392570 E-mail address: dna_tqim@yahoo.com, satriyo.krido.wahono@gmail.com, satr002@lipi.go.id

[3, 4, 5]. Furthermore, biogas is expected to be one of the alternative solutions. Biogas technology has been developed in many countries, such as Denmark since the 1970's; China and India since the 1980's [6, 7]. Biogas can be utilized for the generation of heat and electricity, vehicle fuel, injection into the gas piping and converted into another chemical [8]. On the other hand, biogas process residues can be used as a high quality fertilizer. Without the involvement of waste treatment technologies, methane as waste decomposition will naturally come off and pollute the atmosphere because methane is included in the greenhouse gas. Due to some reason before, it can be concluded that biogas technology also includes environmental friendly technologies as well as alternative energy sources. Based on the benefits of biogas, some biogas construction procurement activities have been undertaken in various places on single construction (small amounts) or mass construction. Model construction of biogas digester commonly used for construction activities is fixed dome model. The implementation of this model need skilled and experienced construction workers to constructing good biogas digester. In a single digester construction, the manufacture of biogas digester has conducted nicely because constructed and supervised by expert workers directly and continuously. However, for mass construction,

2013 Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Research Centre for Electrical Power and Mechatronics Available online at http://www.icseea.org

42

S.K.Wahono / Proceeding of ICSEEA (2012) 41 44

uniformity of the digester construction standards was difficult to achieve, so many construction was poor and fail to function. In the other hands when construction was broken, it is difficult to repair by users and expertise is needed to conduct. The main requirement that must be met for producing biogas is the anaerobic fermentation conditions [1, 9]. These conditions can be met by making the construction much shut. There are several models of biogas construction that has been developed with reference to the basic construction of three models, such as dome, balloons and floating roof/tank [10]. All three models have been proven to produce biogas for cooking fuel specification purposes. Therefore, the balloon model and floating roof model construction was feasible to be used and developed as a solution of the problem. UPT BPPTK LIPI has been applied floating roof models and established since 2006. Based on the principles of construction management, their constructions can be considered based on cost, time and quality (CTQ). In addition, the evaluation of biogas digester construction models can be done through another construction factors such as labor expertise, ease of design, lifetime and maintenance of construction. The purpose of this paper provides a consideration of successful construction for household-scale biogas digesters using some construction models that already exist. This research and study would give recommendation about the most appropriate model of construction for using in household biogas digester scale particularly in mass construction activity.

and makers biogas digester were also undertaken. Data and information process was conducted by analyzing the data and information into an essay. Using floating tank construction model was method to optimize utilization and improve the success of biogas digester which was built through mass construction activity. The focus of the discussion was the consideration of factors affecting the success of digester construction and fields observations related to the digester that can be utilized by the community. The study was conducted by supporting from the literature to produce a paper that is not only objective, applicable but also provide recommendations on the reference in accordance with the conditions in the field.

3. Selection of floating roof model digester Dome model is commonly used by the public as can be seen at figure 1. The model have ability to produce biogas with higher pressure than other models, but in manufacture requires high costs and needs skilled-experienced construction workers to ensure successfully construction. Based on three considerations before (CTQ), dome has advantages in terms of "quality", so its commonly chosen. But in household scale with limited use for cooking, it will produce exceed biogas specification requirements because dont need high pressure. Balloon model is the simplest model and faster construction time than others as can be seen at figure 2. Moreover, because of the simple construction the cost for this model is also lower than others. Based on three considerations before (CTQ), this model has advantages in terms of "cost" and "Time". However, this model has a comparatively tool lifetime is much shorter than the others because the reservoir tools are prone leakage. Leaks can occur due to the influence of weather or surrounding objects (impaled, crushed, etc). In addition, Replacing this placeholder balloon models, plastic reservoirs parts is quite difficult to obtain because it is hard to get in general market (only supplied in big city such as Jakarta, Surabaya and Bandung). Floating roof model has considered the CTQ factors between two other models. This model has the difficulty of construction is more simple than dome, but more difficult than balloon, so in terms of cost and time better than the dome and worse than balloons. In terms of quality that seen from the result of biogas pressure, this model produces biogas which is better than balloon and worse than dome, but to use biogas cooking has resulted in an adequate specification. In addition for CTQ factors consideration for floating roof model which mentioned above, other factors that can be reviewed are the age of the tools, the construction workers, the construction design, and the construction maintenance. Based on the age factor construction, this model also has a resistance between the other two models, better than the balloon but slightly worse than dome. With the modification of gasholder, before using an iron plate into fiberglass, construction age of floating roof models are

2. Methods The process of collecting data and information related to biogas was conducted by searching data sources such as books, research reports/activities, proceedings, journals, and internet. In addition, observations of the locations of the biogas digester construction and interviews of the users

Fig. 1. Fixed dome model design

Fig. 2. Ballon model design

International Conference on Sustainable Energy Engineering and Application (ICSEEA) Inna Garuda Hotel, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 6 7 November 2012

S.K.Wahono / Proceeding of ICSEEA (2012) 41 44

43

Biogas Outlet Dung Inlet Gas Holder Sludge Outlet

Digester

Fig. 3. Floating roof model design

relatively similar with dome model because of corrosion has minimized. Based on the factors of construction workers and construction design, to create biogas digester with this model requires no special expertise for the design of simple construction and can be done by ordinary construction workers. Based on the maintenance construction factor, this model was the easiest maintenance digester if there are problems / damage / leakage in the future. It can be repaired by removing case gas tank/gasholder and drain the contents of the digester to find the problem and then solve it. Floating roof model construction underused by the public because of CTQ and other construction factors for this model is not in a dominant position (not the best or the worst). Whereas, the position consideration factor of this model are between the others. It is possible to obtain the optimum point when compared with the other models, when measured using a matrix of considerations which can be seen in table 1. Based on the scores in the matrix of considerations in table 1, the highest score was obtained a model of a floating roof. This results which is based on more proper consideration, floating roof model was relatively better
Table 1 Matrix selection considerations of biogas digester construction models o Models Management Cost 1 2 3 Dome Floating Roof Ballons 1 2 3 Quality 3 2 1 Time 1 2 3

judgment than others. Floating roof construction was relatively easier implemented and understood by the contractor (biogas maker) or farmer (biogas users), especially in setting workmanship standards, quality control and construction utilization indicators. Therefore, the model of floating roof construction was feasible to be applied in the mass construction of biogas digester. The design of floating roof model can be seen in Figure 3, while the construction of digester floating roof models with iron plate gas holder and fibreglass gas holder can be seen in figure 4 and 5 respectively. Construction of floating roof model consists of two parts, namely the digester tank and the gas holder as floating roof/tank. The digester tank wall was made of waterproof concrete, while the gas holder made of metal or fibreglass plate. The plate has the minimum thickness on 2 mm and adds weight on the top of gas holder. It was done for increasing pressure of the gas holder into biogas result and for longer usage time. Materials were chosen with consideration of safety and tool lifetime. Digester tank and gas holder were made in one place for costs saving and land using efficiency. Digester capacities were built based on the amount of cattle dung and its residence time in the digester. Every day cattle excrete fresh dung as much as 5-8% of the weight. Dry matter dung was produced per day in 0.6 to 1.7% of body weight [11]. The optimum residence time for producing biogas and good quality organic fertilizer is 1020 days. Dung was converted into biogas by converting 300 kgs of dung into 170 m3 of biogas within 60 days [12]. It means, each kg of cow dung can be converted into 0.01 m3 of biogas per day, or producing 1 m3 of biogas per day requires 100 kg of cow dung as much or as dung production of 4-5 cows. From the gas production estimation, it was also estimated gas holder requirement capacity.

Other Factor Lifetime 3 3 1 Labor 1 3 3 Design 1 3 3 Maintenance 1 3 2

Total

11 18 16

Note : 1 = less; 2 = quite; 3 = well

Fig. 4. Iron plate construction

Fig. 5. Fiberglass construction

Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Research Centre for Electrical Power and Mechatronics

44

S.K.Wahono / Proceeding of ICSEEA (2012) 41 44

4. Conclusion Floating roof model of biogas digester construction can be used as recommendations for the working reference on household scale mass construction procurement on another various site and construction activities

Acknowledgement The author are thankful to UPT BPPTK LIPI Yogyakarta as a place for my development competency especially for Alternative Energy Team, Integrated Farming System Team, Chemical and Environmental Technology Team for support of facilities in this research.

References
[1] George Bughiarello, Harrison Brown and Fletcher L. Byrom. Energy for Rural Development (Renewable Resource and Alternative Technologies for Developing Countries). National Academy Press, Washington D. C. 1981 Ramli Tahir and Mustafa. The Vegetable Waste was Converted into Biogas as Renewable Alternative Energy. Proceedings of National Seminar on Fundamentals and Applications of Chemical Engineering, ISSN 1410-5667, FTI Chemical Engineering - ITS, Surabaya. 2007

[2]

F. Monnet. An Introduction to Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Waste. Remade Scotland. 2003 [4] J. Pramono Muryanto, et al. Biogas, Green Alternative Energy. Matter 1, Institute for Agricultural Technology (BPTP), Central Java, Ungaran. 2006 [5] E. Hambali, et al. Bioenergy Technology. Agro Media Library. 2007 [6] Raven, et.al. Biogas plants in Denmark: Successes and Setbacks. Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands. 2005 [7] Yuli Setyo I. Small / Medium Scale Biogas Reactor (Part One). ISTECS, Japan, www.beritaiptek.com. 2005 [8] Li Kang Min and Mae-Wan Ho. China Biogas. Institute of Science in Society Press Release 02/10/06, www.i-sis.org.uk. 2006 [9] R. Arifin, F. F. P. Perdana and S. R. Juliastuti. The Effect of amylase enzyme and EM-4 against the establishment of Biogas from Tapioca Solid Waste. Proceedings of National Seminar on Chemistry and Process Engineering, ISSN: 1411-4216, Chemical Engineering Diponegoro University, Semarang. 2008 [10] United Nations Asian and Pacific Centre for Agricultural Engineering and Machinery. Recent Developments in Biogas Technology for Poverty Reduction and Sustainable Development. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Beijing. 2007 [11] M. W. M. Bewick. Handbook of Organic Waste Conversion. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. 1980 [12] Andi Febrisiantosa, S. K. Wahono and P. I. Pudjiono. Animal Waste Utilization Potential Beef Cattle Through Biogas Technology for Rural People's Alternative Energy Sources in The Marginal LandCase Studies in the Village of Bandung Gunungkidul. Proceedings of National Seminar and Conference CFP V FAM-PII, Yogyakarta, ISBN: 979-25-8870. 2006.

[3]

International Conference on Sustainable Energy Engineering and Application (ICSEEA) Inna Garuda Hotel, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 6 7 November 2012