Simulation Study of a Down-Draft Wood Gasifier Used to

Produce Thermal Energy for Tea Drying

T. H. Jayah, Lu Aye, R. J. Fuller and D. F. Stewart
International Technologies Centre (IDTC)
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
The University of Melbourne
Parkville, Victoria 3010
AUSTRALIA
Email: T.jayah@devtech.unimelb.edu.au

Abstract
A detailed computer model has been developed using the physical and chemical phenomena in
gasification for a down-draft biomass gasifiers. The model has been used to investigate the
effects of operational and design parameters on reactor performance in terms of the
composition of the output gas and the hot gas efficiency. The results obtained from the
simulation study are the effects of fuel moisture content, particle size, feed rate, reactor load
and capacity on hot gas efficiency. The model has been validated using experimental data
available in the open literature. The hot gas efficiency of a particular down-draft throated
gasifier designed to generate thermal energy for tea drying is predicted to be approximately
86%.

1. Introduction
The objectives of modelling a biomass gasifier are:
to investigate the impact of key design parameters on reactor performance
to investigate the effects of operating parameters on hot gas efficiency
to design a commercial type gasifier
In order to improve the efficiency of wood utilization by the tea industry in Sri Lanka, the Tea
Research Institute with the National Engineering Research and Development Centre (NERDC) has
designed and tested a down-draft wood gasifier for tea drying. However this locally fabricated gasifier
has not yet been optimized. A detailed study would enable the manufacturer to improve the gasifier
design and its performance.
Consequently a model that can be used to investigate the key design parameters and their impact on
performance is required. The model would be used to investigate the effects of moisture content,
particle size, feed rate and reactor capacity on the performance of the NERDC gasifier designed for a
fixed gasification zone length and reactor diameter.

Simulation Study of a Down-Draft Wood Gasifier

Jayah et al.

2. Model Selection
Buekens and Schoeters (1985) have classified gasifier models as steady state, quasi-steady state and
transient state. Steady state models are further classified as thermodynamic equilibrium, kinetics-free
equilibrium and rate models. Jayah et al. (1999) carried out a survey of the available models cited in the
literature, and a brief summary of model types, their advantages and disadvantages is given below.
Equilibrium models are based on the reactions in the pyrolysis and gasification zones, which are
assumed to be in thermodynamic equilibrium. The composition of the producer gas is calculated
assuming a fixed reaction temperature and using either heterogeneous (gas-solid) or homogeneous (gas
phase) reaction equilibrium.
In kinetics-free models, the reactor is divided into two zones. In the upper or pyrolysis zone, solid
reactants are introduced, dried and devolatilized and char is produced here. This char then enters the
lower or gasification zone where combustion and gasification reactions take place. The gas composition
in the gasification zone is calculated from equilibrium data where the flow rate and composition of the
solid fuel and the temperature and the composition of the blast gas are known. A heat balance is used
to calculate the reaction temperature.
Steady state rate models compute the gas composition and the temperature profile along the reactor
axis. These models include rate equations which consist of mass and energy balances for the
heterogeneous and homogeneous reactions and result in a set of ordinary differential equations and
algebraic equations.
Quasi-steady and transient models do not neglect all the time derivatives. They are based on the mass
balances. Transients are calculated using pseudo-steady state assumptions based on the interpolation of
the results of the steady state models. These models are used to estimate the effects of step variations
in the operating parameters such as solid feed rate or blast gas flow on reactor performance.
Kinetic models are more or less similar to thermodynamic equilibrium models but the temperatures of
the two zones in the reactor are calculated using an energy balance. Methane is not considered in the
gasification zone, hence these models fail to predict the methane composition precisely. Such models
are also not recommended if feasible operating points are not available from experiments or rate
models. If the operating conditions are not optimum, the gasification reactions are slow to consume all
the carbon and as a result, some carbon is lost in the residue (Buekens and Schoeters, 1985).
Steady state rate models can be used to study the axial variations in temperature and relevant gas
composition but they cannot predict the effects of input parameters such as moisture content and size
of solid fuel, inlet air temperature, reactor load, insulation and reactor size on conversion efficiency.
Quasi-steady and transient models are capable of predicting small changes in operating conditions on
reactor performance but these models need inputs such as air flow rate, calculated from steady state
models.
Although all of the above models have their own advantages and disadvantages, they can be combined
in order to produce desired results. Chen and Gunkel (1987a, 1987b) have developed a model using the
phenomena of equilibrium, steady state rate equations and kinetics in gasification. But the temperature
profile used for model development is the axial profile along the gasification zone. The temperature
profile across the reactor is not considered. This model has been modified to meet the requirements in
our study.
Renewable Energy Transforming Business

Refereed Paper

640

Simulation Study of a Down-Draft Wood Gasifier

Jayah et al.

3. Modelling
In order to determine the amount of air required for a fixed input of fuel at the normal operating
conditions, the theory of chemical equilibrium is used. For this air/fuel ratio, the mass and energy
balance equations are used to calculate the product concentrations and temperature of the gaseous and
solid phases of the first three zones. These figures are next used as inputs to the gasification zone. The
modelling of the gasification zone must describe the complex physical and chemical processes taking
place in this zone, and to achieve this five sub-models are combined to form the overall gasifier model.
Two equilibrium sub-models are used to predict the air/fuel ratio, and the concentrations and
temperatures in the gaseous and solid phases. A non-isothermal particle sub-model is used to predict
the temperature of the solid particle and the rate of char conversion in the gasification zone. A watergas reaction sub-model is used to predict amount water-gas shift in the gasification zone and finally a
temperature sub-model predicts the gaseous phase temperature in the gasification zone. The principles
of thermodynamics, transport processes hydrodynamics of the solid and gas flow and mass and energy
balances are used in the development of the overall model.
The following assumptions were made in formulating the model.

Particles are spherical in shape

Solid-gas reactions occur within the particle
Carbonisation of the biomass is complete at the end of oxidation zone
Concentrations of carbon dioxide and hydrogen are negligible at the end of oxidation zone
The bed porosity varies from 0.3 to 0.5
The pressure gradient in the reactor is negligible
The product gas follows the ideal gas law
Pseudo-steady state conditions are approximated

4. Model Verification
The results of the experiments of Milligan et al. (1993) have been used to verify the model. The
parameters used in our simulations are given in Table 1. The simulation and the experimental results of
Milligan et al. (1993) are compared in Table 2.
From Table 2, it can be seen that the fractions of gas components predicted by the simulation model
are close to the values obtained in the experiment. The simulation model assumed 1.4% of trace gas
whereas Milligan et al. (1993) did not report such details although the product gas consists of trace
gases. The variation in the temperature of the product gas is due to the difference in heat losses
measured in the experiment and predicted by the model. For the experiments the measured heat loss is
16.6 % whereas for the simulation model it is calculated to be 1.5% of the input energy of wood. The
other factor contributing to this temperature difference is the type of gasifer used in the experiment.
The gasifier used in the experiment is an open core type, which do not consist of a throated section.
The purpose of having a throated section in the gasifier is to create a concentrated high temperature
zone and to force all the pyrolysis gases through it to crack the tar (Quaak et al., 1999). Hence the exit
product gas temperature of throated down draft gasifiers is high. If the exit gas temperature is assumed
to be 637C as obtained in the experiments, the hot gas efficiency would be 83%. Milligan (1994) also
reported that the high temperature obtained by the simulation model is probably due to the assumption
of negligible concentrations of CO and H2 at the end of oxidation zone. Therefore the predicted low
fraction of heat loss and the assumption of negligible concentrations of CO and H2 cause temperature
of the product gas to be high and this high temperature results in high hot gas efficiency.

Renewable Energy Transforming Business

Refereed Paper

641

Simulation Study of a Down-Draft Wood Gasifier

Jayah et al.

Table 1. Data assumed for simulation.

Particle diameter (cm)

Higher heating value # (MJ/kg)
Bulk density# (kg/m3)
Thermal resistance of refractory Lining* (K/W)

1.0
21.0
0.250
0.865

Source: # Reed and Das (1988), * Incropera and DeWitt (1990)

Table 2. Comparison of results of model simulation and experiment.

Parameter

Simulation results

Experimental results

Dry gas composition by volume (%)

CO
18.00
17.41
H2
13.50
13.25
CO2
12.40
12.36
CH4
1.30
1.50
N2
53.40
55.48
Trace
1.40
not reported
Heating value of Dry gas (MJ/Nm3)
4.50
4.25
H2/CO ratio
0.75
0.77
CO/CO2 ratio
1.45
1.46
908
637
Temperature of the product gas (C)
91.00
77.44
Hot gas efficiency
These results are based on the following inputs. Percentage of moisture content on wet basis
9.49, feed analysis C6H8.25O3.39, inlet air temperature 293 K, length of gasification zone 19 cm,
load 320.5 kg/m2 hr and the equivalence ratio 0.361.

5. Details of the NERDC Gasifier

Having verified the proposed gasifier model, the parameters of the NERDC gasifier have been used to
simulate its performance using rubber wood as the fuel. The fuel characteristics, and the gasifier design
details and operating conditions are given in Tables 3 and 4 respectively.
Table 3. Characteristics of rubber wood.

Higher heating value on dry basis* (MJ/kg)

Bulk density* (kg/m3)
Proximate analysis* (%):
Volatile matter
Fixed carbon
Ash
Feed analysis

18.44
294.0
80.2
18.6
1.3
C4.18H5.7O2.64

Source: *Hoi et al. (1992)

Renewable Energy Transforming Business

Refereed Paper

642

Simulation Study of a Down-Draft Wood Gasifier

Jayah et al.

Table 4. Design and operating parameters of gasifier.

Moisture content (% dry basis)

Diameter of wood chips (cm)
Length of gasification zone (cm)
Reactor diameter (cm)
Insulation

10.0
2.0
20.0
94.0
none

Source: Adhikarinayake (2000)

6. Results and Discussion

The results of the simulation study are given in Table 5, and shown graphically in Figures 1-4. Table 5
gives the composition of the dry product gas as predicted by the model for a given set of operating
conditions. The predictions are within the acceptable ranges cited in the open literature. Quaak et al.
(1999) reported that the hot gas efficiency range of 85-90% for down-draft gasifiers.

Table 5. Results of simulation model.

Parameter
Dry gas composition by volume (%)
CO
H2
CO2
CH4
N2
Trace
Equivalent ratio
Hot gas efficiency

Simulation results
17.5
15.0
13.9
0.7
51.5
1.4
0.358
86.3

Figure 1 shows the conversion efficiency decreasing as particle diameter increases. Chen and Gunkel
(1987b) has shown that larger the particle size, the higher the reactor length required to obtain the same
conversion efficiency. Although a smaller particle size results in a higher conversion, very small
particles may cause bridging and channeling problems, and reduce the residence time in the gasifier.
Figure 2 shows that conversion efficiency increases as the capacity of the gasifier decreases. A higher
reactor load tends to reduce the residence time as the particle move faster. To obtain the same
conversion efficiency, the reactor length has to be longer. Thus for the same rector length the
efficiency decreases for higher reactor loads.
The moisture content of rubber wood has a significant effect on conversion efficiency (Figure 3).
Conversion efficiency reduces from 73% to 57% as moisture content increases from 0 to 40%. To
obtain the same conversion, the reactor length has to be increased for fuel with higher moisture
contents. Although a low moisture content results in a higher conversion efficiency, for large scale
gasification plants, the practical difficulties and economic factors involved in reducing the moisture
content have to be considered. The variation of capacity and feed rate is linear as expected (Figure 4).

Renewable Energy Transforming Business

Refereed Paper

643

Simulation Study of a Down-Draft Wood Gasifier

Jayah et al.

Hot gas efficiency (%)

100.0

100.0

Hot gas efficiency (%)

90.0

80.0

70.0

90.0

80.0

70.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

50

100

150

200

250

Capacity (kW)

Particle diameter (cm)

Figure 1. Effects of particle diameter on

hot gas efficiency

Figure 2. Effects of gasifier capacity on hot

gas efficiency

100.0

300

90.0

Capacity (kW)

Hot gas efficiency (%)

250

80.0

200
150
100
50

70.0
0

10

20

30

40

50

% moisture content (db)

Figure 3: Effects of moisture content on

hot gas efficiency

Renewable Energy Transforming Business

0
0

20

40

60

80

Feed rate (kg/hr)

Figure 4. Variation of feed rate with

capacity

Refereed Paper

644

Simulation Study of a Down-Draft Wood Gasifier

Jayah et al.

7. Conclusion
The exit gas temperature predicted by the Chen and Gunkel (1987a, 1987b) model is about 200C
higher than the exit gas temperatures reported in the literature for down-draft gasifiers. This is mainly
due to the low heat loss predicted by the model and the assumption of negligible concentrations of CO
and H2 at the end of oxidation zone. As a result of higher temperature prediction, the model overestimated the hot gas efficiency. It is intended to further refine the exit gas composition at the end of
oxidation zone to obtain a better estimate of the compositions of CO and H2. Heat losses from the
oxidation zone will also be included in model improvements to obtain a better prediction of the
temperature.
Most of the reactions used in gasifier modelling are temperature dependent and the temperature profile
in the gasification zone plays a vital role in determining the output of the gasification zone. Thus a
knowledge of these temperatures is vital for an accurate prediction of the performance of the gasifier.
In the Chen and Gunkel (1987a, 1987b) model the temperature across the cross section of the reactor
zone is not considered. Although their model realistically predicts the effects of input parameters such
as fuel moisture content, particle size, reactor load and capacity on conversion efficiency, the accuracy
can be further improved if the temperature profile across the cross section is also considered.
As a future development, a detailed study on the gas composition and heat losses in the oxidation zone,
and the temperature profile across the gasification zone is in progress to improve the accuracy of the
results.

8. Acknowledgement
Authors wish to thank Messrs. Victor Mendis and T. B. Adhikarinayake of the National Engineering
Research and Development Centre, Sri Lanka for their support. T. H. Jayah gratefully acknowledges
the scholarship provided by the Asian Development Bank-Japanese Scholarship Programme.

9. References
Adhikarinayake, T. B., (2000), Personal communication, Head, Dept. of Agricultural Engineering,
National Engineering Research and Development Centre, Sri Lanka.
Buekens, A. G and Schoeters, J. G., (1985), Modelling of biomass gasification, Fundamentals of
Thermochemical Biomass, eds. R. P. Overend, T. A. Milne and L. K. Mudge, Elsevier, London.
Chen, J. S. and Gunkel, W. W. (1987a), Modelling and Simulation of Co-current Moving Bed
Gasification Reactor- Part I, Biomass, Elsevier, London, vol. 14, pp. 51-72.
Chen, J. S. and Gunkel, W. W. (1987b), Modelling and Simulation of Co-current Moving Bed
Gasification Reactor- Part II, Biomass, Elsevier, London, vol. 14, pp. 75-98.
Hoi, W. K., Razak, A. M. and Bridgwater, A. V. (1992), Performance Data of Rubberwood
Gasification, Energy from Biomass, Second International Energy Conference, Aug 17-19, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia.
Incropera, F. P. and DeWitt, D. P. (1990), Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, John Wiley &
Sons, New York.

Renewable Energy Transforming Business

Refereed Paper

645

Simulation Study of a Down-Draft Wood Gasifier

Jayah et al.

Jayah, T. H., Lu Aye, Fuller, R. J. and Stewart, D. F. (1999), Wood Gasifiers for Tea Drying in Sri
Lanka, Solar99, 37 th Annual Conference of the Australia and New Zealand Solar Energy
Society, Dec. 1-4, Geelong, Australia.
Milligan, J. B. (1994), Downdraft Gasification of Biomass, PhD thesis, Aston University,
Birmingham, UK.
Milligan, J. B., Evans, G. D. and Bridgwater, A. V. (1993), Results from a Transparent Open-Core
Downdraft Gasifier, Advances in Themochemical Biomass Conversion, ed A. V. Brigwater,
Blackie Academic & Professionals, London, pp. 175-185.
Quaak, P., Knoef, H. and Stassen, H. (1999), Energy from Biomass, A Review of Combustion and
Gasification Technologies, Technical paper no. 422, World Bank, Washington, USA.
Reed, T. B. and Das, A., (1988), Handbook of Biomass Downdraft Gasifier Engine System, SERI,
Golden, Colorado.

Renewable Energy Transforming Business

Refereed Paper

646