Project code: T4

CFD Simulation of a downdraft gasifier and its experimental

validation

End-term project report submitted for

BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY PROJECT (PART-I)

IN

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Submitted by

Rishabh Golchha Entry No: 2013ME10711

Tulika Jatrele Entry No: 2013ME10734

Under the guidance of

Prof. M.R.Ravi

Signature(s)

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi

New Delhi 110 016

 ABSTRACT
Biomass, if used judiciously, can become a clean and viable energy alternative in rural regions.
Biomass gasification is a clean technology which can help in reducing the dependence on
fossil fuels. The present work is aimed at developing a simulation model for downdraft
biomass gasifier on FLUENT. Using the model the design of the biomass gasifier could be
optimised for various applications. The existing models in literature for different biomass
gasifiers are reviewed to come up with a model for a small scale gasifier. The model would
then be implemented in FLUENT and validated experimentally

2
 Table of Contents

Nomenclature ........................................................................................................................... 4

List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... 4

List of Symbols ........................................................................................................................ 4

List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... 6

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... 6

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 7

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 9

2.1 Biomass Gasification and Various types of gasifiers .................................................................. 9

2.1.1 Fixed Bed Gasifiers .............................................................................................................. 9
2.1.2 Fluidized bed gasifier ......................................................................................................... 10
2.1.3 Entrained Flow Gasifier ..................................................................................................... 13
2.2 Modelling of the gasification processes .................................................................................... 13
3. OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................ 20

4. METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................. 21

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................ 26

6. CONCLUSIONS & FUTURE SCOPE OF WORK .............................................................. 29

GANTT CHART.................................................................................................................... 30

References .............................................................................................................................. 31

3
 Nomenclature

List of Abbreviations
CFD: Computational Fluid Dynamics

ER: equivalence ratio

HHV: Higher Heating Value

LHV: Lower Heating Value

OpenFOAM: Open Field Operation and Manipulation),

PISO: Pressure Implicit with Splitting of Operator

RMS: Root Mean Square

ROM: Reduced Order Modelling

List of Symbols
A – pre-exponential factor in the Arrhenius formulae

c – specific heat capacity

D - effective diffusion of gas mixture

hs - sensible enthalpy

hf - enthalpy of formation

hr - heat of individual reaction

Hr - heat source due to thermal conversion of solid

k - thermal conductivity

K - tensor of viscous resistance in porous medium

R - mass source term due to reaction with a solid

– Reaction rate

T – temperature

Y - mass fraction

W - molar mass

G - radiation energy flux

4
 – Radial velocity

– Axial velocity

– Radial distance

- Distance along the axial direction

U - Velocity

- Pressure

- heat transfer coefficient per surface area

- bulk density

- void fraction of biomass, opposite of porosity

Γ - gas heat up coefficient

- dynamic viscosity of gas mixture

- stoichiometric coefficient for gaseous species

∑ - surface area of pores per biomass volume

- reaction rate of gas-phase combustion

- Boltzmann constant

Subscripts

a - gasification agent (O2,CO2, or steam)

c - critical, limits the reaction from proceeding

I - index of gas species i

k - index of biomass component k

s - index of the gaseous substrate of the reaction

p - index of the gaseous product of the reaction

wall - physical wall in the computational domain

surf - surface of porous medium

Superscripts

S - solid

G - gas

5
evap - evaporation

pyro - pyrolysis

gasif - gasification

comb - combustion

rad - radiation

List of Figures

Fig 1. Various types of gasifiers

Fig. 2: Various types of fixed bed gasifiers

Fig. 3: Various Zones in a gasifier

Fig. 4: Geometry of IISc- DASAG Gasifier

Fig. 5: Schematic diagram of downdraft gasifier

Fig. 6: Used mesh of downdraft gasifier

Fig. 7: Contours of Pressure

Fig. 8: Contours of Velocity Magnitude

Fig. 9: Contours of Temperature

Fig. 10: Contours of Temperature as obtained by Bakar

Fig. 11: Total Temperature Distribution at the Outlet

List of Tables

Table 1: Summarization of chemical models

Table 2: Meshing Parameter and Quality in cold flow simulation

Table 3: Meshing Parameter and Quality in chemical model simulation

6
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

There is an ever-growing demand for energy in various forms. At present the major provider
for this immense and growing energy demand is fossil fuels. Consequently there is a rapid
consumption of fossil fuel resources. This has also caused numerous environmental issues. In
light of the pressing need of mitigation of these issues, finding cleaner and sustainable ways
of using renewable energy is important. Biomass is one such possibility. Clean combustion of
biomass has a three sided positive impact on the environment, economy and energy security.

Gasification is a way of clean combustion of biomass. It is a thermo-chemical process which

converts biomass into low heating value gas commonly called Producer gas which can be used
for various purposes like cooking, electricity generation etc. However, the presence of tar in
the producer gas hinders its exploitation in downstream applications (due to blocking of pipes,
tar deposition on the valves, wear in the engine cylinder and fouling of the gas turbine blades
etc.)

Presently, in rural regions biomass is directly burned for cooking. This leads to various
harmful emissions. Biomass burning emissions are considered to be a significant source for
human health hazard and also have a significant impact on climate change. Biomass burning
either in open or poorly ventilated stoves, which are common in rural regions, emits hundreds
of health damaging pollutants and causes acute respiratory infections, chronic obstructive
pulmonary diseases, asthma, nasopharyngeal and laryngeal cancers, tuberculosis, and diseases
of the eye. Pollution from household burning of the biomasses resulted in more than 1.6
million deaths and nearly 3% of the global burden of the diseases in 2000 [1] and [2].

During the Second World War, more than one million gasifiers were in operation. These were
primarily used because of emergency measures during the world war. But after the World War
II and end of these emergencies inexpensive gasoline became available leading to reduction
in use of biomass gasifier. The magnitude of damage inflicted on the gasifier technology by
this can be seen by the fact that it is difficult for even the "advanced" technology of the 1980s
to achieve on tests what was routine operation in the 1940s. The teams for design,
manufacturing and research were disbanded after World War II leaving with only the fraction
of knowledge which was published whereas a great amount of first-hand experience in design
and operation was lost. [3]
7
Gasification regained importance in the era of fuel shortage, high prices and an active pursuit
for cleaner fuels. But along with this newer issues have been highlighted primarily in
connection to gas clean-up and fuel supply which weren’t as important during the world war.
These need to be solved if biomass gasification is to re-emerge as a prominent player.

In view of the above mentioned applications of biomass gasification particularly in rural sector
and a renewed interest in the process a need was felt for a Computation Fluid Dynamics(CFD)
model to which can help in predicting the output gas from gasification for a given gasifier and
biomass. This would help in optimization of gasifier design for specified requirement. The
present work is aimed to come up with a CFD model for down draft biomass gasifier. It could
further be used for parametric study of design of down-draft gasifier and to suggest design
modifications.

8
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

The primary focus of present work is on developing a CFD model for the process of biomass
gasification in a typical downdraft gasifier. Hence the literature review consists of two primary
parts: first a general literature review on various types of gasifiers and then a review of various
models available in literature for the processes that take place in a gasifier are presented.

2.1 Biomass Gasification and Various types of gasifiers

A biomass gasifier is a chemical reactor in which biomass, a solid fuel gets converted into
gaseous fuel through a series of thermos-chemical changes. In the gasification process the
biomass undergoes drying, pyrolysis, combustion and gasification eventually leading to a
combustible gas known as producer gas with carbon monoxide and hydrogen as main
constituents [4]

Gasification processes convert biomass into combustible gases that ideally contain all the
energy originally present in the biomass. However practical implementations see a conversion
of 60% to 90% of the energy in the biomass into energy in the gas [3]. The output gas can be
burned to produce industrial or residential heat, for cooking, to run engines, to make synthetic
fuels etc.

Gasifiers are classified as fixed bed, fluidized bed and entrained flow gasifier. Fixed bed
gasifiers are further classified into downdraft, updraft, cross-draft gasifiers These are
discussed below.

2.1.1 Fixed Bed Gasifiers

Downdraft gasifier

In a downdraft gasifier fuel is fed from top and flow of air and gas is downwards, hence the
flow of air and fuel is in same direction (figure 2(a)). The various zones in a downdraft gasifier
are shown in figure 3(a). The drying zone is at the top followed by pyrolysis zone, combustion
zone and reduction zone. Biomass enters through an air seal at the top and travels downward
into a rising stream of hot gas. In the pyrolysis zone the hot gases pyrolyze the biomass to tar-

9
oil, charcoal, and some gases [3]. In the reduction zone the charcoal thus formed reacts with
rising CO2 and H2O to make CO and H2.Finally below the reduction zone incoming air burns
the charcoal to produce CO2 and heat [5, 6].

Relatively tar-free gas can be obtained from a down-draft gasifier but it contains significant
quantities of ash and soot. Also high exit temperatures are considered a problem in some
applications [7]. However, most reactors on field are of downdraft kind and these have proven
to be most successful for power generation [3]

Updraft gasifier

In an updraft gasifier air enters from the bottom and gas is drawn from the top. Fuel is fed
from the top as shown in figure 2(b). Biomass enters through an air seal at the top and travels
downward into a rising stream of hot gas. The various zones are shown in figure 3(b). The
phenomenon taking place in each zone is similar to the downdraft gasifier. But updraft
gasifiers usually involve high rate of tar production [5] which make them impractical when
clean gas is required.

Cross-draft gasifier

In a cross-draft gasifier, air enters from one side and leaves from the other of gasification
chamber (figure 2(c)). In this design the combustion and reduction regions are concentrated
in small volumes as the velocities of air entering are relatively higher leading to rapid
liberation of gas. This reduction in the zones eliminates the need for refractory materials in
combustion zone walls. The cross-draft design has the advantage of simplicity in construction
and easy adaptability to variations in loads but are highly sensitive to fuel composition and
moisture content.

2.1.2 Fluidized bed gasifier

In a fluidized-bed gasifiers (figure 1(b)) feedstock particles are suspended in an oxygen-rich

gas so the resulting bed within the gasifier acts as a fluid. The gas rises through a grate at high
enough velocity to levitate the particles above the grate, thus forming a "fluidized bed." Above

10
 Fig 1. Various types of gasifiers

Fig 2. Various types of fixed bed gasifiers

the bed itself the vessel increases in diameter, lowering the gas velocity and causing particles
to recirculate within the bed itself. Due to this thorough mixing within the gasifier, a constant
temperature is sustained in the reactor bed. These gasifiers normally operate at moderately
high temperature to achieve an acceptable carbon conversion rate (e.g., 90-95%) and to
decompose most of the tar, oils, phenols, and other liquid by-products. However, the operating
temperatures are usually less than the ash fusion temperature so as to avoid clinker formation

11
 Fig 2. Various Zones in a gasifier

and the possibility of de-fluidization of the bed. This, in turn means that fluidized-bed gasifiers
are best suited to relatively reactive coals, low rank coals, and other fuels such as biomass.

12
But the gasifiers has poor load following characteristics, high tar, ash and unburnt carbon
particles in the output gas. [8]

2.1.3 Entrained Flow Gasifier

In entrained-flow gasifiers (figure 1(c)), fuel and the oxidant which could be air or oxygen
with or without steam are fed co-currently to the gasifier. This results in the oxidant and steam
surrounding or entraining the fuel particles as they flow through the gasifier in a dense cloud.
Entrained-flow gasifiers operate at high temperature and pressure—and extremely turbulent
flow [ref] which causes rapid feed conversion and allows high throughput. The gasification
reactions occur at a very high rate with typical residence time is on the order of few seconds.
Usually high carbon conversion efficiencies (98-99.5%) are achieved. The tar, oil, phenols,
and other liquids produced from devolatization of coal inside the gasifier are decomposed into
hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO) and small amounts of light hydrocarbon gases.

An Entrained-flow gasifiers can be used for a variety of feedstocks. Most of these gasifiers
require air or oxygen to be blown. The high temperatures involved in this type of gasification
tend to shorten the life of system components.

2.2 Modelling of the gasification processes

The literature on the modelling of gasifiers can be classified into two categories, one in which
the entire gasification process is modelled as a single step process and others in which specific
processes of gasification are studies and modelled. The subsequent review will also be divided
into these two categories:

2.2.1 Complete gasifier models

Bakar [9] simulated the biomass gasifier in FLUENT 5.5 software with meshing being done
in GAMBIT using quadrilateral elements. A 2D model was used with first order upwind
discretisation. Standard FLUENT materials were taken with a single step chemistry describing
the process.

Wood Volatiles + 1.058 O2 + N2 => CO2 + 1.058H2O + N2 (1)

13
With Arrhenius equation being used to evaluate the kinetic constant. The model used A = 2.11
e+11 and Ea = 2.027 e+08

Kwiatkowskia et al. [10] formulated biomassGasificationFoam solver and libraries,

developed in OpenFOAM(Open Field Operation and Manipulation), an open-source C++
based CFD solver [10]. They also used Arrhenius equation to describe the kinetics but used
four successive reactions in describing the four zones of the gasifier, namely, drying,
pyrolysis, combustion and reduction. Eq 2-6 were the reactions used.

Wood (wet) > dry wood + water vapor (2)

Dry wood > gases+ char (3)

char + CO2 > 2CO + ash (4)

char + H2O > CO + H2 + ash (5)

char + O2 > CO + ash (6)

They used Darcy’s Law inside porous medium, accounted for radiative transfer from domain
walls to solid surfaces but neglected the movement of porous medium. Conservation equations
were established for species, momentum, and energy along with the chemical kinetics. PISO
(Pressure Implicit with Splitting of Operator) algorithm was used for the Navier- Stokes
equation and after each iteration the source terms coming from mass and energy equations
were evaluated and fed into the Navier-Stokes equation. Validation of model was done using
experiments carried by authors themselves with primary being done for the drying and
pyrolysis models. The results were qualitatively similar though discrepancies were visible.

Non stoichiometric equilibrium models are developed by minimizing Gibbs free energy for
the Gasifier equation. Four models were developed and tested by Mendiburu et al [11]. First
a pure non-stoichiometric equilibrium model was developed. Then methane content was
constrained by correlating experimental data. A kinetic constraint that determines the apparent
gasification rate was considered for the third model and finally the two aforementioned
constraints were implemented together in the fourth model. Models with methane constraint
and the two constraints implemented together showed more accuracy with RMS values of
1.25 each. The influence of four input parameters was assessed, these parameters were: the
equivalence ratio (ER), moisture content (MC), the gasification time, and the carbon

14
conversion efficiency. It was found that increments in the equivalence ratio (ER)
enhance the carbon conversion efficiency while at the same time reduce the LHV of the
synthesis gas. It was also found that increments in the moisture content (MC) enhance the H2
production in detriment of the LHV of the synthesis gas and also in detriment of the carbon
conversion efficiency. The gasification time has an important influence on the carbon
conversion efficiency, together with the moisture content and the equivalence ratio. In case of
model with methane constraint this value was obtained by assuming carbon conversion
efficiencies therefore the last model should be used for case study when the gasification time
is an input parameter.

Mendiburu et al [12] developed a thermodynamic model to measure power generation be

downdraft gasifier. Non stoichiometric equilibrium model was used with Gibbs free energy
minimization using Lagrange multipliers. Non-stoichiometric equilibrium model was used to
determine the composition and LHV of synthesis gas produced by biomass gasification.
Average RMS error was generated for nine experimental runs.

Sahraei et al. [13] devised a Reduced Order Model (ROM) consists of a reactor network that
represents the gasifier using a set of chemical reactors that are aimed to capture distinct flow
zones of the system. CFD simulations of the gasifier was done accounting for the detailed gas
and particle flows. The ROM implements sub-models for the simulation of drying,
devolatilization, chemical reactions, viscous fluid–solid interactions, pollutant formation and
heat transfer through the wall of the reactor. The predictions obtained by the ROM are in
reasonable agreement with the CFD simulation data for axial temperature, heat flux,
conversion and composition. Summarization of these models are presented in Table 1.

2.2.2 Pyrolysis Models

Hankalin et al. [14] conducted experiments on the thermal conductivity of pine and pine-
derived char using a Fitch-type device. Heat transfer during pyrolysis was described by one
dimensional energy balance equation given for a volume element in a pyrolysing spherical
fuel particle. Conduction within the particle was modelled using Fourier conduction equation.
They concluded that wood pyrolysis is controlled by chemical kinetics, heat transfer or mass
transfer. Excluding very small particles, the process is usually controlled by the inner heat
transfer of wood. In addition to thermal conductivity and the specific heat of wood and

15
its char, the heat transfer is also observed to be affected by specific heats of volatiles and
reaction enthalpy of the pyrolysis reactions.

Sinha et al. [15] provided a comprehensive review of physical and chemical aspects of
pyrolysis. An analysis of processes occurring during pyrolysis at every temperature range is
done taking a generalised percentage composition of wood. Pyrolysis characteristics off
individual components are described alongside the pathways they take. Pyrolysis is thus
deduced to be a series of chemical reactions with heat and mass transfer. Pyrolysis modelling
as single step first order, simultaneous competing first order and two stage break up into
constituents have been acknowledged and problems pertaining to these models have been
listed.

Avdhesh et al. [16] modelled the pyrolysis product composition at low heating rates.
Composition of volatiles was modelled and volatiles have been categorised as CO, CO2, H2,
H2O, light hydrocarbons and heavy hydrocarbons (tar). Using experimental curve fitting and
elemental mass balance, product composition of pyrolysis is determined and hence heat of
pyrolysis is calculated. Model predictions were compared to experimental results within the
range of error arising from wood composition and temperature differences. The model has the
advantage of being compatible with any global kinetic expression that gives the rate of mass
loss of wood.

2.2.3 Reduction models

Masumoudi et al. [17] developed a two dimensional model for the reduction zone of a fixed
bed downdraft biomass gasifier based on mass, energy and momentum conservation
equations. The gasifier consisted of a fixed bed of bio-char particles crossed by a reactive gas
flow. As they modelled only the reduction zone the gas composition from the as it enters the
reduction zone was taken from experimental results and models developed by others [18]. The
gas flowing in the reduction zone primarily consisted of six species N 2, CO, H2, CO2, H2O,
and CH4 with lumps traces of light hydrocarbons. Ideal gas law is applied to all species. When
compared with experimental results an absolute average deviation of about 2.6% (except
methane fraction) was computed.

16
 Error Equations used

RMS- 1.78 to homogenous equations: + + + + ( + ) → (1 − ) + +

1.9
+ + + + + + +

Relative Homogenous equations : + → , + → +2 , + →3 +2 , + →2 +2 , + →

percentage error
+ , + → + , + → + + , + 1.5 → 3 + 3 , + → + , + →
< 1.8 in (H2O,
CO mole + , + → + + , + → +
fraction,
temperatures) at Heterogeneous equations : Char partial combustion: ℎ + 0.485 → 0.918 + 0.0161 + 0.0182 + 0.0236
grid size 20
Steam gasification: ℎ + 0.969 → 0.918 + 0.0161 + 0.0182 + 0.993

Bouduard equation: ℎ + 0.969 → 1.89 + 0.0161 + 0.0182 + 0.0236

Methane formation: ℎ + 3.672 → 0.918 + 0.0161 + 0.0182 + 0.0236

RMS- 1.03 + + + + ( + ) → (1 − ) + + + +

17
+ + + + +

Methane adjustment: = 6.6799 → 8.632 − 7.410 − 3.158 + 1.518 − 8.941 + 5.5317

RMS- 1.89 + + + + ( + )
→ (1 − ) + + + + + + + + +
2

k k
= , =
1+ + 1+ +

RMS- 1.5 = 6.6799 → 8.632 − 7.410 − 3.158 + 1.518 − 8.941 + 5.5317

This is used in addition to equations in model 4

 Prerequisite data: input parameters Advantages Disadvantages

Proximate and Ultimate analyses of Very fast, less number of equations, Equilibrium model, no rates counted,
feedstock Ideal temperatures used, carbon
conversion
(Equivalence ratio (ER) efficiency was assumed
Biomass moisture content MC)
Nitrogen/oxygen rate present in the air
Proximate and Ultimate analyses of Rate equations counted, real temperatures Extensive sub-modelling
feedstock incorporated, feedstock can vary

Proximate and Ultimate analyses of Low RMS error carbon conversion

18
feedstock efficiency was assumed,

restricted to biomass and gasification

with air due to the experimental data used
to determine the CH4 content constraint

Proximate and Ultimate analyses of carbon conversion efficiency was NOT assumed, High RMS Error, Time for gasification as
feedstock but calculated input parameter

feedstock can vary , gasification can be done by air/

steam etc

Proximate and Ultimate analyses of Low RMS error Restricted to gasification with air and to
feedstock woody biomass as feedstock
carbon conversion efficiency was NOT assumed,
but calculated Time for gasification as input parameter
 Model Type Method Adjustments

MODEL1 Non stoichiometric Gibbs free energy minimization implemented Partial pressure of Thermodynamic properties of elements
[11] Equilibrium model with Lagrange multipliers CH4 adjusted and compounds

HHV , LHV values for feedstock

MODEL2 Reduced Order Reactor network model: conservation Carbon conversion Thermodynamic properties of elements
[13] Model equations, sub-models used for kinetic adjusted and compounds
reactions, flow forces and heat transfer through
the gasifier’s wall The reaction of char HHV, LHV values for feedstock
with H2 has been
omitted Kinetic parameters of heterogeneous
reactions
Inhibition of the char
gasification reactions Effective heat transfer coefficients
by CO and H2 has through the wall of the gasifier
been neglected

MODEL3 Three stage Gibbs free energy minimization implemented Methane content in Thermodynamic properties of elements

19
[12] quasi(constrained) with CH4 content constraint the products in dry and compounds
equilibrium non basis PCH4 adjusted
stoichiometric HHV values for feedstock
model Equivalent moles of
unconverted carbon
adjusted in a range
MODEL4 Quasi equilibrium Gibbs free energy minimization implemented Thermodynamic properties of elements
[12] non stoichiometric with Lagrange multipliers and chemical and compounds
model kinetics constraint
HHV values for feedstock

Arrhenius constants for feedstock

MODEL5 Quasi equilibrium Gibbs free energy minimization implemented Thermodynamic properties of elements
[12] non stoichiometric with Lagrange multipliers ,CH4 content and compounds
model constraint and the unconverted carbon
chemical kinetic constraint HHV values for feedstock

Gasification time
 CHAPTER 3
OBJECTIVES

 Study the existing CFD models for downdraft gasifier and understand their advantages
and limitations
 Study the existing thermodynamic models for downdraft gasifier and understand their
advantages and limitations
 Model an improved CFD model incorporating some of the thermodynamic properties
which have otherwise been ignored and also extend the model to 3D

After a review and comparison of various existing models available in literature which are
based on chemical equilibrium and chemical kinetics, a model or combination of models
would be chosen as the starting model. The geometry of a downdraft gasifier would be
modelled in FLUENT. The model would be implemented step-wise. Key data like predicted
output gas composition would be taken and compared with experimental data. Consequently
with feedback, the model will be modified. The idea behind modelling is to provide for a basis
for design modifications in the future designs of the downdraft gasifier to optimize energy
output and account for changes in geometry without having to develop physical prototypes.

20
 CHAPTER 4
METHODOLOGY

There were two major parts of the project, first to review the literature on various models
devised and implemented by people. The comprehensive review of these models has already
been presented in Chapter 3. Once the model was finalised we would be implementing it in
CFD simulation. This involved learning of the softwares: OpenFOAM and FLUENT which
was done simultaneously with literature review.

Modelling in simulation was planned to be carried out in three phases:

(i) Cold Flow Simulation

(ii) Incorporating Heat transfer into the model
(iii) Incorporating the chemical model

The various steps performed in the above are described here.

Cold Flow Simulation

Initially it was planned to carry out the simulation in ANSYS Fluent. As a first step a simple
downdraft gasifier (IISc- DASAG gasifier) geometry was taken as shown in figure 4 and
cold flow simulation was carried with for air flowing through it.

Axis symmetric model was chosen in ANSYS Fluent with x-axis being the axis. The
governing equations are

Continuity Equation:

1 (7)
( )+ ( )=0

Momentum equation- r component

1 (8)
+ =− + ( )+

21
z-component

1
+ =− + ( )+ (9)

Fig. 4: Geometry of IISc- DASAG Gasifier

Quadrilateral meshing was chosen. The various parameters and quality factors are
summarized in Table 2.

Table 2: Meshing Parameter and Quality in cold flow simulation

Parameter Values in used Mesh

minimum face area (m2) 8.91 e-03
maximum face area (m2) 1.74 e-02
Minimum Orthogonal Quality 9.15 e-01
Maximum Ortho Skew 8.09 e-02
Maximum Aspect Ratio 2.74

22
Results of cold flow simulation are presented in Chapter 5.

BiomassGasificationFoam

OpenFOAM gives greater control to user to specify model and provides greater insight.
Hence, it was decided to do the CFD modelling on OpenFOAM in Ubuntu. This involved
learning the software.

BiomassGasificationFoam is an open source solver and libraries developed by

Kwiatkowskia et al on OpenFOAM. The chemical model implemented by them is discussed
in Chapter 3. The governing equations for mass, momentum and energy conservation are as
in equations below

+ .( )+ − . (μ ) = (1 − ) μ (10)

+ .( )= + + (11)

+ ( )− . D = + + + (12)

= + + (13)

+ . ( )− . ((1 − ) )= ℎ − ∑( − )−Γ+

(14)

− .( )= ∑( − )+ + (15)

In the above equations, the left-hand side are standard for modelling gas flows or heat transfer
in solids. The right-hand side are source terms due to chemical reactions and thermal
conversions. The thermal processes are included via the source terms denoted by reaction rates

23
R with corresponding superscripts (G - gas and S - solid; evap - evaporation, pyro pyrolysis,
gasif - gasification, comb - combustion) and subscripts (i - gaseous species, k - solid
components). Hr is the total heat source due to solid phase reactions.

The model was validated with an experiment in which the environment contained only
nitrogen, hence only drying (evaporation) and pyrolysis would take place. A wooden sample
(Rubinia preudoaccacia) with the initial mass of 24 mg was taken and the mass loss observed
due to drying and pyrolysis was observed. The same was calculated by simulation.
Comparitive results are presented in chapter 5.

BiomassGasificationFoam is compatible with OpenFOAM 2.1.1 whereas the present edition

is OpenFOAM 4.0. Also OpenFOAM 2.1.1 is no longer available. The developers of
BiomassGasificationFoam have informed that they are working on making the solver and
libraries bases on OpenFOAM 3.0 but would take some time. Hence it was decide to switch
back FLUENT.

Implementing a simple chemical model

As cold flow model was already implemented in FLUENT, next a simple chemical model
was incorporated in it. The work by Bakar [9] was used for guidance. The geometry of
gasifier and the meshing done are shown in figure 5 and figure 6 respectively.

Table 3: Meshing Parameter and Quality in chemical model simulation

Parameter Values in used Mesh

minimum face area (m2) 4.46 e-03
maximum face area (m2) 2.05 e-02
Minimum Orthogonal Quality 7.75 e-01
Maximum Ortho Skew 2.24 e-02
Maximum Aspect Ratio 3.25

The result of the same are presented in chapter 5.

24
Fig. 5: Schematic diagram of downdraft gasifier

Fig. 6: Used mesh of downdraft gasifier

25
 CHAPTER 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Cold Flow Simulation

The contour plots of cold flow simulation on IISC- DISAG gasifier shown in fig for pressure
and temperature are shown in figure 7 and 8.

Fig. 7: Contours of Pressure

Fig. 8: Contours of Velocity Magnitude

Qualitatively the contour plots are as expected, there is a formation of boundary layer near
the walls. As the flow cross section decreases, it accelerates and finally near the outlet the
area diminishes significantly cause greater acceleration of the flow. Similarly as the flow
accelerates the pressure deceases as expected.

26
The contour plot for temperature from simulation of the model used by bakar[9] is shown in
figure 9. Figure 10 shows the obtained temperature contours by Bakar.

Fig. 9: Contours of Temperature

Fig. 10: Contours of Temperature as obtained by Bakar

27
As can be seen both the contour plots show similar variation in temperature.

Comparison of the temperature along the outlet of gasifier obtained in performed simulation
with those performed by Bakar[9] are in figure 11. As can be seen that the trends are similar
though the actual values vary. This variation can be attributed to the fact that the wall
boundary conditions used by Bakar were of constant temperature evaluated from
experiments, whereas in the performed simulation a finite thickness wall was taken and
natural convection was assumed to occur on the outer surface.

Fig. 11: Total Temperature Distribution at the Outlet

28
 CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS & FUTURE SCOPE OF WORK

Various chemical models were reviewed from those which simplified the whole process into
a single step to complex ones. A list of these was made with advantages and disadvantages of
each. These models are to be used in the simulation models.

The simulation was earlier planned to be done in OpenFOAM using

BiomassGasificationFoam as a started code. But the code had compilation errors with the
latest verison of software and due to unavailability of the previous compatible version it was
decided to carry out the simulation in FLUENT.

First a model was developed which simulated the cold flow in a gasifier. This involved flow
of air but with no solid incorporated in it. Next step for this would be to incorporate the solid
region by using multi-phase models or by incorporating porosity.

Also, a FLUENT model was developed which simulated the one step chemistry model in the
downdraft biomass gasifier. It was validated against another simulation model and was found
to be giving similar temperature profile. This model had two primary limilaitons. First, the
model took gas as input, i.e. it is assumed that drying and pyrolysis have occurred and we
have the gas after that. It only simulated combustion and reduction. Second, the chemistry is
simplified. So the next steps for this model would be to incorporate the processes of drying
and pyrolysis and then look at the more complex models for the phenomenon of combustion
and reduction.

After improving both the models for the mentioned shortcomings, they need to be combined,
i.e., flow with porosity would be combined with a more complex chemical model. This model
would then be validated against experimental data from literature and those performed here.
The proposed timeline for the further work is presented in the GANTT chart.

29
 GANTT CHART
For Semester I (2016-17)

Work Elements Aug Aug Sept Sept Oct Oct Nov Nov
1-15 15-31 1-15 15-30 1-15 15-31 1-15 15-30
Literature review and
finalizing chemical model
Cold Flow simulation of
Gasifier
Shifting to OpenFOAM and
working with
BiomassGasificationFoam
Simulation of a Chemical
model in FLUENT
Cold flow simulation with
porosity
For Semester II (2016-17)

Work Elements Jan Jan Feb Feb Mar Mar Apr Apr
1-15 15-31 1-15 15-28 1-15 15-31 1-15 15-30
Incorporating heat transfer
using artificial sources to
simulate actual phenomenon
Introducing chemical model
into this
Validation with results in
literature and with available
gasifiers
Parametric study of simulation
model

30
References
[1] Smith KR, Mehta S and Maeusezahl-Feuz M., “Indoor air pollution from household solid fuel use.
Comparative quantification of health risks: global and regional burden of disease attributable to
selected major risk factors,” Geneva: world health organization conference in Geneva, 2004, pp. 1435-
1493.

[2] Ezzati M., Lopez AD., Rodgers A., Vander H. S. and Murray C. J. L., “Comparative risk
assessment collaborative group 2002 selected major risk factors and global and regional burden of
disease” The Lancet, 2002, pp. 1347-1360.

[3] T.B. Reed and A. Das, Handbook of Biomass Downdraft Gasifier Engine Systems, Solar Energy
Research Institute, 1998.

[4] A.K. Sharma, “Simulation of a Biomass Gasifier-Engine System”, PhD Thesis, IIT Delhi, 2006.

[5] R. Desrosiers, “Fundamental Air Gasification Engineering Parameters”, SERIIPR-2341470,

February 1982.

[6] T.B. Reed, "Principles and Technology of Biomass Gasification," in Advances in Solar Energy,
Vol. 2, K. Boer and J. Duffie, eds, Plenum, 1985.

[7] Vineeth K., “Modelling of a Biomass Gasification System”, MTech Thesis, IIT Delhi, May 2009.

[8] https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/fluidizedbed (as

on 10-11-2016)

[9] N.A. Bakar, “Modelling of Downdraft Gasidier Using Computational Fluid Dynamics Software
FLUENT”, Master of Science Thesis, University of Strathclyde, June 2003

[10] K. Kwiatkowskia, P.J. Zukb, K. Bajera, M.Dudy, “Biomass gasification solver based on
OpenFOAM”, Computer Physics Communications (preprint), March 2014

[11] A.Z. Mendiburu, J.J. Roberts, J. A. Carvalho Jr. and J.L. Silveira, “Thermodynamic analysis and
comparison of downdraft gasifiers integrated with gas turbine, spark and compression ignition engines
for distributed power generation “, Applied Thermal Engineering, Volume 66, Issues 1–2, May
2014, pp. 290-297

[12] A.Z. Mendiburu , J.A. Carvalho Jr., R. Zanzi , C.R. Coronado and J.L. Silveira, “Thermochemical
equilibrium modeling of a biomass downdraft gasifier: Constrained and unconstrained non-
stoichiometric models”, Energy, Volume 71, 15 July 2014, pp. 624-637

[13] M.H. Sahraei, M.A. Duchesne, R. Yandon , A. Majeski, R.W. Hughes and L.A. Ricardez-
Sandoval, “Reduced order modeling of a short-residence time gasifier”. Fuel, Volume 161, 1
December 2015, pp. 222-232

[14] V. Hankalin, T. Ahonen and R. Raiko, “On Thermal Properties of a Pyrolysing Wood Particle”,
Department of Energy and Process Engineering, Tampere University of Technology

[15] S. Sinha, A. Jhalani, M. R. Ravi and A. Ray, “Modelling of Pyrolysis in Wood: A Review”, Solar
Energy Society India (SESI), Vol 10, No 1, 2000, pp. 41–62.

31
[16] A.K. Sharma, M.R. Ravi, S. Kohli, “Modelling product composition in slow pyrolysis of wood”
Solar Energy Society India (SESI), Vol 16, No 1 , 2006, pp. 1–11.

[17] M.A Masmoudi, M. Sahraoui, N. Grioui and K. Halouani ,“2-D Modeling of thermo-kinetics
coupled with heat and mass transfer in the reduction zone of a fixed bed downdraft biomass gasifier”,
Renewable Energy, Volume 66, June 2014, pp. 288-298

[18] D.L. Giltrapa, R. McKibbin and G.R.G. Barnes, “A steady state model of gas-char reactions in a
downdraft biomass gasifier” Solar Energy Volume 74, No 1, January 2003, Pages 85–91

32