Biomass gasifier – internal combustion engine system: review of literature

Figures & data

Figure 1. A route of gasification based biomass energy conversion system

Table 1. Summarise the properties of several used biomasses in gasification

Feedstock	Properties		Ref.
Rice husk	Proximate (%): 60 VM; 3.6 MC; 16.3 ash Ultimate (%): 38.5 C; 5.5 H; 36.6 O; 0.4 N; 0.2 S HHV: 16.57 MJ/kg		(Yoon et al. 2012)
	Proximate (%): 72.87 VM; 10 MC; 17.13 ash Ultimate (%): 38.92 C; 5.55 H; 37.94 O; 0.35 N; 0.02 S HHV: 14.39 MJ/kg		(Lin et al. 1998)
	Proximate (% adb): 56.2 VM; 12.83 FC; 9.8 MC; 21.17 ash Ultimate (% adb): 34.05 C; 5.35 H; 39.14 O; 0.17 N; 0.12 S HHV: 13.39 MJ/kg		(Susastriawan, Saptoadi, and Purnomo 2017)
	Proximate (% ar): 67.6 VM; 9.5 MC; 16.6 ash Ultimate (% adb): 49.2 C; 2.2 H; 0.44 N; 0.06 S HHV: 19.8 MJ/kg		(Pinto et al. 2016)
Pine sawdust	Proximate (%): 73.74 VM; 15.30 FC; 10.66 MC; 0.30 ash Ultimate (%): 52 C; 6.07 H; 41.55 O; 0.28 N HHV: 20.407 MJ/kg		(Wander, Altafini, and Barreto 2004)
Teak sawdust	Proximate (% adb): 71.48 VM; 13.29 FC; 13.26 MC; 1.97 ash Ultimate (% adb): 44.99 C; 6.68 H; 45.62 O; 0 N; 0.74 S HHV: 17.58 MJ/kg		(Susastriawan, Saptoadi, and Purnomo 2017)
Olive bagasse	Proximate (% ar): 8.7 MC; 3.4 ash Ultimate (% ar): 52.2 C; 7.3 H; 26.6 O; 1.5 N HHV: 20.83 MJ/kg		(Almeida et al. 2017)
Neem wood	Proximate (% adb): 85.86 VM; 12.19 FC; 0.02 MC; 1.92 ash Ultimate (% adb): 48.26 C; 6.27 H; 43.46 O; 1.7 N; 0.31 S		(Ayyadurai, Schoenmakers, and Hernández 2017)
Vine pruning	Proximate (% adb): 80.84 VM; 16.54 FC; 17.6 MC; 2.62 ash Ultimate (% adb): 50.84 C; 5.82 H; 0.88 N LHV: 18.1 MJ/kg		(Biagini, Barontini, and Tognotti 2016)
Corn cob	Proximate (% ar): 69.2 VM; 15.7 FC; 13.3 MC; 1.8 ash Ultimate (% ar): 43.2 C; 7.1 H; 48.8 O; 0.6 N; 0.3 S LHV: 18.23 MJ/kg		(Mubashar et al. 2017)
Corn straw	Proximate (% ar): 75.95 VM; 13.75 FC; 6.17 MC; 5.93 ash Ultimate (% ar): 43.83 C; 5.95 H; 45.01 O; 0.97 N; 0.13 S LHV: 17.75 MJ/kg		(Gai and Dong 2012)
Coconut shell	Ultimate (% adb): 50.2 C; 5.7 H; 43.4 O; 0 N; 0 S HHV: 19.83 MJ/kg		(Singh and Sekhar 2016)
Rubber seed shell	Ultimate (% adb): 43.21 C; 6.0 H; 50.25 O; 0.55 N; 0 S HHV: 17.16 MJ/kg		(Singh and Sekhar 2016)
Wood chip	Proximate (%): 88.07 VM; 10.61 FC; 4.23 MC; 1.32 ash Ultimate (%): 43.54 C; 3.59 H; 51.7 O; 1 N; 0.16 S LHV: 17.53 MJ/kg		(Sulaiman et al. 2017)
Peach	Proximate (% wb): 67.52 VM; 23.80 FC; 8.99 MC; 0.43 ash Ultimate (% adb): 51.95 C; 5.76 H; 41.49 O; 0.8 N; 0.01 S LHV: 21.88 MJ/kg		(Tsiakmakis et al. 2014)
Grape	Proximate (% wb): 59.67 VM; 21.83 FC; 9.13 MC; 9.37 ash Ultimate (% adb): 52.88 C; 5.42 H; 37.24 O; 4.46 N LHV: 21.21 MJ/kg		(Tsiakmakis et al. 2014)
Switchgrass	Proximate (% adb): 78.60 VM; 17.47 FC; 7.69 MC; 3.39 ash Ultimate (% adb): 49.63 C; 5.72 H; 40.37 O; 0.30 N; 0.05 S HHV: 17.73 MJ/kg		(Bhoi et al. 2018)
Redcedar		Proximate (% adb): 78.31 VM; 20.42 FC; 10.39 MC; 1.27 ash Ultimate (% adb): 54.44 C; 5.80 H; 38.28 O; 0.20 N; 0.01 S HHV: 19.73 MJ/kg	(Bhoi et al. 2018)
Mischantus		Proximate (%): 64.4 VM; 22.1 FC; 2.1 ash Ultimate (%): 44.5 C; 5.2 H; 45 O; 5.3 N HHV: 18.6 MJ/kg	(Couto et al. 2017)
Pine sawdust pellets		Proximate (% adb): 80.52 VM; 10.73 FC; 7.82 MC; 0.93 ash Ultimate (% adb): 46.11 C; 6.13 H; 38.07 O; 0.87 N; 0.07 S LHV: 18.49 MJ/kg	(Wang et al. 2015)
Cotton stalk pellets		Proximate (% adb): 62.95 VM; 18.55 FC; 11.76 MC; 6.74 ash Ultimate (% adb): 41.65 C; 2.34 H; 36.52 O; 0.82 N; 0.17 S LHV: 15.43 MJ/kg	(Wang et al. 2015)

Table 2. ASTM Standard for biomass fuel analysis (Basu 2010)

Proximate Analysis	ASTM Standard
VM	E-872 a
Ash	D-1102 a
MC	E-871 a
FC	by the difference
Ultimate Analysis
C	E-777
H	E-777
N	E-778
O	by the difference

afor wood, ** for RDF

Figure 2. Classification of gasifier reactor

Table 3. Pros and drawbacks of each reactor

Reactor	Pros	Drawbacks
Updraught	Small pressure loss High thermal efficiency	High tar content producer gas Long ignition time
Downdraught	Low tar content producer gas Simple construction	Feedstock specific design Low heating value producer gas Low thermal efficiency
Updraught	Quick response on load fluctuation simple construction	High pressure loss Very sensitive on feedstock properties
Fluidised bed	High heating value producer gas	Complex construction
Entrained flow	Suitable for fine size feedstock and large capacity plant	Not suitable high moisture content feedstock Short residence time

Figure 3. Thermal input capacity of different gasifier

Table 4. Effect of gasification medium on producer gas heating value (Basu 2010)

Gasification Medium	Heating Value (MJ/Nm^3)
Oxygen	12–28
Steam	10–18
Air	4–7

Figure 4. Classification of tar removal scrubber

Figure 5. Schematic diagram of flow arrangement between producer gas and liquid

(a) Impinging, (b) Spray, and (c) Venturi scrubber

Figure 6. Gravimetric tar measurement equipment

Yoon, S. J., Y.-I. Son, Y.-K. Kim, and J.-G. Lee. 2012. “Gasification and Power Generation Characteristics of Rice Husk and Rice Husk Pellet Using a Downdraft Fixed-bed Gasifier.” Renewable Energy 42: 163–167. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.08.028.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lin, K. S., H. P. Wang, C. J. Lin, and C. I. Juch. 1998. “A Process Development for Gasification of Rice Husk.” Fuel Processing Technology 55 (3): 185–192. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3820(98)00049-6.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Susastriawan, A. A. P., H. Saptoadi, and Purnomo. 2017. “Design and Experimental Study of Pilot Scale Throat-less Downdraft Gasifier Fed by Rice Husk and Wood Sawdust.” International Journal of Sustainable Energy 6451: 1–13.

 Google Scholar

Pinto, F., R. André, M. Miranda, D. Neves, F. Varela, and J. Santos. 2016. “Effect of Gasification Agent on Co-gasification of Rice Production Wastes Mixtures.” Fuel 180: 407–416. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2016.04.048.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wander, P. R., C. R. Altafini, and R. M. Barreto. 2004. “Assessment of a Small Sawdust Gasification Unit.” Biomass & Bioenergy 27 (5): 467–476. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2004.04.003.

 Google Scholar

Almeida, A., P. Neto, I. Pereira, A. Ribeiro, and R. Pilão. 2017. “Effect of Temperature on the Gasification of Olive Bagasse Particles.” J. Energy Inst 92(01): 1–8.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ayyadurai, S., L. Schoenmakers, and J. J. Hernández. 2017. “Mass and Energy Analysis of a 60 kWth Updraft Gasifier Using Large Size Biomass.” Fuel 187: 356–366. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2016.09.080.

 Google Scholar

Biagini, E., F. Barontini, and L. Tognotti. 2016. “Development of a Bi-equilibrium Model for Biomass Gasification in a Downdraft Bed Reactor.” Bioresource Technology 201: 156–165. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.11.057.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Mubashar, M., A. Munir, M. Ahmad, and A. Tanveer. 2017. “Downdraft Gasifier Structure and Process Improvement for High Quality and Quantity Producer Gas Production.” In J. Energy Inst, 1–11.

 Google Scholar

Gai, C., and Y. Dong. 2012. “Experimental Study on Non-woody Biomass Gasification in a Downdraft Gasifier.” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 37 (6): 4935–4944. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.12.031.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Singh, V. C. J., and S. J. Sekhar. 2016. “Performance Studies on a Downdraft Biomass Gasifier with Blends of Coconut Shell and Rubber Seed Shell as Feedstock.” Applied Thermal Engineering 97: 22–27. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.09.099.

 Google Scholar

Sulaiman, S. A., R. Roslan, M. Inayat, and M. Yasin Naz. 2017. “Effect of Blending Ratio and Catalyst Loading on Co-gasification of Wood Chips and Coconut Waste.” J. Energy Inst., 91(05): 1–7.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tsiakmakis, S., D. Mertzis, A. Dimaratos, Z. Toumasatos, and Z. Samaras. 2014. “Experimental Study of Combustion in a Spark Ignition Engine Operating with Producer Gas from Various Biomass Feedstocks.” Fuel 122: 126–139. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.01.013.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bhoi, P. R., R. L. Huhnke, A. Kumar, S. Thapa, and N. Indrawan. 2018. “Scale-up of a Downdraft Gasifier System for Commercial Scale Mobile Power Generation.” Renewable Energy 118: 25–33.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Couto, N. D., V. B. Silva, E. Monteiro, A. Rouboa, and P. Brito. 2017. “An Experimental and Numerical Study on the Miscanthus Gasification by Using a Pilot Scale Gasifier.” Renewable Energy 109: 248–261. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.03.028.

 Google Scholar

Wang, Z., T. He, J. Qin, J. Wu, J. Li, Z. Zi, G. Liu, J. Wu, and L. Sun. 2015. “Gasification of Biomass with Oxygen-enriched Air in a Pilot Scale Two-stage Gasifier.” Fuel 150: 386–393. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.02.056.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Basu, P. 2010. Biomass Gasification and Pyrolysis Handbook. USA: Elsevier .

 Google Scholar