Optimization of AMDP-ABPROD Rice Hull Furnace Optimization of AMDP-ABPROD Rice Hull Furnace for Grain Drying G. B. Barrias1, E. V.

Casas2, A. R. Elepao3, E. K. Peralta3, and K. F. Yaptenco4

ABSTRACT Dying is an important step in preparing the grains for milling or storage as at harvest time; grain moisture is too high for subsequent operations that require reducing to 14%wb for safe processing and storage. In view of this, mechanical dryers play a vital role in the absence of good weather during the rainy days of the year. Developing furnaces that rely on agricultural wastes like rice hull for drying will ease the burden of high prices of petroleum products used by mechanical dryers. Airflow rate increased the burning efficiency but had no effect on furnace capacity, efficiency, and overall thermal efficiency. Fuel feed rate increased the burning efficiency, furnace efficiency and overall thermal efficiency with time interval of ash removal not affecting the response parameters. Optimization resulted in fuel feeding rate of 10kg/hr, air flow rate of 0.01m3/s and ash discharge time of 45 minutes as optimum. Keywords: evaluation, optimization, rice hull furnace, grain drying, furnace efficiency, furnace capacity, overall thermal efficiency

Undergraduate Student. Agricultural and Bioprocess Division, Institute of Agricultural Engineering, College of Engineering and Agro-Industrial Technology, UP Los Baos, College, Laguna. glenn_astig17@yahoo.com 2 Affiliate Assistant Professor. Agricultural and BioProcess Division, Institute of Agricultural Engineering, College of Engineering and Agro-Industrial Technology, UP Los Baos, College, Laguna. evcasas04@gmail.com 3 Associate Professor. Agricultural and BioProcess Division, Institute of Agricultural Engineering, College of Engineering and Agro-Industrial Technology, UP Los Baos, College, Laguna 4 Assistant Professor. Agricultural and BioProcess Division, Institute of Agricultural Engineering, College of Engineering and Agro-Industrial Technology, UP Los Baos, College, Laguna. kfyapenco@yahoo.com

Optimization of AMDP-ABPROD Rice Hull Furnace Introduction Fuel and other forms of energy consumption increase due to industrialization. Coal and petroleum have the greatest demand for transportation and industrial fuels. With these demands, prices will increase continuously as these fuels are depleting. The Philippines greatly relies on imported fuels to supply for the daily demands of the transport and manufacturing industries. Aside from the consistently increasing prices, the use of fossil fuels also contributes to environmental problems due to emissions of noxious products detrimental to health and contributes to global warming. Biomass like agricultural crops contains chemical energy and organic materials and converted into resource of heat and power. Agricultural waste materials are cheap and not hazardous to the environment like rice hulls, the largest by-product of rice paddy after milling operation. Rice hull is about 25% of paddy production by weight used as fuel for dryer furnaces, as landfills, and as fuel for stoves. In the Philippines, more than 1.6 million metric tons of rice hulls are generated each year from more than 14,000 rice mills around the country (Elepao and Satairapan, 2000). The study evaluated and optimized the AMDP-ABPROD rice hull-fed furnace for grain drying. Specifically, this study determined the technical performance of rice hull-fed furnace in terms of capacity, efficiency, drying air temperature; determined the effect of fuel feed rate on the capacities (heat exchanger and furnace) and efficiencies (heat exchanger, furnace and over all heat transfer) of the furnace; determined the effect of volumetric air flow rate on the capacities (heat exchanger and furnace) and efficiencies (heat exchanger, furnace and over all heat transfer) of the furnace; determine the effects of ash removal time interval on heat generation; and determined and present possible most favorable conditions in combusting rice hull within an indirect-fired furnace.

Optimization of AMDP-ABPROD Rice Hull Furnace

Methodology The Agricultural and Bio-Process Division, College of Engineering and Agro-Industrial Technology (ABPROD, CEAT) developed with funding from the Agricultural Mechanization Development Program (AMDP). Figure 1 shows the schematic diagram of the AMDPABPROD furnace. The feeding system, combustion chamber, mechanical ash removal system, heat exchangers, flue gas exit, and electric motors for feeding system, ash removal, and blower; and power transmission assembly comprised the furnace. Performance Testing Rice hulls acquired from the Rice Milling Plant in Pila, Laguna of mixed varieties thus assumed of uniform size, shape, and moisture content. Nguyen (1995) cited the heating value (14.278 MJ/kg) of rice hulls based on the average of heating values (Beagle, 1978).

Flue Gas Chimney Combustion Chamber

Blower Outlet Feed Roller Heat Exchangers Ash Discharge Outlet Screw Conveyor for Ash Removal

a. Left Side View

b. Front View

Optimization of AMDP-ABPROD Rice Hull Furnace Figure 1. AMDP-ABPROD furnace schematic diagram

1.

Moisture Content Determination

Four samples of rice hulls (@10g) were selected randomly from the sacks of rice hulls and placed in tin foil cans for moisture content determination. The pre-weighed samples were dried in the Carbolite Oven at 100oC for 48 hrs. After drying, AdventurerTM

Electronic Balance measured the final weight of each sample and the moisture contents (wet and dry basis) were computed using the formulae:

(1)

where,

%MCwb %MCdb Wi Wf

= moisture content percentage, wet basis = moisture content percentage, dry basis = initial weight, g; and = final weight, g

2.

Ash Content Determination

Four samples of rice hull (@1gram) were randomly selected from the different sacks of rice hulls, placed in crucibles and analyzed for ash content. Thermolyne 1300 electric furnace burned samples for five (5) hrs at 900oC. AdventurerTM Analytical balance weighed the ash samples after burning. Equation 2 expresses ash content dry basis as: (2) where, %Ash = ash content, dry basis Wrh = initial weight of rice hull sample, g; and Wa =weight of ash, g

Optimization of AMDP-ABPROD Rice Hull Furnace 3. Feed Rate Determination

The fuel feed rate at each motor setting (1 to 9) was determined by getting the mass of rice hulls fed per unit time. One (1) kilogram of test fuel was fed into the furnace and recording the time elapsed in consuming the pre-weighed hulls without burning. 4. Airflow Rate Determination

Alnor velometer (Figure 2) measured the airflow rate at 50mm return air duct using 6070 diffuser probe at ten (10) trials per opening.

a) b) Figure 2. a) Alnor velometer; and b) 6070 Diffuser Probe

5.

Preliminary Firing

Coconut shells, husks, dried woods, and kerosene started the combustion process. Matchsticks initialized firing and tests started when drying air was at least 35oC, while the fire inside combustion chamber was continuous. 6. Temperature Measurement

A thermocouple thermometer, at the end of the duct measured the temperature of the heated air. Measurements proceeded at 5 minutes interval from the start of firing until the temperature drops again to 35oC. A sling psychrometer measured the wet and dry bulb temperatures of the surrounding air. Figure 3 shows the temperature measuring points.

Optimization of AMDP-ABPROD Rice Hull Furnace 7. Ash Analysis

Ash residues from the burnt hulls from the bottom of the ash discharge outlet were collected for analysis. Twenty (20) grams of ash samples from each run were weighed in AdventurerTM electronic balance and collected in plastic bag, further burned in Thermolyne Electric Furnace (Figure 4) at 900oC for five hours, then set aside to cool down for final weights determination. 8. Flue Gas Analysis

Only qualitative observation ensued on flue gas in the absence of an accurate instrument. combustion. Evaluation of Response Parameters 1. Burning Efficiency Percent Weight Volatized Method calculated burning efficiency that measured the remaining combustible materials in the ash samples. Equation 3 expresses burning efficiency as: Observation took note of the presence of dark smoke during rice hull

(3)

(4)

where,

Effb Ar furnace, %

= =

burning efficiency, % ash residue (dry basis) in the sample collected from the

Optimization of AMDP-ABPROD Rice Hull Furnace

15 18 16

14 7 17 a) Left Side View

6 5 9 b) Right Side View 8

12 12

11 11

2 4 1 c. Front View d. Top View Figure 3. Temperature Measuring Points on the furnace 3 13 10

Figure 4. Thermolyne 1300 Electric Furnace A % As = weight of ash residue sample, g and = ash (dry basis) in rice hull sample after complete burning,

Optimization of AMDP-ABPROD Rice Hull Furnace Ab furnace, g 2. Heat Exchanger Capacity and Furnace Capacity The furnace capacity combined heat transferred through the heat exchanger and loss at chimney and through walls of the furnace. The formulas below computed furnace capacity as: (5) (6) (7) where Q1 = heat transfer at the heat exchanger, kJ/hr = heat exchanger capacity, kJ/hr Q2 m1 V D Cp1 T1 Ta = furnace capacity, kJ/hr = mass flow rate of heated air at the heat exchanger, kg/hr = volume flow rate of air, m3/hr = density of heated air, kg/m3 = specific heat of heated air at the heat exchanger, kJ/kg-K = heated air temperature at the heat exchanger, oC; and = ambient air temperature, oC = weight of ash residue after further burning in an electric

The surrounding air assumed blowing for all the test runs used convective coefficient h = 100 W/m2K (Van Wylen, 1998) for the computation of heat loss at the flue gas exit. Bausas (2009) computed the overall coefficient as 8.64 W/m2 K for the calculation of heat

Optimization of AMDP-ABPROD Rice Hull Furnace loss through the furnace walls. Five (5.0) mm concrete inner layer and 2.5mm thick iron sheet outer layer formed the furnace walls. Equations 8 and 9 estimated heat losses as: (8) where, Qloss1 = heat loss through walls, kJ/hr U A1 ti ta = overall heat transfer coefficient, kJ/s-m2 K = surface area of walls perpendicular to heat flow, m2 = temperature inside the furnace, oC; and = ambient temperature, oC (9) where, Qloss2 = heat loss at flue gas exit, kJ/hr h A1 to ta = convective coefficient, kJ/s-m2 K = surface area flue gas exit perpendicular to heat flow, m2 = temperature inside the furnace, oC; and = ambient temperature, oC

3. Heat Exchanger Efficiency and Furnace Efficiency The burning efficiency that calculates the heat available is incorporated in the computation of the heat exchanger efficiency. Conversely, furnace capacity and total heat available compute furnace efficiency as:

(10)

Optimization of AMDP-ABPROD Rice Hull Furnace (11)

(12) (13) (14)

where,

Eff1 Qa Qs mrh Hv mair Vair Dair Cpair Tair Tamb

= heat exchanger efficiency, % = heat available, kJ/hr = heat supplied, kJ/hr = rice hull consumed, kg/hr = gross heating value, kJ/kg = mass flow rate of heated air, kg/hr = volume flow rate of heated air, m3/hr = density of heated air, kg/m3 = specific heat of heated air, kJ/kg-K = average temperature of heated air, oC and = average temperature of ambient air, oC

Experimental Design and Statistical Analysis A three level three-parameter fractional factorial, Box-Behnken design of experiment matrix with 15 runs represented the experiments. Table 1 shows the independent while

Optimization of AMDP-ABPROD Rice Hull Furnace dependent parameters consisted of drying air temperatures, burning efficiency, and heat exchanger and furnace capacities and efficiencies. SAS v.8 software using Response Surface Regression estimated Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) that determined the effects of the independent parameters on the response parameters at 90 and 95% levels of confidence. Statistica Version 7 general linear model response surface regression algorithms analyzed the optimum furnace operating conditions with predicted responses. Table 1. Independent parameter combination for each test run Combustion Test Runs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Independent Parameters Level -1 1 0 0 0 -1 0 1 0 0 1 0 -1 1 -1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 1 0 1 0 -1 -1 1 0 0 0 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Fuel Feed Rate, kg/hr 10 15 15 10 15 20 15 15 20 15 10 20 10 20 15 Air Flow Rate, m3/s 0.009 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.003 0.006 0.003 0.009 0.006 0.009 0.006 0.003 0.003 0.009 0.006 Ash Discharge Time, min 60 60 60 45 75 45 45 45 75 75 75 60 60 60 60

Results and Discussion Preliminary tests checked the uniformity of the fuel feeding, primary air supply, and airflow rate of the main blower driving the heated air for drying.

Optimization of AMDP-ABPROD Rice Hull Furnace

1. Rice Hull Moisture Content Carbolite Air oven determined the moisture contents of the rice hulls (25g for 72hrs), randomly obtained from the sacks of test fuel resulted in average moisture content of 10.67%wb. 2. Ash Content Rice hulls used in the test and evaluation had an average ash content of 20.1% as per ash analysis, within 18 24.5% cited by Nguyen (1995). 3. Feeding of Rice Hull A roller feeder fed the rice hulls from the hopper to combustion chamber powered by a 1.0kW variable speed motor with manual agitation when clogging occurs. Table 2 summarizes the design feeding rates based on 30 kg per hour rice hull maximum for small dryer applications. Table 2. Feeding Rate Considered for the Experimental Runs Motor Number Average Feeding Rate, Setting kg/hr 1 10 2 15 3 20

4. Air Flow Rate Determination Airflow rates were determined by Alnor velometer (Table 3). At 100% blower opening (fully opened) the corresponding airflow rate was 0.013 m3/s; at 50% and 25% blower openings resulted in 0.006 and 0.003 m3/s, respectively, measured at the center of the return air pipe. These airflow rates were lower compared to the airflow rates used by Bausas (2008) at 0.09, 0.075, and 0.06m3/s resulting from the reduced pipe cross sectional area with the installation of air control valve. Figure 6 shows the source of the return air that serve as the primary air supplied during combustion of rice hulls.

Optimization of AMDP-ABPROD Rice Hull Furnace

Table 3. Computed Air Flow Rates of Primary Air Average Air Flow Opening at the Rate, m3/s return air pipe Full 0.013 0.006 0.003

Figure 6. Pipe for the return air or primary air supply

Performance Testing and Evaluation Fifteen (15) runs represented the experiments that evaluated the effects of the feeding rate, air flow rate and time of ash removal on the burning efficiency of hulls, drying air temperature at the blower, heat exchanger capacity and efficiency, furnace capacity and efficiency, and overall thermal efficiency of the furnace. Sometimes coconut husks and dried woods with kerosene assisted the initial firing of rice hulls that generated smoke for about five (5) minutes inside the combustion chamber and passed through the hopper and chimney. When drying air temperature reached 35oC and fire stabilized, infra red

thermometer measured furnace and ambient air temperatures. Throughout the combustion run, an orange flame may arise signifying the presence of carbon (Figure 7).

Optimization of AMDP-ABPROD Rice Hull Furnace

Figure 7. Color of the fire during test runs Rice hull burned immediately as it dropped from the hopper through the feed roll groove with flame peaked after 45 minutes to one hour of combustion. Table 4 summarizes of the experimental results showing the independent variables and the response variables. 1. Ash Removal A screw conveyor (75.0mm dia.) removed ashes from the combustion chamber dropping through the grates and discharge outlet. A 375W electric motor controlled the speed of the conveyor by belt and pulley transmission. Tests determined the effects of ash removal time interval on heat generation inside the combustion chamber. Some rice hulls fell directly on the conveyor passing through the grates without complete burning. The supply of primary air for combustion aided the removal of ash and prevented caking of ash. Figure 8 shows the ash discharge assembly.

a)

b)

Figure 8. a) Ash discharge assembly and b) Power transmission

Optimization of AMDP-ABPROD Rice Hull Furnace

2. Furnace Temperature Furnace temperatures ranged from 200 to 318 oC as measured by infrared thermometer. Run 6 had the highest average furnace temperature while run 11 had the lowest (Table 4). No slagging and caking of ash residues occurred during combustion due to the presence of primary air supply and mechanical ash conveyor. 3. Ash Analysis and Burning Efficiency The Percent Volatilized Method of rice hull analysis estimated the burning efficiency of the furnace. The lowest computed burning efficiency was 70.8% while 92.3% was the highest taken from ash samples. Unburned rice hulls from the sides of the combustion bed were not considered during ash analysis.

Run 1 showed the lowest burning efficiency at the lowest feeding rate of 10 kg/hr while the supplied air volumetric flow rate was the highest (0.009m3/s) due to some heat going with the combustion air exiting through the flue gas exit pipe. Runs 5 and 7 showed the highest burning efficiency with 92.3 and 91.38%, respectively. As the supply of combustion air increases more heat will be lost to the flue gas exit that result in lower furnace efficiency.

4. Heat Losses Table 5 summarizes the heat losses on the flue gas chimney and combustion chamber walls. The average heat loss at the flue gas is 1701kJ/hr, the highest exhibited by Run 6 at 2126kJ/hr lower compared to the study of Bausas (2008) with an average heat loss of 27,250kJ/hr. This can be attributed to the lower flow rate of the primary air at the combustion chamber. Similarly, the average heat loss at the furnace walls is 23,371kJ/hr lower than those of Bausas (2008), attributed also to the lower combustion airflow rates.

Optimization of AMDP-ABPROD Rice Hull Furnace

Table 4. Experimental Data of the Computed Capacities and Efficiencies (Heat Exchanger and Furnace) Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Tair Tamb air Cpair Hv Tinside

Tair, o C 39.0 39.9 39.4 41.5 44.2 38.4 35.6 37.0 38.4 38.1 36.6 37.0 35.9 36.4 42.5

Tamb, o C 24.3 25.8 26.8 29.5 32.0 24.5 24.5 25.8 25.5 24.4 24.3 26.1 26.5 25.9 34.0

Tinside, o C 208.4 250.8 272.3 276.5 307.3 318.3 292.5 273.8 275.3 211.5 200.9 240.5 278.4 265.6 253.5

air, kg/m3 1.169 1.169 1.169 1.169 1.169 1.169 1.169 1.169 1.169 1.169 1.169 1.169 1.169 1.169 1.169

Cpair, kJ/kg-K 1.0064 1.0064 1.0065 1.0066 1.0067 1.0064 1.0064 1.0064 1.0064 1.0064 1.0064 1.0064 1.0065 1.0064 1.0068

Hv, kJ/kg 14278 14278 14278 14278 14278 14278 14278 14278 14278 14278 14278 14278 14278 14278 14278

Ql kJ/hr 18305.8 22373.0 24407.5 24558.2 27373.2 29216.0 26647.4 24654.8 24833.8 18607.0 17558.2 21322.0 25050.3 23836.6 21826.4

Qf, kJ/hr 19134.8 22748.4 24743.1 24877.6 27511.8 29586.3 26773.1 25283.5 25179.5 19381.1 17887.2 21445.5 25156.6 24429.2 22053.5

Qa kJ/hr 98582.2 163189 168161 112113 196681 232414 194589 183477 237020 180621 111280 226155 164457.7 119364.7 147115.2

Qs, kJ/hr 829.0 375.4 335.7 319.5 138.6 370.3 125.8 628.7 345.6 774.1 329.0 123.4 106.4 592.6 227.1

Effb, % 70.81 77.56 79.74 79.75 92.30 82.45 91.38 86.49 83.97 85.23 79.20 80.39 84.08 89.45 81.53

Efff, % 19.4 13.9 14.7 22.2 14.0 12.7 13.8 13.8 10.6 10.7 16.1 9.5 21.2 9.6 12.8

Overall Thermal Eff, % 13.74 10.81 11.73 17.70 12.91 10.50 12.57 11.92 8.92 9.15 12.73 7.62 17.82 8.62 10.44

Average temperature of drying air Average ambient temperature Density of drying air Specific heat of drying air Gross heating value of rice hull Average inside temperature of furnace

Ql Qf Effb Efff

Total heat loss Furnace Capacity Burning efficiency Furnace efficiency

Optimization of AMDP-ABPROD Rice Hull Furnace

Table 5. Heat loss at chimney and furnace walls Heat Loss at Chimney, kJ/hr 1332.6 1628.7 1776.9 1787.8 1992.7 2126.8 1939.8 1794.8 1807.8 1354.5 1278.2 1552.2 1823.6 1735.2 1588.9 1701.4 Heat Loss at Furnace Walls, kJ/hr 18305.8 22373.0 24407.5 24558.2 27373.2 29216.0 26647.4 24654.8 24833.8 18607.0 17558.2 21322.0 25050.3 23836.6 21826.4 23371.3

Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Average

5. Heated Air Temperature

Continuous feeding of fuel resulted in increased drying air temperature. Since only a specific amount of test fuel fed into the hopper, the highest temperature occurred before feeding of fuel stopped. Figure 9 and Table 6 show the average drying air temperatures for each test run. The test runs indicated the highest average heated air temperature of 44 oC in Run 5 at feeding rate, airflow rate, and ash removal of 15.0kg/hr, 0.003 m3/s, and 75 minutes, respectively. Bausas (2008) found large temperature changes in most test runs due to the large supply of primary combustion air and small capacity of the drying air blower. With these heated air temperatures, the furnace is suitable for thin layer drying where the grain bed is 20.0cm in thickness or less. Nag and Ilyas (2005) stated that the rate of drying increases with the rise of air temperature up to 60oC without significant changes on grain quality.

Optimization of AMDP-ABPROD Rice Hull Furnace

Average Drying Air Temperature, o C

50 45

Average Drying Air Temp, oC

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Test Run

Figure 9. Average drying air temperature per test run 6. Furnace Capacity and Efficiency The furnace capacity ranges from 17887.0kJ/hr to 29586.0kJ/hr as exhibited by test Runs 11 and 6, respectively. On the other hand, the highest furnace efficiency resulted from Run 4 while the lowest was from Run 12 with 22.0% and 10%, respectively. Run 4 used a feeding rate of 10.0kg/hr while Run 12 used a feeding rate of 20.0kg/hr. Setups with lower feeding rates and shorter time of ash removal resulted in higher furnace efficiencies. At lower feeding rates and shorter ash removal time, temperature rise was low but more heat was transferred since more combustion air was supplied at the fuel bed. Figure 12 shows the furnace capacity at different run while Figure 13 shows the furnace efficiencies. Run 4 showed the highest furnace efficiency of 22.0% while Run 12 indicated the lowest at 9.0%

Optimization of AMDP-ABPROD Rice Hull Furnace

Furnace Capacity, kJ/hr
35000

30000

Furnace Capacity, kJ/hr

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

T est Run

Figure 12. Furnace capacities

Furnace Efficiency, %
24 22 20

Furnace Efficiency, %

18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

T est Run

Figure 13. Furnace efficiencies Highest furnace efficiency was recorded at 22.0% exhibited by Run 4 with 10kg/hr feeding rate, 0.006 airflow rate and 45minute interval of ash removal. Run 12 showed the lowest furnace efficiency of 9.5% conducted at 20kg/hr feeding rate, 0.003m3/s air flow rate, and 60minute ash removal interval.

7. Overall Thermal Efficiency The overall thermal efficiency of the system is accounted from all aspects of the combustion and the heat distribution in all combustion runs. Burning, heat exchanger and furnace efficiencies comprised the overall thermal efficiency. Figure 14 shows the range of the overall thermal efficiency for the 15 test runs ranging from 8.6% to 17.7% with Run 4 having the highest and Run 12, the lowest. This indicates that approximately 80% of the heat generated by the furnace was lost to the surroundings through the

Optimization of AMDP-ABPROD Rice Hull Furnace

walls and chimney. However, this result is higher than the overall efficiency obtained by Bausas (2008) of 10% indicating that time of ash removal affected the overall efficiencies of the furnace.

Overall Therm al Efficiency, %

20 18

Overall Thermal Efficiency, %

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Test Run

Figure 14. Overall thermal efficiencies

Effects of Independent Parameters on the Responses ANOVA using response surface regression (PROC RSREG) of SAS program v8 analyzed the significant effects of independent parameters on the response variables. Table 6 shows the summary of the effects of independent parameter on the dependent variables. Airflow rate significantly increased the heat exchanger capacity, efficiency, and burning efficiency at 95% confidence. Fuel feed rate significantly increased burning, heat exchanger, furnace, and overall thermal efficiencies at 95% confidence. The time of ash removal significantly increased burning efficiency 95% confidence. No independent parameters affected significantly heated air temperature and furnace capacity at 95% confidence level. Table 7 presents the ANOVA for the response parameters showing the linear, quadratic and interaction. Burning efficiency, heat exchanger capacity and efficiency, furnace and overall thermal efficiency, and total model established linear model at 95% level of confidence. On contrary, burning

Optimization of AMDP-ABPROD Rice Hull Furnace

efficiency adequately fit quadratic model equation. In addition, cross product terms only affected the burning and heat exchanger efficiencies of the generated regression models. All response variables showed no significant lack of fit test that determined the sufficiency of the regression models to represent the experimental data. Hence, the second degree polynomial equations generated sufficiently represents the response variables. The coefficient of determination (r 2) conveys the proportion of the total variation in the values of the response parameters that can be accounted for (Dioquino, 2007). ANOVA (Table 7) shows that heat exchanger capacity had the highest r 2 of 0.9747 while heated air temperature had the lowest r2 of 0.4779. The model equation defines 97% and 48% of the total variation in the heat exchanger capacity and heated air temperature, respectively. The coefficient of variation (CV) indicates the degree of precision on the data gathered. It expresses the standard deviation as percentage of the mean (Dioquino, 2007). Higher CV means higher variation or higher inconsistency of data gathered. Heat exchanger efficiency exhibited the highest CV of 26.7%, still acceptable considering the lower efficiencies obtained among indirect furnaces. Burning efficiency had the lowest CV of 2.1% indicating that the presence of return air pipe supplying the primary air for combustion improved the performance of the furnace and adequacy of the model. Optimal Furnace Operating Conditions General Linear Model (GLM) and response surface regression methodology of Statistica v.7 analyzed and determined the optimum combustion conditions. The optimization included all independent parameters affecting the response parameters that could be interpreted using the generated profiles for the predicted values and desirability within the limits of the independent variables tested during the experiments. The optimization suggests a fuel feed rate of 10.0kg/hr, airflow rate of 0.01m3/s, and ash discharge time of 45minutes. These independent parameter combinations resulted in predicted furnace

Optimization of AMDP-ABPROD Rice Hull Furnace

capacity of 24,278.0kJ/hr, furnace efficiency of 22%, and overall thermal efficiency of 16.70% with 73% desirability. Figure 15 shows the graphical relationships of the optimum conditions and predicted response. Verification of Optimum Conditions Three (3) additional runs verified the established optimum furnace operating conditions as Table 8 reflects. Percent error difference between predicted and actual responses range from 0.59 to 12.56 with furnace efficiency as the most accurate evaluated. Burning efficiency with 13% error was the least accurate when compared to predicted response at optimum conditions.

Profiles for Predicted Values and Desirability

Fuel feed rate, kg/hr 55.000 47.154 40.522 33.890 20.000
19000. 24500. 3000E2 12.00092.000 52.000 9.0000 23.000 16.000 Desirability 8.0000 18.000 13.000

Primary airrate, m3/s

Ash removal interval, min

Desirability
35.00045.000 40.000

1. .5 0.

1.

29895. 24278. -5E4 200.00 147.58 91.206 34.834 -60.00 30.000 25.589 22.063 18.536

0.

.5

1. .5 0.

1. .5 0.

4.0000 24.000 19.202 16.703 14.204 0. 4.0000

1. .5

.73398

10.

20.

.003

.0105 .013

45.

75.

Figure 15. Predicted Values and Desirability at optimum conditions

Overall thermal eff, %

Furnace eff, %

Burning efficiency, %

Furnace capacity, kJ /hr

4E5

Drying air temp, oC

Optimization of AMDP-ABPROD Rice Hull Furnace

Table 6. ANOVA for dependent parameters as affected by the independent variables Sum of Squares Independent Heated Air HE Furnace Variables Effb HE Eff Furnace Eff Temp Capacity Capacity Feed Rate 21.861368 ns 25024 ns 38482744 ns 228.053528** 0.211680 ** 180.835528** ns ns Air flow Rate 22.157546 734661** 40526238 241.781197** 0.417597** 5.942673 ns Ash Discharge Time 15.650013 ns 9908.97 ns 54190346 ns 84.041546 ** 0.005113 ns 20.728561 ns * Significant at 90% confidence level ** Significant at 95% confidence level ns Not significant

Overall Eff 97.090119** 13.066825ns 15.602448ns

Table 7. ANOVA of dependent variables showing linear, quadratic and cross product components Sum of Squares Source Heated Air HE Furnace DF Effb HE Eff Furnace Eff Temp Capacity Capacity Total Model 9 42.118913ns 740810** 111780127 ns 425.16854** 0.537376** 202.697999** ns ns Linear 3 6.238857 711543** 77301965 77.094550** 0.426228** 184.816784** ns ns ns ns Quadratic 3 19.921298 1582.741 12387627 214.00955** 0.014289 12.284826ns Cross Product 3 15.958759ns 27684 ns 22090534 ns 134.06444** 0.096858 ** 5.596388ns Total Error 5 46.013739ns 19231 ns 38616925 ns 15.474035 ns 0.020321 ns 13.269167 ns Lack of Fit 3 40.646958ns 7443.699 ns 34718337 ns 7.568235 ns 0.015279 ns 11.427335 ns Pure Error 2 5.366781 11788 3898588 7.905800 0.005043 1.841832 r2 0.4779 0.9747 0.7432 0.9649 0.9636 0.9386 CV 7.8496 16.5496 11.7034 2.1207 26.7489 11.3635 * Significant at 90% confidence level ** Significant at 95% confidence level ns Not significant

Overall Eff 116.59983** 103.59628** 4.122627 ns 8.880918 ns 8.395634 ns 7.508741 ns 0.886893 0.9328 10.9700

Optimization of AMDP-ABPROD Rice Hull Furnace

Predicted Actual % Error

Table 8. Predicted and actual values of dependent parameters at optimum conditions Drying Air Furnace Burning Furnace Overall Temperature, oC Capacity, kJ/hr Eff, % Eff, % Eff, % 40.52 24 278.25 91.21 22.06 16.70 41.46 24 877.64 79.75 22.19 17.70 2.27 2.41 12.56 0.59 5.65

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The study assessed the performance and optimized operation of ABPROD-AMDP furnace. The furnace had heat exchangers directly installed above the combustion chamber; featured screw conveyor controlled by a 375 W electric motor for ash removal. Tests evaluated the effects of fuel feed rate, air flow rate, and ash removal time interval resulted in drying air temperatures ranging from 35.6oC to 44.2oC. The heat capacities ranged from 17887.0kJ/hr to 29586.0kJ/hr with furnace efficiencies ranging from 9.5% to 22.2% and highest overall thermal efficiency of 18.0%. Airflow rate significantly increased heat exchanger capacity, furnace and burning efficiencies. Fuel feed rate significantly increased the burning efficiency, heat exchanger efficiency, furnace efficiency and overall thermal efficiency. However, the time interval of ash removal significantly increased only the burning. Optimization procedures resulted in fuel feed rate of 10.0kg/hr, airflow rate of 0.006m3/s and ash discharge time of 45 minutes. At these conditions, the predicted values for the heated air temperature, burning efficiency, furnace capacity and efficiency and overall thermal efficiency were 40.52oC, 91.21%, 24,278.25 kJ/hr, 22.06%, and 16.70%, respectively with a desirability of 73%.

Optimization of AMDP-ABPROD Rice Hull Furnace

REFERENCES Bausas, M. DLS. 2009. Performance Evaluation and Optimization of AMDP-ABPROD Rice Hull Furnace. Undergraduate Thesis, University of the Philippines Los Baos. Braunbeck, C. M. 1998. Development of a Rice Husk Furnace for Pre-Heating of the Drying Air of a Low Temperature Drying System. PhD Dissertation, Germany. Chandrasekar, V. 2005. Design and Development of Rice Husk Furnace for Paddy Drying. PhD Dissertation, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore. Dioquino, O. A. Jr. 2007. Design Modification, Testing and Evaluation of Biomass Furnace with Waste Heat Recovery System Using Corncob as Fuel. Undergraduate Thesis, University of the Philippines Los Baos. Elepao, A. R. and K. T. Satairapan. 2000. Development of a Rice Hull Cyclonic Furnace for Drying Applications. <http://www.retsasia.ait.ac.th/ Publications/ WREC%202000-UPLB.pdf> Hawkey, R. 1977. Rice Husk Utilization. Proceedings of the Rice By-Products Utilization International Conference. Spain. Hien, H. H. 1993. Rice Husk Combustion for Crop Drying. PhD Dissertation, University of the Philippines Diliman. Juliano, B. O. 1985. Rice: Chemistry and Technology. 2nd Edition. USA: American Ass. of Cereal Chemist, Inc. Kaupp, A. 1987. Gasification of Rice Hull: Theory and Praxis. Friedrich Vieweg and Sohn, Germany. Lozada, E. P. 2005. Biomass Combustion of Rice Hull. University of the Philippines Los Baos. Maheshwari, R. C. and T. P. Ojha. 1977. Fuel Characteristics of Rice Husk. Proceedings of the Rice By-Products Utilization International Conference. Spain.

Optimization of AMDP-ABPROD Rice Hull Furnace

Nayak, B. C. and S. N. Jena. 2005. Rice Statistics. Rice in Indian Perspective. Chapter 2. Today & Tomorrows Printers & Publ.: Darjaganj, New Delhi, India. Nguyen, T. N. 1995. Design and Development of a Direct-Fired Rice Husk Furnace For Flat Bed Paddy Dryer. Graduate Thesis, University of the Philippines Los Baos. Olivier, P. A. 2005. The rice hull house. <http://www.axwoodfarm.com/ PAHS/RiceHulls.html>. Ramos, C. L. 2003. Anatomy and Properties of Rice Grain. Rice Postproduction Technology. Philippine Rice Postproduction Consortium: Quezon City, Philippines. Romanillos, M. O. 2006. Design Modification, Testing and Evaluation of Rice Hull-Fed Furnace with Waste Heat Recovery System. Undergraduate Thesis, University of the Philippines Los Baos. The DOE Information Technology and Management Services. 2005. Renewable Energy. < http://www.doe.gov.ph/ER/BioOSW.htm>. Tiangco, V. M. 1990. Optimization of Specific Fuel Conversion Rates for a Rice Hull Gasifier Coupled to an Internal Combustion Engine. PhD Dissertation, UMI. Van Wylen, G. J. 1998. Fundamentals of Thermodynamics. 5th Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Singapore.