Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 27892797

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Adiabatic xed-bed gasication of coal, dairy biomass, and feedlot

biomass using an airsteam mixture as an oxidizing agent
Gerardo Gordillo 1, Kalyan Annamalai*, 2, Nicholas Carlin 3
Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M University, TX 77843, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 4 September 2008
Accepted 3 June 2009
Available online 12 July 2009

Concentrated animal feeding operations, such as cattle feedlots and dairies, produce a large amount of
manure, cattle biomass (CB), which can be included as renewable feedstock for locally based gasication
for syngas (CO and H2) production and subsequent use in power generation. Experimental results on
effects of bed temperature and gas composition on the higher heating value (HHV) and energy recovery
are presented for dairy biomass (DB) gasication using air and airsteam as oxidizers. Some experimental data are compared with adiabatic gasication modeling which includes atom balance conservation for assumed product species and chemical equilibrium analysis. Wyoming sub-bituminous coal
(WYC) and Texas Lignite coal (TXL) are used as standard fuels for comparison purposes in modeling
studies. Two main parameters are investigated in this study. One is the modied equivalence ratio (ERM)
dened as the ratio of stochiometric oxygen to total oxygen supplied in the oxidizing mixture of air and
steam. The second is a measure of how much steam is in the oxidizer and is called the air steam ratio
(ASTR), which is dened as the ratio of oxygen supplied in the air to the total oxygen supplied in the
oxidizer. The results suggested that gasication of CB and coals under higher ERM yield elevated
concentrations of CO and CH4, and low percentages of H2 and CO2, while higher ASTRs (less steam)
produced mixtures poor in H2, CO2, and CH4 and rich in CO with lower HHV. It was also found that FB and
DB produced higher amounts of H2 than WYC and TXL under the same ERM and ASTR.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Coal
Dairy Manure
Feedlot Biomass
Gasication
Fixed bed
Hydrogen

1. Introduction
There is a growing interest in reducing the dependence on crude
oil, coal and natural gas and the resulting emissions due to the
combustion of these fossil fuels. Increasing demand for energy,
particularly in developing countries, has exacerbated the concerns
over global warming caused by green house gas emissions from
combustion of fossil fuels. Research has increasingly included
efforts to partially replace fossil fuels with renewable energysources in thermal conversion processes. Biomass is a CO2 neutral
organic fuel, which includes energy crops, municipal solid wastes,
farm residues, and animal manure wastes. These potential fuels can
serve as a renewable feedstock for sustainable heat and power
generation [1].

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 1 979 8452562.

E-mail addresses: ggordillo@tamu.edu (G. Gordillo), kannamalai@tamu.edu
(K. Annamalai), carlinnt@tamu.edu (N. Carlin).
1
PhD student, Graduate Research Assistant, and Assistant Professor on leave of
absence from the Andes University, Colombia.
2
Paul Pepper Professor.
3
PhD student and Graduate Research Assistant.
0960-1481/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2009.06.004

Large concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) produce

a large amount of CB which may lead to land, water, and air pollution
if waste handling systems and storage and treatment structures are
not properly managed. However, the concentrated production of FB
and DB serves as a good feedstock for locally based thermal conversion processes such as combustion to produce heat, co-ring with
coal, reburning with coal to reduce NOx emissions from power plants,
and gasication to produce fuel gas [24]. However, CB has high
moisture and ash contents that make it a low quality fuel; in other
words, the CB is a low Btu fuel more appropriate for gasication
than for direct combustion processes. Typically, biomass gasication
uses pure air [5,6], steam [7,8], airsteam [9,10], and pure oxygen or
pure oxygen plus steam [1,11] for partial oxidation. The current paper
deals with (i) gasication of DB, using air and steam with limited
experimental results on DB gasication and with coal serving as
a standard fuel for comparison in modeling studies and (ii) modeling
results on gaseous yield, heat value, and energy conversion efciency
using (a) atom balance conservation analysis for a product gas
assumed to contain CO2, CO, CH4, H2S, N2, and H2 and (b) chemical
equilibrium analysis for a product gas assumed to contain a large
number of species, including trace species. Two parameters are
investigated in this study. One is the equivalence ratio (ERM) which is

2790

G. Gordillo et al. / Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 27892797

the ratio of stochiometric oxygen to actual oxygen used in the gasication of the coal and biomass. The second parameter is a measure
of how much steam is in the oxidizer and is called the air steam ratio
(ASTR). The ASTR is dened as the ratio of oxygen in the air to the total
oxygen included in both the air and steam in the oxidizer mixture
entering the gasier.

2. Literature review
Fixed-bed gasiers are the oldest and historically most common
reactors used to produce syngas, but in the last two decades largescale (higher than 10 MW), xed-bed reactors have lost a part of their
industrial market [12]. Yet, small scale (lower than 10 MW) xed-bed
gasiers that have high thermal efciency and require minimal
pretreatment of the supplied biomass, have maintained a commercial interest especially for locally based power generation [13].
Pyrolysis, partial oxidation, and reforming are the three basic
processes in biomass gasication [1]. Pyrolysis is the thermal
decomposition of fuel in the absence of oxygen. At about 600 K,
pyrolysis produces light volatiles, charcoal, and tars [14]. At higher
temperatures of about 1000 K, the tar cracks to produce volatiles
such as hydrocarbons, carbon oxides, hydrogen, and steam. Under
partial oxidation, the xed carbon is oxidized to produce oxidized
products. Reforming in the presence of steam involves reactions
between charcoal and other secondary products with steam to
produce CO and H2; therefore, biomass gasication produces
volatiles, partially oxidized products, and CO and H2 after steam
reforming.
In a xed-bed gasier, the gasication processes occur in four
different zones [15] known as combustion or oxidation, gasication
or reduction, de-volatilization or pyrolysis, and drying. See Fig. 1. In
the oxidation zone the oxygen and the steam react with the
remaining char from the reduction zone to produce CO2, CO, H2,
and heat. The heat produced in the oxidation zone is carried up by
convection and diffusion to the higher zones to supply the energy
required in gasication, pyrolysis, and drying. In the reduction
zone, the CO2 and H2, produced in the combustion zone by the
reactions C O2 / CO2 and C H2O / CO H2, and the remaining
H2O from the combustion zone react with char that descends from
the pyrolysis zone to produce more CO, CH4, and H2. The homogeneous reactions of CO with steam occur in downstream zones.
In 1987, gasication of Texas lignite coal was studied by Rhinehart
et al. [16] in a pilot-scale uidized bed reactor at 810 kPa using

a mixture of pure oxygen and steam, preheated at 800 K as an

oxidizer.
In 1980, Raman et al. [17] studied the effect of the temperature
on yield, gas composition, and energy recovery of uidized gasication of FB using a mixture of gases produced by combustion of
propane with air. They concluded that increasing the temperature
in the gasier improved yield and energy recovery. A typical gas
composition reported at 960 K was: w28% H2, w27% CO, w18% CH4
and w13%CO2.
A modeling study to estimate the feasibility of producing energy
from non-adiabatic gasication of DB was developed by Young et al.
[6] in 2003. Results of performance calculations indicated Energy
Conversion Efciency (ECE) ranging from 65 to 85%, depending on
the operating conditions.
3. Experiments
3.1. Experimental facility
Fig. 2 shows a schematic of the gasier that was used in the
experiments discussed in this paper. The gasier was a 10 kW batchtype, counter-current, xed-bed reactor. It was constructed from
castable alumina refractory tube with an inner and outer diameter
of 13.9 cm (600 ) and 24.5 cm (1000 ) respectively. The refractory tube
was surrounded by 4.45 cm (1.7500 ) of insulating blanket in order to
minimize heat losses. The blanket was enclosed within a steel outer
tube with an inner diameter of 34.3 cm (13.500 ). The total height of
the gasier was 72 cm. An ash evacuation system was built so that
experiments could be run continuously with periodic ash disposal.
Furthermore, a conical gyratory cast iron grate, drilled with a large
number of 6.35 mm holes, was coupled to a pneumatic vibrator of
variable frequency so that the grate could be maintained in
continuous vibration. The steam was generated by a steam generator built with a cylindrical 10 cm internal diameter vessel heated
by a variable power (0.11.2 kW) tape-type heating element rolled
around the vessel. The rate of steam (0.11.5 kg h1) was controlled
by changing the power supplied to the heating element. The facility
had provisions to withdraw samples from different ports placed
along the gasier. The sampling unit was composed of two
condensers refrigerated with cold water (0  C) to condense out the
tar and the steam. The sampling unit also had a ltration system to
retain the particulate material. The temperature of the bed was
measured every 10 s using K-type thermocouples placed at 8 locations along the gasiers axis.

CO
CO2
CH4
H2
N2

Fuel

~373-450K
Wet Biomass + Heat = steam
+dry Biomass
CO+H2O=CO2+H2

~450-900K
Dry Biomass + Heat= Volatiles + Char
+tar, CO+H2O=CO2+H2

GAS
Drying
Pyrolysis
Reduction

Inert heating
Temperature ~900-1100K
C+H2O = CO+H2
C+CO2= 2CO
C+2H2=CH4

Oxidation
Energy Generated
Temperature ~1100 K
C+O2=CO2
C+1/2O2=CO
C+H2O = CO+H2

Air+ Steam

Fig. 1. Fixed-bed gasication zones.

G. Gordillo et al. / Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 27892797

2791

Fig. 2. Schematic of gasication facility.

3.2. Experimentation procedure

4. Modeling

Typical experiments started with preheating the gasier with

a propane torch placed under the grate in order to heat the grate
and the combustion chamber. When the temperature at a location
2 cm above the grate reached 800  C, after about 2 h, the torch was
turned off and biomass was added to the gasier. The addition of
biomass continued until the bed height was 17 cm. Subsequently,
the fuel port was closed and the ows of steam and air were
adjusted to the desired experimental conditions. As the biomass
was pyrolyzed and the char was gasied and burned, the bed height
decreased and the ash accumulated. Thus, biomass was added
every 10 min and in batches as required. The temperature prole in
the bed was also tested. In the earlier batch experiments by
Priyadarsan et al. [5], there was no ash disposal system; therefore,
the temperature peak shifted towards the bed surface due to ash
accumulation at the bottom of the gasier. In the experiments
discussed here, the ash was disposed off periodically using
a vibrator at the bottom of the grate in order to maintain the peak
temperature at the same location in the ash disposal system. When
the temperatures achieved steady state, in about 1.5 h, the gas
sampling unit was turned on and the gas analysis was performed
continuously by a mass spectrometer (MS) for 20 min. The experimental operating conditions are shown in Table 1.
Prior to presenting the results of these experimental procedures,
modeling results will be presented so that the experimental data
can be interpreted with the theory used in predictions.

Typically, gasication of biomass with air yields principally

a mixture of gases whose compounds are CO2, CO, CH4, H2, and N2.
Other compounds are produced in trace amounts. The molar
composition of these ve products under gasication conditions can
be predicted using (i) mass (or atom) and energy conservation
equations for assumed species and (ii) chemical equilibrium calculations with a larger number of species, including trace species.

Table 1
Experimental operating conditions.
Parameter
Fuel
Pressure (kPa)
Air temperature (K)
Steam temperature (K)
ERM
ASTR
Bed height (cm)
Gases measured
Particulate size (mm)

DB
100
298
373
1.004.00
0.300.60
17
CO, CO2, CH4, N2, H2, and C2H6
6.35

4.1. Atom balance model

Complete combustion (theoretical or stochiometric combustion) of any fuel containing C, H, N, O, and S, with air, means that all
the combustible components in the fuel are burned completely
with oxygen to yield sensible energy.

CHh Oo Nn Ss aO2 /bCO2 cH2 O dSO2

(1)

On the other hand, if insufcient air is supplied to the gasier for

partial oxidation of the fuel, which yields a low Btu gas mixture.
Many times, steam is also used in gasication in order to promote
steam reforming reaction to produce H2-rich gas mixtures.

CHh Oo Nn Ss eO2 3:76N2 f H2 O

/gCO2 hCO iCH4 jH2 S kN2 lH2

(2)

Equivalence ratio (ER), which is the ratio of the actual fuelair

ratio to the theoretical fuelair ratio, denes the rich and lean
regions of the reaction. In processes where the oxidizer used in
gasication is a mixture of air and the steam, the equivalence ratio
(ER) denition is modied as stochiometric oxygen to actual
oxygen supplied by both air and steam. Eq. (3) denes the modied
equivalence ratio (ERM) used in this paper.

ERM

stoichiometric oxygen
2a

actual oxygen
2e f

(3)

The oxygen split between the airsteam mixtures in the gasication processes depends on the ratio between the oxygen supplied
by the air to total oxygen supplied by both air and steam (ASTR).

2792

ASTR

G. Gordillo et al. / Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 27892797

e
2e
ERM
2e f
a

(4)

The denition provided by Eq. (4) yields a nite range of ASTR

from 0 (gasication only with steam, e 0) to 1 (gasication of DAF
biomass only with air, f 0).
Under adiabatic gasication, the energy conservation can be
represented by Eq. (5).

X
 
Nk;p hk;p Tp
Nk;R hk;R TR

(5)

where Nk,p and hk,p are the moles and enthalpies of the products at
temperature Tp and Nk,R and hk,R the moles and enthalpies of the
reactants at temperature TR. Eqs. (3)(5) together with equations
obtained from the atom balance of the ve elements of the fuel (C, H,
O, N, and S) dene a system of 8 equation and 8 unknown (e to l) in
Eq. (2) that can be solved to get the moles of CO2, CH4, H2, CO, N2, and
H2S as a function of the adiabatic temperature (Tp) in Eq. (5), ERM, and
ASTR. Annamalai et al. [18] used this method for 3 reactants (fuel, O2,
and steam) and 4 products (CO2, H2, N2, and SO2). Once solved for the
products species, the HHV of the gases and the Energy conversion
efciency (ECE) of the gasier are calculated with Eqs. (6) and (7).

HHVGases XCO *HHVCO XCH4 *HHVCH4 XH2 *HHVH2

(6)

where Xi and HHVi are mole fraction and gross heating value
(kJ SATP m3, Standard Ambient Temperature and Pressure (SATP)
meter cubed) on a dry basis of the fuel gases respectively, i CO,
CH4, and H2. HHVGases is the energy density (kJ SATP m3) of the
product gases on a dry basis.

hGas;E

HHVGases
NFuel *HHVFuel Nsteam *18fl 4:18373  298g

(7)

where, NFuel and Nsteam correspond to the moles of fuel and steam
supplied, respectively, to the gasier by each SATP m3 of dry product
gases and l is the enthalpy of vaporization. HHVFuel is the gross heat
value (kJ kmol1 of DAF fuel) of the fuel and hGas;E is the ECE.
4.2. Equilibrium model under adiabatic gasication
Equilibrium modeling has also been used to estimate the adiabatic dry gas composition for about 150 species in the product gas.
The NASA equilibrium code PC version was used to solve for species
without the presence of H2O(g) in the products and adiabatic
temperature. Atom and equilibrium modeling is developed under
the operating conditions shown in Table 2.

the ultimate analyses, empirical formulae can also be derived as

shown in Table 3 [19,20].
Prior to presenting experimental data, modeling results are
presented since they provide the required range of experimental
parameters (ERM and ASTR) for the gasication experiments.
5.2. Atom balance model
5.2.1. Effect of ERM
The effect of the ERM on species production is shown on Fig. 3
for ASTR at 0.25 and temperature at 800 K. Increasing ERM at
constant temperature and at constant ASTR implies lesser oxygen
(lesser air and steam) supplied to the gasier; hence, the oxidation
of char takes place in a decient O2H2O ambient, which produces
mixtures rich in CO. Also, since less C leaves with CO and CO2 under
increased ERM, more C must leave with CH4 and hence more H
atoms must be with CH4. Less H atoms are available for conversion
to H2. Fig. 3 states that the ERM must be kept below about 4 for DB
and WYC, 3.5 for TXL, and 8.5 for FB during the experiments with
ASTR at 0.25 in order to produce H2 at 800 K.
5.2.2. Effect of ASTR
The results from the atom balance model on production of CO,
CH4, and H2 are presented in Fig. 4 as a function of ASTR at xed ER
of 2 and temperature of 800 K.
The decreasing of the ASTR at xed ERM implies increased atoms
of hydrogen supplied to the reactor which leads to increased CH4
and H2 and low contents of CO and CO2. The curves of Fig. 4 suggest
that at constant ERM and constant temperature, H2 can be produced
within 0 < ASTR < 1. In other words, it is possible to produce H2 by
gasication of biomass with air, steam or steamair mixtures.
The atom model shows that the effect of changes in ERM on H2 is
more signicant than changes in ASTR. The production of CO and CH4
is possible only under certain conditions. For instance, to produce CO
with DB at ERM 2 and Tp 800 K, the ASTR must be maintained
higher than 0.3, while the production of CH4 with FB is possible only
for ASTR lower than 0.35. Alternatively, the atom model shows that
the production of CH4 and CO is very sensitive to changes of all
parameters (ER, ASTR and Tp). Additionally, the curves in Figs. 3 and 4
illustrate that under the same conditions of operation of the gasier
(Tp, ERM, and ASTR), FB is better than other biomasses to produce H2
but it is not as good as the coals and DB to produce CH4. This is due to
higher hydrogen content (dry ash free basis) in FB as compared with
TXL, WYC, and DB (Table 3, empirical formula).
5.3. Equilibrium model

5. Results and discussion

5.1. Fuel properties
Ultimate and proximate analyses were conducted on TXL, WYC,
DB, and FB. Results of these fuel analyses are shown in Table 3. From
Table 2
Modeling operating conditions.
Parameter
Fuels
Pressure (kPa)
Air temperature (K)
Steam temperature (K)
ERM
ASTR
Adiabatic temperature (K)a
a

Only for atom balance.

DB, FB, WYC, and TXL

100
298
373
2.005.00
0.200.80
6001500

The equilibrium model provides information on gas composition, HHV of gases, and energy recovery as functions of the ERM and
ASTR. Although, the study was performed for about 150 species,
only signicant species are reported here.
As discussed before, decreasing ASTR at constant ERM decreases
the air to steam ratio supplied to the gasier and there are more H
atoms available, which favor reactions of C with steam and H2 and
CO with steam. Hence, the production of CH4 and H2 is increased
but the production of CO is diminished (Fig. 5). However, at
ERM 2, ASTRs > 0.4 and ASTRs > 0.6 do not affect the production
of CO from FB and TXL and DB, respectively.
Increasing ERM at constant ASTR implies decreasing the oxygen
supplied with the air. Thus, there is less oxygen to produce CO from
the reaction of carbon and oxygen that is exothermic resulting in
lower temperatures not high enough for H2 to be stripped from H2O
in the steam reforming reaction. The effect of ERM on concentrations
of CO and H2 for DB and FB are illustrated in Fig. 6 at various ASTRs.

G. Gordillo et al. / Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 27892797

2793

Table 3
Ultimate and proximate analysis on an as-received basis.
Fuel Name

Texas lignite (TXL)

Wyoming coal (WYC)

Dairy biomass (DB)

Feedlot biomass (FB)

Dry loss %
Ash %
VM %
FC %
C%
H%
N%
O%
S%
HHV (kJkJ kg1)
DAF HHV (kJ kg1)
Dry HHV (kJ kg1)
Empirical formulae
ER at which FC / CO
Air:fuel ratio FC / CO

38.3
11.5
24.8
25.4
37.2
2.1
0.68
9.6
0.61
14,290
28,466
23,175
CH0.68N0.0157O0.19S0.006
3.2
1.6

22.8
5.5
34.5
37.3
54.1
3.4
0.81
13.1
0.39
21,385
29,809
27,704
CH0.76N0.013O0.18S0.003
3.2
1.6

25.3
15.0
46.8
13.0
35.3
3.1
1.9
19.1
0.42
12,844
21,482
17,185
CH1.06N0.047O0.405S0.0045
5.8
0.87

22.3
16.4
50.1
11.2
32.7
3.3
1.9
22.8
0.52
12,788
20,875
16,462
CH1.23N0.05O0.523S0.006
6.1
0.81

The FB has more oxygen and hydrogen in the fuel compared to

DB; the availability of O in the fuel results in more production of CO
which promotes the shift reaction of CO with steam to produce H2
and CO2. Additionally, more H in the fuel raises the production of
H2. Fig. 6 shows that the production of H2 with DB and FB is possible
at 0.2 < ASTR < 0.8 and 2 < ER < 6, while the production of CO with
DB is only possible for ERM > w0.20. Due to the higher hydrogen
content in FB, the production of CO is even possible at lower ERM as
compared to that of DB.
Table 4 contains the compositions of CH4, CO, and H2 estimated
for atom balance and equilibrium model at ERM 2 and ASTR 0.4.
Although, the equilibrium model includes more species as
compared to that of the atom model, the maximum difference is
only (6.98%) for FB.
The HHV of the products estimated by equilibrium are illustrated in Fig. 7 for TXL, DB, and FB at many ASTRs and ERM 2 and
8. As stated before, at constant ER decreased ASTRs produce
mixtures richer in CH4 and H2, which have higher HHVs. While the
HHV with steam and air gasication provides a measure of energy
density, it does not provide a measure of degree of energy
conversion (energy recovery) in gasication processes.
The rise of the ASTR results in decreased energy recovery
(Fig. 8), but at higher ERM the decrease is not much. At constant

ASTR, higher ERM implies lesser mass ow of air to react with char
and the process is almost pure pyrolysis (production of char), which
produces a lesser mass of gases per kg of fuel resulting in lower
energy recovery. Generally, methane and hydrogen rich mixtures
have greater HHV and provide better energy conversion efciency,
since the methane is a gas with higher energy density
(36,250 kJ m3) as compared to CO (11,543 kJ m3).
6. Experimental results
In this section, experimental results on bed temperature prole
and gas composition of almost adiabatic gasication of DB with air
and airsteam mixtures are presented. The adiabaticity of the
reactor has been checked by determining the overall heat transfer
coefcient (U) and estimating the heat loss; the U was measured by
letting the reactor cool down after the experiment and documenting the change of temperature. Details are given in [21]. As
discussed before, the gases were analyzed in real time and
continuously using a MS for 20 min. In order to estimate the
uncertainty in the gas composition a standard deviation analysis
was conducted on the data. The uncertainty for each gas was
calculated as the ratio between the standard deviation and the
average value measured. Additionally, the uncertainty of the
0.5

0.8
CO
CH4
H2
CO2

0.6

WYC

TXL

DB

0.4

FB

WYC

0.35

0.5
FB

0.4
FB

DB

0.3

FB

WYC

0.3

DB

TXL
WYC

0.25

TXL
FB

0.2

DB

0.15

DB

0.2

FB

DB

0.1

0.1
0

H2
CH4
CO
CO2

0.45

Mole Fraction

0.7

Mole fraction

TXL

DB
TXL

WYC
WYC

FB

WYC

0.05

TXL

DB
TXL

FB

ERm
Fig. 3. Effect of the ERM on CO, CO2, CH4 and H2 production for FB, DB, TXL, and WYC
with ASTR at 0.25 and temperature at 800 K, estimated with atom balance.

0.1

0.2

WYC

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

TXL

0.7

0.8

ASTR
Fig. 4. Effect of the ASTR on CO, CH4, CO2 and H2 production for FB, DB, TXL, and WYC
with ERM at 2 and temperature at 800 K, estimated with atom balance.

2794

G. Gordillo et al. / Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 27892797

0.45

Table 4
Comparison of gas composition (mole fraction) between atom model and equilibrium model for DB and FB.

CO
0.40

H2
FB

CH4

0.35

Mole fraction

0.30

Fuel

Parameter

Equilibrium

Atom balance

Difference %

Feedlot biomass

Temperature (K)
ERM
ASTR
CH4
CO
H2

905
2
0.4
0.01364
0.11471
0.38848

905
2
0.4
0.0128
0.1161
0.3906

6.98
1.20
0.54

Temperature (K)
ERM
ASTR
CH4
CO
H2

823
2
0.4
0.06794
0.06432
0.30571

823
2
0.4
0.06671
0.06651
0.3083

1.84
3.40
0.85

TXL
DB

0.25

Dairy biomass

0.20

TXL
DB

0.15
FB

0.10
0.05

DB
FB

0.00

0.2

0.3

TXL

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

ASTR
Fig. 5. Effect of the ASTR on production of H2, CO, and CH4 for FB, DB, and TL with ERM
at 2, estimated with equilibrium model.

temperatures was estimated as the ratio between the uncertainty

of the device (1.5  C) and the value measure. In general the
uncertainty in the gases lies within w14% and the temperature
within w0.6% of the values measured and discussed in this study.
Unless otherwise specied, the values of temperature and gas
composition discussed in this paper correspond to the average
measured during the 20 min of each experiment (steady state
conditions).
6.1. Temperature prole results
Fig. 9 shows the temperature prole (non-steady state) for DB
obtained at t 60 min for gasication with air and airsteam.
During the experiment, the bed height was kept at 17 cm by feeding
cold DB and discharging ash through the grate. Hence, the
temperature at the surface of the bed was measured to be about
0.45

570 K for gasication with airsteam at ERM 1.8 and ASTR 0.38.
The DB gradually moved down, heated up, and released water vapor
rst and then pyrolysates at higher temperatures. The Thermal
gravimetric analysis (TGA) curve of DB shown in [14] indicates that
pyrolysis starts occurring at 570600 K. The average temperature
(470  C) shown in Fig. 9 is the integrated average temperature for
the bed at ERM 1.8 and ASTR 0.38 (gasication with airsteam
mixture). Since O2 and H2O are available at the bottom of bed, most
of the oxidation occurs near the bottom of the bed resulting in
temperatures of about 808  C (peak temperature), which correspond to particle temperature of char producing CO and H2 by
reaction of char with steam and oxygen. For negligible steam carbon
reaction and considering only reaction of C with O2, the temperature
of the particle under diffusion controlled and negligible reduction
losses can be derived as:



cp Tp  TN
B
hc;I

(14)

where Tp particle temperature, B YO2N/nO2,5, nO2,5 1.33 [20],

and cp is the specic heat of the oxidizer at average temperature
((Tp TN)/2)). For instance, for the ASTR of 0.38 (cp of
air 1.1 kJ kg1 K1, cp of the steam 2.07 kJ kg1 K1, cp of
mixture 1.35 kJ kg1 K1, YO2N 0.17, and hc,I 9204 kJ kg1). The
Tp is estimated as 1270 K, which corresponds to a higher value than
the measured value (1081 K or 808  C) at the bottom bed, Fig. 9. The
lower experimental temperature (1081 K) compared to that

CO, DB
0.40

H2, DB
ERm=2

0.35

ERM = 2

CO, FB

ERM = 8

9000

HHV (kJ m-3)

ERm=2

0.25
ERm=6

0.20

ERm=6

0.15
ERm=2

0.10
0.05

DB

7000
FB
FB

TX L

ERm=2

0.2

DB

8000

6000

ERm=6

0.00

10000

ERm=6

0.30

Mole Fraction

11000

H2, FB

TX L

5000
0.4

0.6

0.8

ASTR

4000

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

ASTR
Fig. 6. Effect of the ERM and ASTR on production of H2 and CO for DB and FB, estimated
with equilibrium model.

Fig. 7. Effect of the ASTR and ERM on HHV for DB, FB and TXL.

G. Gordillo et al. / Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 27892797

1200

1
ERM = 2
ERM = 8

0.8
TX L

0.7
FB
FB
DB

900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200

0.5

100
0

TX L

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

ASTR

evaluated with Eq. (14) (1270 K), indicates that the char may react
with both O2 and steam at the bottom of the bed to produce CO and
H2. When the steam carbon reaction is included in the model and if
diffusion limited to heterogeneous reactions is assumed, the estimated Tp must be lower than that of the experimental data.
From Fig. 9, it is evident that the peak temperature, which
coincides with the char oxidation zone of the bed, is higher for
gasication with air than that for gasication with airsteam
mixtures. The reason is that in gasication with air, there is no
steam at the bed bottom and the char reacts only with O2 to
produce CO2 and CO. However, the CO produced by heterogeneous
oxidation in the bed bottom may still react with the moisture of the
fuel downstream to produce CO2 and H2. The H2 production with air
only has been veried in the past by [5] when gasifying wet feedlot
biomass (FB) with pure air as the oxygen source. The maximum
temperature measured for ER 1.6 (1353 K or 1080  C) is slightly
greater than that equivalent to ER 1.9 (1298 K or 1025  C) because
lower ERMs imply more air available to react with the char to
produce both CO and CO2. Nevertheless, the model accounts only
for CO production.
The temperature prole of gasication of WYC [22] and DB
which have 37.3% and 13.0% of xed carbon, respectively (Table 3)
are represented in the Fig. 10 for comparison purposes. The
1200

1080

1000

Average Temp = 470 C

1025
808

800
600
400
ERm = 1.6
ERm = 1.9

200

ERm = 1.8, ASTR = 0.38

0
0

10

12

14

16

18

10

12

14

16

18

20

Distance above of the grate (cm)

Fig. 10. Temperature prole for DB and WYC gasication only with air at time interval
of 60 min with ERM 1.6, WYC curve adapted from [22].

Fig. 8. Effect of the ASTR and ERM on energy recovery for DB, FB and TXL.

Temperature (C)

WC

1000

DB

0.6

DB

1100

Temperature Profile (C)

Energy Recovery Fraction

0.9

0.4

2795

20

Distance above of the grate (cm)

Fig. 9. Temperature prole for DB gasication with only air at ERm 1.6 and ERm 1.9
and airsteam at ERM 1.8 and ASTR 0.38 measured at a time interval of 60 min.

comparison of those fuels, under the same gasication operating

conditions (air gasication at ERM 1.6), shows that the peak
temperature and the combustion zone of WYC are higher and
wider, respectively, than that of DB. For WYC the combustion zone
is 4 cm thick and is located from 2 to about 6 cm above of the grate
while for DB it is only 1 cm thick and is located at 4 cm above of the
grate. The wider combustion zone of WYC as compared with that of
DB is due to higher FC content in WYC than in DB. On the other
hand, the temperature of DB starts lower (at 2 cm above the grate)
than the temperature of WYC as a consequence of high ash content
in DB. The little difference between the two peak temperatures
indicates that the O2 available at 4 cm above the grate was similar
for the two cases. According to Eq. (14), the particle temperature
depends on the O2 mass fraction, cp of the gas mixture, and type of
product, either CO or CO2.
Steady state temperature proles of air-DB gasication are
presented in Fig. 11 for ERM 1.45 and 1.9. The data follow the trend
expected, increasing ERM implies decreasing the O2/C ratio available in the combustion zone; therefore, the reaction of char with O2
occurs in a poor O2 ambient which favors the formation of CO
instead of CO2. More C atoms producing CO implies lesser C available to produce CO2 and hence lower heat released per C mass unit,
which leads to lower peak temperatures in the combustion zone.
The temperature prole of airsteam gasication of DB under
steady state operating conditions is illustrated in Fig. 12 for various
ERMs and ASTRs. It is apparent that both ERM and ASTR affected the
bed temperature prole and the data follow the trend that would
be expected. As discussed before, decreasing ASTR and increasing
ERM implies more steam and more air in the gasier respectively.
Higher amounts of steam tend to favor the endothermic steam
reforming reaction and to increase the cp of the mixture, and more
air tends to improve the formation of CO2 along with the sensible
heat of the gases. Therefore, the bed temperature in the gasier falls
as ASTR at xed ERM decreases. The curve shows that the peak
temperature increases with increasing ASTR and with decreasing
ERM, respectively.
Comparing the steady state temperature proles of Figs. 11 and
12, it can be seen that the peak temperatures of gasication of DB
with airsteam are lower than those of gasication with only air. As
discussed earlier, one of the principal reasons is that in gasication
with airsteam part of the steam available in the combustion region
reacts with char to produce H2 and CO. More C atoms reacting with

2796

G. Gordillo et al. / Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 27892797

1200

ERM = 1.45

1000

Temperature (C)

Table 5
Gas composition and high heating value of gases of DB gasication with airsteam at
ERM 1.5 and various ASTR.

1099
998

Gas composition mole fraction (dry basis)

800
600
400

ERM = 1.9

200
0

Species

ASTR 0.7

ASTR 0.8

CO
CO2
CH4
C2H6
H2
N2
HHV (kJ m3)
HHV (kJ kg-1)
(HHVgas/HHVCH4)a

0.119
0.161
0.016
0.004
0.186
0.513
4408
4185
0.0754

0.109
0.154
0.010
0.005
0.150
0.573
3665
3542
0.0638

10

15

20

25

30

Mass basis.

Distance above of Grate (cm)

Fig. 11. Steady state temperature prole along of the gasier axis for gasication with
air only at ERM 1.45 and ERM 1.90.

steam (C H2O / CO H2) leads to lower peak temperatures since

this reaction is endothermic.
6.2. Gas composition results
In this section, results obtained on gas composition of gasication of DB with air and airsteam mixtures are presented. As
acknowledged in Section 4, the gas composition was monitored
using a mass spectrometer at the top of the gasier in continuous
real time. Table 5 shows the mole fraction of products obtained by
gasication of DB with airsteam mixtures for ERM at 1.5 and two
ASTRs (0.7 and 0.8). The results indicate that the ASTR has a greater
effect on the production of H2 than on the production of CO. For
example, for gasication with airsteam mixture (ASTR 0.8) the
mole fraction of the H2 is about 15%, while for gasication with air
steam mixture (ASTR 0.7) the mole fraction of H2 is about 19%. As
mentioned before, the higher the concentration of steam in the
gasier, the higher the production of H2 from heterogeneous
reaction C H2O and the homogeneous reaction CO H2O. It is
evident that the difference in H2 concentrations (9%) between
gasication with airsteam (ASTR 0.7) and only air at ERM 1.5
(Table 6) is caused by the heterogeneous reaction C H2O; since,
for gasication only with air there is no H2O in the bottom of the
bed for the reaction C H2O to occur. Using interpolation in Fig. 6,
the equilibrium concentration of H2 for ASTR 0.7 and ERM 1.5
1200
1000

Temperature (C)

ASTR = 0.5; ERm = 2

1021

ASTR = 0.6; ERm = 2

ASTR = 0.7; ERm = 1.5

914

800

would be about 25%. This value does not agree with the measured
(19%) because the equilibrium model presumes an innite time to
produce H2. However, both modeling and experimentation show
that the production of H2 decreases when the ASTR is increased (i.e.
steam ow is decreased). On the other hand, the experimental
results show that the mole fraction of CO was almost constant (11
12%) for gasication using airsteam mixtures. The equilibrium
model shows (Fig. 6) that gasication of DB at constant ERM 2 is
not affected by ASTRs higher than 0.6. Other hydrocarbons such as
C2H6 and CH4 appear in small amounts and tend to increase with
decreased ASTR. The composition of CH4 and C2H6 under the
operating conditions given in Table 5 ranged between 0.5 and 1.6%
and 0.2 and 0.5%, respectively.
Results on gas composition for gasication of DB using only air
as oxidizer are presented in Table 6 as a function of ERM. As discussed before with increased ERM, there is lesser O2 in the bottom
of the bed for the char-O2 reaction which tends to increase the
production of CO since the combustion of char is almost diffusion
controlled [20]. In general, increasing the ERM produces mixtures
richer in CO but poorer in CO2 and H2. For instance, increasing the
ERM from 1.45 to 1.9 increases the CO concentrations by about 50%
and decreases the CO2 and H2 by about 32% and 33%. The data on
CH4, and C2H6 for gasication of DB with only air showed an
inconsistent trend; however, the highest values occurred at
ERM 1.9. See Table 6.
The results from Table 5 show that the HHV of the gases is also
affected by changes in the ASTR. Gasication under richer steam
conditions (decreased ASTRs) produced gas mixtures with higher
energy density. It is evident that the energy density (4408 kJ m3)
of gases produced by gasication of DB with airsteam mixture
(ASTR 0.7) is about 24% higher than that of gasication with only
air (3384 kJ m3). Using interpolation in Fig. 7 the energy density of
the gases estimated by the equilibrium model at ERM 1.5 and

ASTR = 0.8; ERm = 1.5

724

Table 6
Gas composition and high heating value of gases of DB gasication with air at
various ERM.

632
600

Gas composition mole fraction (dry basis)

400
200
0

10 12 14

16 18 20 22 24 26 28

Distance above of the grate (cm)

Fig. 12. Stable state temperature prole for DB gasication with airsteam as a function of ASTR and for ERM 1.5 and 2.

Species

ERM 1.45

ERM 1.5

ERM 1.90

CO
CO2
CH4
C2H6
H2
N2
HHV(kJ m3)
HHV(kJ kg1)
(HHVgas/HHVCH4)a

0.154
0.151
0.013
0.004
0.107
0.571
3770
3361
0.0601

0.160
0.155
0.005
0.002
0.103
0.575
3384
3122
0.0562

0.230
0.101
0.020
0.015
0.072
0.563
5149
4549
0.0819

Mass basis.

G. Gordillo et al. / Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 27892797

ASTR 0.7 is abut 5300 kJ m3, which corresponds to a higher

value (17%) as compared to the energy density obtained by experimentation (4408 kJ m3). However, experimental results show
a similar effect of ASTR on HHV or energy density as that obtained
in the equilibrium model.
The HHV of gases produced by gasication of DB with air are
presented in Table 6. It is apparent that the trends of the data on
HHV are not consistent due principally to the inconsistency in the
trend of the concentration of hydrocarbons with the ERM. As discussed earlier, the HHV of gases is strongly affected by the hydrocarbon content which has higher gross heating value as compared
to the HHV of the H2 and CO.
7. Conclusions
1. Both modeling and experimental results showed that biomass
gasication under rich conditions (oxidizer decient reactant
mixtures) yield poor hydrogen mixtures, while mixtures rich
with steam produce rich hydrogen mixtures, improving the
HHV of species and the energy conversion efciencies.
2. At 800 K and at prescribed ER and ASTR, the simple atom
balance method predicts almost the same composition for the
major species as that of the equilibrium method, which
involves an iterative method involving a large number of
species. Inclusion of water-gas shift equilibrium reactions in
the atom balance method may further improve the result (this
work is in progress).
3. It is apparent from modeling results that for the same operating
conditions (same ERs and ASTR), FB and DB produce H2 more
than WYC, and TXL, but the coals are better if more production
of CO is desired.
4. The efciencies of energy conversion are slightly higher for
adiabatic gasication of cattle biomasses (FB and DB) than coals
under similar conditions of operation.
5. The measured temperature at the bottom of the bed seems to
indicate the production of CO and H2. Addition of steam
essentially increases the cp of the mixture and decreases peak
bed temperature.
6. Experimental results on prole temperatures suggest that the
peak temperatures measured at the bottom of the bed
responded linearly to changes in the ASTR and ER.
Acknowledgements
The nancial support from the Department of Energy (DOE),
Golden, Colorado, under Grant #DE-FG36-05GO85003 is gratefully
acknowledged.

2797

References
[1] Klass DL. Biomass for renewable energy, fuels, and chemicals. San Diego:
Academic Press; 1998.
[2] Annamalai K, Sweeten JM, Freeman M, Mathur M, ODowd W, Walbert G, et al.
Co-ring of coal and cattle biomass (FB) fuels. Part III: fouling result from
a 500,000 Btu/h pilot plant scale burner. Fuel 2003;82:1195200.
[3] Sami M, Annamalai K, Wooldridge M. Co-ring of coal and biomass fuel
blends. J Prog Energy Combust Sci 2001;27:171214.
[4] Carlin N, Annamalai K, Sweeten JM, Mukhtar S. Thermo-chemical conversion
analysis on dairy manure-based biomass through direct combustion. Int J
Green Energy 2007;4:127.
[5] Priyadarsan S, Annamalai K, Sweeten JM, Holtzapple M. Co-gasication of
blended coal with feedlot and chicken litter biomass. Proc Combust Inst
2005;30:297380.
[6] Young L, Pian C. High temperature, air-blown gasication of dairy-farm wastes
for energy production. J Energy 2003;28:65572.
[7] Jangsawang W, Klimanek A, Gupta AK. Enhanced yield of hydrogen from
wastes using high temperature steam gasication. J Energy Res Technol
2006;128:17985.
[8] Ferdous D, Dalai AK, Bej SK, Thring RW. Production of H2 and medium heating
value gas via steam gasication of lignins in xed-Bed reactors. J Can Chem
Eng 2001;79:91322.
[9] Galloway T, Waidl J, Annamalai K, Sweeten JM, Tomlinson T, Weigle D. Energy
resources recovery applications using gasication and steam reforming. In: Biannual incineration and thermal alternatives, New Orleans, Conference; 2002..
[10] Kalisz S, Lucas C, Jansson A, Blasiak W, Szewczyk D. Continuous high
temperature air/steam gasication (HTAG) of biomass. In: Sixth International
conference on science in thermal and chemical biomass conversion, Victoria,
Canada; 2004.
[11] Gil J, Corella J, Azner MP, Caballero MA. Biomass gasication in atmospheric
and bubbling uidized bed: effect of the type of gasifying agent on the product
distribution. J Biomass Bioenergy 1999;17:389403.
[12] Hobbs ML, Radulovic PT, Smoot LD. Combustion and gasication of coals in
xed-Bed. J Prog Energy Combust Sci 1993;19:50586.
[13] Hobbs ML, Radulovic PT, Smoot LD. Modeling xed-bed coal gasier. AIChe J
1992;38:681702.
[14] Lawrence B. Coring coal and dairy biomass in a 100,000 Btu/hr furnace,
Masters thesis, Texas A&M University; 2007.
[15] Priyadarsan S, Annamalai K, Sweeten JM, Mukhtar S, Holtzapple MT. Fixed
bed gasication of feedlot and poultry litter biomass. Trans ASAE
2005;47:168996.
[16] Rhinehart RR, Felder R, Ferrell J. Coal gasication in pilot-scale uidized bed
reactor. Gasication of Texas Lignite. J Ind Eng Chem Res 1987;26:204857.
[17] Raman KP, Walawender WP, Fan LT. Gasication of feedlot manure in a uidized bed reactor. The effect of temperature. J Ind Eng Chem Process Des Dev
1980;19:6239.
[18] Annamalai K, Priyadarsan S, Arumugam S, Sweeten JM. Energy conversion:
principles of coal, animal waste, and biomass fuels. Encyclopedia Energy Eng
Technol 2007;1(1):47697.
[19] Sweeten JM, Hein K, Annamalai K, Auvermann BW, McCollum FT, Parker DB.
Combustion-fuel properties of manure or compost from paved vs. un-paved
cattle. ASBAE annual international meeting, Portland, Oregon; 2006.
[20] Annamalai K, Puri I. Combustion science and engineering. 1st ed. CRC, Taylor &
Francis Group; 2007.
[21] Gorddillo G. Fixed bed counter-current low temperature gasication of dairy
biomass and coal-dairy biomass blends using air-steam as oxidizer. Ph.D.
thesis, intended for spring, Texas A&M University; 2009.
[22] Priyadarsan S. Fixed bed gasication studies on coalfeedlot biomass and
coalchicken litter biomass under batch mode operation. Masters thesis,
Texas A&M University; 2002.