Energy 27 (2002) 415–427

www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Gasification of hazelnut shells in a downdraft gasifier

a,*
M. Dogru , C.R. Howarth a, G. Akay a, B. Keskinler a, A.A. Malik b

a
Department of Chemical and Process Engineering, University of Newcastle, Newcastle NE1 7RU, UK
b
Waste to Energy Ltd, Eyston, Borley Green, Sudbury, Suffolk, UK

Abstract

The potential offered by biomass to reduce greenhouse gas production is now being more widely recog-
nised. The energy in biomass may be realised either by direct combustion use, or by upgrading into more
valuable and useable products such as gas, fuel oil and higher value products for utilisation in the chemical
industry or for clean power generation. Up till now, gasification work has concentrated on woody biomass
but recently sources of other biomass with large energy production potential have been identified, namely
hazelnut shells. Therefore, a pilot scale downdraft gasifier is used to investigate gasification potential of
hazelnut shells. A full mass balance is reported including the tar production rate as well as the composition
of the produced gas as a function of feed rate. Additionally, the effect of feed rate on the CV/composition
of the product gas and the associated variations of gasifier zone temperatures are determined with tempera-
tures recorded throughout the main zones of the gasifier and also at the gasifier outlet and gas cleaning
zones. Pressure drops are also measured across the gasifier and gas cleaning system because the produced
gas may be used in conjunction with a power production engine when it is important to have low pressure
drop in the system. The quality of the product gas is found to be dependent on the smooth flow of the
fuel and the uniformity of the pyrolysis, and so the difficulties, encountered during the experiments are
detailed. The optimum operation of the gasifier is found to be between 1.44 and 1.47 N m3/kg of air fuel
ratios at the values of 4.06 and 4.48 kg/h of wet feed rate which produces the producer gas with a good
GCV of about 5 MJ/m3 at a volumetric flow of 8–9 N m3/h product gas. It was concluded that hazelnut
shells could be easily gasified in a downdraft gasifier to produce good quality gas with minimum polluting
by-products. It is suggested that, in view of ease of operation, small-scale gasifiers can make an important
contribution to the economy of rural areas where the residues of nuts are abundant. It is also suggested
that gasification of shell waste products is a clean alternative to fossil fuels and the product gas can be
directly used in internal gas combustion engines, thus warranting further investment/encouragement by
authorities to exploit this valuable resource.  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-191-222-7276; fax: +44-191-222-5292.

E-mail address: murat.dogru@ncl.ac.uk (M. Dogru).

0360-5442/02/$ - see front matter  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 6 0 - 5 4 4 2 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 9 4 - 9
416 M. Dogru et al. / Energy 27 (2002) 415–427

1. Introduction

If biomass is gasified efficiently it can generate a high yield of clean product gas. The first
step to the process is a thermo-chemical decomposition of lignocellulosic compounds with pro-
duction of char, tar and volatile compounds [1]. The tar and char impairs the product gas quality
and a large number of research projects in the field of thermo-chemical conversion of biomass,
mainly on pyrolysis and gasification, have been carried out to try to understand the process. There
are, however, still problems associated with the realisation of the process and the utilisation of
the products that have been recently reviewed [2,3]. The comparison of the environmental impact
of biomass use in gasifiers and incinerators is very important when considering the effective use
of biomass.
Hazelnut shell can be one of the most important types of biomass for gasification, as it is an
abundant and important agricultural and commercial material in Turkey. At present, two-thirds
of the world production capacity of hazelnuts is provided by Turkey, with around 250 thousand
tons of hazelnut shells per year (equivalent to 4.63×109 MJ) produced in the Black-Sea region of
Turkey alone, equivalent to one-third of the combined capacity of nuts produced by America,
Italy and Spain, respectively [4]. Because hazelnut shells have only been used in simple combus-
tion conditions, little research has been carried out to investigate ‘burn-out’ data and there is
virtually no data available. Recent researches have been mainly concentrated on drying, pyrolysis
and liquefaction [4–6].
For this study, four types of nutshell mixtures from Trabzon–Turkey, Tombul, Palaz, Badem
and Sivri were utilised. Almost all of the fruits of this group are used in industry and traded as
shelled at international markets and the shell is normally regarded as a waste product [7]. Thus,
hazelnut shells may also be used in gasification systems to produce a low calorific value combust-
ible gas for clean energy production. The characterisation of hazelnut shell properties is important
for gasification system design. The most significant properties of any biomass that are known to
influence the gasification process are moisture content, size and shape, absolute and bulk density,
chemical composition (i.e. proximate and ultimate analysis) and the higher heating value.
The purpose of this study was to investigate gasification characteristics of hazelnut shells in a
pilot-scale (5 kWe — electrical output) downdraft gasifier. The ultimate objective is to direct use
of the product gas in an Internal Combustion Engine to produce electric power. In order to achieve
this, the pressure and temperature of the gas fed to this system are important. During the experi-
ments, temperatures recorded for each run are the drying zone, pyrolysis zone and throat zone of
the gasifier and also gasifier, scrubber and box filter outlet temperatures. An Analog to Digital
(ATD) converter linked to a computer was used to record these temperature data every 15 s. The
pressure drops were measured by means of pressure transducers at the gasifier, water scrubber
and box filter outlets. Additionally, the chemical composition, the flow rate, tar and condensate
content of the product gas as well as ash and char rate were also measured. Some of the minor
difficulties, encountered during the experiments, were recorded. However, it was concluded that
hazelnut shells were satisfactorily gasified in a downdraft gasifier.
 M. Dogru et al. / Energy 27 (2002) 415–427 417

2. Experimental set-up and procedure

2.1. Experimental set-up

In downdraft gasifiers, both the fuel and the gas flow downwards through the reactor enabling
the pyrolysis gases to pass through a throated hot bed of char which was supported by a grate.
This results in the cracking of most of the tars into non-condensable gases and water. Furthermore,
the air or oxygen enriched air is usually admitted to fuel bed through air intake nozzles causing
pyrolysis to charcoal and volatiles that partially burn as they are produced. The gaseous products
of this ‘flaming pyrolytic combustion’ then consume the charcoal produced during this pyrolysis
and are reduced to fuel gas. This gas is much more suitable for operation in clean gas burners,
Internal Combustion Engines, gas turbines and/or to transport the product gas in pipelines. Other
advantages of the downdraft gasifier are high char conversion, lower ash and tar carry over, quick
response to load change and simple construction. Higher gas outlet temperatures, difficulty of
scale up; ash fusion at high grate temperatures and fuel moisture limitations (less than 25%) are
the common disadvantages. However, compared to updraft gasifier types, on balance the lower
tar levels and response to load and fuel changes make this type of the gasifier most suitable in
a combined heat and power generation requirement especially in operation which require simul-
taneous drying and power.
As shown in Fig. 1, the downdraft gasifier has four distinct reaction zones, which are drying,
pyrolysis, oxidation and reduction zones from top to bottom (height of the bed (H)=810 mm,
diameter of the oxidation zone (D)=450 mm, diameter of the drying hopper zone (L)=305 mm,
diameter of the throat (d)=135 mm). In terms of the construction, this system is made of four
sections: a fuel hopper, a gasifier reaction zone, air feeding system and an ash removal box.
Schematic diagrams with a typical temperature profile and zones are shown in Figs. 1 and 2. In
general, as shown in Fig. 3, hardware of the experimental system essentially consists of a downd-
raft gasifier, packed-bed scrubber, filter box, circulation fan and a pilot burner.
In the drying zone, hazelnut shells descend into the gasifier and moisture is removed using the
heat generated in the zones below by evaporation. The rate of drying depends on the surface area
of the fuel, the temperature difference between the feed and the hot gases, the re-circulation
velocity and relative humidity of these gases as well as the internal diffusivity of moisture within
the fuel. The temperature and the height of drying zone are about 70–200°C and 0.10 m, respect-
ively.
In the pyrolysis zone, the irreversible thermal degradation of dried fuel descending from the
drying zone takes place using the thermal energy released by the partial oxidation of the pyrolysis
products. The temperature and the height of the pyrolysis zone are approximately 350–500°C
and 0.17 m.
In the oxidation zone, the volatile products of pyrolysis are partially oxidised in highly exother-
mic reactions resulting in a rapid rise in temperature up to 1200°C in the throat region. The heat
generated is used to drive the drying and pyrolysis of the fuel and the gasification reactions. The
oxidation reactions of the volatiles are very rapid and the oxygen is consumed before it can diffuse
to the surface of the char. Therefore, no combustion of the solid char can take place. Oxidation
of the condensable organic fraction to form lower molecular weight products is important in
418 M. Dogru et al. / Energy 27 (2002) 415–427

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of downdraft gasifier (5 kWe) and its temperature profile.

reducing the amount of tar produced by a gasifier. The temperature and the height of the oxidation
zone are approximately 1000–1200°C and 0.12 m.
In the reduction zone (often referred as gasification zone) the char is converted into product
gas by reaction with the hot gases from the upper zones. The gases are reduced to form a greater
proportion of H2, CO, CH4, C2H2 and C2H6. In this zone, the combustible gases leave the gasifier
at a temperature between 200 and 300°C and are loaded with dust, pyrolytic products (tar) and
water vapour. Depending in the end use, it is necessary to cool and clean the gas in order to
remove as much water vapour, dust and pyrolytic products as possible from the gas, especially
if it is to be used in an Internal Combustion Engine.
The packed-bed scrubber shown in Fig. 3 consists of water tank to re-circulate the spray and
a water spray packed-bed cooling tower. The product gases leave the scrubber cooled by up to
30°C and up to 80–90% tar, dust, fly ash and condensate content removed. After scrubbing the
product gas, it is further cleaned by a vertical filter box.
The filter box in Fig. 3 has two layers. Wood and charcoal are chosen as the filter medium so
that the contaminated filter can be re-cycled as fuel in subsequent use of the gasifier. To prevent
excessive pressure drop over the box filter, hazelnut shells and charcoal are thoroughly sieved to
remove any fines before they are placed in the filter trays. In the filter box, the charcoal tray
 M. Dogru et al. / Energy 27 (2002) 415–427 419

Fig. 2. Simulated picture of downdraft fixed bed-throated (5 kWe) gasifier.

occupies the lower tray while the dry nutshells are on the upper tray. Contaminated nutshells
were utilised in the gasifier for the following runs. Remaining tar and condensate from the product
gas are collected at the base of the box filter. Finally, a circulation fan shown in Fig. 3 was
utilised to draw the gases from the gasifier and blow them into the gas burner.

2.2. Operating procedure

The operation of the gasifier can be divided into four parts as follows.
(1) Start-up, which includes all operations required until a steady state, whereby the gas quality
for the engine is stable is reached. Pre-weighed batches of nut shells (approximately 20 kg) are
loaded into the hopper to a predetermined level, and then, the air fan and the water scrubber
circulation pump are switched on. The fuel is ignited on the grate using solid fuel igniters.
(2) The data measured are the wood flow rate, gas flow rate, gas composition analysis, tar and
condensate, temperature and pressure measurements. Temperatures were recorded with an ATD
converter every 15 s for inlet air, drying zone, pyrolysis zone, throat, scrubber and box filter
outlet. The pressure drops were also measured at the gasifier, water scrubber and box filter outlet.
The product gas flow rate was measured by a gas flow meter located after the suction fan and
420 M. Dogru et al. / Energy 27 (2002) 415–427

Fig. 3. Schematic figure of the experimental set-up (T1: throat (oxidation) zone temperature, T2: pyrolysis zone tem-
perature, T3: drying zone temperature, T4: gasifier outlet temperature, T5: scrubber outlet temperature, T6: box filter
outlet temperature, Pg: pressure drop across the gasifier, Ps: pressure drop across the scrubber, Pf: pressure drop across
the box filter, SP1: gas sampling point at the gasifier outlet, SP2: gas sampling point at the scrubber outlet, SP3: gas
sampling point at the box filter outlet.

the amounts of tar and condensate in the product gas were determined from gas samples taken
at the gasifier, water scrubber and box filter outlets.
(3) Shutdown procedure includes all the actions to safely seal the gasifier. Computer, water
scrubber, gasifier air nozzles, circulation fan and exhaust fan of boiler are shut down in an orderly
sequence with the off gas burner remaining on using a secondary natural gas burner until no
combustible gas is produced.
(4) For a full mass balance, cleanup procedure includes all procedures required to collect tar,
char, ash and condensate. After the reactor cooled down, the amounts of ash and char were
determined by collecting those from the ash chamber. Finally, the top plate of the gasifier was
opened so that all unused hazelnut shells were carefully removed and monitored. The average
feed rate of fuel was calculated by dividing the total hazelnut shells consumed by the total
operating time of the gasifier.

3. Results and discussions

3.1. Characteristics of hazelnut shells

Table 1 lists the physical properties, the proximate and ultimate analyses of hazelnut shell. The
physical properties define the particulate size, absolute density and bulk density. The proximate
 M. Dogru et al. / Energy 27 (2002) 415–427 421

Table 1
Physical and chemical properties (proximate and ultimate analysis) of hazelnut shell

Physical properties of hazelnut shell (average of four samples)

Size (mm3) Absolute density Bulk density (kg/m3)
(kg/m3)
17.9×16.5×8.5 944.84 319.14
Proximate analysis, % wet basis (average of four samples)
Moisture (%) Volatile matter (%) Fixed carbon (%) Ash (%) GCV (MJ/kg)
12.45 62.70 24.08 0.77 17.36
Ultimate analysis, % dry basis (average of four samples)
Carbon (%) Hydrogen (%) Oxygen (%) Nitrogen (%) Sulphur (%)
46.76 5.76 45.83 0.22 0.67

analysis determined the moisture content, volatile matter, ash content and fixed carbon (by
difference) using standard method described in ASTM-84 (American Society for Testing
Materials-84) tests. A partial, ultimate analysis is reported. The ultimate analysis usually lists the
carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulphur and ash content of the dry hazelnut shell on a weight
percentage basis. The ultimate and proximate analysis of fuel does not indicate the suitability of
biomass for gasification. However, it is the main tool for predicting the gas gross calorific value
composition and temperature limits of the gasifier through mass and energy balances. The Gross
Calorific Value (GCV) of the fuel was either measured by Gallenkamp-Autobomb calorimeter or
used the IGT method [8] with the relationship:
GCV⫽341C⫹1323H⫻68S⫺15.3A⫺120(O⫹N) (1)
where GCV denotes gross calorific value in kJ/kg, and carbon (C), hydrogen (H), sulphur (S),
ash (A), oxygen (O) and nitrogen (N) are used by percentage elemental mass. The GCV of
hazelnut shells was experimentally determined at 17.36 MJ/kg (with standard deviation of 0.14%)
and theoretically calculated at 18.08 MJ/kg (with STD of 0.23%); the experimental value was
used in all calculations of the study.
The fuel moisture content greatly effects both the operation of the gasifier and the quality of
the product gas. The moisture content constraints for gasifier fuels are dependent on type of
gasifier used. Higher values are possible in updraft systems but the upper limit acceptable for a
downdraft reactor is generally considered to be around 40% dry basis [8]. Generally, moisture
content of most bio-mass varies between 11 and 18%, thus believed to be very suitable and well
within the range for an engine application [9]. In this study, the moisture content of hazelnut
shells was around 12%.
Earp [10] recommended the maximum particle size to be used in a downdraft gasifier as one-
eighth of the reactor throat diameter, the particle size of hazelnut shells used in the experiments
was 17.9×16.5×8.5 mm3 on average, which is close to this recommendation. The absolute and
bulk density of biomass is very important for process design in terms of handling and storage
[9]. Biomass with high bulk densities will require less reactor space for a given re-fuelling time.
However, low bulk fuels sometimes give rise to insufficient flow under gravity resulting in low
gas heating value and possibly burning char in the reduction zone [11]. The bulk density of
hazelnut shell is higher than wood chip (250.28 kg/m3) [9], and the experiments showed that there
422 M. Dogru et al. / Energy 27 (2002) 415–427

was no char burning in the reduction zone. It is also observed that product gas quality was almost
constant during the run, suggesting good flow characteristics.
High volatile matter in biomass generally increases tar content in the product gas and a substan-
tial quantity of this tar should be removed before it fed to an internal combustion engine [12–
14]. Hazelnut shells have lower volatile matter than wood chips (64.79%) [9]; thus the product
gas had a low tar content.
The ash content of most biomass is typically much less than that of coals (⬍3%), but some
forms have a high as content [9]. The amount of ash in hazelnut shells was quite low and,
therefore, the ash could be removed less frequently and continuously from the gasifier, without
interfering with the continuous production of good quality gas.

3.2. Gasification results

The detailed hazelnut shell gasification results which include chemical analyses of the product
gas, calorific values (GCV), wet feed rate, wet product gas flow and air fuel ratios, are summarised
in Table 2.
The air–fuel ratio used in Table 2 is defined as the volume of dry air to total mass of dry, ash-
free (daf) fuel. The control of the gas production rate and air fuel ratios is via the gate valve (see
in Fig. 3), and this influences both the air/fuel ratio and the feed rate. The air–fuel ratio has a
vital important effect on the gasifier performance because it regulates the fuel consumption rate,
therefore, air–fuel ratios should be monitored carefully during design pilot scale work in order
to aid scaling-up of a gasifier. However, Jenkins claimed that this ratio is not easily controlled
and should not be arbitrarily assumed [15]. Walawender [16] published experimental gasification
data and reported that the air–fuel ratio ranged from 0.99 to 2.08 N m3/kg for wood chips having
moisture content of 5.5–16.5%. Hoi [17] obtained an air–fuel ratio, which varies from 0.84 to
2.11 N m3/kg for rubber–wood at 10.7% moisture content in a downdraft gasifier.
In this study, higher air fuel ratios were obtained at lower wet feed rates (1.64 N m3/kg at the

Table 2
Gasification results of hazelnut shells

Feed Product
Air/fuel CH4 CO2 C2H2 C2H6 GCV
Run rate gas flow 3 H2 (%) N2 (%) CO (%)
(N m /kg) (%) (%) (%) (%) (MJ/N m3)
(kg/h) (N m3/h)

1 1.73 3.55 1.63 14.77 58.67 1.40 8.56 16.33 0.09 0.05 3.47
2 2.15 4.44 1.64 14.62 59.67 2.10 8.92 13.92 0.13 0.02 3.76
3 2.64 5.33 1.52 14.77 56.96 1.94 12.08 13.02 0.21 0.08 4.22
4 3.19 6.22 1.38 14.77 57.05 2.03 14.41 11.42 0.12 0.12 4.50
5 3.69 7.26 1.51 14.12 57.07 1.70 16.80 9.93 0.17 0.04 4.55
6 4.02 8.15 1.46 13.13 53.33 2.18 20.66 9.52 0.15 0.11 5.12
7 4.06 8.15 1.47 12.67 54.71 1.97 19.63 10.02 0.20 0.17 4.96
8 4.48 9.18 1.44 11.86 53.95 2.47 19.89 11.25 0.26 0.19 5.15
9 4.70 9.48 1.37 13.83 54.24 1.98 18.41 11.12 0.12 0.02 4.75
10 4.93 10.07 1.48 11.33 55.65 2.36 18.99 11.09 0.25 0.11 4.86
11 5.40 10.96 1.50 11.11 55.83 2.15 18.56 11.22 0.17 0.14 4.66
 M. Dogru et al. / Energy 27 (2002) 415–427 423

value of 2.15 kg/h), but this falls as the feed rate rises to produce optimum gas (⬇5 MJ/kg of
GCV) with a value of around 1.4–1.45 N m3/kg at the highest output. In most other bio-mass
gasification, higher feed rates influence the temperature sufficiently to induce slag and the clinker
formation [18,19], which may disturb the pyrolysis zone sufficiently to cause an increase in the
air fuel ratio which raises the temperature in this zone resulting in combustion instead pyrolysis
in the reactor bed. However, in our study, it was estimated that air fuel ratios generally varied
between 1.5 and 1.65 N m3/kg, and we also observed that there was no temperature high enough
to induce slag and clinker formation. The optimum air fuel ratios were obtained as 1.37–
1.47 N m3/kg at the values between 4.02 and 4.70 kg/h of wet feed rate, and it is suggested that
the gasifier should operate within these values to produce high quality combustible gas.

3.3. Product gas quality

Table 2 shows that the major combustible products were H2, CH4, CO, C2H2 and C2H6, and it
was estimated that their total percentages were approximately 24.8–36.23% of total product gas.
The highest amount was obtained at its optimum operating point of wet feed rate (4–4.5 kg/h)
and air fuel ratio ⬇1.45 N m3/kg.
Fig. 4 shows the variation of the calorific value of the produced gas as a function of the wet
product gas flow and wet feed rate as percentage and also gives a good idea of the optimum
operating point of the gasifier. Table 2 shows that the highest GCV gases were produced at a
rate between 8.15–10.07 N m3/h of wet gas flow from 4–4.5 kg/h of fuel. Fig. 4 shows that the
GCV of produced gas rises steadily with an increase in wet feed rate and product gas until the
optimum of 75–85% throughput is reached.

3.4. Zone temperatures

Fig. 5 shows the variations of the average zone temperatures of the gasifier on the left ordinate
and the GCV of the produced gas located on the right ordinate against air fuel ratio. Maximum

Fig. 4. Variations of GCV of the produced gas versus the percent of the wet feed rate and product gas capacity.
424 M. Dogru et al. / Energy 27 (2002) 415–427

Fig. 5. Variations of average zone temperatures versus air/fuel and gross calorific value of produced gas.

temperatures in drying, pyrolysis and throat zones were measured, respectively, as 125, 566 and
1206°C at lower than the optimum performance (1.4–1.45 N m3/kg) air fuel ratios. However, it
was observed that zone temperatures were approximately constant at the values of air fuel ratio
between 1.4–1.51 N m3/kg with the throat temperature being about 1050°C the highest values of
GCV in spite of the increase of air fuel ratio. This suggested that within these air fuel ratios, the
downdraft gasifier was at its optimum performance operated to produce low tar, char and high
calorific value product gas (see Table 3). It was observed that, at the higher values than
1.5 N m3/kg, the GCV of produced gas and zone temperatures showed a significant decrease while
tar output sharply increased (see Figs. 3 and 6) probably because more air enters and this modifies
the balance of the zones to the detriment of the output gas quality and the amount of pollutant (tar).

3.5. Pressure drops

Pressure drops were determined across the gasifier, packed-bed scrubber and the filter box. The
pressure losses were measured as 5.07 mm Hg at the gasifier outlet and as 5.38 mm Hg across
the packed-bed scrubber and as 5.27 mm Hg across the filter box. These are satisfactory to allow
an Internal Combustion Engine to operate. Consequently, total maximum pressure drop across
the whole system was determined as 15.72 mm Hg.

3.6. By-products

Fig. 6 shows the variations of by-product (side products from the gasification system) ratios
as a function of feed rate for eleven runs versus hazelnut shells feed rate. In addition, Table 3
tabulates the main operating parameters alongside with gasifier by-products. It is clear that char
and tar rates can be assumed to be the best indicators of performance and the ratios of by-
product/feed could be regarded as a good indication to evaluate the efficiency of the system.
As shown in Fig. 6 and Table 3, the char and ash output remained almost constant and, however,
 M. Dogru et al. / Energy 27 (2002) 415–427 425

Table 3
Gasifier operation parameters and by-products (by-product to feed ratios shown in brackets)

Feed rate Air/fuel GCV Throat Condensate Total water

Run Char (kg/h) Ash (kg/h) Tar (kg/h)
(kg/h) (N m3/kg) (MJ/N m3) temp. (°C) (kg/h) (kg/h)

0.094 0.015 0.0141 0.47 0.476

1 1.73 1.63 3.47 821
(0.054) (0.009) (0.008) (0.272) (0.275)
0.115 0.019 0.0139 0.60 0.605
2 2.15 1.64 3.76 833
(0.053) (0.009) (0.006) (0.279) (0.281)
0.140 0.025 0.0185 0.71 0.715
3 2.64 1.52 4.22 846
(0.053) (0.009) (0.007) (0.269) (0.271)
0.161 0.030 0.0203 0.77 0.783
4 3.19 1.38 4.50 869
(0.050) (0.009) (0.006) (0.241) (0.245)
0.183 0.035 0.0215 0.86 0.879
5 3.69 1.51 4.55 1025
(0.050) (0.009) (0.006) (0.233) (0.238)
0.201 0.038 0.0239 0.98 1.016
6 4.02 1.46 5.12 1015
(0.050) (0.009) (0.006) (0.244) (0.253)
0.209 0.040 0.0230 0.93 0.954
7 4.06 1.47 4.96 1020
(0.051) (0.010) (0.006) (0.229) (0.235)
0.228 0.044 0.0253 1.05 1.097
8 4.48 1.44 5.15 1130
(0.051) (0.010) (0.006) (0.234) (0.245)
0.243 0.050 0.0230 1.06 1.101
9 4.70 1.37 4.75 1206
(0.052) (0.011) (0.005) (0.226) (0.234)
0.267 0.055 0.0263 1.05 1.068
10 4.93 1.48 4.86 1110
(0.054) (0.011) (0.005) (0.213) (0.217)
0.305 0.059 0.0283 1.20 1.255
11 5.40 1.50 4.66 1021
(0.056) (0.011) (0.005) (0.222) (0.232)

the tar rate decreased slightly at higher fuel flow rates and all of these may be more a function
of in efficient collection due to ‘carry over’ at high rates. Moreover, the condensate and water
output went through a minimum because temperature in the gasifier ascended by entering of more
fuel and the product gas obtained at high temperature. However, it was deduced that high quality
product gas (4.75–5.15 MJ/N m3) was produced at the feed rates between 4.02 and 4.70 kg/h
because of high throat (oxidation) temperature (1015–1206°C) and low char (0.201–0.228 kg/h)
and tar (0.023–0.025 kg/h) for this size of gasifier. It is obvious that the changes on the operating
parameters have little effect on the overall performance of the gasifier.

3.7. Mass balance results

During the research, total of 11 runs was carried out. In actuality, the total mass input must
be equal to the total mass output. The mass balance is one of the ways in which the reliability
of the data collected is examined. Total mass inputs include feedstock, air and total water input,
while total mass outputs comprise total water output, ash, char, tar, condensate and dry gas out-
puts. Therefore, the usual method to quantify the discrepancies in the mass balance is the closure
of the mass balance which is defined as the percentage ratio of the total output mass to that of
the total input mass. It is not easy to get 100% closure and illustrates the difficulties of obtaining
426 M. Dogru et al. / Energy 27 (2002) 415–427

Fig. 6. Variations of by-products/feed rate versus wet hazelnut shell feed rate.

this data, nevertheless most of the closures are within the 90–100% range for the total fuel input
range of 1.73–5.40 kg/h. The average mass balance closure was found to be 95% over 11 runs
with hazelnut shells.

4. Conclusion

앫 Gasification of hazelnut shells was carried out in a pilot scale (5 kWe) downdraft gasifier. The
gasifier was efficiently and consistently operated with a range of feed rate between 1.7 and
5.5 kg/h (3:1 turndown).
앫 The optimum operation of the gasifier was found to be between 1.44 and 1.47 N m3/kg of air
fuel ratios at the values of 4.06 and 4.48 kg/h of wet feed rate which produces the producer
gas with a good GCV of about 5 MJ/m3 at a volumetric flow of 8–9 N m3/h product gas.
앫 At this optimum, low tar and char were produced at a ratio of 0.005 and 0.051 of the feed,
respectively.
앫 Maximum temperatures in drying, pyrolysis and throat zones were determined as 125, 566 and
1206°C but the throat temperature fell to about 1020°C at the optimum.
앫 With hazelnut shells there was no sign of bridging or ash fusion at the optimum throat tempera-
ture of about 1000–1050°C.
앫 The majority of the material balance closures for most of the runs were fairly consistent and
satisfactory over a wide range of different operating conditions and fuels. It was noted that if
moisture in fuel increases, mass closures increase dramatically and hence, difficulties could be
encountered in maintaining the gas quality resulting in poor yields. Thus, the optimum oper-
 M. Dogru et al. / Energy 27 (2002) 415–427 427

ational point for this size of the gasifier reactor was determined according to feed rate,
maximum combustible gas flow, air fuel ratio, optimum char and tar output rates, optimum
GCV of the combustible gases and optimum throat temperature.
6.1. Optimum nut shells feed rate for this size of the gasifier is around 4.02 kg/h.
6.2. Maximum combustible gas flow is obtained as 10.96 N m3/h.
6.3. Optimum air fuel ratio is obtained as 1.46 N m3/kg.
6.4. Optimum char output rate is determined as 0.201 kg/h.
6.5. Optimum tar output rate is found as 0.023 kg/h.
6.6. Maximum GCV of the producer gas is analysed as 5.15 MJ/N m3.
6.7. Optimum throat temperature is measured as 1015°C.

References

[1] Maschio G, Lucchesi A, Stoppato G. Production of syngas from biomass. Bioresour Technol 1994;48:119–26.
[2] Elliot DC. Comparative analysis of gasification/pyrolysis condensates. In: Proceedings of Biomass Thermochem-
ical Conversion Contractors, 1985:361–73, (Meeting, Minneapolis, MN, USA, Battle Institute, Colombus, Ohio,
USA).
[3] Bridgwater A, Van Swaaij WPM. R&D requirements in thermochemical conversion of biomass. In: Grassi G,
editor. Proceedings of Fourth E.C. Conference ‘Energy from Biomass’, 1987:235–51, (London, UK).
[4] Balci S, Dogu T, Yucel H. Pyrolysis kinetics of lignocellulosic material. Ind Eng Chem Res 1993;32:2573–9.
[5] Kucuk MM. Liquefaction of hazelnut seed coat by supercritical gas extraction. Energy Conversion Manage
1995;36(2):145–8.
[6] Demirbas A, Akdeniz F, Erdogan Y, Pamuk V. Kinetics for fast pyrolysis of hazelnut shells. Fuel Sci Technol
1996;14:405–15.
[7] Dogru M, Howarth CR, Malik AA, Olgun H. A study of bio-nut shells for gasification. In: Oxford, UK: Elsevier
Science Ltd, 1999:1051–7, (Oakland, California, USA).
[8] Bridgewater AV, Double JM, Earp DM. Technical and market assessment of biomass gasification in the United
Kingdom. ETSU Report, UKAEA, Harwell, UK, 1986.
[9] Dogru M. Fixed-bed gasification of biomass. PhD Thesis, University of Newcastle, UK, 2000.
[10] Earp DM. The gasification of biomass in a downdraft reactor. PhD Thesis, Aston University, UK, 1988.
[11] Coovattanachai N. Field trials on producer gas systems developed at prince of Songkla University, Thailand. In:
Proceedings of Second International Producer Gas Round Table Conference, 1985, (Bandung, Indonesia, The
Beijer Institute, Box 50005, Stockholm, Sweden).
[12] Anonymous. Generator gas — the Swedish experience from 1939–45. The Swedish Academy of Engineering
Sciences, Translated by Solar Energy Research Institute, Colorado, USA, SP No. 33–140, 1979.
[13] Dasappa S, Reddy V, Mukunda HS, Shrinivasa U. Experience with gasifiers for 3.7 kW engines. Ambio
1985;14:275–9.
[14] Reed TB, Das A. Hand book on biomass downdraft gasifier engine systems. SERI/SP-271-3022, Colorado,
USA, 1988.
[15] Jenkins BM, Goss JR. Effect of air blast rate on fixed bed gasifiers. In: American Society of Agricultural Engineer-
ing Pacific Regional Annual Meeting, 1980, (Hilo, Hawaii, Paper No. PR 80-028).
[16] Klass DL, editor. Energy from Biomass XI. Chicago: Institute of Gas Technology, 1988.
[17] Hoi KW. Gasification of rubber–wood in a downdraft gasifier. PhD Thesis, University of Aston, UK.
[18] Bridgewater AV, editor. Thermochemical processing of biomass. UK: Butterworths, 1984.
[19] Washington DC, editor. Energy from Biomass and Waste-X. London, UK: Elsevier Applied Science, 1987.