Biogas Energy Development

Biogas energy development case study in MU Final year project
DEDICATION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT................................................................3

ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................4
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................6
Renewable energy resources............................................................................................6
Biogas and its Benefits....................................................................................................8
LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................................................................18
Biogas............................................................................................................................19
Biogas as cooking gas....................................................................................................19
Biogas in developing countries......................................................................................20
A biomass based strategy for meeting energy needs for rural development.................21
DESIGN OF DIGESTER..................................................................................................22
Types of digesters..........................................................................................................22
Lagoon digester:........................................................................................................22
Plug flow digester:.....................................................................................................22
Complete mix digesters:............................................................................................23
Concrete tanks introduction...........................................................................................24
Design analysis..............................................................................................................25
DESIGN OF GAS HOLDER............................................................................................31
Design analysis..............................................................................................................32
Thickness of the shell:...............................................................................................33
Design of torispherical end:.......................................................................................34
Design of opening......................................................................................................37
Design of manhole.....................................................................................................37
Design of supporting leg............................................................................................43
Design of lifting lug...................................................................................................47
GENERATION PROCESS...............................................................................................52
Anaerobic digestion:......................................................................................................52
Basic contents of biogas................................................................................................53
Factors affecting biogas production...............................................................................55
Temperature...............................................................................................................58
Temperature used in digestion.......................................................................................60
use of spent slurry..........................................................................................................63
DESIGN OF STOVE.........................................................................................................64
design analysis...............................................................................................................65
efficiency of stove......................................................................................................65
Flame stabilization.....................................................................................................70
Theoretical air amount calculation............................................................................71
Combustion stability, flames lifts off and back fires.................................................72
Design of port base....................................................................................................73
Design of biogas burner.............................................................................................77
Determination of the distribution of pressure drop........................................................78
Determination of process pressure drop....................................................................78
Determination of local pressure loss..........................................................................79
LAY OUT AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION................................................................80
By Getachew Muche & Filagot Worku 1 Mechanical Engineering Department

Resource allocations:.....................................................................................................80
Lay out...........................................................................................................................80
Transportation mechanism.............................................................................................82
COST ESTIMATION........................................................................................................83
Total cost of the cafeteria for heating water..................................................................84
CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................85
RECOMMENDATION.....................................................................................................86
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………..87

Dedication and acknowledgement
This paper as we are too is dedicated to our beloved and patiently adding
family and the community we are shaped in as such. We would like to let
our thanks to the hoisting MEKELLE UNIVERSITY and Mechanical
Engineering Department for all supports we got in our stay in the campus for
four years as well as to DIF who partially funded for the accomplishment of
the project. Our special thanks go to our advisors Mr. Solomon Assefa (Bsc)
and Mr. Tesfalidet W/Giorgis (Msc.) for what they had in our appearance for
consultation and approval. While; trying the people and company who
assisted us in the multifaceted rush to success we thought, Mekelle Rural
Development Agency and Mr. Solomon Assefa. We would like to all
friends, students and members of the campus those librarians and the
community in broad for their fellow ship collaboration. Finally but for most
we are thank full the Supper Power God for that every blessings.

Abstract
This report presents a final year project pertaining to the design of biogas
convenient system. The main design areas are:
 Digester
 Gas holder
 Stove
And there are also other calculations and selections of accessories for the
whole operation of the plant.
This project will develop a feasibility study defining the key priority areas for
investment with in biogas energy system in Mekelle University using local
resources, viz. waste materials like human extras, foods, caw dung. Project
targets may include:
1. Reduced environmental pollution from live stock farms and other
agriculture production mills, contributing to savings of fossil fuels and
forests.
2. Implementation of medium/large biogas plants and improves
technology demonstration.
3. Cost-effective energy systems for using biogas for cooking, heat, and
electricity production. The project is aimed to increase our own
incomes and improve environmental conditions in the campus areas;
the purpose of the project is to produce clean renewable energy and
promote organic farming and integrated pest management through the
establishment of integrated biogas systems. The project will develop a
systematic arrangement for development of medium sized biogas
plants in live stock and mixed agriculture farms, and human extras.
The main objective of this project, in the development of renewable

sources of biogas energy, is:
 To encourage the development and accelerated utilization of

renewable energy sources where ever they are technically and
economically available.
 To improve the access to and availability of renewable,
decentralized sources particularly for rural population.
 To contribute towards balanced rural and urban development as well
as development of back ward, hilly and tribal areas by enabling the
use of locally available decentralized renewable energy sources.

 To create gainful employment opportunity with due importance for

insuring greater access for women and other disadvantaged groups
to employment opportunities.
 To reduce environmental degradation resulting from deforestation
and reduce the odor of the waste products in the campus.

Introduction
Renewable energy resources
Renewable energy sources can be replenished in a short period of time. The

five renewable sources used most often are:
o biomass
o water (hydropower),
o geothermal,
o wind,
o Solar.
Many important events have occurred during the history of using renewable
sources. The use of renewable energy is not new. Five generations (125
years) ago, wood supplied up to 90 percent of our energy needs. Due to the
convenience and low prices of fossil fuels, wood use has fallen in the United
States. Now, some biomass that would normally be taken to the dump is
converted into electricity (e.g., manufacturing wastes, rice hulls, and black
liquor from paper production).
Overall consumption from renewable sources in the United States totaled 6.8
quads (quadrillion Btu) in 2006, or about 7 percent of all energy used
nationally. Consumption from renewable sources was at its highest point in
1997, at about 7.2 quads.
Historically, low fossil fuel prices, especially for natural gas, have made
growth difficult for renewable fuels. A number of State and Federal
Government incentives, including the Energy Policy Acts of 2002 and 2005,
have encouraged the production and use of renewable fuels. Even with these
incentives, the renewable share of the "energy pie" in the United States is
not expected to change much over the next 25 years because we will also be
using more non-renewable fuels. The use of renewable sources is also
limited by the fact that they are not always available (for example, cloudy
days reduce solar energy, calm days mean no wind blows to drive wind
turbines, droughts reduce water availability to produce hydroelectricity).
Despite these limitations, renewable energy plays an important role in the
supply of energy. When renewable energy sources are used, the demand for
fossil fuels is reduced. Unlike fossil fuels, most renewable sources do not
directly emit greenhouse gases.

Each of the energy sources we use is measured, purchased, and sold in a

different form. Many units of measurement are used to measure the energy
we use each day. Learn more about converting energy units in the Units of
Measurement section.
In 2006, about 18% of global final energy consumption came from

renewable, with 13% coming from traditional biomass, like wood-burning.
Hydropower was the next largest renewable source, providing 3%, followed
by hot water/heating which contributed 1.3%. Modern technologies, such as
geothermal, wind, solar, and ocean energy together provided some 0.8% of
final energy consumption.[1] The technical potential for their use is very
large, exceeding all other readily available sources.[2][3]
Renewable energy technologies are sometimes criticized for being

intermittent or unsightly, yet the market is growing for many forms of
renewable energy. Wind power is growing at the rate of 30% p.a. has a
worldwide installed capacity of over 100 GW [4] and is widely used in
several European countries and the USA.[5] The manufacturing output of the
photovoltaic industry reached more than 2,000 MW per year in 2006, [6] and
PV power plants are particularly popular in Germany.[7] Solar thermal power
stations operate in the USA and Spain, and the largest of these is the 354
MW SEGS power plant in the Mojave Desert. [8]. The world's largest
geothermal power installation is The Geysers in California, with a rated

capacity of 750 MW.[9] Brazil has one of the largest renewable energy
programs in the world, involving production of ethanol fuel from sugar cane,
and ethanol now provides 18 percent of the country's automotive fuel. [10]
Ethanol fuel is also widely available in the USA.
While there are many large-scale renewable energy projects and production,
renewable technologies are also suited to small off-grid applications,
sometimes in rural and remote areas, where energy is often crucial in human
development.[11] Kenya has the world's highest household solar ownership
rate with roughly 30,000 small (20–100 watt) solar power systems sold per
year.[12]
Climate change concerns coupled with high oil prices, peak oil and
increasing government support are driving increasing renewable energy
legislation, incentives and commercialization. European Union leaders
reached an agreement in principle in March 2007 that 20 percent of their
nations' energy should be produced from renewable fuels by 2020, as part of
its drive to cut emissions of carbon dioxide, blamed in part for global
warming.[13] Investment capital flowing into renewable energy climbed from
$80 billion in 2005 to a record $100 billion in 2006. [14] This level of
investment combined with continuing double digit percentage increases each
year has moved what once was considered alternative energy to mainstream.
Wind was the first to provide 1% of electricity, but solar is not far behind. [15]
Some very large corporations such as BP, General Electric, Sharp, and
Royal Dutch Shell are investing in the renewable energy sector.[16][17]
Biogas and its Benefits
What is biogas?
Biogas originates from bacteria in the process of bio-degradation of
organic material under anaerobic (without air) conditions. In the
absence of oxygen, anaerobic bacteria decompose organic matter and
produce a gas mainly composed of methane (60%) and carbon dioxide

called biogas. This gas can be compared to natural gas which is 99%
methane.
Biogas and the global carbon cycle
Each year some 590-880 million tons of methane are released worldwide
into the atmosphere through microbial activity. About 90% of the emitted
methane derives from biogenic sources, i.e. from the decomposition of
biomass. The remainder is of fossil origin (e.g. petrochemical processes). In
the northern hemisphere, the present tropospheric methane concentration
amounts to about 1.65 ppm (parts per million).

Unlike fossil fuel combustion, biogas production from biomass is
considered CO2 neutral and therefore does not emit additional
Greenhouse Gases (GHG) into the atmosphere.
However, if biogas is not recovered properly, it will contribute to a
GHG effect 20 times worst than if methane is simply combusted.
Therefore, there is a real incentive to transfer biogas combustion
energy into heat and/or electricity.

Finally, biogas production from anaerobic digester presents the
additional advantage of treating organic waste and reducing the
environmental impact of these wastes. It contributes to a better image
of the farming community while reducing odor, pathogens and weeds
from the manure and producing an enhance fertilizer easily
assimilated by plants.

Benefits of Biogas

A Polythene Biogas unit can yield a whole range of benefits for their
users, the society and the environment in general, the chief benefits
being;

1. Production of energy (heat, light, electricity).

2. Transformation of organic wastes into high

quality fertilizer.
3. Improvement of hygienic conditions through
reduction of pathogens, worm eggs and flies.
4. Reduction of workload, mainly for women, in
firewood collection and cooking.
5. Environmental advantages through protection of
forests, soil, water and air.
6. Global Environmental Benefits of Biogas
Technology.

1. Production of energy (heat, light, electricity)

The calorific value of biogas is about 6 kWh/m3 - this corresponds to
about half a liter of diesel oil. The net calorific value depends on the
efficiency of the burners or appliances. Methane is the valuable
component under the aspect of using biogas as a fuel.

Biogas use, replacing conventional fuels like kerosene or firewood,
allows for the conservation of environment. It therefore, increases its
own value by the value of i.e. forest saved or planted.

Biogas is able to substitute almost the complete consumption of
firewood in rural households.

1 m 3 Biogas (approximately 6 kWh/m 3 ) is equivalent to:

 Diesel, Kerosene (approx. 12 kWh/kg) 0.5 kg
 Wood (approx. 4.5 kWh/kg) 1.3 kg
 Cow dung (approx. 5 kWh/kg dry matter) 1.2 kg
 Plant residues (approx. 4.5 kWh/kg d.m.) 1.3 kg
 Hard coal (approx. 8.5 kWh/kg) 0.7 kg
 City gas (approx. 5.3 kWh/m3) 1.1 m3
 Propane (approx. 25 kWh/m3) 0.24 m3


The biogas generated from small and medium sized units (up to
6m3) is generally used for cooking and lighting purposes. Large
units and/or communal units produce this gas in large quantities
and can be used to power engines and generators for mechanical
work or power generation.

2. Transformation of organic wastes into high quality organic fertilizer

The polythene bio gas digester is fed with cow dung slurry at a design
rate, which is governed by local parameters. The output from the
digester (digested manure) is actually a high quality organic fertilizer.

This fertilizer is very important, especially in a country like India
where the farmers do not have the resources to buy chemical
fertilizers frequently. It has been calculated through university lab
tests in India that the fertilizer which comes from a bio-gas plant
contains three times more nitrogen than the best compost made
through open air digestion. If you compost chicken manure, for
example, the finished compost will have in it only 1.58 to 2%o
nitrogen. The same manure digested in a bio-gas plant will analyze
6% nitrogen.

Assuming that the digested slurry is immediately utilized - and
properly applied - as fertilizer, each daily kg can be expected to
yield roughly 0.5 kg extra nitrogen, as compared with fresh
manure. If the slurry is first left to dry and/or improperly applied, the
nitrogen yield will be considerably lower.

This nitrogen is already present in the manure. The nitrogen is
preserved when waste is digested in an enclosed bio-gas plant,
whereas the same nitrogen evaporates away as ammonia during open
air composting. The bio-gas plant does not make extra nitrogen; it
does not create nitrogen, it merely preserves the nitrogen that is
already there.


The bio gas plant is the perfect fertilizer-making machine and it
has been tested all over the world. There is no better way to digest or
compost manure and other organic material than in a bio-gas plant.
One can compare the bacteria in a digester tank to fish worms. Fish
worms help the soil by eating organic matter, passing it through their
bodies and expelling it as very rich fertilizer. They live by breaking
waste material down into food for plants. It is the same with the
bacteria in a methane digester.

One can also think of it another way. Seven cubic feet of methane gas
can be generated from one pound of dry leaves but only one cubic
foot of gas will come from one pound of cow dung. The cow dung, on
the other hand; is just that much richer in fertilizer than the leaves.
One can say, then, that the cow has digested the leaves and partly
turned them into plant food. When the cow manure is then composted
in a bio-gas plant, the bacteria there merely further process—or refine
—the former dry leaves into a still richer plant food. It is all very
natural.

Bio-fertilizer is a 100 % natural and organic fertilizer, based on
composted organic material (=> renewable energy source). The
composting process is achieved through microbe activity and contains
all the nutrients and microbe organisms required for the benefits of the
plants.

Bio-fertilizers also secrete growth promoting substances like
hormones, vitamins, amino acids and anti-fungal chemicals, as well as
improve seed germination and root growth. Bio-fertilizers, thereby
also aid in the better establishment of plants.

Bio-fertilizers are cost effective and eco-friendly supplements to
chemical fertilizers. They provide a sustainable source for nutrients
and healthy soils. Each biogas plant produces about five ton's of
bio-fertilizer annually, which can replace chemical fertilizer.*


3. Health benefits of biogas and the improvement of hygienic conditions

(reduction of pathogens, worm eggs and flies)

Biogas can have significant health benefits. According to the
Integrated Environmental Impact Analysis carried out by BSP** for
600 biogas users and 600 non-users, four percent more non-biogas
users have respiratory diseases than those who own biogas plants
(1). Qualitative information from various household surveys carried
out by BSP has revealed that problems like respiratory illness, eye
infection, asthma and lung problems have decreased after installing a
biogas plant (Tables 1 & 2).

Table 1: Health benefits of biogas

Disease Problems in the pastPresent status of HHs
(HHs)*
Yes No Improved Remained
same
Eye Infection 72 18 69 3
Cases of burning 29 71 28 1
Lung problem 38 62 33 5
Respiratory 42 58 34 8
problems
Asthma 11 89 9 2
Dizziness/headach 27 93 16 11
e
Intestinal;/diarrhea 58 42 14 44
*HHs = households
Source: Biogas Users’ Survey 2000, BSP**

Table 2 Health benefits of biogas (2)


Disease 20 80
Cough 53 47
Headache 33 3 67
Nausea 5 95
Chest pain 15 1 85
Lethargy 11 89
Respiratory disease 41 59
Malaria 8 2 92
Typhoid10 10 90
Total (%) 22 1 77
Source: Biogas Users’ Survey,1999 ,BSP**

According to the Biogas Users’ Survey conducted in 2000 with 100
households, biogas can have positive impacts on the health of its
users. Out of 42 respondents who had respiratory problems in the past,
it was reported that the problem has improved for 34 of them.
Similarly, those who had problems like asthma, eye infections and
lung problems found that their problems had decreased after
displacing dirtier fuels with biogas.

If parasitic diseases had previously been common, the improvement in
hygiene also has economic benefits (reduced working time). The more
fully the sludge is digested, the more pathogens are killed. High
temperatures and long retention times are more hygienic.

The following are the principal organisms killed in biogas plants:
o Typhoid
o Paratyphoid,
o Cholera and dysentery bacteria (in one or two weeks),
o Hookworm and bilharzias (in three weeks).
o Tapeworm and roundworm die completely when the fermented slurry
is dried in the sun.
The availability of biogas can have effects on nutritional patterns

too. With easy access to energy, the number of warm meals may
increase. Whole grain and beans may be cooked longer, increasing
their digestibility, especially for children. Water may be boiled
more regularly, thus reducing waterborne diseases.

4. Reduction of workload, mainly for women, in firewood collection and

cooking.
Polythene Biogas Plants units (BGU) have many benefits and address
many problems. To gather wood, women can spend up to 2-4 hours
per day searching and carrying the firewood*. Once a BGU is
installed, she will have that much extra time for herself and her
children. This will help in improving the quality of women’s and
children’s lives .They will now have more time for education and
interesting activities outside the home.

Biogas plants also improve health conditions in the homes:
o Since biogas burns clean, homes do not fill with smoke and
ash.
o Women and children experience less bronchial problems and
can expect to live longer.
o Homes are also more hygienic.
o Dung cakes are no longer stored in the homes.
o Cooking with gas takes less time than with wood or charcoal
or any other commonly used fuel.
o It is easier to cook with gas stove.

The annual time saving for firewood collection and cooking
averages to almost 1000 hours in each household provided with
a biogas plant*.

5.Environmental advantages: through protection of forests, soil, water and
air.

Estimating an average per capita consumption of 3 kg of wood per

day for energy (cooking, heating and boiling water) in rural areas, the
daily per capita demand of energy equals about 13 kWh which could
be covered by about 2 m3 of biogas*. A biogas plant therefore
directly saves forest.
Annually, each biogas plant can save more than four ton's of firewood
and 32 liters of kerosene*.

A single biogas system with a volume of 100 cubic feet (2, 8 m3) can
save as much as 0.3 acres (0,12 ha) of forest (woodland) each year*.

A recent study by Winrock**, Nepal and others found that each
biogas plant can mitigate about five ton's of carbon dioxide equivalent
per year.

The credits thus earned could provide alternative financing for the
sustainability of biogas program in that particular region.

The widespread production and utilization of biogas is expected to
make a substantial contribution to soil protection and amelioration.
First, biogas could increasingly replace firewood as a source of
energy. Second, biogas systems yield more and better fertilizer. As a
result, more fodder becomes available for domestic animals. This, in
turn, can lessen the danger of soil erosion attributable to overgrazing.

6. Global Environmental Benefits of Biogas Technology

The greenhouse effect is caused by gases in the atmosphere (mainly
carbon dioxide, CO2) which allow the sun’s short wave radiation to
reach the earth surface while they absorb, to a large degree, the long
wave heat radiation from the earth’s surface and from the atmosphere.

Due to the "natural greenhouse effect" of the earth’s atmosphere the
average temperature on earth is 15°C and not minus 18°C.

The increase of the so called greenhouse gases which also include
methane, ozone, nitrous oxide, etc. cause a rise of the earth's
temperature. The World Bank Group expects a rise in sea levels until
the year 2050 of up to 50 cm. Flooding, erosion of the coasts,
salinization of ground water and loss of land are but a few of the
consequences mentioned.

Until now, instruments to reduce the greenhouse effect considered
primarily the reduction of CO2-emissions, due to their high proportion
in the atmosphere. Though other greenhouse gases appear to be only a
small portion of the atmosphere, they cause much more harm to the
climate.
Methane is not only the second most important greenhouse gas (it
contributes with 20% to the effect while carbon dioxide causes 62%),
it has also a 25 times higher global warming potential compared with
carbon dioxide in a time horizon of 100 years. The Bio gas plant
effectively reduces the amount of methane directly released into the
atmosphere, by trapping it and facilitating its use as a green fuel. After
burning, methane only releases harmless gases in air. Given below are
the figures relating to this:

With anaerobic digestion, a renewable source of energy is captured,
which has an important climatic twin effect:

1. The use of renewable energy reduces the CO2-emissions through a
reduction of the demand for fossil fuels.
2. At the same time, by capturing uncontrolled methane emissions, the
second most important greenhouse gas is reduced:

1m3 cattle manure = 22.5 m3 biogas = 146 kWh gross = 36 kg CO 2-
emissions

Smaller agricultural units can additionally reduce the use of forest
resources for household energy purposes and thus slow down
deforestation, soil degradation and resulting natural catastrophes like
flooding or desertification.

1 m3 biogas (up to 65% CH4) = 0, 5 l fuel oil = 1,6 kg CO2
1 m3 biogas = 5, 5 kg fire wood = 11 kg CO2

The reduction of 1 kg methane is equivalent to the reduction of 25
kg CO2. The reduction of greenhouse gases with a high global
warming potential can be more efficient compared with the reduction

of CO2.

Even if there is only one biogas plant in a country - the following
valuable assets of biogas use from the environmental point of view
can be determined.

As CO2 generation by burned biogas only amounts to 80 per cent
of the CO2 generation of fired fuel oil (per kWh electrical energy)
and is even more advantageous in relation to coal (about 50 per
cent), the environmental benefits of biogas in relation to fossil
fuels are indisputable.

Because of the high cohere efficiency of wood (0.7 kg CO 2 per
kWh gross energy), the substitution of the wood based biomasses
by biogas rise the national and global storage capacity of CO2.

Thus, using biogas has a direct and telling effect on local, regional
and global atmosphere, by considerably reducing the greenhouse
effect.

* According to the ICAR paper (report issued by the Indian Council of
Agricultural Research, New Delhi)
Literature review
Ethiopia as one of the developing country in the world, has face a luck of
non renewable energy resources like petroleum; diesel etc. This has a direct
effect on the development of the country. So this problem has to be

minimized by using non renewable energy resources available in the

country. Among these types of energies the following are recommended:
 Solar energy
 Geothermal energy
 Wind energy
 Hydraulic energy
 Wind energy
 Biomass energy
 Biogas energy etc.
Among these biogas energy is preferable because of its simple construction
plant and low initial investment relative to the others.
The main target of the project is the development of biogas in our campus
from the following wastes available in the campus:
 Students extra
 Cattle dung
 Food waste from the cafeteria
Biogas
Biogas typically refers to a gas produced by a biological break down of

organic matter in the absence of oxygen. Biogas originates from biogenetic
material and is a type of bio fuel. One type of biogas is produced by an
aerobic digestion or fermentation of biodegradable materials such as
biomass, manure or sewage, municipal waste and energy crops. This type of
biogas comprises primarily of methane and carbon dioxide.
The other principal type of biogas is wood gas which is created by
gasification of wood or other biomass. This type of biogas is comprised
primarily of nitrogen, hydrogen and carbon dioxide with trace amounts of
methane.
The gases methane, hydrogen and carbon dioxide can be combusted or
oxidized with oxygen. This energy release allows biogas to be used as a fuel.
Biogas can be used as a low cost fuel in any country for any heating purpose
such as cooking. It can also be utilized in modern waste management
facilities where it can be used to run any type of heat engine to generate
either mechanical or electrical power. Biogas can be used to attract
renewable energy subsidized in some parts of the world.
Biogas as cooking gas

Biogas is a clean, cheap and convenient cooking fuel. It contains methane

which is inflammable. The setting up of biogas plants improves the
sanitation around house hold as well. Eye and lung diseases caused by
kitchen smoke can be eliminated, and environmental conditions would
improve as forest c over is protected by saving of fuel wood. The large scale
promotion of biogas plants also helps in generating employment in rural
areas.
The size of biogas plant depends upon the availability of waste and the
requirements of the beneficiary. Generally, the dung from two or three cattle
produces gas adequate to the cooking fuel requirements of a family
consisting of three of four persons.
Biogas in developing countries
In developing countries like India for example biogas produced from the
anaerobic digestion of manure in small scale digestion facilities is called
Gober gas. In India biogas is generated at an estimated 2 million +
household facilities. The digester is an air tight circular pit made of concrete
with a pipe connection. The manure is directed to pit, usually directly from
the cattle shed. The pit is then filled with a required quantity of waste water.
The gas pipe is connected to the kitchen fire placed through the control
valves. The combustion of the biogas in this manner flammable has very
little odors or smoke. Owing to simplicity in implementation and use of
cheap raw materials in the villages, it is one of the most environmentally
sound energy sources for the rural needs.
There are two common man made technologies for obtaining biogas; the
first (which is more wide spread) is the fermentation of human and or animal
waste in specially designed digesters. The second is a more recently
developed technology for capturing methane from municipal waste land fill
sites. The scale of simple bio gas plants can vary from a small house hold
system to large commercial plants to several thousands of cubic centimeters.
The digestion of animal and human waste yields several benefits:

 the production of methane for use as a fuel
 The waste is reduced to slurry which has a high nutrient content which
makes an ideal fertilizer. In some cases thus fertilizer is the main
product from the digester and the bio gas is nearly a by product.
 During the digestion process bacteria in the manure are killed, which
is a great benefit to environmental causes.
Two popular simple designs of digesters have been developed. The Chinese
DOME digester and the Indian floating cover bio gas digester. The digestion
process is the same in both digesters. But the gas collection method is
different in each. In the floating cover type, the waste sealed cover or the
digester is capable of rising as gas is produce and acting as a storage
chamber. Where as the fixed DOME type has a lower gas digesters usually
provide fuel for domestic lighting and cooking.
Some countries have initiated large scale biogas programs, Tanzania being
an example. The Tanzanian model is based on integrated resource recovery
from municipal and industrial waste for grid based electricity and fertilizer
production.
A BIOMASS BASED STRATEGY FOR MEETING ENERGY

NEEDS FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT
The energy scenario in the world necessities the development of alternative

sources of energy for conversion and utilization. Bio gas energy is one of
them and the most promising for rural development. 25kg of cow dung can
produce about one meter cube of biogas which can substitute 2.44kg of coal
or 3.98kwh of electricity. Bio gas can achieve a thermal efficiency of 60%
compared to the 11% that is achieved from cow dung cake burning. Other
types of bio mass i.e., especially of trees and plants, can also be used to
generate bio gas.
Bio gas appears to be the most important energy resource in the agricultural
dominated rural sector like Ethiopia. It has been estimated that agricultural
products produce as much as 5 times more energy in the form of bio gas than
they do in the form of dietary energy.
Biogas can be utilized in the following ways and could prove to be a boom
in the development of rural sector:
 cooking gas
 brazing and welding
 crop drying
 electric power generation
 biogas engine

Design of digester
Two popular simple designs of digester have been developed; the Chinese
fixed dome and the Indians floating cover biogas digester. The digestion
process is the same in both digesters but the gas collection method is
different in each. In the floating cover type, the water sealed cover of the
digester is capable of rising as gas is produced and acting as a storage
chamber, where as the fixed dome type has a lower gas storage capacity and
requires good sealing if gas leakage is to be removed.
Types of digesters
Lagoon digester: This is the simplest lower cost method to capture

methane from manure. A lagoon manure pool can be transformed in to the
lagoon digester by adding a floating cover. An industrial strength cover rests
on solid floats on the lagoon surface. Methane is trapped under the cover and
collected by a perforated pipe located near the sealed end of the lagoon.
Considerations for anaerobic lagoon methane recovery:
 economic biogas recovery in warm climates only
 lagoon is un heated and biogas production varies seasonally
 ideal for hydraulic flushing manure systems due to low solids
(2-3)%
 typically takes 1-2 years to achieve steady state for economic
methane recovery
 requires significant land
 not appropriate for geographic regions with higher waters table
due to potential for ground water contamination
Plug flow digester: The plug low is another anaerobic digester. Plug flows
are long, linear troughs usually sited above ground. Fresh manure is added
daily and this action pushes previous day’s plugs of manure through the
trough. The digestion process occurs as the plugs of manure move through
the length of the trough. An air tight, expandable cover captures the
methane.
Considerations for plug flow digester:

 ideal for daily forms that mechanically remove manure (scrapping)
 length of the digester is determined by daily manure volume
 dimensions of height to width are typically 1:5

 requires mix pit with volume of daily manure load to insure solid of
11-13%
 Digester operates in the mesophilic temperature range (90-110) of.
 Waste heat from engine and cooling systems or generated biogas heat
the digester
 Hot water pipes through the length of the trough maintain temperature
 Typically takes six months to achieve steady state for economic
recovery.
Complete mix digesters: They consist of a large above or ground steel or

concrete reactor. Waste is mechanically mixed providing good contact
between microbes and volatile solids leading to efficient biogas production.
The mixing also provides a homogenous efficient as fertilizer or soil
conditioner.
Consideration for complete mix digesters:
 Best suited for large farming operations that remove manure by
washing
 Volumes range from 3500-70000ft2 with capacity of 25000- 500000
gallons manure.
 Operate in mesophilic (90-110) of or thermophilic (120-140) of
temperature range
 Installations and heat exchanges maintain temperature from engine
exhaust and cooling systems
 Typically takes 5-6 months to achieve steady state for economic
methane recovery
 Sewage slug from a waste plant is initially placed in digester for
establishment of microbes prior to leading manure
Horizontal type digester

Concrete tanks introduction
Tanks for retaining fluids (liquid) can be broadly divided in to three

groups
 Underground tanks
 Tanks resting on ground
 Tanks supported on staging or elevated parts
Both underground tanks as well as tanks resting on ground area normally
circular or rectangular in shape. An elevated tank on the other hand
serves as an important architectural feature, and is there fore, shaped to
suit the aesthetical requirements of the surroundings. Besides circular
square and rectangular tanks polygon tanks, spherical tanks, conical tanks
etc. are some of the commonly adopted shapes for elevated tanks. The
tank proper is supported on staging which may consist of well based
columns or an enclosed shaft.
Rectangular tanks
Rectangular tanks are normally preferred than circular tanks. This is
because circular tanks work out to be uneconomical on account of high
cost of curved shuttering. On the other hand, curved tanks by virtue of
their having least perimeters for a given capacity, require least amount of
materials and as such prove to be economical for large capacities of
storage. In case of circular tanks it is difficult to divide the tank
compartments and do not occupy the entire available area of land.
Rectangular tanks do not have such disadvantages. So our storage tank
for fermentation will be rectangular tank.
The components of rectangular tank are:
 Side walls
 Base slab
 Roof slab
Design analysis
Specifications or assumptions of the tank

Total capacity=60m3

The depth of the waste in the tank is 4m

Good foundation for the tank is available at 0.8m ground level

The safe bearing capacity of soil at that depth may be taken
5kN/m2

Concrete type = M20 grade of concrete

Density of waste is approximated to 1200kg/ m3
Analysis
Assumptions:
 The tank is to be square
 To guard against cracking, in calculations for tension (direct, due to
bending or both) it is assumed that the concrete is capable of resisting
limited tensile stress. The full section of concrete including the cover
and the reinforcement is taken in to account in this assumption.
 To guard against structural failure (or ensure adequate strength), in
strength calculations the tensile strength of concrete is ignored.
 Reduced values of the permissible stresses in steel are adopted in the
design.
Calculations
Since the depth of the waste is to be restricted to 4m, area of the base
required is
A=V/h
Where V=volume, h=depth
A=60/4=15m2
There fore one side of the square base= 3.87 say 4m.
Check for maximum pressure in the soil
Total weight of the waste=72000N
Add 10% due to weight of tank=7200
Total = 79200N
Pressure on soil = 79200/ (4*4) =4.95kN/m2 <5kN/m2 ………….safe.
Design constants
These are the constants to be read from the M20 concrete data. These are
the following:
For σcbc =7N/mm, M=13, σst = 115N/mm, k=0.442, j=0.853, R=1.32.
Since the ratio0f l/b=4/4=1<2, hence the walls of the tank will be
designed as horizontal slab continuous between corner and subjected to
triangular load due to waste pressure varying from zero at top to
maximum at a height h=H/4
H=4/4 or 1 meter which is more.
Hence top 4-1=3m will act as horizontal slab (subjected to horizontal
bending) and the bottom 1m will act as a cantilever slab fixed at the base.
Waste pressure at depth of 3m from top is given by
P=w (H-h)
Where w=ρg
P=1200(4-1) =36000n/m.
Since this is a case of square tank, the length and width are same. Hence
only, one wall panel will be designed.
The wall will be designed by approximate method
Let the thickness of the wall be 250mm
There fore effective span=4+0.25=4.25m
Bending moment at the ends of the span=pl2/12
=36,000*4.252/12
=54188Nm.
Causing tension on waste face
Bending moment at center of span=pl2/12
=36,000*4.252/12
=40641Nm
Causing tension on face away from waste
Direct tension or pull on long/ short wall
TL = Tb =0.5*p*L
= 0.5*36000*4
= 72000N
Design of wall section
Effective depth from consideration of maximum bending moment
D = sqrt (M/(R*b))
= sqrt (54188E3/ (1.32*1000))
= 203mm…
Overall depth (t) assuming 20mm diameter bars and clean cover=25mm
t=203+20/2+25=138mm, say245mm.
Therefore the available effective depth
(d)=245-20/2-25
=210mm…
Reinforcements
a) Reinforcements at corners of wall. The bending moment will cause
tension on the waste face.
x =d-t/2
=210-245/2
=87.5mm.
1) area of steel for bending moment
Ast1= (Mt-Tx)/ (jd* σst )
= (54188*E3-72000*87.5)/(0.853*210*115)
=2325mm2
2) Area of steel for direct tension
Ast2=T/ σst =72000/115=626mm2

Total area of steel (Ast)
Ast=Ast1+ Ast2
= 626+2325=2951mm2
Spacing using 20mm diameter bars (AΦ =314mm2)
=314*1000/2951=106mm say 100mm.
These bars shall extend by a distance of Ld or l/4 which ever is more
from the center of support
Ld= Φσs/ (4*τbd )= Φ*115/(4*0.8)
36Φ=36*20=720mm
l/4=(4+0.245)/4=1.06 say 1m
Hence extended the 20mm Φ bars by a distance 1m from center of support.
Since the bending moment is proportional to the depth of waste, area of
reinforcement will reduce linearly with the depth. Hence spacing of the bars
can be increased to
2*100=200mmc/c at 3*0.5=1.5mfrom top
b) Reinforcement at center of span ; at center of span
M=40641Nm
This causes tension on face away from waste. However since the thickness
of wall is less than 225mm. the value of σst to be considered=115N/mm2
Ast1=M-Tx/(jd Φσst )
=(40641-72000*87.5)/(0.853*210*115)
=1667mm2
Ast2=T/ σst =72000/115
=627mm2
Ast= Ast1+ Ast2

=1667+627
=2294mm2
Spacing using 20mm Φ bars (AΦ=314 mm2)
= 314*1000/2294
=137mm say 135mm
Curtails 50% of bars at a distance of 0.15l=0.15*4.245
=0.64m, say 670mm from center
of support.
Since bending moment is proportional to the depth, area of steel will reduce
linearly with depth. Hence spacing of the bars can be increased to
2*135=270mm c/c at 0.5*3=1.5m from top.
c) Reinforcement for cantilever moment
Cantilever moment at base
=wHh2/6=1200*4*12/6
=8000Nm
This causes tension on waste face
Ast= 8000*E3/(0.853*210*115)
=388mm2
Distribution reinforcement percentage of distribution reinforcement
=0.3-0.1((245-100)/(400-100))
= 0.25
Area of steel =0.25/100*245*1000=612.5mm2
Area of steel on each face = 0.5*610=305mm2
However in order that the distribution reinforcement may also act as main
reinforcement for cantilever action, provide area of steel on each face
=388 mm2
Spacing, using 10mm diameter bars (A=78mm2)

=78*1000/388
=201mm say 200mm c/c
Design of base slab since the tank is resting on ground; provide a normal
thickness of 180mm
Area of steel= 0.4/1000*180*1000 =720mm2
Area of steel on each face
=720/2 =360mm2
Spacing, using 8mm diameter bars (A=50mm2)
=50*1000/360 =139mm say 135mmc/c
Hence provide 8mm diameter bars at 135mm c/c both ways both at top and
bottom of the base slab
Free board provides a free board of 150mm.
The cross sectional top view is shown below

Design of gas holder

The size of the gas holder depends up on the desired volume of daily gas
production. The volume of the gas holder should equal on day’s gas
production.
The following table provides approximate quantities of gas required for
some domestic activities.
Activity Volume of gas required

Cooking for a family of 5 or 6 2m3 per day
persons
Heating water in a 100 liter tank 3m3 per day
Lighting one lump 0.1-0.15m3 per hour
Operating a two horse power 0.9m3 per day
stationary engine
Table approximate gas requirement

Source –water for world designing a biogas system; technical note
No.SAN.3.D.4.
In our case we are trying to change the wood energy for the student’s
cafeteria by biogas. The different activities made by wood energy in the
cafeteria are:
 Washing the different accessories for the cafeteria
 Heating water for backing Enjera
 Heating for fresh meal
 Heating water for making Wote
According to the data we get from the cafeteria for these activities they
require 15 dishes each having a capacity of 100 liter.
Since our digester volume is 60m 3 the volume of the gas holder has to be
30m3.

Design analysis
The gas holder is a vertical type pressure vessel.

We select the gas holder to be made from steel because of the following
reasons:
 Since the in side pressure of the pressure vessel is approximately
equal to the atmospheric presser, it doesn’t require a high strength
steel.
 We can control the leakage of the gas easily.
 We can make the gas holder portable.
 The inlet and outlet valves can be welded easily to the gas holder.
Given data:
 Fluid-methane
 Maximum pressure =101.325kpa + 10% safety pressure
=101.325 + 0.1*101.325kpa
=111.4575kpa say 115kpa.

Maximum temperature = 80oc

Volume = 30m3
Material selection:
We select the material for the gas holder to be steel 37, with the following
specification.
- Yield stress (Rpo, 2/t) = 220Mpa
- Ultimate stress (Rm/20) = 360Mpa
Because of the following reasons:
 It is relatively cheap
 It can be easily welded
 We can get a variety of standard thicknesses in the market.
Calculation:
The type of the shell is cylindrical.

Now let’s determine the dimensions of the cylinder
The volume of the cylindrical shell is given by

V = volume of cylinder + volume of the end
Assume the volume of the end is 5% of the total volume of the cylinder
5
Vend = 100
*30
= 1.5m3
There the remaining volume of the shell is 28.5m3 which is given by:
V= 
2
D i
*h
4
But h = (2-3) Di, select h = 2 Di
D
2
 28.5 = i
* 2 Di
4
 57 =  Di 3
57
 Di =
 = 2.63m = 2630mm………….ans.
3
Substituting on the above equation; h = 2*2.63 = 5.26m…………ans.
Thickness of the shell:
The required thickness shall be calculated from the following equation for
initial pressure p;
p*D
e = (2 f * z i p)
Where;
 e = thickness of shell
 z = weld correction factor = 0.8
 Di = internal diameter of shell = 2630mm
 P = internal pressure = 0.115Mpa
 f = the design stress of the steel
Now let’s determine the design stress of the shell
R po Rm / 20
f = min { , }
1.5 2.4
220 360
=min { ,
1.5 2.4
}
f = 146.67Mpa………..ans.
Substituting the above values
0.115 * 2630
e= ( 2 * 146.67 * 0.8  0.115)
= 1.289mm
Standardizing the thickness
e = 2mm……………….ans.

Comment:
-With this small value of the thickness we are in the safe condition of the
given pressure. So we can purchase this thickness with minimum cost.
- According to the maximum temperature the shell is not affected. So we
don’t need here thermal analysis.
Design of torispherical end:
For welding purpose the material for the end is the same as that of the shell.
Geometry of the torispherical end
-conditions of applicability of the torispherical end
 r  0.2Di
 r  o.o6Di
 r  2e
 e  0.08De
 R  De
Note: when we design the torispherical end the required thickness shall be
the greatest of es, ey and eb.
p*R
Where; es = (2 fz  0.5 p )
 * p (0.75 R  0.2 Di )
ey = f

Where  is a factor found from the figure (fig, 7.5.1, page 30) of the
European standard book.
1
 
0.825 1.25
eb = (0.75R + 0.2Di)  p  Di  
111 f b  r 
 

R po ,2 / t
Where; fb =
1.5
Now let’s determine the values of r and R from the conditions of
applicability and cross back again.
From condition 1
r  o.o6Di
r  0.06*2630
r  157.8
Select r = 200mm.
From condition 2
R  De
R  Di + 2e
R  2630 + 2*2
R  2632
Select R = 2000mm.
Cross check:
r  0.2Di
200  0.2*2630 =526…………..safe
r  2e
200  4………………………..safe
e  0.08De
2  0.08*2634 = 210.72……….safe
So the values of r and R are safe for the conditions of applicability.
Now;
From the first equation
p*R
es = (2 fz  0.5 p )
0115 * 2000
= ( 2 * 146.67 * 0.8  0.5 * 0.115)
=0.98mm……………………..ans.
From the second equation

 * p (0.75 R  0.2 Di )
ey = f
 is obtained from obtained from the European standard book = 0.901
0.901 * 0.115 Mpa  0.75 * 2000  0.2 * 2630 
=
146.67
= 1.43mm………………………..ans
From the third equation
1
 
0.825 1.25
eb = (0.75R + 0.2Di)  p  Di  
111 f b  r 
 

1
 0.825

=  0.75 * 2000  0.2 * 2630 

0.115  2630 
 
 1 .5


111 * 146.67  200  

= 3.076mm.
This value is greater than e, which is not safe. e must be greater than e s, ey
and eb. so let e = 4mm. with this value of e all conditions are safe except the
cost of the shell is relatively increased.
Now let’s determine the inside height of the torispherical end. This is given
by;
Di D
hi = R- ( R  )( R  i  2r )
2 2
hi =2000- (2000  2630 / 2)(2000  2630 / 2  2 * 200)

hi =587mm………………..ans
DESIGN OF OPENING
-a small opening is required for the gas holder for the gas inlet from the
digesters.
-the standard gas inlet available mostly in the market is 18mm in diameter.
-so the opening is 14mm diameter, then it is welded with the pipe.
-now lets check weather the opening welded with the pipe needs a
reinforcement or not.
-a small opening is one which satisfies the following condition
d  .15 (2ris  ecis)ecis
Where ris is given for cylindrical shells,
ris =De/2-eas
Where
ecis =assumed shell thickness=4mm
eais =analysis thickness, take ea is=4mm
ris =2638/2-4
ris =1315mm
d  .15 (2 *1315  4)4
d  15.4mm
14  15.4mm
There for our opening is a small opening which means that it does not
require reinforcement for welding. So we do not require reinforcement
design.
DESIGN OF MANHOLE
The diameter of the man hole is in the range of 400-600mm. select 500mm.
500  0.15 (2ris  ecis)ecis =15.4mm.
-so the manhole is not a small opening which requires a reinforcement.
-for good welding the reinforcement material is similar to that of the shell.
CYLINDERICAL SHELL WITH ISOLATED OPENING END AND SET

ON NOZZLE IN COMBINATION WITH REINFORCING PLATE

From the general formula of the combination of the two

(Afs+Afw)(fs-0.5p)+Afp(fop-0.5p)+Afb(fob-0.5p)  p(Aps+Apb+0.5A4)
Since A4 is not included in this case, we can equate to zero.
(Afs+Afw)(fs-0.5p)+Afp(fop-0.5p)+Afb(fob-0.5p)  p(Aps+Apb)
Where fop=min (fs, fb)
fop=f=fs=fb=146.67Mpa.
lso-maximum length of shell contributing to opening reinforcement, taken on
the mean surface of the shell wall.
Afs-area of reinforcing part
Afw-cross sectional area of fillet weeds between nozzle and shell.
Now lets calculate all the unknown parameters
Afs
Afs for an opening with a set on nozzle is given by
Afs =ecis (eb+ls)
Where eb= effective thickness of nozzle and we take 4mm
ls=min(lso,ls)
Since the manhole opening is far from the junction, or far from the
discontinuity ls=0
l’s=lso
where lso= (2ris  eis)ecis
as calculated above
ris=1315mm
ecis=4mm
lso= (2 *1315  4)4

lso=102.65mm
Afs=ecis(eb+l’s)
=4(4+102.65)
Afs=426.6mm2…..ans
-for asset on nozzle, the length contributing to the reinforcement shall not be
greater than lbo calculated as follows
lbo = (deb  eb)eb

Where deb=man hole diameter + 2lcis
=500+2*4 =508mm
lbo = (508  4) 4 =44.89 say 45mm
From the formula
Afb=eb*l’b>lbo>45mm say lb=60mm
Where l’b=min (45,60)
=45mm
Afb=45*4 =180mm2
Afw
Area of welds already in other areas shall not be calculated, they have to be
omitted. Areas of fillet weld cross section which are not included in other
areas are
Afw=2(1/2*ecis, ecis)
=3(1/2*6*6)
Afw=54mm2
Where 6=thickness of plate that is with that size.
Apb
For a set on nozzle,Apb=0.5di*(l’b+eais)
=0.5*2630(45+4)
Apb= 64435mm2
Aps
Aps with reinforcing plate can be given by
Aps=As+0.5*d*eais+0.5*di*ep
Where ep=thickness of the plate, take 6mm
d=diameter of manhole (500mm)
eais=4mm , di=2630mm
As=ris(l’s+Q), where Q=0.5d=0.5*500=250mm
As=1315(102.65+250)
= 463734.75mm2
Aps=463734.75+0.5*500*4+0.5*2630*6
Aps=472624.75mm2
Afp
Afp is calculated from the equation
Afp= lp*l’p
Where l’p= min (lso,lp) , where lp<lso
Here lso=102.65mm say lp=100mm
l’p= min(102.65,100)
l’p=100mm
and ep=6mm (thickness of reinforcing plate)
Afp=ep* l’p =6*100 = 600mm2
Substituting thus values in to the general equation
(Afs+Afw)(fs-0.5p)+Afp(fop-0.5p)+Afb(fob-0.5p)  p(Aps+Apb)
(426.6+54)(146.67-0.5*.115)+600(146.67-0.5*.115)+180(146.67-0.5*0.115)
 0.115(472624.75+64435)
184.82  61.76KN…………………..safe
DESIGN OF FLANGE FOR THE MANHOLE
Bolt design
Material for bolt
Steel 52 Rpo,2/t=335 , Rm/20=560
Tightening load (wn)
wn=  cby, where
c-center to center distance of bolts, assume 580mm
b-width of gasket (assume 5mm)
y-=1.4Mpa, for temperature >750c,ie 800c
wn=  *580*5*1.4
=12.75KN
Operation load
Wop =  /4 (c-dn)2*p, assume dn = 20mm.
=  /4 (580 – 20)2
=28.32kN.
wop > wn……………………………safe.
Take the larger one for our design.
Wop = 28.32kN.
There fore;

 wn wop 

AB,min = max  , 

f fB 

 R 
fB=min  R po ,2 / 3; 4m 
 
=min(335/3, 560/4)
=111.67Mpa.
wop
AB,min = f B

28.32kN
= 111 .67 Mpa
= 253.6mm2
AB,min = 253.6 =  dn2*n/4, take n = 8.
4 * 253.6
dn2=  * 8
dn = 17.97mm take dn = 18mm

From standard table M18 is available at bolt size.
Flange
Material same as shell- f = 146.67Mpa.

The thickness of the flange is the greater of the following two
6M R
e1 = f (c  nd n )
where; n = 8….number of bolts
MR =  /4*  2 *p*dn
=  /4*5002*0.115*18
=4.06E5N.mm.
Substituting this value on the above equation

e1 = 9.95mm……………
 A  2g 
e2 =  1 2 f  p
 
Where; A1 = B = 500mm.
g = 4mm
 500  2 * 4 
e2 =  0.115
 2 *146.67 
=1.745mm……..
Take the larger one that is
e1 = 9.95mm say e = 10mm.
This completes the design of the flange
Design of supporting leg
Material selection
Steel 37

 The legs of the circular diameter with hollow and the out side
diameter d2 and the inner diameter d1.
 d3 = is the diameter of the reinforcing plate
 deff = is the effective diameter of supporting legs
 Fi is the force on the leg
  is the angle between the supporting leg axis and vertical axis
  is the geometric parameter
  is the angle tangent to the end of the leg junction
 e2 = plate thickness
Conditions of applicability:
a- 0.001  en/Deq  0.05, where en = shell thickness = 4mm.
Deq = for central part of torispherical head is
Deq = Ri = 2000mm
0.001  4/2000  0.05
0.001  0.002  0.05 ……………..it satisfies
b-since we use a reinforcing plate, it should satisfy e2  en
en = 4mm. we take e2 = 4mm
c- d3  1.6d2, assume d2 =50mm, with inside diameter = 40mm
d3  1.6*50 = 80mm
Take d3 = 75mm
Applied force
Assumptions:
I. There is no wind force
II. The force which caused by the gas is zero
III. The is no moment created

Then the applied local force Fi on the leg is obtained from
F 4r
Fi = n  4
a
rd
Since ra = 0
Fi =F/n
Where n-number of legs take n=3
F= total weight of the pressure vessel including, shell, openings, lugs and
ends.
Now lets calculate the total weight (W=F)
Wtotal=Wshell+2Wend+Wlugs
The weight of the gas is neglected
Wshell=mg =rvg, take rsteel=7850Kg/m3
V=  /4(De2-Di2)*h, h=5.26m (calculated before)
=  /4(2.6382-2.632)*5.26
V=0.1741m3
Wshell=rvg =7850*0.1741*9.81
=13407.2N
The volume of the torispherical end can be approximated as the volume of
the half sphere given by
Ve=  /3((hi2(3R-hi))
hi=587mm
R=2000mm
-so the volume of the end thickness is given by
  
Vet=  /3 h0  hi  3R   h0  hi  
2 2
Where h0=hi+e =587+4=591

Vet=  /3  0.5912  0.587 2  3 * 2   0.591  0.587 
=0.03m3
There fore the weight of the torispherical end is
Wend=rvg=7850*9.81*0.03
=2310.5N
The weights of the openings and the lugs are negligible compared to others
Then Wtotal=13407.2N+2*2310.5N
=18028.2N say 18030N
From the formula
Fi=F/n=18.03KN/3
=6.01KN
Load limit to the shell

To define the load limit of the shell and maximum allowable force F i,max
follow the following procedure
1- determine the parameter

d eff
=
Deq * e a
Where deff = d3 for supporting legs with reinforcing plate = 75mm
from conditions of stability
Deq for torispherical end is
Deq = Ri = 2000mm
There fore ;
75
= = 0.84
2000 * 4
2- calculate the maximum allowable force ,Fi,max
cos 
Fi,max =f*ea2* cos(   ) 1.82  3.6  0.91 
2
Where f =146.67Mpa, ea = 4mm

 and  can be assumed from the drawing let’s assume  = 40o and
 = 20o
Fi,max =146.67*42* cos(40  20) 1.82  3.6 * 0.84  0.91 * 0.84 

cos 20 2
=12.87kN.
Check
Fi  Fi,max
6.01kN  12.87kN………………….safe
Check for buckling
The force which is responsible for buckling lies along the axis

There fore F1=Ficos20

=6.01cos20
F1=5.65kN
The critical formula for buckling is given by

  y  L 2 

1    
4c E  k  
2
Wcr = Ac*sy  
Where;
 Ac =  /4(d22-d12) =  /4(0.052-0.042)
=706.8mm2
 sy=f =146.67Mpa
 E=210Gpa
 c = 4 f0r both ends fixed
 k = 0.25dc = 0.25(50-40)
=2.5
Assume l = 300mm

 146.67  300  
2

1    
 2
146.67*706.8   
4 * 4 * 210 E 3  2 .5 
Wcr =
=102kN
Force along the axis of leg = F1< Wcr
5.65kN<102kN
Conclusion
The design of leg is safe and each of the three is at 120 o and needs
reinforcing plate at top and bottom of legs. The leg is bolted or
concreted to the ground.
Design of lifting lug
Longitudinal lifting lug;

Take: b1 = 300mm
b2 = 150mm
b1
a2 =  40
2
300
=  40
2
110mm.
From our design ea is the thickness of the shell which is 4mm.
Conditions of applicability;
The following conditions shall apply
1- 0.001  Deq  0.05 Deq
2- If a reinforcing plate is applied
e2  en
b3  1.5b1
3- The local force FR acts in the plane of lifting lug. Where D eq is the
equivalent calculated diameter
For a cylindrical shell
Deq = Di
Where; Di is the shell inside diameter which is equal to 2630mm.

Now,
0.001*2630  en  0.05*2630
2.63  en  131.5
Take en = 8mm.
If reinforcement is applied:
e2  en
e2  8
Take e2 = 9mm.
b3  1.5b1
b3  1.5 * 300
b3  450mm
Load limits for shell
For longitudinal lifting lug first we should determine the values of V 1, V2,
K13, K14,  . If a reinforcing plate is applied b = b3 =450mm.
The following conditions should be satisfied
a) 0.001  en  0.05
b
b) 0  Deq  1.0
8
 0.001  2630  0.05
 0.001  0.003  0.05
And
b
0 Deq  1.0
450
0 1
2630
 0  0.171  1
So it is safe.
The line load is in the longitudinal direction following parameters should be

applied.
b
  1  Deq ea
450
 1 
2630 * 4
= 4.38mm.
V1 = min (0.08 1 ; 0.2)
=min (0.08*4.38; 0.2)
=min (0.35; 0.20

=0.2.
m
V2 = K f
2
Where;  m   my is the global circumferential membrane stress in cylindrical

shell.
K2 = factor of test condition = 1.05
f = nominal stress = 146.67Mpa
For test conditions f = ftest
p * Deq
 my 
2 * ea
0.115 * 2630
= 2*4
=37.8Mpa.
37.8Mpa
V2 = 1.05 * 146.67 Mpa
=0.245.
1
K 13 
1.2 1  0.062
1
K 13 
1.2 1  0.064.38 2
=0.776.
1
K 14 
0.6 1  0.032
1
K 14 
0.6 1  0.034.38 2
=1.33.
Where; K13 and K14 are constants.
Now let’s calculate the allowable force and allowable moment.
2
 b,all * ea
FL max 
K 13
2
 b ,all * ea * b
M L max 
K 14
Where;  b, all is the bending limit stress which is a function of the membrane
stress due to local loading and global loading.
 b ,all  K 1 K 2 f
Where; K1 and K2 are factors
f nominal stress = a46.67Mpa
K1 =1.25 for design condition

K2 = 1.05 for test condition.
FLmax = the maximum allowable local radial force on the shell.
MLmax = the maximum allowable local moment on the shell
 b ,all  1.25 * 1.05 * 146.67 Mpa

=192.5Mpa.
192.5 * 4 2
FL max 
0.776
=3.97kN
192.5 * 4 2 * 0.45
M L max 
1.33
=1042.1Nm.
Applied force
The applied force FR acting on the lifting lug is calculated for a symmetric
vessel with two lifting lug.
W
FR 
2 cos 
Where; W is the total vessel weight = 13407.2N
 Is the angle between direction of force and normal to the shell.
Take  to be 30o.
13407.2
FR 
2 cos 30
=7.74kN.
Now let’s calculate the maximum allowable load and compare with the
actual load with the reinforcing plate.
K15 *  b ,all * ea2

FR ,max 
K
K13 cos   14  a 2  e2  sin   a1 cos 
b3
Where; K15 is the factor calculated as follows:

  Deq 
0 .3
 b2  
K 15  min 1  2.6   ;2.0

D 

  ea   eq  



0 .3
 2630   150  

K 15  min 1  2.6   ;2.0

  4   2630  

K 15  min 2.04;2.0

K 15  2
Substituting these values in the above equation:
2 * 192.5 * 4 2
FR ,max 
1.33
0.776 cos 30  110  9 sin 30  110 cos 30
450
=7.92kN.
Since, FR  FR,max our design of the lifting lug is safe.
Generation process
Anaerobic digestion:
Anaerobic digestion is the natural biological degradation of organic matter

in the absence of oxygen yielding biogas. Volatile solids inorganic matters
are converted in to biogas consisting of methane, carbon dioxide, and trace
amounts of other gases. Biogas is capable of operating in nearly all devices

intended for natural gas with minimal adjustments to account for lower Btu
content.
The degradation and conversion process occurs in four steps with different
classes of bacteria responsible for each phase. In manure digestion,
hydrolysis is often the rate limiting step due to lignin’s resistance to
degradation. The following figure illustrates the microbiological process
where the first two steps are facultative and the latter two are strictly
anaerobic.
These phases are discussed below briefly:

1. Solubilisation: facultative micro-organisms (organisms that use
oxygen if available otherwise they use other digestion process.) act up
on organic sub straits. A hydrolysis is taking place in which polymers
are converted into soluble monomers. Thus monomers are the subs
trait for the second phase.
2. Non-methanogenic phase (acidification): includes acido-genesis and
aceto-genesis. The now dissolved organic substraits are reduced from
their incoming state to soluble simple organic acids (mainly acetic
acid, CH3COOH).
3. Methanogenic phase (methanogenesis): methane bacteria reduce the
soluble organic compounds from second phase to methane and CO2.
There are two ways the bacteria works. Either they ferment the acetic
acid to methane and CO2 to methane by using hydrogen gas or
formate which is a product of other bacteria.
In the process the amount of oxygen demanding material is reduced
which results in a stable end product in comparison to the input.
The anaerobic bacteria’s that are involved in the last step are strictly an
aerobic, obligate anaerobic, and will not work properly if there is oxygen
presence. How ever it seems that the main bottle neck in the process is
the solubilisation of the organic polymers. So, if the objective is to keep
an absolute oxygen free environment that the initial phase will be less
efficient. The facultative micro-organisms will better environment for
growth and improve the solubilisation phase. Another characteristic of
the process is the symbiosis between different groups of micro-
organisms. Different groups of bacteria are involved in the different
stages.
A normal condition under which a biogas plant is operated, as well as the
equipment gives the possibility to maintain conditions where mesophilic
organisms can work. The mesophilic anaerobic digestion process has its
optimum at a temperature 30oc – 35oc. The process slows down and
finally stops at temperature below 10oc. If the plant is constructed below
the ground, as well if the digester volume is made too small, the
temperature can be kept quit stable. Depending on local climatic
condition it can, however be too low.
Basic contents of biogas
The basic content of biogas is methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2)
which is found in different proportions depending on; input to the system
what the condition during the fermentation process are. Traces of
hydrogen, sulphur ammonia and oxygen can also be found in various
degrees related to feed back and process. The sulphur is in the form of
hydrogen sulphide, which is a poisons and corrosive gas.
Typical values of biogas composition according to different authors:
Methane (vol %) Carbon dioxide Other Source

(vol %)
50% 50% Traces (Chawla 1986)
55-70% 30-45% 1-2% (Myles 1985)
65-70% 30-35% Traces (Meynell 1976)
58% 42% Traces (FW ford 1988)
65-85% 30-35% Traces (singh 1974)
50-70% 30-50% traces (Engel.etal 1977)

Table- composition of biogas.
One of the problems of using cattle manure as feed back is that much has
already been digested inside the cattle’s rumen which result in less gas
can be obtained per weight unit. In general it can be assumed that 30- 40
liters biogas/kg dung can be obtained.
The nitrogen is mainly needed for cell formation in the microbiological
process. Luck of nitrogen during the process can limit the formation of
cells, and too much nitrogen in the other hand can result in the formation
of ammonia toxicity in the slurry. According to Barnett etal. (1978) the
focus on the C/N ratio is over emphasized and should only become
interesting for applications for specific industrial feed stock. The biogas
typically consists of methane and carbon dioxide. These can be found in
different compositions depending on the feed stock. The higher methane
concentration, the higher energy content the biogas has.
The composition can be calculated using the Buswell’s formula:
CnHaOb + (n- a/4- b/2)H2O  (n/2-a/8 + b/4)CO2 + (n/2 + a/8 – b/4)CH4
Equation: Buswell’s formula for calculation of methane and carbon

dioxide content in the out put gas.
Water is needed for sustaining the process but the amounts needed in
conventional design are more for technical reasons. Where as, the actual
need of water is about 1-2liters of water/m 3of biogas, the technical need
is about 25liters/m3 of biogas.
Factors affecting biogas production
Various factors such as biogas potential of feed stock, design of digester,

inoculums, nature of substrate, PH, temperature, loading rate, hydraulic
retention time (HRT), C/N ratio, volatile fatty acids (VFA), etc. influence
the biogas production.
Design of digester
The performance of floating dome biogas plant was better than the fixed
Dome biogas plant, showing an increase in biogas production by 11.3%,

which was statically significant. Furthermore, the observed reduction in
biogas yield was due to the loss of gas from the slurry-balancing
chambers of fixed dome plant.
Potential of feed stock
From different feed stocks like cow dung, buffalo dung, dry animal
waste, stray cattle dung, and goat waste and poultry droppings for their
bio-methanation potential and observed that poultry droppings showed
higher gas production.
Inoculums
It is tested that the efficiency of different inoculums sources for

biomethanation. Use of goat rumen fluid as inoculums at a rate of 8%
(v/v) was more efficient in production of biogas. Further more, the
digesters inoculated with goat rumen fluid showed higher population of
cellulolytic anaerobic bacteria than other inocula test.
PH range
To measure the acid or alkaline condition of a material, the symbol "pH"

is used. A neutral solution has pH = 7; an acid solution has pH below 7;
and an alkaline solution has pH above 7. The pH has a profound effect on
biological activity, and the maintenance of a stable pH is essential to all
life. Most living processes take place in the range of pH 5 to 9. The pH
requirements of a digester are stricter (pH 7.5-8.5, Fig. 7).

During the initial acid phase of digestion, which may last about two
weeks, the pH may drop to 6 or lower, while a great deal of CO2 is given
off. This is followed by about three months of a slow decrease in acidity
during which volatile acids and nitrogen compounds are digested, and
ammonia compounds are formed (this ammonia becomes important when
we consider the fertilizer value of sludge). As digestion proceeds, less
CO2 and more methane is produced and the pH rises slowly to about 7.
As the mixture becomes less acid, methane fermentation takes over. The
pH then rises above the neutral point (pH = 7), to between pH 7.5 and
8.5. After this point, the mixture becomes well buffered; that is, even
when large amounts of acid or alkali are added, the mixture will adjust to
stabilize itself at pH 7.5 to 8.5.
Once the mixture has become well buffered, it is possible to add small
amounts of raw material periodically and maintain a constant supply of
gas and sludge (continuous load digesters). If you don't feed a digester
regularly (batch-load digesters), enzymes begin to accumulate, organic
solids become exhausted and methane production ceases.
After digestion has stabilized, the pH should remain around 8.0 to 8.5.
The ideal pH values of effluent in sewage treatment plants is 7 to 7.5, and
these values are usually given as the best pH range for digesters in general. From
our experience, a slightly more alkaline mixture is best for digesters using raw
animal or plant wastes.
You can measure the pH of your digester with "litmus" or pH paper which can be
bought at most drug stores. Dip the pH paper into the effluent as it is drawn off.
Litmus paper turns red in acid solutions (pH 1 to 7) and blue in alkaline solutions
(pH 7 to 14). You can get more precise measurements using pH paper which
changes colors within a narrow range of pH values.
Table 2.
Problems with pH.
Condition Possible Reasons "Cure"
1) Adding rawReduce feeding rate;
materials too fast Ammonia
Too acid2) Wide temperatureStabilize temperature
(pH 6 or less) fluctuation
3) Toxic Substances -
4) Build-up of scum Remove scum
Too Alkaline1) Initial raw materialPatience
(pH 9 or more) too alkaline Never put acid into

digester
If the pH in the continuous-load digester becomes too acidic (Table 2), you
can bring it up to normal again by adding fresh effluent to the inlet end, or
by reducing the amount of raw material fed to the digester, or as a last resort,
by adding a little ammonia. If the effluent becomes too alkaline, a great deal
of C02 will be produced, which will have the effect of making the mixture
more acidic, thus correcting itself. Patience is the best "cure" in both cases.
NEVER add acid to your digester. This will only increase the production of
hydrogen sulfide.
.Carbon nitrogen ratio
The bacteria responsible for the anaerobic require both elements, as all
living organisms, but they consume carbon roughly 30 times faster than
nitrogen. Assuming all other conditions are favorable for biogas
production, a carbon nitrogen ratio of about 30-1 is ideal for the raw
material fed in to a biogas plant. A higher ratio will leave carbon still
available after the nitrogen has been consumed, starving some of the
bacteria of this element. This will in turn die, returning nitrogen to the
mixture, but stowing the process. Too much nitrogen will cause this to
left over at the end of digestion (which stops when the carbon has
consumed) and reduce the quality of the fertilizer produced by the biogas
plant. The correct ratio of carbon to nitrogen will prevent loss of fertilizer
quality or methane content.
Temperature
For the digesting bacteria to work at the greatest efficiency, a temperature of

95°F (35°C) is best. Gas production can proceed in two ranges of
temperature: 85-105°F (29-40°C) and 120-140°F (49-60°C). Different sets
of acid-producing and methane bacteria thrive in each of these different
ranges. Those active in the higher range are called heat-loving or
"thermophilic" bacteria (Fig. 8). Some raw materials, like algae, require this
higher range for digestion. But digesters are not commonly operated at this
higher range because:
1. most materials digest well at the lower range,

2. the Thermophilic Bacteria are very sensitive to any changes in the
digester,
3. the sludge they produce is of poor fertilizer quality, and

4. it is difficult to maintain such a high temperature, especially in
temperate climates.
The bacteria that produce methane in the "normal range" 90-95°F (32-
35°C) are more stable and produce a high quality sludge. It is not difficult
to maintain a digester temperature of 95°F (35°C).
The same mass of manure will digest twice as fast at 95°F (35°C) than it
will at 60°F (15°C) (Fig. 8) and it produces nearly 15 times more gas in
the same amount of time! (Fig. 9) (See how the amount of gas produced
improves with temperature to 80-100°F (27-38°C), where production is
optimum.) In Fig. 10 it can be seen how a different amount of gas is
produced when the digester is kept at 60°F (15°C) than when it is kept at
95°F (35°C).

Percentage of solids
Anaerobic digestion of organics will proceed best if the input material
consists of roughly 8% solids. In the case of fresh caw manure, this is the
equivalent of dilution with roughly an equal quantity of water.
Temperature used in digestion

An aerobic break down of waste occurs at temperatures lying between

00c and 690c, but the action of the digesting bacteria will decrease sharply
below 160c.production of gas is most rapid between 290c and 410c or
between 490c and 600c. This is due to the fact that two different types of
bacteria multiply best in these two different ranges, but the high
temperature bacteria are much more sensitive to ambient influences. A
temperature between 320c and 350c has proven most efficient for stable
and continuous production of methane. Biogas produced outside this
range will have a higher percentage of co 2 and other gases than within
this range.
Temperature control :in hot regions it is relatively easy to simply the
digester to keep it in the ideal range of temperature, but cold climates
present more of a challenge.
The first action is, naturally, to insulate the digester with straw or wood
shavings. A layer about 50-100cm thick, coated with a water proof
covering is a good start. If this proves to be insufficient in winter, then
heating coils may have to be added to the biogas digester.
It is relatively simple to keep the digester at the ideal temperature if hot
water, regulated with a thermo stat, is circulated through the system.
Usually it is sufficient to circulate the heating for a couple of hours in the
morning and again in the evening. Naturally, the biogas produced by the
digester can be used for this purpose. The small quality of gas “wasted”
on heating the digester will be more than compensated for by the greatly
increased biogas production.
Type of organic waste used since our project is in Mekelle university, the
type of organic waste to be used depends on the availability of it in the
campus. We have three organic wastes:
Cattle waste: this is found from cattle in animal science department. This
department has model cattle for educational purpose in the campus. The
waste from these cattle was not used before. But this waste has great
value for the production of biogas.
Cafeteria waste: our cafeteria has prepared for lots of students in the
campus. There fore there is a lot of food waste from the cafeteria. S we
saw this waste is simply thrown to different parts of the campus. This a
negative effect to the students, because it has a bad smell. We
recommend this waste has to be saved and used for biogas production.
Students extra: there are lots of toilets in our campus. We know from
these toilets lots of human waste is exported from the campus. But this
waste has a lot of energy by converting it into biogas.
The following table shows different types of feed stocks (organic wastes)
and their potential for biogas production.

Feed stock Availability(Kg) Gas yield(m3)

Cattle waste 10 0.36
Buffalo waste 15 0.54
Piggery waste 2.25 0.18
Chicken waste 0.18 0.011
Human extra 0.4 0.028
Now referring the above table let’s estimate the amount of biogas
produced from our digester. The digester has 60m 3 capacity. Let us
assume the three types of wastes we used are equally contributed that is:
Cattle waste = 20m3
Student’s extra = 20m3
Cafeteria (chicken) waste = 20m3
Now let’s estimate the gas found from these wastes independently and
finally we add them
a- gas found from cattle waste:
We know r=m/v m=r*v
r=1200Kg/m3 (approximated for all wastes)
mc=1200*20
= 24000Kg
From the table for cattle waste
10Kg = 0.36m3
24000Kg = xc
Xc=0.36*24000/10
= 864m3 of biogas…….
b- gas found from student’s extra:
ms=r*v
= 1200*20 =24000Kg
From the table for human extra
0.4Kg = 0.028m3
24000Kg = xs
Xs=0.028*24000/0.4
=1680m3 of biogas……..
c- gas found from cafeteria waste:
mcf =r*v
= 1200*20
= 2400Kg
From the table for chicken waste
0.18Kg = 0.011m3
24000Kg = xcf

Xcf= 0.011*24000/0.18
= 1467m3
The total amount of biogas produced per digestion
Vtot=xc+xs+xcf
=864m3+1680m3+1467m3
= 4011m3
From our gas holder design we assumed the daily biogas consumption is
30m3. So totally for one digestion cycle gas produced, we can know the
amount of day we can use
v tot
Day= v
perday
4011m 3
= 30m 3
day
Total day = 133.7 days say 133 days or 19 weeks
NOTE: the complete an aerobic digestion of wastes takes about 8 weeks

(two months) at normally warm temperatures like Mekelle. One third of
the total bio gas will be produced in the first week, another quarter in the
second week and the remainder of the biogas production will be spread
over the remaining 6 weeks.
(Source: climate friendly farming, small scale farm systems in Viet nary)
Referring the above note and considering Mekelle is normally warm
climate, our complete digestion takes about 8 weeks. But consuming
30m3 per day we saw we have 19 weeks of safety. That means when we
double our daily consumption (i.e. 60m3) per day. Our safety day
becomes
4011m 3
Daysafe= 60m 3
day
= 66.85 days say 66 days
Daysafe= 2 months and 6 days.
That is with complete digestion of the system we can consume 60m per
day.
Here we suggest that we must have two gas holders each having a
capacity of 30m3. Because when we have a 60m3 capacity gas holder it is
huge and costly. Another advantage of using two gas holders is, we can
use the bio gas at two different places. For example; in our case one at
the senior cafe and the other at the fresh cafe.

USE OF SPENT SLURRY
After the digestion process is completed the waste after losing its bio gas
is used as a fertilizer. The carbon and nitrogen of slurry on application to
soil were mineralized with increasing incubation period. A significant
positive correlation was observed between the mineralization and slurry
levels. Also the application of slurry improved the physical, chemical and
biological characteristics of the soil.
DESIGN OF STOVE
 This design is water heating stove for the student’s cafeteria.

 We know in average the cafeteria heats 1.5m 3of water per day. This
means there are 15 separate 100 liter water heating dishes (dists). So
we design one stove and the others will be constructed based on this
design.
 The following figure shows our assumed bio gas stove for heating
water.
DESIGN ANALYSIS
Here the basic parts to be designed are the burner and the port base.
Given data
 Volume at 1 dish = 100liters
 Total working time = in average all day with 6hrs.
 Cp of water = 4.174 @ 950c
 Heating temperature = nearly saturated (950c)
CALCULATION OF ENERGY NEEDED FOR HEATING WATER
energy required to heat the water from ambient temperature to heating
temperature:
It is given by
m w c pw (T2  T1 )
Q=
t
Where
mw = mass of water
= rw*vw
= 1000Kg/m3*0.1m3
= 100Kg
Cpw – specific heat of water at 950c = 4.174KJ/Kg0c
T1 = room temperature = 220c
T2 = heating temperature = 950c
t = heating time assume 30min
100 * 4.174(95  22)

Q=
30 * 60 sec
= 16.93KW
EFFICIENCY OF STOVE
Energy losses to the surrounding environment

Here the heat energy is transferred to the surrounding by 3 modes
 conduction
 convection
 radiation
-
From the stove design heat can be transferred only through the burner
cover and the stove support.
Conduction heat loss

a- conduction heat loss through the lid
-
Because of its low thermal conductivity, we choose the material for
the lid is
-
Asbestos cement sheet with thermal conductivity of 0.166 W/mk
It is given by
kAc T
Qc = , assume length of the vertical plate(L) is equal
L
to half of the diameter of the mitad (D); i.e. L=D/2=30cm
Where k = 0.166 W/mk
Ac= total heat transfer area
=  DL
=  *0.6*0.6
=1.1304m2
T = (T2-T1), where T1= 220c (ambient)
T2 = surface temperature. Since the mitad cover has no direct contact
with the flame we assume the surface temperature of the mitad cover to
be 600c.
t= thickness of the cover = 6mm.
2.32 * 0.0471 * (60  22)
Qc = 2.32*1.1304*(60- W
60 * E3
= 69.2W
b-Conduction heat transfer through the stove support
- The stove support is made from the concrete with a thermal
conductivity of 0.76 W/m0c
k s As T
Qs =
L
Where
ks = 0.76 W/m0c
As =  *0.62/4 = 0.282m2
 T = (60-22) = 380c
L = 50mm
0.76 * 0.282 * 38
Qs = 50
= 162.88W
Total conductive heat loss
QT = Qc + Qs
= 69.2W+162.88W
QT = 232.08W
Convection heat loss
a- Convection heat loss through the burner cover

Known values
-
surface temperature = 600c
-
ambient temperature = 220c
-
area = 0.0471m2
The convection heat transfer is given by
Qcon = Achc(Tc-Ti)
Where:
Ac – heat transfer area
Tc – surface temperature
Ti – ambient temperature
hc – convective heat transfer co-efficient
Determination of convective heat transfer co-efficient

It is given by
hc = Nu*k/Ln , where Nu : nusselt number

k : thermal conductivity
Ln : effective length
Nu = c*(Gr*pr)n
Where, c and n are constants which varies with the shape of the material
Gr : Grashofe’s number
pr: Plandle number
g *  * (Tc  Ti ) * L3
Gr =
v2
Where:
 : Volume expansion co-efficient
v : Viscosity of air (m2/s)
g: acceleration due to gravity
Known values:
- g = 9.81m/s2
- Effective length= D/4 = 60/4 = 15cm = 0.15m
- From table property of air at film temperature
Tf = (Tc + Ti)/2 = (60+22)/2 = 410c = 314k
v = 17.09*E-6
Pr = 0.702
K = 0.028
 = 1/Tf = 1/314
Assuming the assembly of the burner cover as pan with lid take c = 0.15 and
n= 1/3
1
9.81 * * (60  22) * 0.15 3
Gr = 314
(17 * E  6) 2
= 13.71*E6
Nusselst number (Nu)
Nu = 0.15(Gr*pr)1/3
= 0.15(13.71*E6*0.702)1/3
Nu = 31.9
Convective heat transfer co-efficient
hc = Nu*k/Ln
= (31.9*0.028)/0.15
hc = 5.96W/m2k
Convective heat loss to the environment

Qcon = Achc(Tc-Ti)
= 0.0471*5.96(66-22)
Qcon = 10.66W
b- convective heat transfer through the stove support
Known values
-
surface temperature = 600c
-
room temperature = 220c
-
Ac = 0.282m2
-
Convective heat transfer co-efficient hc = 5.96W/m2k
Qcon = Achc(Tc-Ti)
= 0.282*5.96*(60-22)
= 18W
Total convective loss
= 10.66+18
QconvT = 28.66W
RADIATIVE HEAT LOSS
a- radiation loss by burner cover

It is given by:
Q r =  *  * Ac*(Tc4-Ti4)
Where:
 : a radiative property of the surface termed as the emissive of the
surface, its value range from 0  E  1, this property provide a measure of
how efficient a surface emits energy relative to the black body. The
emissibility of brick is 0.93.
 : Stephan Boltzman constant which is equal to 5.67*E-8 W/m2k4
Known values
Tc=333k
Ti=295k
Ac=0.0471m2
Substituting the values
Qr =0.93*5.67*E-8*0.0471 (3334-2954)
Qr =11.73W
b- Radiation heat by the stove support.

Known values:
Tc = 333k
Ti = 295k
Ac = 0.282m2
 =emissivity of concrete = 0.63
Qr = 0.63*5.67E-8*0.282*(3334-2954)
=47.57W
Total radiative loss = 47.57W + 11.73W
= 59.3W
Total heat loss = Qcond + Qconv + Qrad

=232.08W + 28.66W + 59.3W
=320.04W
Energy absorbed during the chemical process (i.e. efficiency of

combustion).
Since we have no registered data let’s assume the loss be 200W
There fore the efficiency of the stove is given by:
Qusefull

Qtotal
16.93E 3
= 16.93E 3  520.04 * 100%
=97%..................................................ans.

Flame stabilization
Important design criteria for gas burners are the avoidance of flash back
and liftoff. Flash back (back fire) occurs when the flame enters and
propagates through the burner tube or port with out quenching; while lift
off is the condition when the flame is not attached to the burner tube or
port but, rather, is stabilized at some distance from the port. Flash back is
not only a nuisance, but a safety hazard as well. In a gas appliance,
propagation of a flame through a port can ignite the relatively large
volume of gas in the mixer leading to the port, which might result in
explosion. Conversely, flame propagation through a “flash tube” from the
pilot to the burner proper is used for ignition. In practical burners, flame
lighting is generally undesirable for several reasons. First it can
contribute to some escape of unburned gas or incomplete combustion.
Also, ignition is difficult to achieve above the lifting limit. Accurate
control of the position of the lifted flame is achieved; so that poor heat
transfer characteristics can result lifted flames can also be noisy.
The phenomenon of both flash back and lifted are related to matching the
local laminar flame speed to the local flame velocity.
Flash back is generally a transient event, occurring as the fuel flow is
decreasing or turned off. When the local flame speed exceeds the local
flow velocity, the flame propagates upstream through the tube or port.
When the fuel flow is stopped, flames will flash back through any tubes
or ports that are larger than the quenching parameters for flash back to
the same as those affecting quenching, e.g. fuel type, equivalent ratio,
flow velocity and burner geometry.
Primary aeration
Gas – burning appliances premix some air with the fuel gas before it
burner as a laminar jet diffusion flame. This primary aeration which is
typically 40- 60% of the stoichiometric air requirement, makes the flames
short and prevents soot from forming, Resulting in the familiar blue
flame. The maximum amount of, air that can be added by safety
considerations. If too much air is added the rich flammability may
exceed, which implies that the mixture will support a premixed flame.
Depending on flow conditions and burner geometry this flame may
propagate up stream, a condition refers to as flash back. If the flow
velocity is too great for flash back to occur, an inner premixed flame will
form inside the diffusion flame envelope as in the Bunsen burner.
Note that in the range of 40 -60% primary aeration flame lengths are
reduced approximately 85-90% from their original no-air added length.
Theoretical air amount calculation
Theoretical or stiochiometric amount is the least amount of air needed for

complete combustion of biogas. It depends on that of all combustible gas
and percentage of their volume in biogas. The theoretical air amount of each
gas is determined by the equation of the combustion of the said gas.
For our case the methane content is in the range of 65-70%. To calculate the
theoretical air amount for methane:
CH4 + 2O2  CO2 + 2H2O + DH
It expresses that one STYDm3 of methane and 2 STDm3 of oxygen can burn
completely. Further more 1 STDm3 of air contains 0.21STDm3 of oxygen.
Therefore, when 1 STDm3 methane burns, it will need the following
amounts of air:
2/0.21 = 9.523 (STDm3) of air.
The theoretical air amount for the biogas combustion can calculated using
the following formula:
Vo = Vo1 + V1
Where:
Vo is the theoretical air amount of biogas (STDm3/stdm3)
Vo1 is the theoretical air amount of methane (STDm3/stdm3)
V1 is the volume percentage of methane in biogas.
Vo = 9.523*0.68 = 6.48STDm3/stdm3
Combustion stability, flames lifts off and back fires
When the floe velocity of biogas becomes faster than its combustion
velocity we often find the o\phenomenon of flame lift of and vice versa
effect is back fire. Having the optimize flame velocity will brought the
combustion stability.
There are many factors which affect combustion stability and cause flame
lift off and back fire. The conclusions are as follow;

 The excess of heat of heat load in design makes flow velocity of gas
mixture surpass the spreading speed of flame and cause flame lift off.
 The tendency of primary air coefficient towards one makes limit

velocity of flame lift off, easy to cause flame lift off.
 The larger diameter of flame port decreases flow velocity and isn’t
easy to cause flame lift off, easy to cause back fire.
 The deepening of port depth is favorable to flame stability, but the

excessive flame port depth increases, decreases flow velocity and is
easy to cause back fire.
 The short supply of secondary air doesn’t vent flue gas smoothly and
is easy to cause back fire. But the excessive floe velocity of secondary
air is easy to cause flame lift off.
Design of port base
Design of port base means determining the number and size of the ports
in such a way that to avoid:
 Flame lift off

 Back fire
 Yellow tip of the flame
Known values:
 Total energy needed = 16.93kW
 Diameter of dish ( subjected to the flame) = 60cm

 Volume flow rate of biogas =3m3 /6hrs. They heat the water per
day in average for 6 hours.
There fore Vfb = 0.5m3/hr

Stiochiometric air fuel ratio = 6.48STDm3/stdm3
Recommended values:

primary air (premix air) is 40% of the stiochiometric air amount

for suitable condition of the flame : energy loading of each port
should not be more than 10W/mm2

the port diameter = 3mm
Analysis
To calculate the number of port we have to fulfill the above constraints:
Applying the loading constraints;
The energy supplied from one port should not be greater than 10W/mm2
Total area of the port:

Nd 2
Atotal =, where; N-number of ports
4
d-diameter of port
Q m f hc

A Atotal
Q
Where; A
is the total energy supplied from one port.
m f hc Is the total energy
Atotal Is the total area
W 16.93E 3 * 3
10 
mm 2
 * (3mm 2 ) * N
N = 239.5 say N = 240…………………ans.
Total flow rate to the burner
It can be calculated by adding the air premix flow rate and fuel flow rate.
Primary aeration can determine the flow rate of air premixed with fuel.
Qpri = 0.4* (AF)stoic*Qf

Where; Qpri =volume flow rate of premix air

(AF)stoic = stiochiometric air fuel ratio
Qf = volume flow rate of fuel
Substitute the values
Qpri = 0.4*6.48*0.5
=1.295m3/hr.
Volume flow rate to each port
First let’s calculate the density of the biogas air mixture. This can be done by
applying the ideal gas law.
Calculation of the mean molecular weight from the combustion of air fuel
mixture,
Z
X air  pri 
Z 1
Where; Xair-pri - The mean molecular weight
Z - The primary molar air fuel ratio
Z = (x + Y/4)*4.76*% of aeration
Where; CXHY
In this case;CH4, X = 1, Y = 4
Substituting the values
Z = (1 + 1)*4.76*0.4
=3.808
There fore;
3.08
X air  pri 
3.08  1
=0.79.
Xfuel = 1- Xair-pri
=1-0.79 = 0.21
The density can be calculated as:
p
 mix 
R
T u
M mix
Where; p-pressure
T-temperature
Ru-universal gas constant
Mmix-molecular weight of the mixture
Known values:
P =101.325kpa
T = 22oc = 295k
Mmix = Xfuel*Mfuel + Xair*Mair
Where; Mfuel and Mair are molecular weights of air and fuel respectively.
Mmix = 0.21*16 + 0.79*28.85
=26.15
Substituting the known values and calculating for the density
101,325
 mix 
295
8325 =1.08kg/m3
26.15
Qtotal = qpri + qfuel
Where; Qtotal is the total volume flow rate
qpri volume flow rate of air premix which is 1.296m3/hr
qfuel the volume flow rate of biogas which is 0.5m3/hr
Substituting the values:
Qtotal =1.296 + 0.5
=1.796
Volume flow rate to each port (qp)
Qtotal 1.796
Qp = = 240
N
= 0.0075m3/hr
Checking the flame length
Recommended value of flame length for stable flame is  20mm

Analysis:
The major ambient air to nozzle fluid stiochiometric ratio(s) is given
by:
1   pri
S
1
 pri 
S pure
Where; S: stiochiometric ratio
S pure: the molar stiochiometric ratio associated wit
the pure fuel.
 pri : The fraction of stiochiometric requirement by
primary air which is 40%.
Spure can be calculated as:
Spure = (X + Y/4)
= (1 + 1)*4.76
=9.52
Substitute this value above and calculate for S:
1  0. 4
S
1
0.4 
9.52
=1.188
Calculation of flame length:
T 
1330 * Q p *  en 
Lf   TF 
 1
ln1  
 S
Where; Qp: volume flow rate from the port
Ten: the ambient temperature
TF: fuel stream temperature
Note that in our case Ten= TF = 295k
Substituting these values in the above equation:
1
1330 * 0.0075 *  
Lf  1
 1 
ln1  
 1.188 
=16.33mm < 20mm…………………….safe
Design of biogas burner

The burner dimension can be calculated using the following proportion and
numerical formula.
Vf
d o ( mm)  2.1
h
Where; h-(mwc) is the prescribed gas pressure
Assume the prescribed gas pressure is 10kpa
There fore h =p/g = 1000mwc
Vf biogas flow rate (m3/hr)
Recommended values:

d(mm) = 6*do

Lmax(mm) = 7*d

Lmin(mm) = 1.35d

L(mm) = 1.2d

D(mm) = 1.25d
0.3
d o ( mm)  2.1
1000
=0.02mm
For more safety say do = 1mm
Substituting this on the above recommended values
d = 6mm
Lmin = 8.1mm,
Lmax = 42mm,
L = 7.2mm,
D = 7.25mm.
Determination of the distribution of pressure drop
The pressure drop of the convenient system consists of

1- process pressure drop
2- local pressure drop
Process pressure drop refers to the prop of pressure caused by the resistance
of the pipe line alone in the3 process of biogas convenience.
Local pressure drop re4fers to the drop of pressure caused by the
attachments, such as T-joints, four way joints and valves, when biogas
passes through them. When the allowance pressure drop in attachments and
along the pipe line, so as to find the right diameter of the pipe line and the
quantity of pipe line needed for the constriction of the whole convenient
system.
Determination of process pressure drop
Local pressure drop can be determined through computation or

measurement. The formula for computation is:
Q2
P  82.5 * L * s *  *
d2
Where; s: specific gravity of biogas
L: length of pipe (m)
 : Coefficient of friction
Q: volume flow rate
d: diameter of pipe
Known values:
 = 0.09
s = 0.94
Q = 0.5m3/hr
d = 18mm = 0.018m
Assume the length between the digester to the burner is 30m. Substituting
the above values in the equation:
0.5 2
P  82.5 * 30 * 0.94 * 0.09 *
0.018 2
=161.56pa.

Determination of local pressure loss
The local pressure drop can be calculated by using the formula or taking a
percentage of the process pressure drop.
Local pressure drop = 20% of process pressure drop

=0.2*161.56pa
=23.312pa
The total pressure of biogas is calculated by considering the two losses
mentioned above.
Biogas pressure = pressure required to the burner +

Process pressure drop +
Local pressure drop
= 10,00pa + 161.56pa + 23.312pa
=10.2kpa.
So we have to maintain the biogas pressure at this level for safe operation of
the plant.
Lay out and resource allocation
Resource allocations:
The resource allocations for the biogas development in the campus are:

a) Animal manure from animal science department. This is located

around the agriculture head office.
b) Cafeteria west. This is located at the two big student’s cafeterias of

the campus.
1- fresh cafeteria
2- senior cafeteria
c) Human extras. Since there are a number of toilets in the campus, there
location depends on the local name (mender) of the students.
Lay out.
The biogas plant location must be in such a way that it is not far from the
application location. In our case it must not be far from the senior cafeteria.
So the place for the plant can be the back of the student’s Enjera backing
house. This place has the following advantages:
 Since it is far from the student’s dormitory, the students are free from
disturbance during recharging of the waste.
 The place is safe for getting good sunlight
 It is not far from the application area (cafeteria) so minimization of
tube cost and the pressure loss due to the lengthily of the tube is
minimized.
The total lay out is shown below

Note: here we have two digesters and two gas holders. This is because:
a) We require two digesters for the application to be continuous.
That is when the first digester becomes empty of methane or
biogas, the second digester finishes its fermentation process and it
is ready for use.
b) We require two gas holders for to be economical. That is as
calculated before we can use 60m3 of biogas per day that means
we require 60m3 capacity of gas holder. But this capacity requires
big installation and is uneconomical. So we use two gas holders
each having a capacity of 30m3
Transportation mechanism

a) Animal waste: Since the location of the animal waste is

relatively far from the biogas plant we require a movable
vehicle to transport it to the plant. This can be done by the
motor cart of the campus.
b) Cafeteria waste: The waste from the cafeteria is near to the
plant so transportation can be done simply by manual
c) Human waste: This resource can be transported by the
septic tank vehicle of the campus which is presently at use.
Cost estimation

The total cost estimation of the plant is as follows:
Item Description Quantity Estimated cost

Construction foremen experienced 1 1500 birr
with biogas
Workers experienced with pipe 1 1500 birr
Labor fitting
Workers experienced with 1 1500 birr
reinforced concrete
Unskilled workers 5 2250 birr
Pre-fabricated gas holder 2 30,000 birr
(pressure vessel)
Gas pipe (18mm)diameter 100m 5,000 birr
Valves 24 720 birr
Petcocks 2 100 birr
“T” fittings 20 600 birr
“L” fittings 10 300 birr
Concrete 1100 5,500 birr
Supplies Reinforcing material (20mm) 32 (with 6,400 birr
diameter 6mm
diameter)
Sealing for digester 10 300 birr
Black paint for the digester 3 ( per 5 600 birr
liter)
Cement 10 quintal 3,000 birr
Sand 1 biajo 1000 birr
Stone for foundation 10m3 500 birr
Steel sheet ( for port base) 60cm 15 1500
diameter
Burner tube 15 3,000 birr
Cement ( for foundation) 5 quintal 1,500 birr
Stove Sand ( for foundation ) 0.25 biajo 250 birr
Concrete 900 4,500 birr
Bolt 8 80 birr
Construction foreman 1 1,500 birr
Unskilled labor 3 1500 birr
Brick 1500 4,500 birr
Total 79100 birr

Contingency 10% 7910 birr

Total estimated cost 87010 birr
After the plant is constructed, there may be continuous costs like:

 Transportation cost
 Maintenance cost
 Recharging cost
Total cost of the cafeteria for heating water
Data found from the cafeteria:


Total heating water per day (average) using wood = 1.5m3

Wood consumption 250 quintals per two weeks

Cost of one quintal wood = 88 birr
There fore the total cost of wood per two weeks
=88 birr*250
=22,000 birr
This implies that the total cost of wood per day is
22,000/14 = 1571.42 birr
There fore the annual cost is (assuming two months idle time)
Annual cost = 1571.42*305
=479,283 birr
So, our biogas energy can totally fulfill this requirement of heating water.
This implies we can save 479,283 birr per year with the only initial cost of
the plant 87010.
But our production of biogas is 60m 3 per day which is equivalent to heating
2m3 of water per day. This means we have an extra energy to heat 0.5m 3 of
water or:
0.5m3 = X
1m3 = 30m3
X = 15m3 of biogas
We have an extra 15m3 of biogas per day.
We can use this amount of biogas for other purposes or we can store it.

Conclusion
As per the increasing cost of fuel in the world, our country has faced a
difficulty. This is because currently the cost of non renewable energy
resources (petroleum) has a direct effect on the economy of the country. So
we have to find another solution for the imported fuel. One solution is using
the nonrenewable energy resources available in the country.
Mekelle University as a community uses a wood energy for the different
activities in the student’s cafeteria. This wood energy has a negative effect
on the deforestation of forests as well as the unwanted cost of the campus.
Our project uses one of the best renewable energy resource “biogas” for the
consumption of energy in the campus. As mentioned before the plant has a
capacity of producing 60m3 of biogas per day, which totally fulfills the
requirement of wood energy in the cafeteria.
The project uses the undesirable wastes in the campus for the development
of biogas. The only cost of the plant is its installation cost, which is
relatively less compared to the cost of the wood energy.

Recommendation
Since the plant design and specification is given totally, as much as possible
the Plant has to be installed with in a short period of time. One supervisor
who checks the proper operation of the plant is required. Proper maintenance
of the plant including schedule and unscheduled maintenance of the plant is
required to control the efficiency of the plant and longer life of the plant.
During recharging of the waste a proper care has to be taken for the different
components. The transportation and unloading mechanisms mentioned has
to be properly applied. Kitchen workers have to be trained through
demonstration about the application of biogas stoves.

References:
 Biogas technology – solution in search of its problem
A study of small scale rural technology introduction and integration
By Mathias Gustavsson www.he.gu.se
 The promotion of rural domestic biogas plants in P.R China
HU Qichun
 Biogas from waste digestion, by George Silva
www.biogasworks.com
 Orissa renewable energy development agency (OREDA)
 Biogas production technology: an Indian perspective
B.Nagamani and K.Ramasamy
 Water for the world
Designing a biogas system
Technical Note No. SAN.3.D.4
 Power plant engineering, second edition, P K NAG
 Heat transfer, J.P Holman, eight edition

Biogas Energy Development

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biogas Energy Development

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biogas energy development case study in MU Final year project

DEDICATION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT................................................................3

By Getachew Muche & Filagot Worku 1 Mechanical Engineering Department

By Getachew Muche & Filagot Worku 2 Mechanical Engineering Department

Dedication and acknowledgement

By Getachew Muche & Filagot Worku 3 Mechanical Engineering Department

The main objective of this project, in the development of renewable

 To encourage the development and accelerated utilization of

By Getachew Muche & Filagot Worku 4 Mechanical Engineering Department

 To create gainful employment opportunity with due importance for

By Getachew Muche & Filagot Worku 5 Mechanical Engineering Department

Renewable energy sources can be replenished in a short period of time. The

By Getachew Muche & Filagot Worku 6 Mechanical Engineering Department

Each of the energy sources we use is measured, purchased, and sold in a

In 2006, about 18% of global final energy consumption came from

Renewable energy technologies are sometimes criticized for being

geothermal power installation is The Geysers in California, with a rated

Biogas and its Benefits

produce a gas mainly composed of methane (60%) and carbon dioxide

By Getachew Muche & Filagot Worku 9 Mechanical Engineering Department

2. Transformation of organic wastes into high

By Getachew Muche & Filagot Worku 10 Mechanical Engineering Department

By Getachew Muche & Filagot Worku 11 Mechanical Engineering Department

By Getachew Muche & Filagot Worku 12 Mechanical Engineering Department

3. Health benefits of biogas and the improvement of hygienic conditions

Table 2 Health benefits of biogas (2)

By Getachew Muche & Filagot Worku 13 Mechanical Engineering Department

The availability of biogas can have effects on nutritional patterns

4. Reduction of workload, mainly for women, in firewood collection and

By Getachew Muche & Filagot Worku 15 Mechanical Engineering Department

Estimating an average per capita consumption of 3 kg of wood per

warming potential can be more efficient compared with the reduction

By Getachew Muche & Filagot Worku 18 Mechanical Engineering Department

minimized by using non renewable energy resources available in the

Biogas typically refers to a gas produced by a biological break down of

Biogas as cooking gas

By Getachew Muche & Filagot Worku 19 Mechanical Engineering Department

Biogas is a clean, cheap and convenient cooking fuel. It contains methane

Biogas in developing countries

The digestion of animal and human waste yields several benefits:

A BIOMASS BASED STRATEGY FOR MEETING ENERGY

The energy scenario in the world necessities the development of alternative

By Getachew Muche & Filagot Worku 21 Mechanical Engineering Department

Lagoon digester: This is the simplest lower cost method to capture

Considerations for plug flow digester:

By Getachew Muche & Filagot Worku 22 Mechanical Engineering Department

Complete mix digesters: They consist of a large above or ground steel or

Horizontal type digester

By Getachew Muche & Filagot Worku 23 Mechanical Engineering Department

Concrete tanks introduction

Tanks for retaining fluids (liquid) can be broadly divided in to three

Ast2=T/ σst =72000/115=626mm2

Ast= Ast1+ Ast2

Spacing, using 10mm diameter bars (A=78mm2)

The cross sectional top view is shown below

By Getachew Muche & Filagot Worku 29 Mechanical Engineering Department

Design of gas holder

By Getachew Muche & Filagot Worku 30 Mechanical Engineering Department

Activity Volume of gas required

Table approximate gas requirement

By Getachew Muche & Filagot Worku 31 Mechanical Engineering Department

The gas holder is a vertical type pressure vessel.

The type of the shell is cylindrical.

The volume of the cylindrical shell is given by

Fi,max =146.6742 cos(40  20) 1.82  3.6 * 0.84  0.91 * 0.84 