Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-021-02051-w

ORIGINAL PAPER

Numerical and experimental investigation on the thermochemical

gasification potential of Cocoa pod husk (Theobroma Cacoa)
in an open‑core gasifier
Arun Prasad Gunasekaran1 · Murugan Paradesi Chockalingam1   · Saji Raveendran Padmavathy1 ·
Joseph Sekhar Santhappan2

Received: 17 December 2020 / Accepted: 10 February 2021

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
Thermochemical conversion is a promising technology to generate producer gas (PG) from different types of agroforestry
biomass residues. To use an existing open-core biomass gasifier for different feedstocks available in a agroforestry region, its
viability must be studied systematically. Cocoa pod husk (CPH) is one of the promising agricultural wastes, widely available
in tropical farmlands of hilly regions. In this study, a commercial 115 k­ Wth biomass gasifier is used in both numerical and
experimental methods to find the potential of CPH as a feedstock. The moisture of CPH is varied from 5 to 25%, and the
performance of gasifier is investigated for ER between 0.20 and 0.40. The results show that compositions of CO, H ­ 2 and C
­ H4
in PG are 20–24%, 12.0–16.5% and 2.0–3.2%, respectively, for the tested conditions. The best equivalence ratio and moisture
content are identified as 0.25 and 5%, respectively. The calorific value, conversion efficiency and cold gas efficiency are
found as 6.13 MJ/Nm3, 82% and 68%, respectively. The predicted performance parameters and temperature distribution are
compared with experimental values and literature. Thus, CPH is identified as a promising feedstock for an open-core gasifier.
Graphic abstract

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 A. P. Gunasekaran et al.

Keywords  Agricultural waste · Carbon conversion efficiency · Cocoa pod husk · Gasifier · Producer gas · Species transport
model

List of symbols eco-friendly energy sources. Effective utilization of agricul-

Ar Arrhenius rate ­(s−1)
CCE Carbon conversion efficiency (%)
CFD Computational fluid dynamics
CG Constituent gases
CGE Cold gas efficiency (%)
CPH Coco Pod Husk
CV Calorific Value (MJ ­Nm−3)
CZ Combustion zone
Ea Activation energy (J k ­mol−1)
ER Equivalence ratio
PG Producer gas
PZ Pyrolysis zone
RMS Root mean square
RZ Reduction zone
Cx𝜀 Model constants
Di,m Mass diffusion coefficient for species ‘i’ in the
mixture ­(m2 ­s−1)
F ⃗ Body forces ­(Nm−3)
g⃗ Acceleration due to gravity ­(ms−2)
Gb Buoyancy turbulence kinetic energy ­(m2 ­s2)
Gk Gradient turbulence kinetic energy ­(m2 ­s2)
J��⃗i Diffusion flux of species i
P Static pressure (Pa)
Rir Homogeneous reaction rate of species i
(kg ­m−3 ­s−1)
Ri,r Homogeneous reaction rate (kg ­m−3 ­s−1)
Sh Source term ­(Wm−1)
Sk , Se User-defined source terms
Sm MASS added to the phase (kg)
v⃗ Velocity ­(ms−1)
Yi Mass fraction of the species i (%)
Ym Overall dissipation turbulence rate
ρ Density (kg ­m−3)
μ Dynamic viscosity (kg ­m−1 ­s−1)
ε Turbulent dissipation rate ­(m2 ­s−3)
k Turbulent kinetic energy ­(m2 ­s2)
σk Turbulent Prandtl number
λeff Effective conductivity
Introduction
The rapid changes taking place in the living condition of
people and industrial developments demand huge energy
requirement and lead to drastic exhaustion of fossil fuel
resources (Tun and Juchelková 2019). The world’s pri-
mary energy demand is projected to increase by 38.33%
between 2017 and 2040, which shows the increasing need of
tural waste is one of the possible methods for cleaner energy
production in agriculture dominated regions. For instance,
India has the potential to generate 16,000 MW of electricity
from agricultural residues. However, adequate studies on the
energy conversion potential of many biowastes are not estab-
lished and due to the non-availability of suitable technolo-
gies, only a limited quantity is utilized (Kumar et al. 2015).
In the population without the access to electricity, 84% of
them are living in rural areas (Pode et al. 2015). For instant,
19% of the villages in India do not have access to electric-
ity; however, these villages are rich in agricultural activities
(Nouni et al. 2008). In such a situation, the implementation
of decentralized power generation from the locally available
biomass is encouraged (Kumar et al. 2015; Chun and Song
2019). For the effective implementation of gasifiers in power
generation from agricultural and forest residues, intensive
studies are anticipated (Mathimani et al. 2019).
The feasibility of using different feedstock like rice husk
(Murugan and Sekhar 2017a), wood waste (Sheth and Babu
2009; Kim et al. 2019), rice straw (Lee et al. 1999), cashew
nutshell (Singh et al. 2006), jatropha seed husk (Vyas and
Singh 2007), peanut shell waste (Nisamaneenate et al. 2015),
sugarcane bagasse (keche et al. 2015), tung shells (Prasad
et al. 2015), etc., in gasifiers is reported in the literature.
However, the possibility of using various types of biomass
available in different regions is still under investigation.
Since the generation of agricultural waste is not uniform
throughout a year, the gasifier used for an application should
have provision to accommodate different types of biomass
as feedstock. Among the various money crops, the vanilla
flavour is produced by vanillin in industries. It is used as
an additive in perfume industry and also adds flavour for
food items. The waste extracted from this plant is effectively
utilized for energy generation via biochemical route (Pov-
eda-Giraldo and Cardona Alzate 2020). Similarly, cocoa is
also a money crop, and its different forms are used in many
food products and it is cultivated in many parts of the world
(Afoakwa et al. 2007). The yearly production of this crop is
estimated at 4.2 million tons which worth $11.8 billion and
contributes to 3% in the economic growth of the world per
year (Beg et al. 2017). In India, around 200 thousand tons
of CPH are left out as agricultural waste, mainly in tropi-
cal areas (Directorate of Cashewnut & Cocoa Development
2018; Oddoye et al. 2010). Normally, from 10 tons of raw
cocoa one ton of CPH waste is generated (Vriesmann et al.
2011). This residue is rich in lignocelluloses, and it can be a
good feedstock for gasification (Dahunsi et al. 2019).

13
Numerical and experimental investigation on the thermochemical gasification potential of…

Even though many types of gasifiers are available, down- validate the predictions. Since commercial biomass gasifiers
draft gasifier is generally used in industrial application. The like 115 ­kWth are used for different applications, the same
important factors to be considered for efficient gasifica- has been selected for this study. The data from fuel charac-
tion and also to get good quality producer gas are gasifier terization of CPH is used in the two-dimensional model.
design, equivalence ratio, moisture content, gasification tem- The commercial software code ANSYS-FLUENT is used for
perature, feedstock quality and cold gas efficiency (Puig- this simulation. All reactions taking place in various zones
Arnavat et al. 2010). If the moisture in biomass increases, of the gasifier are also incorporated into the analysis from
efficiency of gasifier and consistency of producer gas also suitable provisions available in the CFD code. The perfor-
change (Brammer and Bridgwater 2002). The gasification mance parameters of simulation studies are verified with
of wood chips with 11% moisture shows that the maximum experimental results to prove the validity of this approach.
cold gas efficiency of 79.7% can be achieved (Huchon et al.
2020). The important parameters considered with respect to
the design of the downdraft gasifier are throat angle, throat Model description
diameter, nozzle position, feedstock inlet dimension and
length of various zones. In a throatless biomass gasifier, the The domain used in the numerical study is schematically
change in combustion zone geometry does not play a major represented in Fig. 1. The diameter and height of the study
role for using low density feedstock (Jain and Goss 2000). domain are 640 mm and 2000 mm, respectively. The diam-
The operation of this gasifier is very responsive to the size eter of the gas exit is maintained at 340 mm. The height of
and consistency for shell type biomass of low and medium the four zones of gasifier is given in the figure. To supply air,
density (Bhavanam and Sastry 2011). The throatless biomass 200-mm-long nozzles are fixed at 80 mm above the reduc-
gasifier is used for the gasification of rice husk and saw dust tion zone with an inclination of 45°.
blend. Better performance is attained for the rice husk at
ER of 0.2, whereas ER is 0.15 for rice husk-saw dust blend
(Susastriawan et al. 2018). The simulation on gasification of
wood for tea drying, reveals that the throat angle of a gasifier
greatly influences its performances (Jayah et al. 2003). The
effect of the nozzle’s position and inclination on the gaseous
fuel has been already proved with systematic investigations
(Murugan and Sekhar 2017b). The studies on throat angle,
throat diameter and temperature of preheated air have shown
their influence on conversion efficiency (Prasertcharoensuk
et al. 2018). Moreover, for a better species concentration of
producer gas, the choke plate angle may be selected between
10° and 25° (Kumar et al. 2008). Therefore, the performance
of a gasifier may vary whenever a feedstock other than the
specified one is used. Numerical analysis with CFD tech-
nique is an effective methodology for predicting the gasifi-
cation potential of any biomass in a downdraft gasifier for
various operating conditions.
The kinetics of chemical reactions must be defined to
develop the CFD model. To implement the flow physics and
study the generation potential of combustible gases, species-
transport model is preferred (Kumar and Paul 2020). Moreo-
ver, the multiple chemical reactions are also used for the
numerical analysis (Mashayak 2009). The model has been
used to find the gasification potential of rice husk (Muru-
gan and Sekhar 2017a), rubber seed kernel shell (Murugan
and Sekhar 2017b) and coconut shell (Murugan and Joseph
Sekhar 2017) which proves its validity to analyse any new
feedstock for thermochemical conversion.
In this paper, the thermochemical conversion of CPH
in a downdraft gasifier has been studied using the CFD
Fig. 1  Schematic diagram of the study domain
technique, and also an experimental study is conducted to

13
 A. P. Gunasekaran et al.

The two-dimensional geometry of the domain is created in The temperature, pressure and turbulent eddies are used
ANSYS-Design Modeller. The mesh size has been selected to define the chemical reaction rate. The species destruction
based on previous studies, and grid independence test has also rate has been defined as
been used for accuracy of the selection. To incorporate flow ( )
physics and other simulation controls, the following procedure 𝜀 Yr
(9)
�
Ri,r = vi,r Mi,r A𝜌 min
is used. k R v�R,r , Mw,j

Numerical modelling ∑
⎛ ⎞
𝜀 p Yp
The general governing equations for the problem are selected Ri,r = v�i,r Mi,r B𝜌 ⎜ ∑N ⎟ (10)
k⎜ v��
M ⎟
as follows ⎝ j j,r w,j ⎠
Equation of mass
( )
∇ ⋅ 𝜌⃗v = Sm . (1)
Boundary conditions and the convergence criteria
Equation of momentum
( ) ( ) The feedstock characterization data of the CPH are rep-
⃗
∇ ⋅ 𝜌⃗vv⃗ = −∇P + ∇ ⋅ 𝜏 + 𝜌⃗g + F (2) resented as (C: 43.87%, H: 5.82%, O: 47.28%, N: 2.23%,
S: 0.57%, volatile matter: 68.47%, fixed carbon: 10.43%,
Equation of energy
moisture: 10.29%, ash: 10.81%), and the same has been
( ∑ ) incorporated in the definition of biomass’s condition at the
∇ ⋅ (v(𝜌E + p)) = ∇ ⋅ 𝜆eff ∇T − 𝜏eff ⋅ v⃗ ) + Sh
hjJj + (⃗
inlet. The tested conditions used in the numerical analysis
(3) are summarized in Table 1. The various reactions involved
The RNG turbulence model and the various parameters of in gasification at various zones such as drying, pyroly-
the same are selected as follows (Murugan and Joseph Sekhar sis, combustion and reduction zones are listed in Table 2.
2017; Ravi et al. 2013] The parameters that normally influence convergence of
the solution are the number of cells, RMS error, relaxa-
C1𝜀 = 1.44, C2𝜀 = 1.92, Ym = 0.09, Sk = 1.0, Se = 1
tion factor and physics of the problem. The RMS error
[( ] ) for continuity equations is fixed as 1­ 0–6 to fix the conver-
𝜕 ( ) 𝜕 𝜕k 𝜇 gence criteria (Ngamsidhiphongsa et al. 2020), and a false
𝜌kui = 𝜇+ + Gk + Gb − 𝜌𝜀 − Ym + Sk
𝜕xi 𝜕xj 𝜕xj 𝜎k time-step with an under-relaxation factor of 0.01 has been
(4) selected to define the turbulence–chemistry interaction.
( [( ) ] )
𝜕 ( ) 𝜕 𝜇 𝜕e 𝜀
𝜌𝜀ui = 𝜇+ + C1𝜀 (Gk + G3𝜀 Gb
𝜕xi 𝜕xj 𝜎k 𝜕xj k
𝜀2 Table 1  Tested conditions of the numerical study
− C2𝜀 𝜌 + S𝜀
k Sl. no Description Details
(5)
The generalized form of the species transport equation for 1 Feedstock Cocoa Pod Husk (Theobroma
Cacoa)
individual species is given as (Magnussen and Hjertager 1976)
2 Temperature 30 °C
𝜕( ) ( ) 3 Pressure Atmospheric pressure
𝜌Yi + ∇ ⋅ 𝜌⃗vYi = ∇ ⋅ J��⃗i + Ri (6)
𝜕t 4 Equivalence ratio (ER) 0.20–0.45
5 Mass flow rate 0.0138 (kg/s)
in which the mass diffusion of laminar flow is defined as
6 Moisture content (MC) 5–25%
( )
𝜇 7 Tar & char formation Negligible usually ranges from
J⃗ = − 𝜌Di,m + i ∇Yi (7) (0.015–3 g/Nm3) (Prasertchar-
Sci oensuk et al. 2018)
8 Biomass inlet condition Mass flow inlet
Similarly, the mass diffusion flux is taken as
9 Air inlet condition Velocity inlet
J⃗ = −𝜌Di,m ∇Yi (8) 10 Gas outlet condition Pressure outlet
11 Wall condition Adiabatic with no-slip
12 Solver SIMPLE algorithm
13 Relaxation factor 0.01

13
Numerical and experimental investigation on the thermochemical gasification potential of…

Table 2  Gasification reactions Reaction equation Equation Ar ­(sec−1) Ea (Jk ­mol−1) References

used in this study number

CH4 + 1.5O2 → CO + ­H2O (11) 5.0 × ­1011 2.0 × ­108 Nakod (2013)

H2O → ­H2 + 0.5 ­O2 (12) 2.0 × ­1011 2.7 × ­108 Nakod (2013)
CO + 0.5O2 → ­CO2 (13) 4.4 × ­1011 1.2 × ­108 Masmoudi et al. (2017)
H2 + 0.5O2 → ­H2O (14) 1.0 × ­1014 4.2 × ­107 Masmoudi et al. (2017)
CO + ­H2O → ­CO2 + ­H2 (15) 2.8 × ­10−2 32.8 × ­103 Gao and Li (2008)
C + ­CO2 → 2CO (16) 34.0 × ­106 179.50 × ­103 Fletcher et al. (2000)
C + ­H2O → CO + ­H2 (17) 14.0 × ­107 179.50 × ­103 Fletcher et al. (2000)
CH4 + ­H2O → CO + ­3H2 (18) 16.5 × ­1010 33.9 × ­107 Gerun et al. (2008)
C + ­2H2 → ­CH4 (19) 1.0 × ­1011 4.2 × ­107 Prasertcharoensuk et al. (2018)
C + ­O2 → ­CO2 (20) 5.6 × ­109 1.6 × 10 Prasertcharoensuk et al. (2018)

Description of experimental facility
The equipment, components and major instruments used
in the experimental facility are schematically shown in
Fig. 2. The specifications of the gasifier which can handle
both the woody and fine particle types biomass and also
efficiently deliver producer gas are given in Table 3. The
water circulated for primary cooling and cleaning mecha-
nisms is placed below the gasifier, and such an arrange-
ment removes impurities like tar, unburnt carbon and so
on. The secondary system comprises of cyclone separator,

Fig. 2  Schematic representation of the experimental facility

13

Table 3  Specification of the Sl. no Parameter
downdraft biomass gasifier
1 Manufacturer
2 Model
3 Rated capacity
4 Gasification temperature
5 Rated gas flow
6 Fuel feeding
7 Rated biomass consumption
8 Typical conversion efficiency
9 Typical gas composition
cooling tower and a scrubber. The measuring instruments
like multigas analyser (Electronic System Tech.: accu-
racy ± 3%), gas flowmeter (Unitech-accuracy ± 2%), elec-
tronic weighing balance (accuracy ± 1%), The moisture
content in feedstock is measured as per the ASTM stand-
ard (Serrano et al. 2011). Chromel–Alumel K-type ther-
mocouples (accuracy ± 3%) are connected with the system
to observe performance parameters. A data logger is used
to record temperature data. A variable frequency drive is
attached to the blower to control air flow.
Preparation of feedstock
Cocoa is a money crop cultivated in agricultural lands of
rain forest regions. It is also cultivated along with other
crops. A district located in southern Tamil Nadu (8.0883° N,
77.5385° E) with an area of 25.86 square metre was selected
to collect the required quantity of the biomass. The cocoa
fruits were collected here, and the cocoa pod got removed
and it was sent to the food processing industries. In this
process, CPH was left out as agricultural waste. The col-
lected feedstock was dried in open sunlight to remove excess
moisture in the feedstock. After processing the wet CPH, the
feedstock was checked for moisture content and the average
value was maintained at 10%. To conduct all experimental
tests, 700 kg of dried feedstock was collected.
Experimental procedure
The basic preparations needed to run the gasifier were
carried out as per the guidelines of the equipment man-
ufacturer. Before the feedstock was loaded, the gasifier
wall was cleaned to remove tar and char particles. The
joints of the combustion cone were sealed with insulation
rope to prevent any leakage of producer gas or entry of
unmeasured atmospheric air. The average moisture of the
feedstock was measured to its limit, and it was maintained
below 20% for smooth working of the gasifier. The feed-
stock (CPH) was loaded up to 60% of the gasifier’s total
13
A. P. Gunasekaran et al.
Specifications
Ankur Scientific Energy Technologies Pvt. Ltd
COMBO-40
115 kW (Thermal)
1050–1100 °C
60–90 ­Nm3/h
Continuous
40–50 kg/h (non-woody)
30–34 kg/h (woody)
 > 75%
CO-28 ± 3%, ­H2-18 ± 2%, ­CH4− up to 3%
volume. Once the blower and other supporting equipment
were started, the feedstock was ignited using a piece of
red-hot charcoal. The gas leaving at the exit point con-
sisted of tar and other particulates. Hence, a scrubber unit
and multiple filters were used to clean the gas. To ensure
proper generation of gas, its combustion nature was tested
in the flare. Once the combustion quality was confirmed,
gas samples were collected every 10 min of the experimen-
tal run, stabilization of the composition was observed after
40 min, and the average readings were plotted. The tar
and ash removal systems were monitored to ensure proper
operation. Samples of water from both lines were collected
to check tar and ash removal rates. The unprocessed feed-
stock in the ash was also checked.
Each experimental run was carried out for four hours con-
tinuously, and the performance parameters were recorded.
During the experimentation, water samples were collected
from cooling and cleaning circuits to measure the quantity
of ash, tar and unburnt feedstock present. The same was used
for the analysis of mass balance. Moreover, as per the manu-
facturer’s guidelines, their values were maintained below
10%. The sediment of these residues was collected from the
sump. It was dried and given to adjacent agricultural farms
as fertilizer. To confirm the measured values, a mass balance
between the inputs and products was studied and given in
Table 4.
Result and discussion
During the gasification process, ER may not be stable due to
the fluctuation of moisture in CPH. Therefore, equivalence
ratio and moisture in feedstock are varied as 0.20 to 0.40 and
5% to 25%, respectively. The volume fractions of CO, ­H2 and
­CH4 in producer gas, equivalence ratio (ER), heating value
of the gaseous fuel, efficiencies of the conversion process
and temperature distribution are studied from experimental
and numerical results and discussed as follows.
Numerical and experimental investigation on the thermochemical gasification potential of…
Table 4  Mass balance of CPH Run Equivalence Input
and the products of gasification ratio (ϕ)
Airflow (kg/h)
1 0.25 21.32
2 0.30 21.46
Fig. 3  Gird accuracy check on mesh cells of the numerical simulation
Grid independence test
Initially, the geometry was meshed with 25,000 cells and
the domain was analysed. Further, to study the impact of
total number of cells on the performance, geometry was
discretized to an increment of 25,000 cells as mentioned
in Fig. 3 and gas composition was predicted until stabiliza-
tion occurs. During this grid independency test, ER of the
gasifier was maintained at 0.25, and other boundary condi-
tions were kept constant. Since CO and H ­ 2 had not shown
significant change in volume fraction from the cell count
of 175,000 and above, the same number was used for all
the studies. Similar methodology is also reported in the lit-
erature to select cell count (Andrew et al. 2010). This also
ensures accuracy of the numerical simulation for using CPH
as feedstock, besides the applicability of species-transport
model for such simulation.
Validation for the prediction of numerical study
The predicted contour plots for composition of products
from gasification at ER of 0.25 are shown in Fig. 4. The
numerical results are predicted from average values taken
along the particle tracking line which is shown in Fig. 1.
The validation of the experimental and numerical study is
Output Mass balance (%)
Feedstock con- Flow rate of Ash
sumed (kg/h) output gas produced
(kg/h) (kg/h)
26.42 37.43 8.62 96.46
30.65 40.28 10.11 97.33
given in Fig. 5. The composition of constituent gases in PG
observed in this study at ER 0.25 is also matching with the
values observed in previous studies (Sheth and Babu 2009).
The ER above 0.25 accelerates the combustion of feedstock;
besides, the fraction of ­N2 in the PG decreases the volume
fraction of CG. It is also observed that the numerical predic-
tions are on par with the experimental results with a devia-
tion within 6%. The causes for this deviation may be due
to assumption made in defining the property of substances,
boundary conditions, losses, chemical reaction and so on
(Murugan and Sekhar 2017a). The results obtained from the
study are validated with the other shell type biomass such
as coconut shell and cashew nut shell and listed in Table 5.
Variation of feedstock moisture on the quality of PG
Moisture content and ER of the feedstock have a signifi-
cant impact on the quality of PG (Guangul et al. 2014).
Figure 6a–c shows the influence of moisture in CPH and
ER on generation of combustible gases. It is seen that the
maximum volume percentage of CO, ­H2 and ­CH4 in PG is
23.3%, 15.4% and 3.8%, respectively. From Fig. 6a at the ER
of 0.25, maximum composition is observed and for further
increase in ER, the composition drops gradually. At high ER,
the combustion of CPH increases and it eventually raises the
formation of C ­ O2 and N
­ 2. Even though more heat is avail-
able for the endothermic processes in RZ at higher ER, the
higher ­CO2 concentration reduces the quality of PG. High
moisture content in feedstock normally reduces the forma-
tion of CO (Atnaw et al., 2014). The CO composition for the
tested range of the operating parameter is between 19.5 and
23.3% which proves the suitability of the gasifier to maintain
good CO composition in producer gas.
Figure 6b shows the trend of H ­ 2 composition with varia-
tion in moisture content and ER. In contrast to Fig. 6a, the
­H2 composition increases with moisture content. A similar
trend for ­H2 is also observed in the literature (Sulaiman et al.
2013). The intense formation of water–gas shift reactions
may be the reason for the increase of H ­ 2 in producer gas.
Figure 6c shows that the composition of C ­ H4 does not have a
significant effect due to the increase of ER above 0.25. Even
though moisture content has some effect, the variation is in
a narrow range. Hence, the behaviour of CPH in a gasifier is
13
 A. P. Gunasekaran et al.

Fig. 4  Numerical results of the combustible gas composition for the equivalence ratio 0.25 a CO composition b ­H2 composition c ­CH4 composi-
tion

Table 5  Comparison of results with similar feedstock from the litera-

ture

Parameters Cocoa pod husk Coconut shell Cashew nut shell

(Present study) (Venkatesh (Singh et al.
et al. 2017) 2006)

CO (%) 20–24 18–21 11.9–16.51

H2 (%) 12–16.5 14–17 12.03–12.67
CH4 (%) 2.0–3.2 3.6–3.9 1.51–2.25
CV (MJ/Nm3) 6.13 6.3 4.53

and thus, it reduces the CV of the gas and a similar trend is

Fig. 5  Comparison of numerical and experimental results on gas
composition
conducive for getting a stable percentage of ­CH4 like other
types of biomass recommended for this gasifier.
Figure 6d represents the impact of the variation in mois-
ture and ER on the CV of PG. Generally, moisture content
in a feedstock strongly influences the CV of PG (Augustine
and Sekhar 2019). If moisture content is higher, the amount
of thermal energy required for gasification is also higher,
also observed in the figure. The best quality of PG is seen
at the ER of 0.25, where the maximum CV is 6.25 MJ/Nm3.
From all tested conditions, the minimum CV is observed as
5.15 MJ/Nm3 for the ER 0.40. It is seen that the CV drops
when the equivalence ratio increases above 0.25, which may
be due to the endothermic conditions of the reaction zone,
intensive combustion of feedstock, besides the composition
of nitrogen and C ­ O2 in PG. The results from the simula-
tion are verified with two experimental values as shown in
Fig. 5d. For ER 0.25 and 0.3 with a moisture content of
10%, the CVs found in the experimental studies are 6.13
and 6.25 MJ/Nm3, respectively, which are on par with the
values in the literature for a similar type of feedstock (Sheth
and Babu 2009; Murugan and Joseph Sekhar 2017b). The
above findings confirm the suitability of CPH as a promis-
ing feedstock for biomass gasifiers of various applications.

13
Numerical and experimental investigation on the thermochemical gasification potential of…
Fig. 6  Impact of moisture and ER on a CO, b ­H2 c ­CH4 and d CV
Temperature distribution
The temperature inside the gasifier plays a vital role in gasi-
fication reactions. Moreover, reliability of the components
in the gasifier is also influenced by operating temperature.
Due to more amount of N ­ 2 entry from the air inlet reduces
temperature inside the combustion and reduction zones.
This reduction in temperature affects the potential of reduc-
tion zone reactions (Singh and Sekhar 2016; Murugan and
Sekhar 2017b). So, at low temperature, the reaction rate
reduces, and the formation of CG is affected. High tempera-
ture in gasifiers is due to excess combustion, which leads to
the formation of more ­CO2. Therefore, a proper temperature
distribution is needed throughout the gasifier to improve its
efficiency. In this case, the thermochemical conversion pro-
cess is affected due to the presence of C ­ O2. Therefore, at
ER of 0.25, this impact has been analysed in Fig. 7. During
gasification of CPH, temperature observed in CZ, PZ and at
the exit of RZ are 900–1100 °C, 700–900 °C and 415 °C,
respectively. The same trend of temperature distribution
is also reported in the literature (Jayah et al. 2003). Thus,
suitability of the proposed simulation, occurrence of good
thermochemical conversion and reliability of the gasifier are
confirmed.
Efficiencies of the gasifier
Carbon conversion efficiency (CCE) represents the per-
centage of total moles of carbon-bearing components in
PG (CO, ­CO2 and ­CH4) to the carbon composition present
in CPH. It is also one of the parameters to decide the quan-
tity of a feedstock. Figure 8a shows the effect of moisture
content and equivalent ratio on CCE of the gasifier. The
figure shows that at the ER of 0.25, the conversion effi-
ciency increases to 82% which may be due to reduction
in release of volatile matter during oxidation reactions
13

Fig. 7  Temperature at various positions
(Sikarwar et al. 2006). CGE is a parameter to predict the
performance of a gasifier, and it is depicted in Fig. 8b. The
variation of CGE is 64% to 68% for the tested range of ER,
0.20–0.40. Besides, the result shows maximum cold gas
efficiency, 68% at the ER of 0.25. The increase of ER leads
to an increase in gasification temperature and high sensible
heat present in the air (Awais et al. 2020). Therefore, at
equivalence ratios above 0.25, CG present in PG reduces
with the domination of C ­ O2. These observations show that
the above-discussed efficiencies are in allowable range
for entire operating ranges of the gasifier; however, to get
maximum performance of CPH, the ER may be maintained
at 0.25 with minimum moisture content.
Fig. 8  Impact of variations in moisture content and ER on a carbon conversion efficiency and b cold gas efficiency
13
A. P. Gunasekaran et al.
Uncertainty analysis
The uncertainty in experiment observations mainly arises
due to the operating conditions, instrumentation selection,
surrounding environment and the calibration of the instru-
ments. To validate the accuracy of experimentation, uncer-
tainty analysis is predominant tool. In this study, uncertainty
is calculated by the standard procedure (Holman 2000).
The total uncertainty in temperature measurement is found
as ± 1.25%. The uncertainty in the cold gas efficiency is also
estimated as ± 8.40% which is on par with the allowable val-
ues in literature (Plis and Wilk 2011). Thus, the reliability in
experimental observation is confirmed.
Conclusion
The thermochemical gasification potential of Cocoa Pod
Husk (CPH) has been studied for various operating condi-
tions in a gasifier. The results from numerical and experi-
mental studies show that this agricultural waste can be used
as a feedstock like another biomass. Moreover, analysis of
the performance parameters like equivalence ratio, gas com-
position, CV of PG and influence of moisture in CPH leads
to the following conclusions:
• The comparison of numerical and experimental results
proves that the proposed numerical study is suitable to
analyse the performance of the gasifier with CPH as feed-
stock.
• The compositions of CO, ­H2 and ­CH4 in the producer gas
are 20.3–23.8%, 12.5–16.2% and 2.3–3.2%, respectively,
for the tested conditions, which is on par with the char-
Numerical and experimental investigation on the thermochemical gasification potential of…
acteristics of producer gas from other types of biomass
recommended to this gasifier.
• Even though the performance is good for the tested mois-
ture conditions and equivalent ratios, the maximum CV
of 6.13 MJ/Nm3 is found at the equivalent ratio and mois-
ture content of 0.25 and 5%, respectively.
• Both the studies show that the combustion, pyrolysis and
reduction zones have temperatures ranging 900–1100 °C,
600–800 °C and 400–475 °C, respectively. This proves
the reliability of the gasifier.
• The carbon conversion and cold gas efficiencies are
observed as 75–82%, 64–68%, respectively, for the tested
conditions. However, at ER of 0.25, maximum values are
observed.
Thus, the technical feasibility of using cocoa pod husk
in a gasifier is confirmed. Since this is an environment-
friendly and energy-efficient methodology, value addition to
the agricultural waste can be expected. However, economic
advantages must be analysed to successfully implement this
strategy in remote villages for power generation and thermal
applications.
References
Afoakwa EO, Paterson A, Fowler M (2007) Factors influenc-
ing rheological and textural qualities in chocolate–a review.
Trends Food Sci Technol 18:290–298. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tifs.2007.02.002
Andrew S, John MK, Lawrence JS, James S, Shaoping S (2010) CFD
simulation of entrained- flow coal gasification: coal particle den-
sity/size fraction effects. Powder Technol 203:98–108. https:​ //doi.
org/10.1016/j.powte​c.2010.03.029
Atnaw SM, Sulaiman SA, Yusup S (2014) Influence of fuel moisture
content and reactor temperature on the calorific value of syngas
resulted from gasification of oil palm fronds. The Sci World J
14:1–9. https​://doi.org/10.1155/2014/12190​8
Augustine MA, Sekhar SJ (2019) Improvement in the calorific value
of producer gas from rice husk with addition of spent tea waste
as secondary fuel. Energy Fuels 33:12492–12498. https​://doi.
org/10.1021/acs.energ​yfuel​s.9b030​52
Awais M, Li W, Munir A, Omar MM, Ajmal M (2020) Experimen-
tal investigation of downdraft biomass gasifier fed by sugarcane
bagasse and coconut shells. Biomass Convers Biorefin. https:​ //doi.
org/10.1007/s1339​9-020-00690​-5
Bhavanam A, Sastry RC (2011) Biomass gasification processes in
downd raft fixed bed reactors: a review. Int J Chem Eng Appl
2:425–433
Brammer JG, Bridgwater AV (2002) The influence of feedstock dry-
ing on the performance and economics of a biomass gasifier–
engine CHP system. Biomass Bioenergy 22:271–281. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/S0961​-9534(02)00003​-X
Beg MS, Ahmad S, Jan K, Bashir K (2017) Status, supply chain and
processing of cocoa-a review. Trends Food Sci Technol 66:108–
116. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2017.06.007
Chun YN, Song HG (2019) Microwave-enhanced gasification of
sewage sludge waste. Environ Eng Res 24:591–599. https​://doi.
org/10.4491/eer.2018.324
Dahunsi SO, Osueke CO, Olayanju TMA, Lawal AI (2019) Co-
digestion of Theobroma cacao (Cocoa) pod husk and poultry
manure for energy generation: effects of pretreatment methods.
Bioresour Technol 283:229–241. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.biort​
ech.2019.03.093
Directorate of Cashewnut & Cocoa Development (DCCD) (2018).
https​://dccd.gov.in/Conte​nt.aspx?mid=1072&tid=1
Fletcher DF, Haynes BS, Christo FC, Joseph SD (2000) A CFD
based combustion model of an entrained flow biomass gasifier.
Appl Math Model 24:165–182. https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0307​
-904X(99)00025​-6
Gao N, Li A (2008) Modeling and simulation of combined pyrolysis
and reduction zone for a downdraft biomass gasifier. Energy
Convers Manag 49:3483–3490. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.encon​
man.2008.08.002
Gerun L, Paraschiv M, Vijeu R, Bellettre J, Tazerout M, Gøbel B,
Henriksen U (2008) Numerical investigation of the partial oxi-
dation in a two-stage downdraft gasifier. Fuel 87:1383–1393.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2007.07.009
Guangul FM, Sulaiman SA, Ramli A (2014) Study of the effects
of operating factors on the resulting producer gas of oil palm
fronds gasification with a single throat downdraft gasifier.
Renew Energ 72:271–283. https​: //doi.org/10.1016/j.renen​
e.2014.07.022
Holman JP (2000) Experimental methods for engineers, 7th edn.
McGraw Hill Publishers, New York
Huchon V, Pinta F, Commandré JM, Van De Steene L (2020) How
electrical engine power load and feedstock moisture content
affect the performance of a fixed bed gasification genset. Energy
197:117144. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.energ​y.2020.11714​4
Jain AK, Goss JR (2000) Determination of reactor scaling factors for
throatless rice husk gasifier. Biomass Bioenergy 18:249–256.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0961​-9534(99)00083​-5
Jayah TH, Aye L, Fuller RJ, Stewart DF (2003) Computer simulation
of a downdraft wood gasifier for tea drying. Biomass Bioenergy
25:459–469. https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0961​-9534(03)00037​-0
Keche AJ, Gaddale APR, Tated RG (2015) Simulation of biomass
gasification in downdraft gasifier for different biomass fuels using
ASPEN PLUS. Clean Technol Environ Policy 17:465–473. https​
://doi.org/10.1007/s1009​8-014-0804-x
Kim MH, Jeong IT, Park SB, Kim JW (2019) Analysis of environmen-
tal impact of activated carbon production from wood waste. Envi-
ron Eng Res 24:117–126. https​://doi.org/10.4491/eer.2018.104
Kumar SS, Pitchandi K, Natarajan E (2008) Modeling and simulation
of down draft wood gasifier. J Appl Sci 8:271–279. https​://doi.
org/10.3923/jas.2008.271.279
Kumar A, Kumar N, Baredar P, Shukla A (2015) A review on bio-
mass energy resources, potential, conversion and policy in India.
Renew Sust Energ Rev 45:530–539. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2015.02.007
Kumar U, Paul MC (2020) Sensitivity analysis of homogeneous reac-
tions for thermochemical conversion of biomass in a downdraft
gasifier. Renew Energ 151:332–341. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renen​e.2019.11.025
Lee SW, Kim SB, Lee KW, Choi CS (1999) Catalytic gasification of
rice straw at low temperature. Environ Eng Res 4:293–300
Magnussen BF, Hjertager BH (1976) On mathematical models of tur-
bulent combustion with emphasis on soot formation and combus-
tion. In: 16th international symposium on combustion, Combus-
tion Institute, Pittsburgh.
Mashayak SY (2009) CFD modeling of plasma thermal reactor for
waste treatment. Mechanical Engineering, Purdue University,
West Lafayette, Indiana, Master of Science
Masmoudi MA, Halouani K, Sahraoui M (2017) Comprehensive
experimental investigation and numerical modeling of the com-
bined partial oxidation-gasification zone in a pilot downdraft air
13

blown gasifier. Energy Convers Manag 144:34–52. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.encon​man.2017.04.040
Mathimani T, Baldinelli A, Rajendran K, Prabakar D, Matheswaran
M, van Leeuwen RP, Pugazhendhi A (2019) Review on cultiva-
tion and thermochemical conversion of microalgae to fuels and
chemicals: process evaluation and knowledge gaps. J Clean Prod
208:1053–1064. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclep​ro.2018.10.096
Murugan PC, Sekhar SJ (2017) Species-Transport CFD model for the
gasification of rice husk (Oryza Sativa) using downdraft gasi-
fier. Comput Electron Agric 139:33–40. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compa​g.2017.05.004
Murugan PC, Sekhar SJ (2017) Numerical studies to predict the
impact of air nozzle position and inclination on the performance
of downdraft gratifier. J Appl Fluid Mech 10:947–955. https:​ //doi.
org/10.18869​/acadp​ub.jafm.73.238.26446​
Murugan PC, Joseph Sekhar S (2017) Numerical simulation of imbert
biomass gasifier to select the feedstock available in remote areas.
Environ Prog Sustain Energy 36:708–716. https:​ //doi.org/10.1002/
ep.12485​
Nakod PR (2013) CFD modeling and validation of oxy-fired and air-
fired entrained flow gasifiers. Int J Chem Phys Sci 2:28–40
Ngamsidhiphongsa N, Ponpesh P, Shotipruk A, Arpornwichanop A
(2020) Analysis of the Imbert downdraft gasifier using a species-
transport CFD model including tar-cracking reactions. Energy
Convers Manag 213:112808. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.encon​
man.2020.11280​8
Nisamaneenate J, Atong D, Sornkade P, Sricharoenchaikul V (2015)
Fuel gas production from peanut shell waste using a modular
downdraft gasifier with the thermal integrated unit. Renew Energ
79:45–50. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.renen​e.2014.09.046
Nouni MR, Mullick SC, Kandpal TC (2008) Providing electricity
access to remote areas in India: an approach towards identify-
ing potential areas for decentralized electricity supply. Renew
Sust Energ Rev 12:1187–1220. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2007.01.008
Oddoye EO, Agyente-Badu CK, Gyedu-Akoto E (2010) Cocoa and its
by-products: Identification and utilization. Chocolate in health and
nutrition 7:23–38. https​://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779​-803-0_3
Plis P, Wilk RK (2011) Theoretical and experimental investigation
of biomass gasification process in a fixed bed gasifier. Energy
36:3838–3845. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.energ​y.2010.08.039
Pode R, Diouf B, Pode G (2015) Sustainable rural electrification using
rice husk biomass energy: a case study of Cambodia. Renew Sust
Energ Rev 44:530–542. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.01.018
Poveda-Giraldo JA, Cardona Alzate CA (2020) Biorefinery potential of
Eucalyptus grandis to produce phenolic compounds and biogas.
Can J For Res. https​://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2020-0201
Prasad L, Kumar SBLV (2015) Thermal degradation and gasification
characteristics of Tung Shells as an open top downdraft wood
gasifier feedstock. Clean Technol Environ Policy 17:1699–1706.
https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1009​8-014-0891-8
Prasertcharoensuk P, Hernandez DA, Bull SJ, Phan AN (2018) Opti-
mization of a throat downdraft gasifier for hydrogen production.
Biomass Bioenergy 116:216–226. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.biomb​
ioe.2018.06.019
Pugazhendhi A, Alagumalai A, Mathimani T, Atabani AE (2020)
Optimization, kinetic and thermodynamic studies on sustainable
13
A. P. Gunasekaran et al.
biodiesel production from waste cooking oil: an Indian perspec-
tive. Fuel 273:117725. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117725​
Puig-Arnavat M, Bruno JC, Coronas A (2010) Review and analysis of
biomass gasification models. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14:2841–
2851. https​://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2010.07.030
Ravi IS, Anders B, Mikk H (2013) CFD modeling to study fluidized
bed combustion and gasification. Appl Therm Eng 52:585–614.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.applt​herma​leng.2012.12.017
Serrano C, Monedero E, Lapuerta M, Portero H (2011) Effect of mois-
ture content, particle size and pine addition on quality parameters
of barley straw pellets. Fuel Process Technol 92:699–706. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.fupro​c.2010.11.031
Sheth PN, Babu BV (2009) Experimental studies on producer gas
generation from wood waste in a downdraft biomass gasifier.
Bioresour Technol 100:3127–3133. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biort​ech.2009.01.024
Sikarwar VS, Zhao M, Clough P, Yao J, Zhong X, Memon MZ, Shah
N, Anthony EJ, Fennell PS (2006) An overview of advances in
biomass gasification. Energy Environ Sci 9:2939–2977. https​://
doi.org/10.1039/C6EE0​0935B​
Singh RN, Jena U, Patel JB, Sharma AM (2006) Feasibility study of
cashew nut shells as an open core gasifier Feedstock. Renew Energ
31:481–487. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.renen​e.2005.04.010
Singh VC, Sekhar SJ (2016) Performance studies on a downdraft bio-
mass gasifier with blends of coconut shell and rubber seed shell as
feedstock. Appl Therm Eng 97:22–27. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applt​herma​leng.2015.09.099
Sulaiman SA, Karim MF, Nazmi M, Moni Z, Atnaw SM (2013) On gas-
ification of different tropical plant-based biomass materials. Asian
J Sci Res 6:245–253. https​://doi.org/10.3923/ajsr.2013.245.253
Susastriawan AA, Saptoadi H, Purnomo, (2018) Design and experi-
mental study of pilot scale throat-less downdraft gasifier fed by
rice husk and wood sawdust. Int J Sustain Energy 37:873–885.
https​://doi.org/10.1080/14786​451.2017.13839​92
Tun MM, Juchelková D (2019) Estimation of greenhouse gas emis-
sions: an alternative approach to waste management for reduc-
ing the environmental impacts in Myanmar. Environ Eng Res
24:618–629. https​://doi.org/10.4491/eer.2018.364
Venkatesh G, Reddy PR, Kotari S (2017) Generation of producer
gas using coconut shells and sugar cane bagasse in updraft gasi-
fier. Mater Today 4:9203–9209. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr​
.2017.07.278
Vriesmann LC, Amboni RDMC, Petkowicz CLO (2011) Cacao pod
husks (Theobroma cacao L.): Composition and hot-water-soluble
pectins. Ind Crops Prod 34:1173–1181. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
indcr​op.2011.04.004
Vyas DK, Singh RN (2007) Feasibility study of Jatropha seed husk as
an open core gasifier feedstock. Renew Energ 32:512–517. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.renen​e.2006.06.006
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Numerical and experimental investigation on the thermochemical gasification potential of…

Authors and Affiliations

Arun Prasad Gunasekaran1 · Murugan Paradesi Chockalingam1   · Saji Raveendran Padmavathy1 ·

Joseph Sekhar Santhappan2

2
* Murugan Paradesi Chockalingam Department of Mechanical Engineering, Shinas College
pcmurugan@ymail.com of Technology, University of Technology and Applied
Sciences-Shinas, PC‑324, Shinas, Oman
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kongu Engineering
College, Erode 638060, India

13