Bioresource Technology 48 (1994) 229-235
© 1994 Elsevier Science Limited
ELSEVIER
SCALE-UP OF DOWNDRAFT MOVING BED GASIFIERS
(25-300 k g / h ) - DESIGN, EXPERIMENTAL ASPECTS AND
RESULTS
Pedro Garcia-Bacaicoa, Rafael Bilbao,* Jestis Arauzo & M. Luisa Salvador
Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, University of Zaragoza, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
(Received 20 December 1993; revised version received 4 February 1994; accepted 15 February 1994)
Abstract
Two installations with different biomass processing
capacities (25-50 and 200-300 kg/h) were designed and
constructed for air gasification of lignocellulosic biomass,
This paper describes both installations as well as the
experimental procedure. The influence of operating
conditions on the amount and quality of products was
determined. The results obtained from processing
forestry waste are analysed. Values above 90% for mass
conversion efficiency and over 70% for coM gas effi-
ciencywere reached,
Key words: biomass gasification, air gasification, down-
draft moving bed, gasifier design, mass efficiency,
energy efficiency,
INTRODUCTION
Air gasification is a thermochemical process which
utilises lignocellulosic wastes without any external
energy contribution. The main aim of the process is to
obtain gas of the highest possible heating value. In
some cases one fact which improves the economic
viability of the process is the simultaneous production
of charcoal which has an additional market value
(Ferrero, 1990).
There are essentially three types of reactor for
biomass gasification: moving bed (or fixed bed), fluid-
ised bed and entrained flow (Groeneveld & Van
Swaaij, 1979). Both the fundamental principles and the
range of products of each type of gasifier are well
established (Reed et aL, 1980). The choice of gasifier
type depends on the type of fuel to be gasified and the
end-use of the gas produced. A gasifier coupled to an
internal combustion engine is currently an attractive
way of generating shaft power or electricity from bio-
mass in the power range of a few kilowatts to several
megawatts (Beenackers & Bridgwater, 1989). This
system could be attractive in developing countries and
*To whom the correspondence should be addressed,
229
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0960-8524/94/$7.00
in some specific industrial situations (using the site
waste). Gasifier/engine systems fuelled with unpro-
cessed biomass tend to be of the moving-bed down-
draft type because of the ability of downdraft gasifiers
to produce low-tar gas (Mendis, 1989). Moreover, the
downdraft gasifier presents several supplementary
advantages (Bilbao & Fernandez, 1988) which indicate
that it is appropriate for average processing capacities.
In the 1980s a programme was initiated to develop a
gasifier system to use biomass generated in Spain. The
option chosen was air gasification in a downdraft
moving-bed gasifier. The study of the influence of both
operating conditions and scale-up involved the con-
strnction and operation of several gasifiers (Groene-
veld & Van Swaaij, 1979; L'Ecuyer & Huffman, 1981;
Walawender et aL, 1985). In order to study the scale-up
problems in the development stage of our gasification
option, two different plants were designed, built and
operated. Installation A, with a processing capacity
between 25 and 50 kg biomass/h and installation B
with a capacity between 200 and 300 kg biomass/h.
Results obtained in conventional downdraft reactors
(Forintek Canada Corporation, 1981; Twente Uni-
versity, 1981; Hoi & Bridgwater, 1989; Larson, 1989;
Mendis et aL, 1989; Sheng, 1989; Talib et aL, 1989)
and in stratified open-core gasifiers (Walter et aL,
1985; Earp & Bridgwater, 1987; Tavangar, 1988;
Tiangco, 1990) have been reported. Most of these
gasifiers have a biomass consumption lower than
100 kg/h. Several difficultiesappearwhentheseresults
are compared. The first is that each installation had its
own identity and the results were obtained under
similar, but not identical, operating conditions. The
second is the narrow range of operating conditions in
which each work was done. Finally, authors have pre-
sented their results in different ways.
In this paper the results obtained in two different
installations of different size, but using the same bio-
mass, are presented. The aim of the work was to solve
the scale-up problems and to reach in a semi-commer-
cial installation yields at least similar to those obtained
in a smaller plant.
230 P. Garcia-Bacaicoaet al.
METHODS a~
s00
Both installations had a similar structure, although I Ain i
there were some differences between them due mainly v am~s,
to their different sizes. They basically consisted of 'i-" "g" ~ --
gasifier and systems for biomass and air feeding, ash
removal system and gas conditioning (cyclone and heat ~'R~ ~ ~11
exchanger) systems. The processes occurring in the ~ ~ i~
gasifier are already known (Bacon et al., 1984; I ~i
Buekens & Schoeters, 1985) and only some specific
aspects of the system design will be shown. ,'/t
An important aspect of this gasifier type is the r//

design of its oxidation zone in order to crack the tars

and oils formed in the pyrolysis zone. Several methods
have been proposed (Groeneveld & Van Swaaij, 1980;
Kaupp & Goss, 1981; Van Swaaij, 1981; Esplin et al.,
1986). From these methods a reduction of the gasifier
cross-section by means of a so-called throat was
selected. The air was introduced from the top of the
gasifier using a central air inlet. The throat size
depends on the value of the biomass consumption-
area relationship and for a good operation should be
between 0"05 and 1.0 kg biomass/s m 2 throat (Groene-
veld, 1980; Groeneveld & Van Swaaij, 1980; Kaupp &
Goss, 1981).
Gases and charcoal from the combustion zone react
in the reduction zone. The gas yield is a function of the
residence time in this zone. A volume of the reduction
zone greater than 0"5 m3/m 2 throat is widely accepted
as sufficient (Twente University, 1981).
Concerning the biomass feeding and solid removal
systems, different designs for each installation were
used.
Description ofinstallationA(25-50 kg/h)
Figure 1 shows a plan of the gasifier where the main
dimensions are indicated. The gasifier wall consisted of
two concentric, 110-ram-thick, brick layers. The inner
layer was built of refractory material (high alumina
content), whereas the outer layer was built of a ther-
mally insulating material. The throat cross-section of
the oxidation zone was designed using a nominal
biomass processing capacity of 50 kg/h and a value of
0"283 kg/s m 2 throat,
The bed rested on a grid in the bottom of the gasi-
tier. This grid was also used to regulate the biomass
residence time in the gasifier by removing the ash in the
lower zone. The grid was covered with 10 mm dia-
meter holes and it was connected to a vibrator which
operated at constant time intervals.
A rootes blower provided an unchanging air flow
rate of 100 Nm3/h. A bypass system allowed air to be
fed to the gasifier at lower rates as required. Air was
preheated by being passed through a heat-exchanger,
The air flow rate was measured by means of a rota-
meter with an aluminium float.
The biomass feeding was connected directly to the
top of the gasifier in order to avoid leaks. It consisted
of a 700 litre hopper in which the biomass amount
required for a run was loaded in one batch. The feed
i
~ ~ ~ ~ ,,/,,
~0
~
_ Ga~
('AS
SCREW CONVEYOR
~1~ 4AOk'
q 't./
Fig. 1. Main dimensions (in mm) of the gasifier in installa-
tion A (25-50 kg/h).
was introduced into the gasifier by means of an elec-
trically driven piston working in regular strokes. In
each stroke, a batch of 5-6 kg of material was intro-
duced.
At the gasifier exit, the gas product passed through a
stainless-steel cyclone 250 cm in diameter and through
a heat-exchanger.
Temperature was measured at several points in the
installation (in the gasifier and in the air and gas pipes)
and the gas composition (N2, H2, CO, CO2, CH4) was
determined by chromatography.
Description of installation B (200-300 kg/h)
Figure 2 shows the gasifier plan where the main dimen-
sions are indicated. Internally it was hexagonal in
shape. For a nominal biomass consumption of
200 kg/h the throat design parameter had a value of
0"342 kg/s m 2 throat.
A ceramic material with a density of 350 kg/m 3 was
used to build the gasifier body. This material had good
insulating properties. The external wall was a carbon-
steel shell.
The bed rested on an eccentric rotating grate in the
bottom of the gasifier. It was connected to a motor
which operated at constant time intervals which
allowed regulation of the residence time of the
biomass.
 Downdraft moving bed biomass gasifiers
:_ 10ao .j
~" i .._ -,
Fig. 2. Main dimensions (in mm) of the gasifier in installa-
tion B (200-300 kg/h).
Two different grate designs were analysed:
(a) Open-grate design. The eccentric rotating grate
consisted of three circular rings placed one on
top of the other (made of 8 mm stainless steel).
The lower one was centred with the axis of the
gasifier and the other two out of line with the
axis. After several tests a distance of 6"5 cm
between the rings was used.
(b) Closed-grate design. The basic structure of three
circular tings was maintained. The lateral faces
of the grate consisted of a metal sheet (5 mm
thick stainless steel)with 720 holes of 15ram
diameter. With this design the amount of resid-
ual solid obtained was less than that corre-
sponding to the open-grate design,
The rootes blower provided an unchanging air-flow-
rate of 400 Nm3/h, but a bypass system allowed air to
be fed to the gasifier at lower rates. The air flow-rate
was measured by means of an annubar and the air was
preheated by being passed through an air-gas heat-
exchanger.
A new biomass feeding system was designed in
order to ensure the plant autonomy (for any processing
capacity of the gasifier). This consisted of a cylindrical
231
compartment (350 mm x 730 mm) closed at both ends
by two gate valves (350 mm diameter) which ensured
that the gas was sealed off. Biomass was transported to
the top of the system from the floor level using a belt
conveyor. This system fed biomass in a quasi-con-
tinuous way.
At the gasifier exit, gas passed through a stainless
steel cyclone 0-547 m in diameter. A heat exchanger
was fitted in the gas stream. The gas line was insulated
by ceramic wool as far as the cyclone exit. The off-gas
was burnt in a torch.
Temperature measurements in the gasifier and at
several points on the air and gas pipes were carried out
by means of several thermocouples. The pressure was
also measured at several points.
Gas composition (N2, H2, CO, CO2, CH4, C2H6,
C2H4, C2H2) was determined in quasi-continuous
mode. A pump transferred a small gas-flow to the
chromatograph and this was analysed continuously.
The experimental procedure was very similar in
both installations. Each run was started with the
ignition of the charcoal bed remaining, up to the com-
bustion zone, from a previous experiment. A rootes
blower provided 75% of the air flow rate selected for
the experiment. After 5-10 min ignition was achieved,
the biomass feeding system started and the air flow-
rate was increased up to the selected value. When the
gasifier was full, the residence time control devices
(vibrating grid-eccentric rotating grate) were started. It
was considered that steady-state had been reached in
an experiment when the measured temperatures had
constant values. This situation was reached in
20-30 min in installation A and in 4 0 - 6 0 min in instal-
lation B. Experiments lasted at least 2.5 h in steady-
state.
As the biomass consumption depends on the air
flow-rate introduced (Jenkins & Goss, 1980) and on
the design of the ash-removal system (Reed et al.,
1989) the influences of both variables were analysed in
an independent way. For each ash removal design,
experiments for different air flow-rates were per-
formed. In these experiments the solid height was kept
constant in the gasifier in order to avoid other addi-
tional variables being introduced in the process.
In each experiment the biomass consumption was
not previously known, so the biomass fed was the
amount necessary to keep the solid-height constant in
the gasifier ( 1 0 5 0 m m in the installation A and
1800 mm in the B one). In installation A the biomass
consumption was calculated from the quantity of
biomass remaining in the hopper after the experiment
in relation to the feeding time. In installation B the
biomass consumption was calculated from an ash
balance, since the proximate and ultimate charcoal
analyses were carried out for all the experiments. Mass
balances were conducted on all the other products.
When the experiment finished the air flow was
stopped and all other systems were turned off. The
installation was kept closed until it became extinct
(approximately 1-5 days for installation A and 3 days for
232 P. Garcia-Bacaicoa et al.

Table 1. Main characteristics of gasified forestry waste Table 3. Composition (%vol.) and low heating value of the
gas produced in installation A (25-50 kg/h)
Proximate analysis (% dry basis)
Fixed carbon 19.65 Experi- N2 CO CO 2 CH4 H2 LHV
Volatiles 77.70 ment (kcal/Nm3)
Ash 2.66
Elementalanalysis (% dry basis) A-5 55"0 16.3 13.0 0-6 15.1 1007
A-4 53.4 16.1 13.6 0.7 16.2 961
Carbon 45.80 A-2 54.1 13.7 15.6 1.3 15.3 1006
Hydrogen 6-00
Nitrogen 0.30 A-6 54.0 16-4 13-2 1.2 15-2 1011
A-1 55'7 14.9 10.9 1.3 17.2 940
Oxygen 47.90
A-11 48.3 2 4 . 1 10.0 1.9 15-7 1292
Moisture level (wet basis) 12.10 A-2 52.7 14.1 16.0 1.6 15.6 1006
Low heating value (kcal/kg wet) 3590 A-7 49-8 1 9 . 3 11-7 1-2 18.0 1147
Particle size 84% between 0.5 and 16 nun A-9 46.8 15.7 16.1 2.2 19.2 1129

Table 2. Operating conditions and main values of the

results obtained in installation A (25-50 kg/h) Table 4. Operating conditions and main values of the
results of the experiments performed in installation B
Experi- Air Grid Biomass Gas Solid (200-300 kg/h)
ment (Nm3/h) vibration processed produced produced
(% time) (kg/h) (Nm3/h) (kg/h) Experi- Air Biomass Gas Solid
ment (Nm3/h) processed produced produced
A-5 50 16"0 25.4 75 0"25 (kg/h) (Nm3/h) (kg/h)
A-4 50 22"0 28.1 75 0'31
A-2 50 29-0 34.0 79 0.58 Open-gratedesign
A-6 50 38"0 37.8 72 1.02 P-3 250 220.4 318"7 31.8
A-1 50 50"0 46.1 73 3-04 P-4 250 214.7 340.5 25-6
A-11 40 29"0 31.7 65 1.43 P-22 250 251.4 283.2 23.5
A-2 50 29"0 34.0 79 0"58 P-30 250 262.8 325.2 23.7
A-7 60 29-0 39-3 95 0"79 P-5 300 231.6 375.4 26.6
A-9 70 29"0 48.9 117 0"73 P-13 300 291.7 416.4 39"5
P-20 300 259-0 365"3 42.3
P-32 300 315"3 371-1 31"1
P-12 350 334"5 500.3 59.8
P-25 350 316"6 503'7 31'1
installation B). Once the installation was cold, it was P-31 350 338-3 483.2 32.7
cleaned and the ash was removed from the cyclone and Closed-gratedesign
the hopper. G-1 250 208.8 372.1 18.0
G-2 250 220.0 379.5 16.7
G-8 250 191.3 372-6 10.8
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION G-6 300 264.4 492.5 12.1
G-7 300 265.0 518.0 15.8
Wood chips from forestry wastes were processed in G-9 300 246.9 481.6 12.6
both installations. Table 1 shows the main character- G-10 350 283.1 521.6 14-5
istics of this biomass. Several kinds of experiments G-11 350 299.0 553-5 15.3
were carried out. The main variables analysed were G-12 350 275.0 526.4 10.8
inlet air-flow, and design and operation of the grate.
In installation A, runs (A-i experiments) were per-
on the air introduced. Both values increased with
formed for different air flows (40-70 Nm3/h) and
different on/off times (16-50%) of the vibrator grid. the amount of air introduced.
• For a gasifier and a given amount of air intro-
Tables 2 and 3 show the main results obtained.
In installation B two different experimental series duced, the biomass processed was influenced by
were done according to the design of the eccentric the design and operation of the ash-removal
rotating grate. Both grate models were described system. It can be observed in Table 2 that the
previously. For the open-grate design P-i experiments biomass consumption increased with the grid
were performed, and for the closed-grate design G-i operation time. In installation B, Table 4, a
ones. Table 4 shows the operating conditions and the greater biomass consumption was obtained (for
main values of the results obtained. Tables 5 and 6 the same air-flow rate) in the P-i experiments than
show the main characteristics of the gas and the solid in the G-i ones. The different designs of the grate
generated, also influenced the amount of gas and solid pro-
The main features of these results are listed below, duced. In the G-i experiments more gas and less
solid were produced than in the P-i experiments.
• For a gasifier and a given design and operation of • The low heating values of the gas obtained with
the ash-removal system, the amounts of biomass the closed-grate design (G-i experiments) were
processed and of gas produced depended mainly higher than those corresponding to the open-
 Downdraft moving bed biomass gasifiers 233

Table 5. Composition (%vol.) and low heating value of the gas produced in the experiments performed in installation B
(200-300 kg/h)

Experi- Nz CO CO 2 CH 4 H2 C2H4 C2H6 C2H2 LHV

ment (kcal/Nm3)

Open-grate design
P-3 54.7 26.5 9-4 2"0 7-0 0.26 0.10 0"12 1209
P-4 54.4 19.1 14.5 3.2 8"0 0.58 0-15 0"10 1166
P-22 70.0 15.2 9-5 0.6 4-6 0.07 0.04 0-01 636
P-30 60-7 14.4 7.0 2.9 13"3 0.40 0-18 1"11 1259
P-5 63"1 17.0 12.9 3"0 2.9 0.65 0.18 0'30 1000
P-13 56'8 21.6 9"6 2.2 9.1 0.20 0.09 0"43 1119
P-20 53.4 25-6 12.4 2"3 5-8 0.32 0.12 0.08 1189
P-32 63-9 13.2 6"4 3.0 13"0 0.32 0.18 0.04 1069
P-12 55.2 15.2 15-7 3"9 9-0 0"70 0.22 0"13 1162
P-25 55"4 9.2 19.1 1.7 14"3 0.23 0.11 0.01 838
P-31 57.2 8.4 19"4 1-6 13"0 0.25 0.11 0.07 788
Closed-grate design
G-1 53"1 16-6 17"3 2.9 9-5 0.26 0.15 0.17 1079
G-2 47-8 19.8 16"0 3.4 12.4 0"33 0.18 0.13 1296
G-8 47.8 26.3 10-1 2"1 13-2 0.31 0.11 0.04 1394
G-6 47.3 22.1 13"8 2-9 13"4 0"38 0.11 0.05 1336
G-7 43.9 22.1 12"2 2.6 18.6 0.37 0.11 0.04 1445
G-9 48.6 19.8 14"0 2"5 14.6 0"33 0.10 0"08 1265
G-10 43.0 25-0 11-1 3"6 16-7 0.47 0.15 0-05 1588
G-11 45'6 23.5 12"3 3"0 15"1 0"33 0"13 0.00 1420
G-12 44-4 21-5 14"4 3"3 16-0 0"33 0.13 0.00 1436

Table 6. Main characteristics of the solid generated in the Different mass and energy performance values
experiments performed in installation B (200-300 kg/b) defined by Walawender et al. (1988) were evaluated.
Experi- Ash Volatiles Fixed C. LHV The mass performance values used were: (i) the mass
ment (% wt.) (% wt.) (% w t . ) (kcal/kg) air/biomass (dry basis) relationship (A/F); (ii) the mass
gas/air relationship (G/A); (iii) the mass gas/biomass
Open-grate design (dry basis) ratio (G/F); and (iv) the mass conversion
P-3 16.26 10.65 73.09 6195 efficiency (MCE) defined as the mass ratio of the dry
P-4 19-67 9-86 70-47 5885 gas output rate to the combined input rates of both wet
P-22 26.08 9.96 63"96 5285
P-30 26.89 21-30 51.81 4765 feed and air. To quantify the energetic yield, the cold
P-5 20.65 9.35 70.00 5876 gas efficiency (CGE) was used, defined as the ratio of
P- 13 17.85 11.05 71.10 6129 the energy content of the dry gas to the energy content
P-20 14.48 11.13 74.39 6513 of the dry feed. Table 7 shows the values of ER and of
P-32 23-95 24.85 51.20 4846 the performances evaluated.
P-12 13.19 10-70 76.11 6495
P-25 23.26 16.43 60.31 5257 An important parameter in the gasifier yields is the
P-31 25.46 19-75 54.79 4994 A/F relationship (Desrosiers, 1979; Chen, 1986). For
Closed-grate design each experimental series similar results of the influence
G-1 27.38 15.41 57.21 4825 of the air flow on the A/F ratio were obtained and the
G-2 31-08 17.70 51.22 4424 affirmation that the A/F relationship tends to regulate
G-8 43.76 14.12 42.12 3592 itself to a given value (Jenkins & Goss, 1980) was
G-6 51.75 14.24 34.01 2743 confirmed. In our case, in the A-i series (29% vibration
G-7 40.68 15.12 44.20 3801
G-9 47.78 13.88 38.34 3215 time of the grid), an average A/F value of 2"082 kg air/
G-10 47.39 11'34 41.27 3471 kg feed (dry basis) was obtained. For series P-i and G-i,
G-11 46.76 9.11 44.13 3578 values of 1.578 and 1.756 were respectively deter-
G-12 61.45 8.04 30.51 2572 mined. Similar values are reported in the bibliography.
Thus, Chee (1990) showed values between 1-62 and
grate design (P-i experiments). This was mainly 1"84, Groeneveld et al. (1983) obtained a value of 1.81
due to the higher hydrocarbon concentrations and Walawender et al. (1985) reported values between
0"99 and 2.08.
obtained in the gas in the G-i experiments. With respect to the gas product obtained, the
The influencing variables (amount of air introduced average values of G / A and G/F obtained in each
and design and operation of the grate) have been experimental series are shown in Table 8. The G/A
grouped in the equivalence ratio (ER), defined as the values corresponding to the A-i and G-i experiments
percentage between the real and the stoichiometric were similar to those reported by Chee (1990)
oxygen/biomass relationship. (between 1.47 and 1-52 kg gas/kg air). The G/F values
234 P. Garcia-Bacaicoa et al.

Table 7. Throughput and performance indicators of the 1,0 ~, o

experiments performed in both installations [] t~
~i'~Atx" o o o
[] o
Experi- ER A/F G/A G/F MCE CGE 0,8 O
ment (%) ( m a s s ( m a s s (mass o
units) units) units) 0,6 lID
ne
Open-grate design in installation B 0
P-3 22.2 1.660 1.276 2.117 0.757 0.487 X 0,4
P-4 22.8 1.704 1.383 2.355 0.829 0.515
P-22 1 9 . 5 1 . 4 5 5 1 . 1 5 3 1.677 0.647 0.200
P-30 1 8 . 7 1 . 3 9 2 1 . 1 8 9 1.654 0.654 0.434 0,2
P-5 2 5 . 4 1.895 1.311 2.484 0.819 0.452
P-13 2 0 . 2 1 . 5 0 5 1 . 3 4 9 2.029 0.768 0.445
P-20 2 2 . 7 1 . 6 9 5 1 . 2 4 7 2.113 0.746 0.467 0,0 . . . .
P-32 1 8 . 7 1 . 3 9 2 1 . 1 4 3 1.591 0.629 0.350 15 20 25 30 35 40
P-12 2 0 . 5 1 . 5 3 1 1 . 4 4 5 2.212 0.829 0.484 Ell (%)
P-25 2 1 . 7 1 . 6 1 7 1 . 4 2 2 2.300 0.835 0.371
P-31 2 0 . 3 1 . 5 1 4 1 . 3 6 3 2.063 0.778 0.314 Fig. 3. Mass conversion efficiencies for different equiva-
lence ratios.
Closed-grate design in installation B
G-1 2 3 . 4 1 . 7 5 2 1 . 5 1 3 2.650 0.917 0.563
G-2 2 2 . 2 1 . 6 6 3 1 . 4 8 7 2.473 0.883 0.623 1,0
G-8 2 5 . 6 1 . 9 1 2 1 . 3 7 2 2.623 0.860 0.756
G-6 2 2 . 2 1 . 6 6 0 1 . 5 7 7 2.619 0.936 0.693
G-7 2 2 . 2 1 . 6 5 6 1 . 5 4 2 2.554 0.914 0.787 0,8 A A o
G-9 2 3 . 8 1 . 7 7 8 1 . 5 0 4 2.673 0.917 0.687 AA °~ o o o
G-10 2 4 . 2 1 . 8 0 9 1 . 3 3 9 2.422 0.822 0.815 A o
G-11 2 2 . 9 1 . 7 1 3 1 . 4 6 6 2.511 0.881 0.732 ,,, 0,6 o
G-12 2 4 . 9 1 . 8 6 2 1 . 3 9 3 2.595 0.865 0.766 O [] ~ []
For different airflows in installation A 0 0,4 o
A-11 2 4 . 7 1 . 8 4 5 1 . 4 2 3 2.624 0.880 0.734 [] [] o
A-2 2 8 . 8 2 . 1 5 2 1 . 4 3 6
A-7 3 1 . 1 2 . 2 3 5 1 . 3 8 8
A-9 3 2 . 1 2 . 0 9 4 1 . 5 2 8
3.089
3.103
3.199
0.939
0.920
0.990
0.652
0.775
0.750
0,2

00
I
[]

. . . .
I: ::',t
15 20 25 30 35 40
Table 8. Average values of gas/air and gas/feed (in mass
units) obtained in each experimental series Ell (%)
Fig. 4. Cold gas efficiencies for different equivalence
Experimental G/A G/F ratios.
series (kg gas/kg air) (kg gas/kg biomass)

A-i 1-44 3.00 throughput. Biomass consumption can be increased by

P-i 1.30
G-i 1.47
of G-i experiments were similar to those of Chee
(between 2-47 and 2.70).
The influence of ER on the MCE is shown in Fig. 3.
It can be observed that MCE increases with ER. In the
A-i and G-i experiments values above 0"9 have been
reached, whereas in the P-i experiments lower values
were obtained. Other values reported in the literature
were 0"91 (Chee, 1990) and 0"90 (Forintek Canada
Corporation, 1981; Twente University, 1981).
The influence of ER on the CGE values is shown in
Fig. 4. In the A-i and G-i experiments values of 0"7
were obtained. In the P-i experiments the CGE ranged
between 0"35 and 0-48. Chee (1990) reported values
between 0"66 and 0.71, which are similar to those
obtained in the A-i and G-i series.
CONCLUSIONS
The design and operation of the solid-removal system
of the gasifier allows one to modify the biomass
2.05
2.57 (i) increasing the operation of the grate, or (ii) increas-
ing the flow area of the grate.
Air flow is an influential variable and it determines
the biomass consumption and the gas and solid pro-
ductions. The air/biomass ratio self-regulates at a given
value. Also the gas/air ratio and the solid yield remain
virtually unchanged for each design and operation of
the solid-removal system.
Mass conversion efficiency (MCE) and cold gas effi-
iency (CGE) values increase with the equivalence ratio
values. Both values of MCE above 0.9 and of CGE
over 0-7 have been reached in the gasifiers. It can be
concluded that in a semi-commercial installation yields
similar to those in corresponding smaller plants were
obtained.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors express their gratitude to DGICYT (Pro-
ject PB91-0284) and to Consejer/a de Economia y
Hacienda de la Junta de Castilla-Le6n, IDAE and
CIEMAT (PIEPMA Programme) for providing finan-
cial support for this work.
 Do wndraft moving bed biomass gasifiers
REFERENCES
Bacon, D. W., Downie, J., Hsu, C. C. & Larish, G. K. (1984).
Technical Assessment of Downdraft Wood Gasifiers, Final
Report, ENFOR Project C-197(2), Canada.
Beenackers, A. A. C. M. & Bridgwater, A. V. (1989).
Gasification and pyrolysis of biomass in Europe. In
Pyrolysis and Gasification, ed. G. L. Ferrero, K. Maniatis,
A. G. Buekens & A. V. Bridgwater. Elsevier Appl.
Science, London, UK, pp. 129-57.
Bilbao, R. & Fernandez, E (1988) Gasificaci6n de biomasas
en un lecho m6vil de corrientes paralelas. Ingenieria
Quimica, 20 (226) 199-203.
Buekens, A. G. & Schoeters, J. G. (1985). Modelling of
biomass gasification. In Fundamentals of Thermochemical
Biomass Conversion, ed. R. P. Overend, T. A. Milne &
L. K. Mudge. Elsevier Appl. Science, London, UK, pp.
619-89.
Chee, C. S. (1990). Analysis, modeling and control of acom-
mercial-scale downdraft gasifier. PhD thesis, Kansas State
University, KS, USA.
Chen, J. S. (1986). Kinetic engineering modeling of co-
current moving bed gasification reactors for carbonaceous
materials. PhDthesis, Cornell University, NY, USA.
Desrosiers, R. (1979). Thermodynamics of gas-char reac-
tions. In A Survey of Biomass Gasification (Vol. II). SERI/
TR-33-239, pp. 133-75.
Earp, D. M. & Bridgwater, A. V. (1987) Research into trans-
parent open core downdraft gasifier. In Biomass for
Energy and Industry, ed. E. Gassi, B. Delmon, J. E Molle
& H. Zibetta. Elsevier Appl. Science, London, UK, pp.
1068-72.
Esplin, G. J., Fung, D. P. C. & Hsu, C. C. (1986). A c o m -
parison of the energy and product distribution from
biomass gasifiers. Can. J. Chem. Engng, 64, 651-62.
Ferrero, G. L. (1990). Implementation and results of the
Commission's energy demonstration programme. In
Biomass for Energy and Industry, ed. G. Grassi, G. Gosse
& G. dos Santos. Elsevier Appl. Science, London, UK, pp.
2.1158-64.
Forintek Canada Corporation (1981). Evaluation of Fuelsfor
Operation in a Fixed Bed, Downdraft, Commercial
Gasifier. Final Report. ENFOR Project C-92, Canada.
Groeneveld, M. J. (1980). The co-current moving bed
gasifier. PhD thesis, Twente University of Technology,
The Netherlands.
Groeneveld, M. J. & Van Swaaij, W. P. M. (1979). Gasifica-
tion of solid waste-potential and application of co-current
moving bed gasifiers. Appl. Energy, 5 (3 ) 165-78.
Groeneveld, M. J. & Van Swaaij, W. P. M. (1980). The design
of cocurrent moving bed gasifiers fuelled by biomass. In
Thermal Conversion of Solid Wastes and Biomass, ed. J.L.
Jones & S. B. Radding. American Chemical Society,
Washington, DC, USA.
Groeneveld, M.J.,Gellings, P.E.&Hos, J.J.(1983).Produc-
tion of a tar-free gas in an annular co-current moving bed
gasifier. In Energy from Biomass and Wastes VII. Institute
of Gas Technology, Chicago, IL, USA, pp. 433-54.
Hoi, W. K. & Bridgwater, A. V. (1989). Gasification of
charcoal in Malaysia. In Pyrolysis and Gasification, ed.
G. L. Ferrero, K. Maniatis, A. Buekens & A. V. Bridg-
water. Elsevier Appl. Science, London, UK, pp. 598-602.
Jenkins, B. M. & Goss, J. R. (1980). Effect of air blast rate on
fixed bed gasifiers. Paper no. PR 80-028 presented at
ASAE Pacific Regional Annual Meeting.
235
Kaupp, A. & Goss, J. R. (1981). State of Art for Small Scale
(to 50 kw) Gas Producer-Engine Systems (Final Report).
Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of
California, Davis, CA, USA.
Larson, L. E. (1989). Development of a downdraft wood
gasification system for electricity utility boiler applica-
tions. EnergyBiomass Wastes, 12,805-31.
L'Ecuyer, A. & Huffman, D. R. (1981 ). Operation of a fixed-
bed downdraft gasifier on a low quality residue fuels.
Third Bio-Energy R & D Seminar, National Research
Council of Canada, Ottawa, Canada, NRCC no. 19515.
Mendis, M. S. (1989). Biomass gasification: Past experiences
and future prospects in developing countries. In Pyrolysis
and Gasification, ed. G. L. Ferrero, K. Maniatis, A.
Buekens & A. V. Bridgwater. Elsevier Appl. Science,
London, UK, pp. 111-28.
Mendis, M. S., Stassen, H. E. M. & Stiles, H. N. (1989).
Biomass gasification: Field monitoring results. Part I and
Part II. Biomass, 19, 1-35.
Reed, T. B., Jantzen, D., Desrosiers, D. & Milne, T. (1980). A
Survey of Biomass Gasification (Vol. III. Current Tech-
nology and Research) ed. T. B. Reed. SERI-TR-33-239,
Washington, DC, USA, pp. 1-147.
Reed, T. B., Levie, B. & Graboski, M. S. (1989). Funda-
mental, Development and Scaleup of the Air-Oxygen
StratifiedDowndrafi Gasifier, ed. T. B. Reed. SERI-PR-
234-2571, Washington, DC, USA.
Sheng, G. X. (1989). Biomass gasifiers: From waste energy
production. Biomass, 20,3-12.
Talib, A., Goss, J. R., Flanigan, V. J., Grover, P. D., Mathur,
H . B . & Durgaprasad, M. B. (1989). Development and
field testing of small biomass gasifier-engine systems in
India: A joint project by an American and Indian team.
Biomass,19,99-122.
Tavangar, M. R. (1988). Gasification of mesquite chips in a
downdraft gasifier. Thesis, Texas A&I University, TX,
USA.
Tiangco, V. M. (1990). Optimization of specific fuel conver-
sion rates for a rice hull gasifier coupled to an internal
combustion engine. PhD thesis, University of California,
Davis, CA, USA.
Twente University of Technology, Laboratory of Chemical
Reaction Engineering (1981). Energy Recovery by Gasifi-
cation of Agricultural and Forestry Wastes in a Co-current
Moving Bed Reactor. Final Report. Commission of the
European Communities, Contract 662-78-IESN.
Van Swaaij, W. P. M. (1981). Gasification, the Process and the
Technology(Report). Commission of the European
Communities, Luxembourg.
Walawender, W. P., Chern, S. M. & Fan, L. T. (1985). Wood
chips gasification in a commercial downdraft gasifier. In
Fundamentalsof Thermochemical Biomass Conversion,
eds R. P. Overend, T. A. Milne & L. K. Mudge. Elsevier
Appl. Science, London, UK, pp. 911-21.
Walawender, W. P., Chee, C. S. & Fan, L. T. (1988).
Operating parameters influencing downdraft gasifier
performance. In Energy from Biomass and Wastes XI, ed.
D . L . Klass, Institute of Gas Technology, Chicago, IL,
USA, pp. 411-45.
Walter, P., Walawender, W. P., Chern, S. M. & Fan, L. T.
(1985). Wood chip gasification in a commercial downdraft
gasifier. In Fundamentals of Thermochemical Biomass
Conversion,eds. R. P. Overend, T. A. Milne & L. K.
Mudge. Elsevier Appl. Science, London, UK, pp. 911-21.