The Moisture Effect on Wood Combustion in an Updraft Gasifier

The Moisture Effect on Wood Combustion in an

Updraft Gasifier
M. Ernie1, A. A. Azhar2, M. G. Normah3
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka
Hang Tuah Jaya, 76100 Durian Tunggal, Melaka.
1

, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
81300 Skudai, Johor.

2 3

Email: 1ernie@utem.edu.my
ABSTRACT
This paper studies the fuel moisture content effect on the wood combustion
behaviour in the gasifier. The combustion process is evaluated with
the variation of fuels moisture content, i.e. set at 17%, 31%, and 40%
respectively. The ignition front rate decreased with increasing fuel moisture
content which resulted in slower gasification process in the chamber. The
temperature and oxide of nitrogen (NO) concentration are decreased with
the increase of the moisture in the fuel. Furthermore, the concentration of
carbon monoxide (CO) increases while the change for carbon dioxide (CO2)
and oxygen (O2) concentrations are only around 1% with the variation of
this operating parameter. At highest gasification efficiency of 92.7%, the
moisture content of the fuel is best set at 16-17%; giving outlet operating
temperature of 500oC and exhaust gas concentrations with 1500 ppm of
CO, 2.8% of CO2, 30 ppm of NO and 17.6% of O2 respectively.
KEYWORDS: Gasification, moisture content, drying, devolatilisation,
ignition front rate.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Gasification is a thermal conversion technology where the solid fuel
is converted to combustible gases under sub-stoichiometric of air. It
capables of converting hydrocarbon-based hazardous materials to
nonhazardous byproducts. The first commercial gasifier which built
up in 1839 is updraft gasifier type with air-blown gasification (Quaak
P. et.al. 1999).

ISSN: 2180-1053

Vol. 2

No. 2

July-December 2010

101

Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology

The importance of analyzing the fuel characteristics should be done to

meet the gasifier requirement according to some parameters. Desirable
moisture content of fuel which is lower than 20% is an advantage to
any gasifier. This is due to the lower heat loss for evaporation and this
does not affect much on the gasifiers efficiency. However for updraft
gasifier, it is suitable to use fuel with moisture content up to 40% but
not for using the gases for running engines which normally need clean
gases (Goswami, 1986).
2.0 Experimental Set Up
The experimental work comprised of experiment set-up, performance
and evaluation of the running test. The experimental works were
done at equivalence ratio in the range of 0.19 to 0.43. This range is
the equivalence ratio of gasification process (Lucas, 2005) and (Reed,
1981) or the oxygen used is less than 40% of that required for complete
combustion (Evan and Milne, 1987) for a typical gasifier. From previous
studied the optimum equivalence ratio is 0.3 and 0.26 respectively
which run on biomass gasification (Zainal et.al., 2002) and (Wu et.al.,
2003).
2.1 Experimental Equipment
The main equipment in this research is the primary chamber. The
combustion of fuel takes place under sub-stoichiometric combustion
resulting in the liberation of the combustible gases. Once the combustion
starts, the air is supplied from a blower and the combustion would
be self sustaining and maintained at temperature about 500 to 800oC.
The air is supplied to the primary chamber through the air inlet pipe
work having a 5cm in diameter. The liberated gases will then flow
through the primary chamber outlet while the left ash and slag left
from the primary chamber falls to the bottom of the primary chamber
into container and is moved to a storage area. FIGURE 1 shows the
schematic view of the primary chamber.

102

ISSN: 2180-1053

Vol. 2

No. 2

July-December 2010

and maintained at temperature about 500 to 800oC. The air is supplied to the primary chamber
through the air inlet pipe work having a 5cm in diameter. The liberated gases will then flow
Moisture
Effect
on Wood
Combustion
in an Updraft
Gasifierfalls
through the primary chamber outlet while theTheleft
ash and
slag
left from
the primary
chamber
to the bottom of the primary chamber into container and is moved to a storage area. FIGURE 1
shows the schematic view of the primary chamber.

1 and 2: Tuyeres
FIGURE
1
Schematic
viewofofthe
the primary
primary chamber
FIGURE 1 Schematic view
chamber
3.0
3.1

Results and Discussion

3.0 Results
and Discussion
The Effect of Wood Moisture
Content

3.1 content
The Effect
Wood
Moisture
Content
The moisture
of the of
wood
is varied
by wetting
the wood with water several days before
experimental work starts. To get regular moisture content for the whole wood, the wood should be
moisture
of the
wood
varied
bysize
wetting
the wood with
soakedThe
in the
water that content
require a very
large
bin to is
soak
the large
of wood.
water several days before experimental work starts. To get regular

The ignition
front velocity
being
affected
by wood,
changingthe
the fuel
moisture
content.
It is a significant
moisture
contentis for
the
whole
wood
should
be soaked
in
factor the
that water
shows that
the velocity
of
the
devolatilization
front
movement
(Yang
et
2006). The
require a very large bin to soak the large size ofal.,
wood.
global ignition speed is defined as the reaction front speed and can be calculated as the ratio
between the time lag of Position 1 and Position 4, and the distance between them as in FIGURE 2.
The ignition
is being
affected
bythechanging
This method
assumes front
that thevelocity
ignition speed
is constant
along
chamber. the
The fuel
value of
o
moisture
content.
It istemperature
a significant
factor
that shows
of the front
temperature
is taken
at highest
gradient
(Katunzi,
2006) atthe
570velocity
C. The ignition
, 2.58global
cms-1 and
0.33 cms-1.
velocity
at moisture content
of 17movement
%, 30.8 % and
40 %et.al.,
are 2.82
cms-1The
devolatilization
front
(Yang
2006).
ignition
The ignition
rate is then
defined
by multiplication
of the
velocity with
speed front
is defined
as the
reaction
front speed
andignition
can befront
calculated
as the
densitythe
of the
fuel
(Yang
et
al.,
2006).
It
shows
a
decreasing
response
with
increasing
moisture
ratio between the time lag of Position 1 and Position 4, and the
content as in FIGURE 3. Slower ignition front rate due to increasing of fuel moisture contents
distance
between
them asrate
in and
FIGURE
2. This
method
assumes
that the
results in lower moisture
evaporation
hence causes
slower
gasification
process.

ignition speed is constant along the chamber. The value of temperature

is taken at highest temperature gradient (Katunzi, 2006) at 570oC. The
ignition front velocity at moisture content of 17 %, 30.8 % and 40 %
are 2.82 cms-1, 2.58 cms-1 and 0.33 cms-1. The ignition front rate is then
defined by multiplication of the ignition front velocity with the density 87
of the fuel (Yang et.al., 2006). It shows a decreasing response with
increasing moisture content as in FIGURE 3. Slower ignition front rate
due to increasing of fuel moisture contents results in lower moisture
evaporation rate and hence causes slower gasification process.

ISSN: 2180-1053

Vol. 2

No. 2

July-December 2010

103

Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology

FIGURE
2 The
determination
of global
speed at fuel
moisture
of 17oC
FIGURE
2 The
determination
of ignition
global ignition
speed
at fuelcontent
moisture
o
FIGURE 2 The determination of global
ignition
speed
at
fuel
moisture
content
of
17
C
content of 17oC
40

40

35

35

30

30

25

25

20

20

15

15

10

Moisture content (%)

Moisture content (%)

45
45

10
0

Ignition front rate (kg/m2s)

Ignition front rate (kg/m2s)

3
3

FIGURE 3 Ignition front rate at various moisture contents

FIGURE
3 Ignition
front
moisture
contents
FIGURE
3 Ignition
frontrate
rateat
at various
various moisture
contents
The effect of various moisture contents on the gas composition at the chambers outlet is displayed
Theineffect
of various
moisture
contents
on moisture
the gascontents
composition
atthe
the
chambers
outlet
is displayed
The
effect
offigure
various
onthe
composition
atofthe
FIGURE
4. This
showsmoisture
the
content in
fuelgas
affected
the
quantity
the gas
in FIGURE
4.
This
figure
shows
the
moisture
content
in
the
fuel
affected
the
quantity
of thethe
gas
generated.
There
are
not
much
different
of
CO
and
O
pattern
in
increasing
of
moisture
content.
2
chambers outlet is displayed in2 FIGURE
4. This figure shows
generated.
There
are different
not muchisdifferent
ofonCO
Oand
in increasing
of moisture
content.
2 and
2 pattern
However,
a
clear
observed
both
CO
NO
pattern.
Increment
in
CO
is
observed
moisture content in the fuel affected the quantity of the gas generated.
However,
a clear
different
is observed
on decreasing
both CO and
NO pattern. Increment in CO is observed
while NO
showed
a reverse
trend with
in value.
not trend
much
different
and O2 pattern in increasing of
2
while NO There
showed are
a reverse
with
decreasingofin CO
value.

moisture content. However, a clear different is observed on both CO

and NO pattern. Increment in CO is observed while NO showed a 88
88
reverse trend with decreasing in value.

104

ISSN: 2180-1053

Vol. 2

No. 2

July-December 2010

The Moisture Effect on Wood Combustion in an Updraft Gasifier

A greater yield amount of CO is observed by 20% from 1500 ppm to

1800 ppm with moisture content increment in between 17% to 40.8%.
This is due to the favourable of exothermic reaction; water-gas reaction
(C + H 2 O C
O + H 2 ) (Sheth and Babu, 2005) and (Lucas et.al., 2004). At
higher temperature, this reaction tends to shift to the reactants where
A greater yield amount of CO is observed by 20% from 1500 ppm to 1800 ppm with moisture
compositions
C toand
H2OThis
become
Apart
from that,
contentthe
increment
in betweenof
17%
40.8%.
is due todominant.
the favourable
of exothermic
reaction;
the
conversion
to
CO2
and
H2
more
dominant
at
lower
temperature
water-gas reaction (C  H 2O l CO  H 2 ) (Sheth and Babu, 2005) and (Lucas et al., 2004). At
F.,reaction
2004). tends to shift to the reactants where the compositions of C and
higher(Bustamante
temperature, this
H2O become dominant. Apart from that, the conversion to CO2 and H2 more dominant at lower
temperature
(Bustamante
2004).
Measured
CO2 F.,
increased
from 2.8% to 4% and decreased to 2.1% at

40.8% moisture content. CO is produced during water gas shift reaction

CO (ppm)

2500

35
30

2000

25

1500

20
15

1000

10

500

0
15

20

25

30

35

CO2, O2 (%),NO(ppm)

2
Measured CO2 increased from 2.8% to 4%
and decreased to 2.1% at 40.8% moisture content. CO2
at theduring
expense
and
H2 (Bhattacharya
1999) whileand
NODutta,
is produced
waterof
gasCO
shift
reaction
at the expense ofand
CO Dutta,
and H2 (Bhattacharya
decreased
by
33.3%
from
30
ppm
to
20
ppm.
1999) while NO decreased by 33.3% from 30 ppm to 20 ppm.

CO(ppm)
CO2(%)
O2(%)
NO(ppm)

40

Moisture content (%)

FIGURE
4 Gas
compositionsatatvarious
various moisture
contents
FIGURE
4 Gas
compositions
moisture
contents
The effect of fuel moisture content on some heat losses during the experimental works can be
effect of5.fuel
moisture
onto some
heat
during
the due
shownThe
as in FIGURE
These
heat lossescontent
are referred
heat losses
duelosses
to dry gas,
heat losses
experimental
works
can be
as in FIGURE
These heat losses
to the moisture
in the fuel,
heat losses
dueshown
to CO formation
and water 5.
formation.

are referred to heat losses due to dry gas, heat losses due to the moisture
in the fuel, heat losses due to CO formation and water formation.

FIGURE 5 Heat losses due to the moisture content (%) in the fuel

ISSN: 2180-1053

Vol. 2

No. 2

July-December 2010

105

89

The effect of fuel moisture content on some heat losses during the experimental works can be
of Mechanical
Engineering
shown asJournal
in FIGURE
5. These
heat lossesand
areTechnology
referred to heat losses due to dry gas, heat losses due
to the moisture in the fuel, heat losses due to CO formation and water formation.

FIGURE
5 Heat
losses
duetotothe
themoisture
moisture content
(%)
in in
thethe
fuelfuel
FIGURE
5 Heat
losses
due
content
(%)

The highest loss is indicated by heat loss due to dry gas which accounted
in between 15% to 23%. This loss is more affected by the temperature
difference between the flue gases and the air inlet. Higher temperature89
difference in a drier fuel leads to higher loss in dry gas. In this study,
the dry gas loss cannot be avoided and however will be recovered in
thermal reactor which needs higher operation up to 1200oC. This higher
heat will help in reducing the fuel sources in thermal reactor. Hence,
this loss is not included in the total loss of the system.
Besides, the combustion of hydrogen content in the fuel caused a heat
loss due to the water formation or heat loss due to H2O. This loss
accounted for only 1% of the total heat loss from the system. Heat loss
due to H2O increased for higher moisture content as in Figure 5.9 due
to higher content of hydrogen in the wetter fuel.
Furthermore, more heat is used to evaporate the moisture in the fuel.
This occurred when the water goes phase changes form water to
vapour and it absorbs energy. This condition leads to heat loss due to
moisture in the fuel. FIGURE 5 shows that this heat loss increases for
fuel with higher moisture content. Meanwhile, the heat loss due to
CO formation increases with higher moisture content. The oxidation of
carbon will generate the CO and then CO2. Insufficient of O2 causes the
reaction to stop at CO formation and some energy is lost.
Moreover, the NO behaviour seems to decrease with the increase of
moisture content. NO is very much dependent on the temperature.
The higher moisture content causes decreasing in temperature and this
affect the NO as illustrated in FIGURE 6 and 7.

106

ISSN: 2180-1053

Vol. 2

No. 2

July-December 2010

Moreover, the NO behaviour seems to decrease with the increase of moisture content. NO is very
Themoisture
Moisture Effect
on Wood
Combustion
in an Updraft
Gasifier
much dependent on the temperature. The higher
content
causes
decreasing
in temperature
and this affect the NO as illustrated in FIGURE 6 and 7.

o
FIGURE66Variation
Variation of
(oC)(due
moisture
contentcontent
(%)
FIGURE
ofoutlet
outlettemperature
temperature
C) to
due
to moisture
(%)

90

FIGURE
7 Variation
NO(ppm)
(ppm) due
due to
content
(%)(%)
FIGURE
7 Variation
ofofNO
tomoisture
moisture
content
5.5

Gasification Efficiency

5.5

Gasification Efficiency

One of the important factors on a gasifier is the gasification efficiency. The gasification determines
One of the important factors on a gasifier is the gasification efficiency.
the actual technical operation of a gasifier. It also shows how the fuel energy is converted into
gasification
the actual
technical
operation
a gasifier.
useful The
energy
effectively indetermines
the furnace, boiler
or any gasifier.
This
efficiency of
should
be carefully
shows
how
fuel energy
isthe
converted
useful energy
definedItinalso
this study
because
thisthe
efficiency
depends on
objective ofinto
the gasifier.

effectively in the furnace, boiler or any gasifier. This efficiency should

In this be
experiment,
thisdefined
gasifier isin
used
to combust
the feedstock
than to use
the producer
carefully
this
study because
thisrather
efficiency
depends
on gas
for engine application. The value of gasification system efficiency (mechanical) can be in the range
the objective of the gasifier.
of 60 to 75% whilst the gasification system efficiency (thermal) can be as high as 93% (FAO,
1986).

In this experiment, this gasifier is used to combust the feedstock rather

In this than
study, to
the use
gasification
efficiency orgas
thermal
is calculated byThe
considering
the producer
for efficiency
engine application.
value the
of heat
loss due
to
some
properties
below
(TSI
Inc.,
2004).
gasification system efficiency (mechanical) can be in the range of 60 to
a)
b)
c)

75% whilst the gasification system efficiency (thermal) can be as high

Heat loss due to moisture from burning hydrogen
as
93%
1986). in fuel
Heat
loss(FAO,
due to moisture
Heat loss from the formation of CO

The combustion efficiency is then defined as in equation 5.1.

ISSN: 2180-1053

Vol. 2

Gasificati on efficiency ,% 100 

No. 2

July-December 2010
flue heat loss / kg fuel
x 100

107

(5.1)

the actual technical operation of a gasifier. It also shows how the fuel energy is converted into
eful
energy
effectively
in the
boiler
or any
gasifier.
ThisThis
efficiency
should
be carefully
useful
energy
effectively
in furnace,
the furnace,
boiler
or any
gasifier.
efficiency
should
be carefully
fined
in this
because
this efficiency
depends
on the
objective
of the
gasifier.
defined
in study
this
study
because
this
efficiency
depends
on
the
objective
of
the
gasifier.
Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology

this
experiment,
this this
gasifier
is used
to combust
the feedstock
rather
thanthan
to use
gas gas
In this
experiment,
gasifier
is used
to combust
the feedstock
rather
to the
use producer
the producer
r engine
application.
The The
valuevalue
of gasification
system
efficiency
(mechanical)
can be
for engine
application.
of gasification
system
efficiency
(mechanical)
caninbethe
in range
the range
Inwhilst
this
the gasification
efficiency
or thermal
efficiency
calculated
60
whilst
thestudy,
gasification
system
efficiency
(thermal)
can can
be asbe
high
as 93%
(FAO,
of to6075%
to 75%
the gasification
system
efficiency
(thermal)
as high
asis93%
(FAO,
by
considering
the
heat
loss
due
to
some
properties
below
(TSI Inc.,
86).
1986).

2004).

this
study,
the gasification
efficiency
or thermal
efficiency
is calculated
by considering
the heat
In this
study,
the gasification
efficiency
or thermal
efficiency
is calculated
by considering
the heat
ss loss
due to
properties
below
(TSI
Inc.,
2004).
duesome
to some
properties
below
(TSI
Inc.,
2004).
a)
Heat loss due to moisture from burning hydrogen

b)
Heat
loss
duehydrogen
to moisture in fuel
loss loss
due to
from
burning
hydrogen
a) HeatHeat
duemoisture
to moisture
from
burning
c)
loss from the formation of CO
loss loss
due to
in Heat
fuel
b) HeatHeat
duemoisture
to moisture
in fuel
loss loss
fromfrom
the formation
of CO
c) HeatHeat
the formation
of CO

The combustion efficiency is then defined as in equation 5.1.

e The
combustion
efficiency
is then
defined
as inasequation
5.1. 5.1.
combustion
efficiency
is then
defined
in equation

flue flue
heatheat
loss loss
/ kg /fuel
kg fuel
Gasificati
on efficiency
,% ,%
100 
x 100x 100
Gasificati
on efficiency
100 
fuel fuel
heating
valuevalue
/ kg /fuel
heating
kg fuel

(5.1)(5.1)

e The
combustion
efficiency
without
considering
the heat
loss loss
due due
to the
as as
combustion
efficiency
without
considering
the heat
to dry
the gas
dry can
gas be
canillustrated
be illustrated
efficiency
the with
heat
loss due
to the
FIGURE
8. The
The combustion
combustion
efficiency
(%)without
tendstends
to considering
beto decreased
with
increasing
of the
in FIGURE
8.
The
combustion
efficiency
(%)
be decreased
increasing
of the
dry
gas
beThis
as decreasing
in FIGURE
Thedifference
combustion
efficiency
oisture
content
in the
fuel.
This
isillustrated
due
to the
net temperature
between
the the
moisture
content
in
thecan
fuel.
is due
to decreasing
the
net 8.
temperature
difference
between
tlet
temperature
andtends
the air
temperature
for
higher
moisture
content.
In addition,
somesome
of
(%)
toinlet
beinlet
decreased
with
of
the
moisture
content
in the
outlet
temperature
and
the
air
temperature
forincreasing
higher
moisture
content.
In addition,
of
e heat
is used
to
drive
off the
water
in the
and
thus
this this
energy
isdifference
not
for for
the heat
is used
to drive
off
the water
content
in fuel
the fuel
thus
energy
is available
not available
fuel.
This
is due
tocontent
the
decreasing
netand
temperature
between
duction
reactions
require
heat.heat.
The The
moisture
as aasheat
sink sink
lowered
gasification
reduction
reactions
that
require
a heat
lowered
the gasification
thethat
outlet
temperature
andmoisture
theacts
air acts
inlet
temperature
forthe
higher
moisture
iciency.
efficiency.

content. In addition, some of the heat is used to drive off the water
content in the fuel and thus this energy is not available for reduction
reactions that require heat. The moisture acts as a heat sink lowered
91 91
the gasification efficiency.

FIGURE
8 Variation
of combustion
efficiencyefficiency
(%) due to(%)
moisture
content
(%)
FIGURE
8 Variation
of combustion
due to
moisture
content (%)
Through several experimental works that have been done, some outputs can be observed with
changing in the moisture content. The variation in some parameters can be illustrated in table form
Through
several experimental works that have been done, some outputs
as in TABLE
1.
can
be different
observed
with changing
insome
the output
moisture
content.
TheD,variation
TABLE
1 The
operating
conditions on
parameters
for Case
E and F
Case
D
E
in
some parameters can be illustrated
in table
form asFin TABLE 1.
Wood mass (kg)
50
50
50
Fuel rate (kg/min)
1.25
1.25
1.25
Air supply (l/m)
1300
1300
1300
Moisture content (%)
16.1-17.0
30.8
40.1
Max. axial (flame) temp. (oC)
545
516
384
108
ISSN: 2180-1053
Vol.
July-December
5002 No. 2 489
3212010
Outlet temp. (oC)
CO (ppm)
1500
2000
1800

FIGURE 8 Variation of combustion efficiency (%) due to moisture content (%)

The Moisture Effect on Wood Combustion in an Updraft Gasifier

Through several experimental works that have been done, some outputs can be observed with
changing in the moisture content. The variation in some parameters can be illustrated in table form
as in TABLE 1.TABLE 1 The different operating conditions on some output
TABLE 1 The different operating
conditions
some
for Case D, E and F
parameters
for on
Case
D,output
E andparameters
F
Case
D
E
F
Wood mass (kg)
50
50
50
Fuel rate (kg/min)
1.25
1.25
1.25
Air supply (l/m)
1300
1300
1300
Moisture content (%)
16.1-17.0
30.8
40.1
Max. axial (flame) temp. (oC)
545
516
384
Outlet temp. (oC)
500
489
321
CO (ppm)
1500
2000
1800
CO2 (% vol)
2.8
4.0
2.1
O2 (% vol)
17.6
17.0
18.5
NO (ppm)
30
23
20
Ash (%)
4.8
4.1
2.9
Efficiency (%) without dry gas
92.7
90.6
86.2
loss
5.6

5.6
Comparison
With
Other
Relevant Works
Comparison
With Other
Relevant
Works

A comparison
several
measured
output
done work
withasother
A comparison
of several of
measured
output
is done with
otherisrelevant
shownrelevant
in TABLE 2
work
2 for
Case A.
A farthis
different
gasification
for Case
A. Aas
farshown
differentinofTABLE
gasification
efficiency
between
study andofother
relevant works
are because
some the
gasification
efficiencies
are based
on mechanical
efficiencyare
where
the gasifier
efficiency
between
this
study and
other
relevant works
because
is usedsome
to produce
high
quality
of
energy
for
further
application
rather
than
for
direct
heating
the gasification efficiencies are based on mechanical efficiencyas in
this research.
where the gasifier is used to produce high quality of energy for further
application rather than for direct heating as in this research.

TABLE 2 Comparison of the measured value (through experimental) with other previous works
TABLE 2 Comparison of the measured value (through experimental)
with other previous works
Fuel rate (kg/min)
2.94
n.a
92
Air supply (l/m)
1300
n.a
Moisture content (%)
16.1-17.0
25 3)
Equivalence ratio
0.3
n.a
Max. axial (flame) temp.(oC)
840
n.a
Outlet temp. (oC)
550
601.4 1)
CO (ppm)
1213
223 1)
34.4 2), 10-12 3)
(% vol)
CO2 (% vol)
6.0
15.4 1), 48.9 2), 10-12 3)
O2 (% vol)
14.0
4.8 1),
NO (ppm)
66
58 4)
CH4 (% vol)
6% 2),
n.m
Ash (%)
2.28
n.a
Gasification Efficiency (%) for direct
95.53
n.a
heating (without dry gas loss)
Gasification Efficiency (%)
76.7 1), 60 2), 56-79 3)
n.a
n.m: not measured, n.a: not available
n.m: not measured,
n.a: not available
1)
Surjosatyo,
2000; 2) Lee et al., 2006, 3) Saravanakumar et al., 2007, 4) White and Pasket, 1981.
1)
Surjosatyo, 2000; 2) Lee et.al., 2006, 3) Saravanakumar et.al., 2007,
4)
White and Pasket, 1981.
9.0 Conclusions
This study has several conclusions which are the biomass gasification required air flow rate at 1.3
kg/m3 which corresponded to equivalence ratio of 0.316 and the gasification consumed wood at a
rate of 1.67 kg/hr provided
maximum gasification
of 95.53%.
The ignition 2010
front rate decreased
ISSN: 2180-1053
Vol. 2 No.
2 July-December
109with
increasing fuel moisture content. This resulted in slower gasification process in the chamber. The
increasing in fuel moisture content caused the higher heat loss due to moisture (for moisture

Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology

9.0 Conclusions
This study has several conclusions which are the biomass gasification
required air flow rate at 1.3 kg/m3 which corresponded to equivalence
ratio of 0.316 and the gasification consumed wood at a rate of 1.67
kg/hr provided maximum gasification of 95.53%. The ignition front
rate decreased with increasing fuel moisture content. This resulted
in slower gasification process in the chamber. The increasing in fuel
moisture content caused the higher heat loss due to moisture (for
moisture evaporation), heat loss due to CO and water formation except
that there was decrement in heat loss due to dry gas which accounted
in between 15% to 23%.
The final conclusion is the effect of fuel quality by changing the
moisture content of the wood fuel was found to affect substantially
some output of combustion parameters. This included the effect on
peak flame temperature, the gas concentration and the gasification
efficiency. The increase in moisture content resulted in deterioration in
outlet temperature and NO distribution from 500oC to 321oC and from
30 ppm to 20 ppm respectively. Meanwhile, this response accompanied
to the increasing of CO concentration from 1500 ppm to 1800 ppm
and diminished the overall gasification efficiency for direct heating in
between 92.7% to 86.2%. The behaviour of NO was not fully understand
which shows lower response in lower outlet temperature since this
thermal NOx is insignificant at lower temperature below 1800K.
10.0 Acknowledgement
I would like to thank both my supervisor and co-supervisor, Prof. Ir.
Dr. Azhar Abdul Aziz and Dr. Normah Mohd Ghazali for their very
valuable guidance and supporting views.
11.0 References
Adi Surjosatyo (2002). Development of a Low-Calorific Value Gas Swirl Burner
Incorporated With a Two-Stage Biomass Combustion System. Ph.D.
Thesis. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Bhattacharya, S.C. and Dutta, A. (1999). Two-Stage Gasification of Wood with
Preheated Air Supply. International Solar Energy Society 99 Solar
World Congress. 4-9 July. Jerusalem Israel.
Bustamante, F, Enick RM, Cugini AV, Killmeyer R, Howard BH, Rothenberger
KS, Ciocco M, Morreale BD, Chattopadhay S, Shi S. High temperature
110

ISSN: 2180-1053

Vol. 2

No. 2

July-December 2010

The Moisture Effect on Wood Combustion in an Updraft Gasifier

kinetics of the homogeneous reverse water-gas shift reaction. AIChE

J. 2004;50(5):1028-41.
Evans, R. J. and Milne, T. A. (1987). Molecular Characterization of the Pyrolysis
of Biomass Fundamentals. Energy and Fuels. 1(2), 123-138.
FAO Forestry Department. (1986). Wood gas as engine fuel. Rome, Italy:
Publication Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations.
Goswami, D. Y. (1986). Alternative Energy in Agriculture. Boca Raton, FL
(USA) :CRC Press.
Katunzi, M. (2006). Biomass conversion in fixed bed experiments. Master
Thesis. Eindhoven University Technology.
Lucas C., Szewczyk D., Blasiak W. and Mochida S. (2004). High-temperature air
and steam gasification of densified biofuels. Biomass and Bioenergy.
27(6): 563-575.
Quaak P., Knoef H. and Stassen H. (1999). Energy from biomass: A review
of combustion and gasification technologies. England: World Bank
Publications.
Reed, T. B. (1981). Biomass Gasification: Principles and Technologies. Solar
Energy Research Institute Golden. Colorado: Park Ridge, N. J.
Saravanakumar, A., Haridasan, T. M., Reed, T. B. and Bai, R. K. (2007).
Experimental investigation and modeling study of long stick wood
gasification in a top lift updraft fixed bed gasifier. Fuel processing
Technology. 88(6), 617-622.
Sheth, P. N. and Babu, B. V. (2005). Effect of Moisture Content on Composition
Profiles of Producer Gas in Downdraft Biomass Gasifier. Proceeding
of International Congress Chemistry Environment (ICCE-2005).
December 24-26. Indore, 387-390.
TSI Incorporated (2004). Combustion Analysis Basic: An Overview of
Measurements, Methods and Calculations Used in Combustion
Analysis.USA: TSI Incorporated.
White, L.P. and Pasket ,L. G. (1981). Biomass as Fuel. Academic Press.
Wu, Z., Wu C., Huang, H., Zheng, S. and Dai, X. (2003). Test Results and
Operation Performance Analysis of a 1-MW Biomass Gasification
Electric Power Generation System. Energy Fuels. 17(3), 619-624.

ISSN: 2180-1053

Vol. 2

No. 2

July-December 2010

111

Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology

Yang, W., Ponzio, A., Lucas, C. and Blasiak, W. (2006). Performance analysis
of a fixed-bed biomass gasifier using high-temperature air. Fuel
Processing Technology. 87, 235-245.
Zainal, Z. A., Rifau, A., Quadir, G. A. and Seethamaru, K. N. (2002).
Experimental investigation of a downdraft biomass gasifier. Biomass
and Bioenergy. 23(4), 283-289.

112

ISSN: 2180-1053

Vol. 2

No. 2

July-December 2010