Energy 211 (2020) 118187

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Air-Steam gasification of lignite in a fixed bed gasifier: Influence of

steam to lignite ratio on performance of downdraft gasifier
Darshit S. Upadhyay , Krunal R. Panchal , Anil Kumar V Sakhiya , Rajesh N. Patel *
Institute of Technology, Nirma University, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 382481, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This work aims to identify the optimum Steam to Lignite ratio, w/w (SLR) to achieve higher H2 yield and
Received 19 April 2020 lower tar yield in the producer gas. Experiments were carried out in a 10kWe atmospheric pressure
Received in revised form downdraft gasifier. Low-rank high ash lignite (22e25 mm) was used as a feedstock to investigate the
11 June 2020
effect of six different SLRs (0, 0.06, 0.14, 0.18, 0.24, 0.30 and 0.48). The producer gas Lower Heating Value
Accepted 19 June 2020
(LHV) and Cold Gas Efficiency (CGE) were found in the range of 4.96 MJ Nm
3e5.62 MJ Nm
3 and 70.6%
Available online 29 July 2020
e81%, respectively for different SLR. The optimal SLR was identified to be 0.24, having lower specific fuel
consumption (1.437 kg kWh
1), lower tar content (112.28 mg Nm
3), lower Particulate Matter (PM)
Keywords:
Air-steam gasification
(27.34 mg Nm
3), higher LHV (5.62 MJ Nm
3) and higher CGE (81%). H2 yield and H2/CO ratio improved
Downdraft gasifier by 34.7% and 52%, respectively whereas tar yield reduced by 78.31% at 0.24 SLR compared to air gasi-
Lignite fication. The mass balance, exergy analysis, heat loss analysis were also carried out for this study. The
Hydrogen study concludes that the 0.24 SLR offered better results among the selected ratios to achieve higher H2
Tar yield and lower tar yield in the producer gas.
Particulate matter © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction moisture, and sulfur contents. This makes combustion of lignite

highly susceptible to clinker-formation, fouling and other harmful
India has one of the fastest-growing economies having annual substances [6]. Hence, this type of coal does not find wide appli-
growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as 7% in the year 2019 [1]. cability in commercial-scale applications. Gasification is one such
The rapidly growing economy directly affects the energy demand of thermochemical process, which is suitable to generate electricity
the country. The electricity consumption of India has kept growing from any carbon-based solid fuel in an environmentally friendly
by the rate of 2.3% every year and had reached to about 934 million manner [7]. In recent years, vast advancement to make this process
tons of oil equivalent (Mtoe) in the year of 2017e18 [2]. Coal is the feasible and commercially viable has been made from small-scale
major source of primary energy for a developing country like India. industrial setup to large Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle
The power generating capacity of India by coal/lignite fired power (IGCC) power plants [8]. In the gasification process, the feedstock is
plants was 205.13 GW in the year 2018e19 [3]. Although India has oxidized in a sub-stoichiometric oxidizing medium to generate gas,
large reserves of coal, there is still a shortcoming in meeting energy rich in H2 and CO, called producer gas. This producer gas can be
needs due to a lack of availability of high-rank coal. India imported used to generate electricity by combusting it inside Internal Com-
about 235.24 million metric tonnes of coal in the year of 2018e19 bustion Engines (I$C.) coupled with generators, inside gas turbines,
[4]. One of the major drawbacks of using coal-fired power plants is or inside high-temperature fuel cells. Portability of such a plant can
increasing CO2 and other harmful emissions. Hence the current play a key role in tackling the rural electrification in India, through
technological demand is to mitigate the problem of low-rank coal establishing standalone gasifier systems coupled with the I.C. En-
usage and rise in the pollution levels [5]. gine and generator system at remote locations. The gasification
India has large reserves of low-rank lignite coal. The lignite coal process mainly depends on parameters such as feedstock contents,
is a porous, lightweight and brownish material that has high ash, gasifying medium, and operational temperature. Oxygen, air, steam
or a combination of all has been used as a gasifying medium in the
biomass gasification process [9]. Air gasification is the simplest,
* Corresponding author. cheapest, and the most widely used route as air is abundant in
E-mail addresses: rajeshnpatel1969@yahoo.com, rnp@nirmauni.ac.in
nature [10].
(R.N. Patel).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118187
0360-5442/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 D.S. Upadhyay et al. / Energy 211 (2020) 118187

A comparison of gasifier reactors is based on the main five then after it was decreased. The excess steam addition reduced
criteria: technology, use of material, energy, environment, and reactor temperature and H2 decreases. Moreover, the higher heat-
economy. There are categorized as fixed bed gasifiers (downdraft, ing value obtained from air-steam gasification was 6.33 MJ Nm
3.
updraft, and cross-draft), fluidized bed gasifiers (bubbling fluidized Ocampo et al. [24] studied the gasification characteristics of
bed, circulating fluidized bed), entrained flow gasifier etc. The main Colombian coal in a fluidized bed reactor at different steam to coal
advantage of updraft gasifiers is the low producer gas temperature ratio at atmospheric pressure and found improvement in cold gas
on the outlet side. But the higher tar yield of the updraft gasifier is a efficiency, gas heating value, and carbon conversion efficiency. Lee
major drawback. The cross-draft gasifiers, on the other hand, are et al. [25] analyzed the gasification process of Australian coal in the
very compact and light in weight, but it can handle only low ash fluidized bed gasifier in the presence of air-steam mixture at at-
feedstock [11]. In the fluidized bed gasifiers, the bed is prepared mospheric pressure. The result revealed that the cold gas efficiency
using pulverized fuel. The air is forced through the bottom grate, and gas heating value increased with an increase in steam to coal
which makes the bed be in a fluidized state. The main advantages of ratio.
the fluidized bed gasifiers are efficiency and flexibility with the Despite of different advantages of steam gasification, the same is
type of fuels. But the complex design and operations make it less not popular especially for small and medium scale gasification
attractive [12]. systems. This may be due to the fact that the cost is involved in the
The downdraft is able to generate gas with low tar yield and can required steam production. However, the same is viable with power
be operated with the fuels with higher ash content. The downdraft or process industries where excess steam is available at no addi-
gasifier is also simple and robust technology as compared to a tional cost. For large gasifier setups, the required steam could be
fluidized bed reactor [13]. The residence time of fuel is more generated from the utilities such as water jackets surrounding the
compared to other reactors. Hence, solid to gas conversion is more. combustion zone, etc making process viable.
Moreover, less pressure drop occurs in a downdraft reactor where a In the present work, air-stream gasification of low-ranked
high-pressure drop occurs in a fluidized bed reactor. Downdraft is lignite is conducted in a pilot-scale 10kWe atmospheric pressure
more suitable for small scale applications for off-grid electricity downdraft gasifier. An attempt is made to evaluate the effect of
generation in the rural area, whereas fluidized bed technology is Steam to Lignite Ratio (SLR) on gasifier performance parameters
suitable for medium/large scale applications. Operational diffi- such as gasification temperature, producer gas composition, gas
culties are more in fluidized reactors. In terms of economy, the heating value, cold gas efficiency, tar, and particulate matter, etc.
operating cost of the downdraft gasifier is low compared to the Exergy efficiency, heat loss analysis, and mass balance is also pre-
fluidized bed [13]. sented based on the experimental results.
There are several articles available for air-steam gasification
with different biomass but limited literature is available for lignite 2. Experimental
air-steam gasification. Vimal et al. [14] carried out the coal gasifi-
cation with air to study the effect of different particle sizes on the 2.1. Materials and methods
producer gas quality. The optimum particle size was found to be
22e25 mm and the heating value of the producer gas was found to Lignite was selected as a feedstock for the experiments in the
be 4.17 MJ Nm
3. The downside of air gasification was the high downdraft gasifier. Lignite was procured from Panandhro lignite
concentration of N2 (56%), which diluted and degraded the pro- mine, Gujarat state, India. The particle size of lignite was optimized
ducer gas quality. Excess N2 in producer gas possesses high risk of for the experimental setup and was found in the range of
producing NOx (engine application). It requires additional effort on 22 mme25 mm [14]. The proximate analysis (Test method: IS 1350
N2 removal techniques [15]. To overcome this problem, various (Part I)-1984, Instrument: Leco TGA 701), ultimate analysis (Dry
researchers have suggested to add steam as an oxidizer in the basis, Instrument: Leco ThuSpec CHNS), bulk density (Test method:
gasifier reactor [16,17]. It has been observed that steam injection IS 7190e1974) and calorific value (Test method: IS 1350 (Part II)-
improves the H2 yield. Moreover, it has the potential to diminish 1970, Instrument: Leco AC-350 Bomb Calorimeter) of the lignite
the gas contaminants such as tar, particulate matter (PM), etc. were carried out and results are shown in Table 1.
Meng et al. [18] studied the effect of different gasifying agents
such as air, air-steam, and oxygen-steam on sawdust gasification in 2.2. Experimental setup
a fluidized bed reactor. It was observed that hydrogen yield
(13.52%e24.48%) increased in air-steam gasification as compared to A schematic diagram of the gasifier setup is as shown in Fig. 1. A
air gasification (3.41%e8.73%). The addition of steam provides more 10kWe, pilot scale, atmospheric pressure downdraft gasifier was
H2 and O2 resulting in hydrogen rich syngas [19]. Wang et al. [20] used for carrying out the experiments. The main body (2)
studied the steam gasification properties and reaction kinetics of comprised of a gasifier reactor mounted over the reduction zone.
three different coal such as lignite, sub-bituminous coal, and The detailed design of the pilot-scale gasifier setup can be found in
anthracite. The steam gasification reactions showed that the pro- the authors’ previous work [14,26e28]. The top cover was provided
ducer gas from low-rank coal (lignite) had a high H2/CO molar ratio, to facilitate the dumping of the feedstock into the reactor and also
while the producer gas from sub-bituminous coal and anthracite to maintain an airtight seal during the experiments. A vibrating
had relatively high CO2 and CO content. motor was mounted on the side of the main body of the reactor to
Young et al. [21] carried out gasification of dried sewage sludge allow the smooth down flow of the feedstock, char, and ash,
with steam/oxygen as the gasifying medium and found the H2 yield avoiding any bridging and channeling of the feedstock. Two nozzles
of about 52.06%. Cristina et al. [22] carried out the steam gasifica- were provided on the side of the reactor jacket to facilitate the
tion of Eucalyptus spp. in a two-stage downdraft gasifier. They re- supply of air and steam into the combustion zone. The gas was
ported that H2 content increased in the producer gas and tar cooled and cleaned using a setup comprised of a water tank, water
content decreased from 418.95 mg Nm
3 to 91.41 mg Nm
3 when circulating centrifugal pump (0.5 HP) with convergent water jet
saturated steam was injected into the gasifier reactor. Ram et al. nozzle, a wet scrubber, sawdust filled surge tank and bag type fabric
[23] studied the air-steam gasification of fuelwood in the duel fired filter as shown in Fig. 1 (9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15). This unit also
downdraft gasifier for hydrogen enrichment in producer gas. By the provided the required suction mechanism to suck the gasifying
addition of steam, hydrogen yield initially increased up to 27%, and medium (air) inside the gasifier reactor.
 D.S. Upadhyay et al. / Energy 211 (2020) 118187 3

Table 1
Characterization of lignite.

Proximate Analysis Ultimate Analysis

Moisture (%) 4.04 C (%) 38.9

Volatile (%) 45.38 H (%) 4.63
Ash (%) 27.27 N (%) 1.49
Fixed Carbona (%) 23.31 S (%) 8.25
Oa (%) 42.69
Lower Heating Value (MJ kg
1) 16.84 Bulk Density (kg m
3) 776
a
By difference.

Fig. 1. A detailed layout of the downdraft gasifier system.

For generating steam, a 6 kW, 12 L capacity, steam generator vacuum pump was used as shown in Fig. 1 (16). The water vapor
(Lucky Engineering Pvt. Ltd.) was used. A pressure transmitter with content in the producer gas condensed due to the lower pressure
a digital pressure controller (Danfoss MBS 1900) and temperature inside the filter assembly. To overcome this problem, a mica heater
controller were used to maintain steam pressure at 1 bar (±1%) and (with Arduino Nano controller) was wounded over the filter as-
temperature at 114  C (±1  C), respectively. Additional six heaters sembly to maintain the temperature of the gas inside the filter
(0.5 kW capacity each) were installed over the length of the con- holder at 110  C. For measuring tar concentration in the producer
necting pipe between a steam generator and a gasifier reactor to gas, a shell, and tube type gas condenser, receiver flask, vacuum
ensure the quality of the steam before injecting into a gasifier pump, and cold water (5e6  C) tank with water circulating pump
reactor. Pipe connection was completely insulated with cerawool to arrangement as shown in Fig. 1 (17 and 18).
restrict heat loss.
For measuring the Particulate Matters (PM 2.5) concentration, 2.3. Instrumentation
an assembly of glass fiber filter paper (47 mm diameter; Axiva
make), placed inside the SS304 PM filter holder along with a Temperatures of the different zones inside the gasifier reactor
4 D.S. Upadhyay et al. / Energy 211 (2020) 118187

were measured with K type (Chromel - Alumel) thermocouples. For measuring the tar and particulate matter (PM) concentra-
The airflow rate was measured with a hot-wire anemometer with a tions in the producer gas, the gas from a fabric filter assembly was
data logger (Fluke make Amprobe TMA-21HW). The steam mass sucked by a vacuum pump. Around 3 Nm3 of producer gas was
flow rate and gas flow rate were determined by the gravimetric allowed to pass through this assembly to measure these pollutants
method and an orifice meter with a U tube manometer, respec- in the producer gas. Initially, this gas entered the PM assembly
tively. The concentrations of the tar and Particulate Matter (PM 2.5) where the filter was placed in the SS304 filter holder. Despite mica
were measured as per the guideline by the Ministry of New and heater assembly, some tar content was presented in the filter as-
Renewable Energy (MNRE), Government of India [29]. The gas sembly along with PM. To separate tar content from a filter paper, a
concentrations were measured with a gas chromatograph (Shi- filter was washed with acetone. After washing a filter paper, the
madzu 2010). This instrument was operated on a micro-thermal ratio of the mass difference between the final and initial conditions
conductivity detector (mTCD) and equipped with a Shin Carbon ST of a filter paper was noted. The ratio of the mass difference to the
100/120 micro packed column. The surface temperature was producer gas volume supplied to the filter assembly was calculated.
measured using thermal imager (Fluke TIA759HZ) and infra-red It is PM concentration in the producer gas (mg Nm
3). The cold
temperature gun (TESTO 835-T2). water was circulated from the tube side, and the producer gas was
supplied from the shell side of the glass condenser. A receiver flask
2.4. Experimental procedure was attached to the shell side to collect the condensed tar. Apart
from that, tar was also collected from filter paper, filter holder,
The gasifier reactor was initially filled with lignite and the connecting pipes and condenser by rinsing with acetone. The
reduction zone was filled with activated charcoal to absorb mois- collected tar was heated in a solvent recovery chamber and allowed
ture and CO2 from the producer gas. Nozzles provided on the to settle. The ratio of the mass of the tar to the producer gas volume
gasifier reactor were used to supply air and steam inside the supplied to this assembly was calculated. It is tar concentration in
reactor. The airflow rate was controlled by actuation of suction the producer gas (mg Nm
3). The detailed experimental method-
mechanism. The suction mechanism was operated by the water ology can also be found in the authors’ previous work [27,28].
circulating pump (as shown by (12) in Fig. 1). The water circulating
pump forced the water through the water jet nozzle (as shown by 3. Results and discussion
(12) in Fig. 1), which generated the adverse pressure drop on the
gasifier side. This pressure drop resulted in air suction from the air Experiments were carried out with different Steam to Lignite
nozzle. Controlling the water flow rate through the water jet nozzle Ratios (SLR) ranging from 0, 0.06, 0.14, 0.18, 0.24, 0.30 and 0.48 to
can control the airflow rate. The lignite flow rate (lignite con- evaluate the gasifier performance in terms of temperature, fuel
sumption rate) was controlled by controlling the airflow rate to the consumption, air-steam flow rate, producer gas calorific value, cold
combustion zone; the increase/decrease in airflow rate can in- gas efficiency, tar, and PM. Thermal analysis was also carried out to
crease/decrease the lignite consumption rate. A flame torch was evaluate the exergy efficiency and heat loss in the air-steam gasi-
used to feed the flame into the gasifier reactor from the air nozzles. fication process. The results for the same are discussed in the
The heat released in the combustion zone diffused to the other following sections.
zones. Initially, only the air was allowed into the reactor. Once the
pyrolysis temperature reached 150  C, the steam was allowed in- 3.1. Temperature profile
side the reactor. The steam was injected through the nozzles pro-
vided on the gasifier jacket (as shown by (8) in Fig. 1). The Steam to The steady-state temperature of combustion and reduction zone
Lignite Ratio (SLR) for the current experiments was chosen be- in the air-steam gasification system concerning different Steam to
tween 0 and 0.4, as suggested in the literature [30,31]. The regulator Lignite Ratio (SLR) is as shown in Fig. 2. A bell-shaped curve was
valve was used to control the flow rate of steam. The de-
volatilization of the feedstock was initiated inside the pyrolysis
zone which mainly formed non-condensable gases and the tar. The
non-condensable gases, along with the combustion products,
started reacting on the surface of the charcoal present in the
reduction zone at a higher temperature. The gasification reactions
helped to generate the combustible gas constituents such as H2, CO,
and CH4 along with some traces of sulphide, oxides, and other
heavier hydrocarbons. The wet scrubber separated water and pro-
ducer gas through centrifugal action. Heavy pollutants were
captured by water in a wet scrubber. After that, producer gas was
supplied to a sawdust-filled surge tank and a bag type fabric filter to
diminish moisture and solid impurities. This process improved the
energy density of the producer gas by removing the moisture
content. The flame test was carried out at the chimney section to
ensure the quality of the producer gas. All the experiments were
repeated three times to check the repeatability of the study.
A fixed mass of lignite was dumped into the gasifier reactor for
each experiment, and the initial height of the lignite bed from the
top cover was measured for four different locations. After the
experiment was conducted, the height of the lignite bed was again
measured. Using the difference in the initial and final height as well
as the bulk density of the lignite (given in Table 1), the lignite
consumption rate in kg h
1 was calculated. This procedure is also
explained in authors’ previous work [14]. Fig. 2. Temperature profiles of combustion and reduction zone at different SLR.
 D.S. Upadhyay et al. / Energy 211 (2020) 118187 5

followed by the temperature profiles of both the zones. The steady- given by Karagiannidis [35]. SFCs were found in the range of 1.48 kg
state temperatures, for all the zones, were found to be increasing kWh
1 - 1.65 kg kWh
1 which are in line with the literature [35].
with SLR till 0.24 SLR. The results indicate that the increase in the SFC was obtained minimum at 0.24 SLR.
SLR leads to higher H2 and CO2 (up to 0.24 SLR), which can be
explained by the water gas shift reaction [32]. The water-gas shift
3.3. Gas composition
reaction (CO þ H2O 4 CO2 þ H2
41 kJ mol
1) is an exothermic
reversible reaction. Apart from that, endothermic reactions such as
The steam gasification of lignite may be broadly classified into
Boudouard reaction (C þ CO2 4 2CO þ 172 kJ mol
1), water gas
three stages: 1) Pyrolysis of the lignite, 2) Combustion of the py-
reaction (C þ H2O 4 CO þ H2 þ 131 kJ mol
1), steam forming re-
rolysis products in the presence of steam, and 3) Gasification of the
action (CH4 þ H2O 4 CO þ 3H2 þ 206 kJ mol
1), etc. also occur
product gases [36]. Gasification temperature and SLR are the
during the gasification process. The extent of water gas shift reac-
important parameters which govern the steam gasification re-
tion is dominating compared to other endothermic reactions until
actions. Various reactions such as Boudouard, water-gas shift,
0.24 SLR, which results in higher zone temperatures. That indicates
water-gas, methanation, and steam reforming are taking place
the thermodynamic equilibrium shifts toward the forward direc-
during the air-steam gasification. The sub-stoichiometric combus-
tion, at a given SLR. An increase in temperature leads to higher
tion of lignite in the presence of steam produces CO, CO2, H2O, H2
hydrogen yield resulting from the steam reforming and cracking of
and other by-products such as tar, phenol, etc. These products are
hydrocarbons. However, a further increase in the SLR (above 0.24)
then reacted in the reduction (gasification) zone in the presence of
causes the decline of reaction rate of steam reforming reactions. At
activated char resulted in the producer gas as the output.
higher SLR, a large amount of steam was fed to the gasifier reactor.
The producer gas compositions (in % volume) obtained during
More carbon was needed to be burnt out in the combustion zone to
the air-steam gasification are shown in Fig. 4. The concentration of
heat up and break down the steam. It is responsible for decreasing
H2, CO, CO2, CH4 of the producer gas were found 24.05%, 2.19%,
the temperature and carbon conversion in the gasifier, and hence
13.6%, and 1.8%, respectively for air gasification (at 0 SLR). The
reducing H2 yield, as mentioned in the literature [33]. Moreover,
presence of steam inside the reactor enhances the steam reforming
the extent of endothermic reactions would dominate, resulting in
and water gas shift reaction along with water gas reaction [12]. The
lower zone temperatures [34]. Temperatures of combustion and
water-gas shift reaction is thermodynamically favourable at a
reduction zone were found in the range of 1070 Ke1134 K and
temperature below 1100 K [34,37]. The gasification temperature
625 Ke763 K, respectively for all SLR.
increases with an increase in SLR till 0.24 SLR and decreases with
further increase in SLR as shown in Fig. 2. This higher temperature
favours the conversion of CO and steam to CO2 and hence, increases
3.2. Fuel consumption, airflow rate, specific fuel consumption
in CO2 and H2 is observed till 0.24 SLR. Also, the rate of metha-
nation reaction decreases with an increase in temperature [34].
Fuel consumption, airflow rate, and Specific Fuel Consumption
These reactions are responsible for the production of H2 and CO2
(SFC) with different SLR are shown in Fig. 3. Air-steam gasification
and the ingestion of CO and CH4 with the increase in the SLR till
experiments were carried out for constant Equivalent Ratio (ER).
0.24, which is in line with the literature [38]. The maximum H2
Type and amount of oxidizers play a significant role in fuel con-
content (32.2%) was found in the producer gas at 0.24 SLR.
sumption. As SLR increased, the airflow rate reduced, and the steam
There was a deviation perceived in the trend followed by the
flow rate increased. It was observed that fuel consumption reduced
concentrations of the producer gas beyond 0.24 SLR. It was
as SLR increased. This is due to the reduction in the amount of
observed that H2 concentrations reduced abruptly due to excessive
oxidizer with increase in SLR. Fuel consumption and airflow rate
steam injected in the gasifier reactor after 0.24 SLR. It would reduce
were found in the range of 5.52 kg h
1 -8.75 kg h
1 and 11.34 kg h
1
e 18.12 kg h
1, respectively. SFCs were calculated as per the formula

Fig. 3. Airflow rate, fuel consumption, and specific fuel consumption at different SLR. Fig. 4. Concentrations of the producer gas at different SLR.
6 D.S. Upadhyay et al. / Energy 211 (2020) 118187

the residence time of steam in the reactor and made gasifier re-
actions less effective. It was also observed that the amount of water
vapor in the producer gas was marginally higher at higher SLR
compared to lower SLR conditions. Moreover, at a higher temper-
ature (around 1100 Ke1200 K), reverse water gas shift reaction may
occur easily. It may be responsible for the higher consumption of CO
in the reaction and increment of CO2 concentration [39]. Apart from
this, two major influences occurred instantaneously when higher
steam was injected into the gasifier reactor, 1) additional steam
content shifts the equilibrium constant for water gas shift reaction,
and 2) steam reforming reaction in the direction of the product
side. However, this effect would slow the combustion process to
some extent. The unreacted steam particles carried with producer
gas would also be responsible for reducing reduction zone tem-
perature. The concentrations of H2, CO2, CO and CH4 in the producer
gas were found in the range of 24.05%e32.4%, 13.6%e16.58%,
10.82%e12.19%, and 1.57%e1.8%, respectively for all selected SLR.
The total combustible gas (CO, CH4, and H2) in the present study
was ranging from 38.04% to 44.78% in the producer gas. As the
concentration of CH4 was very less (around 2%), the concentration
of CO þ H2 was the major combustible component in the producer
gas. It can be seen from Fig. 5 that the H2/CO ratio increased from
Fig. 6. Gas flow rate and Lower Heating Value at different SLR.
2.21 to 2.42 when SLR increased from 0 to 0.24. After that, this ratio
decreased from 2.42 to 2.22. CO/CO2 ratio is helpful to understand
the rate of gasification reactions and the conversion of hydrocar- gasification process. It was observed that fuel and air consumption
bons of the feedstock into combustible gases. From Fig. 5, it can be decreased with an increase in steam flow rate leads to a diminution
seen that as SLR increases till 0.24, the CO/CO2 ratio decreases from of the producer gas (20.95 kg h
1 to 13.62 kg h
1). As the SLR
0.9 to 0.65. This may be due to the higher consumption of CO due to increased from 0 to 0.24, LHV of the producer gas also increased
a rise in gasification temperature. As the SLR increases from 0.24, due to the higher H2 yield. The lower heating value of the producer
the CO/CO2 ratio was found increasing from 0.65 to 0.83. At a higher gas was calculated by the formula given by TB Reed et al. [40]. LHV
temperature, Boudouard reaction dominates over water gas shift of the producer gas was found in the range of 4.98 MJ Nm
3 to
reaction which leads to higher CO concentration. The air-steam 5.62 MJ Nm
3 for all selected SLRs. LHV of the producer gas for
gasification improved the yield of H2 by 34.7% compared to air steam gasification was increased by 12.85% (at 0.24 SLR) compared
gasification (0 SLR). The H2/CO ratio was also improved by 52% to air gasification (at 0 SLR).
compared to air gasification.

3.5. Cold gas efficiency and carbon conversion efficiency

3.4. The gas flow rate and lower heating value
The gasifier performance is generally assessed by cold gas effi-
Fig. 6 illustrates the gas flow rate and lower heating value (LHV)
ciency or hot gas efficiency. CGE parameter is essential when the
of the producer gas at different SLR. The gas flow rate depends on
producer gas is to be employed to the I. C. Engine or gas turbine for
the consumption of fuel and oxidizers utilized during the
electricity generation. CGE can be calculated by the ratio of energy
content of the producer gas (Gas Flow Rate * LHV) to the energy
stored in the feedstock (FC * CV of the feedstock). CGE was calcu-
lated and found in the range of 70.6%e78.9%. It was observed that
the addition of the steam in the combustion zone of a gasifier
reactor is valuable in terms of CGE. The highest 78.9% CGE was
found at 0.24 SLR among all selected SLR. Carbon conversion effi-
ciency (CCE) was calculated as per the formula given by Sharma
et al. [41]. CCE for different SLR was found in the range of 90.97%e
96.64%. It was noticed that the CCE was improved by injecting
steam to the gasifier reactor, as shown in Fig. 7. It may be due to the
higher tar and char conversion into the producer gas. Carbon in the
feedstock was utilized in a much better way by steam gasification
compared to air gasification.

3.6. Tar and particulate matter

Tar and Particulate matter (PM) in the producer gas were

measured by an in-house facility as described earlier. Tar and PM
were measured at the downstream of the gasifier system after the
fabric filter arrangement, as shown in Fig. 1. The gasification tem-
perature was played a substantial role in the reduction of tar and
PM in the producer gas. Tar and PM were calculated and found in
Fig. 5. Ratios of H2/CO, CO þ H2 and CO/CO2 at different SLR. the range of 112.28 mg Nm
3 to 517.64 mg Nm
3 and 27.34 mg
 D.S. Upadhyay et al. / Energy 211 (2020) 118187 7

The tar was obtained from the tar measuring system was diluted
with acetone. After the filtration unit, the tar from the product gas
was examined using Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC/
MS). Auto system XL with Turbomass mode was used in Perki-
nElmer make GC/MS. For tar analysis, the PE-5MS (30 m) capillary
column with H2 carrier gas was used. The carrier gas flow-rate and
sample injection volume were kept 1 ml min
1 and 1  10
6 L,
respectively. The pre-oven temperature holds initial isothermal at
75  C for 5 min, then accelerating the heating rate up to 280  C by
10  C/min. For better outcomes, the analysis was carried out after
30 min residence time.
The composition analysis of coal tar with or without using steam
by GC/MS is compared in Table 2. The reaction between feedstock
(hydrocarbons) and steam becomes severe at higher temperatures
[39]. The complex components and aromatic hydrocarbons of tar
decrease with the residence time and convert into aliphatic and
small hydrocarbon compounds as shown in Fig. 9.
As per Table 2, the maximum concentration of ethers was ob-
tained which are sparingly soluble in steam. Thus, the hydrated
ether percentage increases in steam gasification of lignite. Along
with it, the percentage of aldehyde carbonyl compounds is more in
lignite with steam feedstock because of its resolution with steam.
Fig. 7. Cold gas efficiency and carbon conversion efficiency at different SLR. Similarly, in the esterification process, the product formed with the
steam gasification is less in comparison without steam. Toluene, a
stable aromatic element is usually formed at high-temperature
Nm
3 to 92 mg Nm
3, respectively as shown in Fig. 8. Injection of steam gasification, responsible for higher risk during downstream
steam into the combustion zone offered good results to diminish operation in the gasifier system. As per Table 2, data reveals that the
tar and PM in the producer gas. It may be due to the conversion of concentrations of aliphatic hydrocarbon compounds are increased
the tar into the producer gas, which is in line with the literature by 30.80% whereas aromatic hydrocarbons are decreased by
[38]. 16.89%. It is due to the fact that lignite feedstock initially de-
composes into aromatic elements (primary tar compounds) and at
a higher temperature, they decompose to a large number of
oxygen-containing hydrocarbon (secondary tar components) [42].
This effect is responsible for increasing H2 concentration in the
producer gas as suggested in the literature [43e45]. The above
investigations conclude that the steam gasification process is the
eco-friendly and productive procedure of gasification of poor
carbonaceous feedstock also.

3.7. Thermal analysis

Mass, exergy, and heat loss analysis were carried out in the
present study. Detailed methodology is also available in the au-
thors’ previous work [46,47].

3.7.1. Mass balance

The mass balance was carried out to understand the input and
output mass of the gasification system. The input products fed to
the gasifier were feedstock (lignite) and oxidizers (air and steam).
The output products from the gasifier were dry gas, char, tar, ash,
and water. The following equation signifies the conservation of
Fig. 8. Tar and PM concentrations in the producer gas at different SLR. mass in the gasification process:

Table 2
The compositions of tar without and with steam gasification of lignite.

Sr. No. Retention time Compound Lignite feedstock (w/w) Lignite feedstock with steam (w/w)

1 2.524 Toluene 13.31 9.21

2 3.539 H2O, CH3C]O,C3H7, carbonyl compound 12 14.71
3 4.776 C4H7,C3H7, Cyclohexanone, Ether 29.88 42.71
4 19.095 Amide 32.28 33.37
5 26.01 Ester 8.92 6.32
8 D.S. Upadhyay et al. / Energy 211 (2020) 118187

Fig. 9. GC/MS analysis of tar without and with steam gasification of lignite.

of 0.94e0.97. However, the non-closure of mass balance was due to

mfuel þ mair þ msteam ¼ mgas þ mchar þ mtar þ mash þ mwater the errors in measurement and some unaccounted losses/errors.
Mass balance closure, which is the ratio of total output to input
mass, is shown in Table 3.
where mfuel , mair , msteam , mgas , mchar , mtar , mash and mwater shows
the mass flow rate of fuel, air, steam, dry gas, char, tar, ash, and
water, respectively. The tar yield obtained during the gasification 3.7.2. Exergy balance
process was very less; hence, it was neglected from the mass bal- Exergy analysis of air-steam gasification with lignite as a feed-
ance analysis. Mass Balance Closure (MBC) was found in the range stock was also carried out in the present study. An exergy analysis

Table 3
Mass Balance at different SLR.

SLR Inputs (kg h
1) Outputs (kg h
1) MBC ratio

Fuel Steam Air Total Dry gas Char Water Ash Total

0.00 8.75 0 18.12 26.87 20.95 1.20 1.34 1.89 25.41 0.94
0.06 8.15 0.49 17.01 25.65 19.62 1.08 1.69 1.75 23.52 0.94
0.14 7.68 1.04 16.00 24.72 18.55 0.86 1.97 1.69 23.12 0.93
0.18 7.15 1.32 15.00 23.47 17.24 0.60 2.66 1.61 21.85 0.94
0.24 6.75 1.60 14.15 22.50 15.92 0.52 3.21 1.58 20.93 0.94
0.30 6.11 1.82 12.78 20.71 14.45 0.41 3.26 1.47 19.83 0.95
0.48 5.39 2.60 11.34 19.33 13.72 0.38 3.32 1.41 18.83 0.97
 D.S. Upadhyay et al. / Energy 211 (2020) 118187 9

of the system shows a thermodynamic performance of the system. surface of the reactor into distinct zones, and heat loss analysis was
Exergy balance of gasification can be written as (Eq. (1)): carried out for each zone individually.
Convective heat transfer coefficient and characteristic length are
S Fin ¼ SFout þ I (1) calculated using Eq. (3) and Eq. (4), respectively.

where, Fin and Fout denote the input and output exergy, and I ðNu*kÞ
denotes the irreversibility induced during the conversion process. h¼ (3)
Lc
Exergy for in any gas components is the sum of thermo-chemical
and thermo-physical exergy. Thermo-physical exergy represents As
the change in enthalpy of the specific gas component from the Lc ¼ (4)
p
reference state to the specified pressure and temperature. Chemical
exergy of the mixture is the standard chemical exergy mixing of all where As is surface area and p is the perimeter of a gasifier zone
the constituents and the loss in entropy due to the blending of surface. For flow over a cylinder, the correlation for the Nusselt
different species of gases [48]. Exergy efficiency (Eq. (2)) is defined number (Nu) is expressed as follows (Eq. (5)) [50]:
as the ratio of the exergy of the producer gas to a summation of the
8 9
exergy of the feedstock and gasification mediums: > >
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
Fgas >
> >
>
h ex ¼ (2) < 0:387*ðRaÞ6 =
1
Flignite þ Fairþsteam Nu ¼ 0:825 þ (5)
>
> 2 327 >
8
>
>
>  9 >
>
In the present study, the air and steam mixture was used as >
> 6 7 > >
>
> 41 þ 0:492
16
5 >
>
gasification mediums. The air was supplied to the gasifier reactor at >
: Pr >
;
atmospheric pressure. Due to its negligent exergy, it was neglected
[49]. The physical exergy is generally dependent on gasification
temperature, so it was highest at 0.24 SLR. The chemical exergy is The expression for the Rayleigh number and coefficient of vol-
depended on the producer gas concentration. From Fig. 10, it is ume expansion is given by Eq. (6) and Eq. (7), respectively.
observed that the exergy efficiency decreases with the increment in *
SLR. It is because of the fact that increases in the steam flow rate g * b ðTs
T∞ Þ* L3c
Ra ¼ *Pr (6)
lead to the higher exergy of the gasifying medium. Exergy efficiency y2
was calculated and found in the range of 45.09%e70.71% for all SLR.
1
b¼ (7)
Tf
3.7.3. Heat loss analysis
During the gasification process, heat loss occurred from the where Ra is Rayleigh number, Gr is Grashof number, g is the grav-
surface of a gasifier reactor. Heat transfer generally occurs through itational acceleration (m/s2), b is coefficient of volume expansion, Ts
the mode of conduction, convection, and radiation. For the present is the surface temperature ( C), T∞ is free stream temperature, Lc is
analysis, conductive heat transfer was neglected, as the only heat the characteristic length of geometry (m), and y is the kinematic
loss occurring through this mode would be heat loss to the ground viscosity of the fluid (m s
2), Tf is the average temperature between
and other smaller sections. Hence, convective and radiative losses the ambient and surface of the gasifier reactor.
were considered in the present analysis. Heat loss to the sur- The correlations to find these properties, developed in Aspen
roundings directly depends on the surface temperature of the HYSYS (V9) at different temperatures, are as follow (Eq. (8-10))
reactor. The analysis was considered by dividing the peripheral [51]:
h i  
m N:s:m
2 ¼ 36425 * 108 T þ 18148 * 105 (8)

   
kJ
Cp ¼ 99088 * e0:0002T (9)
kgk
   
W
K ¼ 70744 * 10
5 * T þ 2423 * 10
2 (10)
mk
The radiation heat loss (Qradiation) was found using the Stefan-
Boltzmann law of thermal radiation. Fig. 11 shows the tempera-
ture distribution over the peripheral surface of the reactor. It was
observed that the highest surface temperature was found near a
combustion zone. It is due to the fact that the surface temperature
has a direct relationship with the gasification temperature. As the
combustion zone is the major source of heat in the gasifier reactor,
the surface temperature was also found higher compared to other
zones. Convective heat transfer and radiative heat transfer were
found in the range of 0.462 kWe0.833 kW and 0.258 kWe0.651 kW
respectively. The highest surface temperature was achieved at 0.24
SLR. Maximum convection and radiation heat loss were found (at
SLR 0.24) 0.833 kW and 0.651 kW, respectively. It was also observed
Fig. 10. Exergy Analysis at different SLR. that the heat loss by convection heat loss was higher than radiation
10 D.S. Upadhyay et al. / Energy 211 (2020) 118187

8.75 kg h
1, 1.437 kg kWh
1 e 1.65 kg kWh
1 and 13.72 kg h
1 to

20.95 kg h
1, respectively for different SLR.
2 H2 yield and H2/CO ratio in producer gas were improved by
34.7% and 52% (at 0.24 SLR), respectively compared to air gasi-
fication (at 0 SLR). LHV of the producer gas and CGE were found
in the range of 4.96 MJ Nm
3e 5.62 MJ Nm
3 and 70.6% - 81%,
respectively.
3 Tar and PM were remained in the range of 112.28 mg Nm
3 to
517.64 mg Nm
3 and 27.34 mg Nm
3 to 92 mg Nm
3,
respectively.
4 The concentrations of aliphatic hydrocarbon compounds were
increased by 30.80% whereas aromatic hydrocarbons are
decreased by 16.89%.
5 Mass balance closure and exergy efficiency remained in the
range of 0.93e0.97 and 45.09%e70.71%, respectively whereas
radiation and convection heat losses were found in the range of
0.462 kWe0.833 kW and 0.258 kWe0.651 kW, respectively for
all SLR.
6 0.24 SLR was offered better performance as per higher LHV, CGE
Fig. 11. Thermal image of the downdraft gasifier reactor.
and lower tar and PM concentration in the producer gas.

The higher tar conversion and the higher yield of H2 make the
air steam gasification superior over simple air gasification. It is also
an important fact that the generation of steam requires an addi-
tional initial and/or running cost. However, by integrating the
process in such a way that generation of required steam is produced
from waste heat may have potential energy benefits.

Author declaration template

Authors wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of

interest associated with this publication.
Authors confirm that the manuscript has been read and
approved by all named authors and that there are no other persons
who satisfied the criteria for authorship but are not listed. Authors
further confirm that the order of authors listed in the manuscript
has been approved by all of us.
Authors confirm that we have given due consideration to the
protection of intellectual property associated with this work and
that there are no impediments to publication, including the timing
of publication, with respect to intellectual property. In so doing
authors confirm that authors have followed the regulations of our
institutions concerning intellectual property.
Authors understand that the Corresponding Author is the sole
contact for the Editorial process (including Editorial Manager and
direct communications with the office). He is responsible for
Fig. 12. Convective and radiative loss from a gasifier surface.
communicating with the other authors about progress, sub-
missions of revisions and final approval of proofs. Authors confirm
heat transfer as shown in Fig. 12. The details of heat loss analysis that we have provided a current, correct email address which is
can also be found in the authors’ previous work [47]. accessible by the Corresponding Author and which has been
configured to accept email from rajeshnpatel1969@yahoo.com,
rnp@nirmauni.ac.in.

4. Conclusions CRediT authorship contribution statement

Steam gasification has the potential to improve H2 yield in the Darshit S. Upadhyay: Conceptualization, Methodology, Inves-
producer gas and at the same time, diminish the concentration of tigation, Writing - original draft. Krunal R. Panchal: Formal anal-
tar and particulate matter (PM). With this objective, six different ysis, Validation, Data curation, Writing - original draft. Anil Kumar
Steam to Lignite Ratio (0e0.48) selected for the experimentation V Sakhiya: Formal analysis, Validation, Data curation, Writing -
with low-rank lignite feedstock. Air-steam gasification of lignite original draft. Rajesh N. Patel: Writing - review & editing, Visual-
was carried out on a pilot-scale 10kWe downdraft gasifier. ization, Supervision.
Following are the significant observations from the present work:
Declaration of competing interest
1 Fuel consumption, specific fuel consumption, and gas flow rate
were calculated and found in the range of 5.39 kg h
1 to The authors declare that they have no known competing
 D.S. Upadhyay et al. / Energy 211 (2020) 118187 11

financial interests or personal relationships that could have gasification in a two-stage downdraft reactor by using mixtures of air, satu-
rated steam and oxygen as gasifying agents. Energy Convers Manag 2017;145:
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
314e23.
[23] Ram NK, Singh NR, Raman P, Kumar A, Kaushal P. “A detailed experimental
Acknowledgment analysis of airesteam gasification in a dual fired downdraft biomass gasifier
enabling hydrogen enrichment in the producer gas. Energy 2019;187:1e16.
[24] Ocampo A, et al. An experimental study on gasification of Colombian coal in
Authors have sincerely valued the Department of Science and fluidised bed. Fuel 2003;82(2):161e4.
Technology, New Delhi (Project No: SR/S3/MERC-0114/2010) and [25] Lee WJ, Kim SD, Song BH. Steam gasification of an australian bituminous coal
Nirma University, Ahmedabad (Project No: NU/Ph.D./MRP/IT-ME/ in a fluidized bed. Kor J Chem Eng 2002;19(6):1091e6.
[26] Upadhyay DS, Sakhiya AK, Panchal K, Patel AH, Patel RN. “Effect of equivalence
16e17/851) for the financial assistance. The authors are very ratio on the performance of the downdraft gasifier e an experimental and
thankful to Dr. Femina Patel, Dr. Niraj Shah, Dr. Amita Chaudhary, modelling approach. Energy 2019;168:833e46.
Mr. Karan Patel, Mr. Savan Patel, and Ms. Gayatri Barad for helping [27] Upadhyay DS, Makwana HV, Patel RN. Performance evaluation of 10 kWe pilot
scale downdraft gasifier with different feedstock. J Energy Inst 2019;92:
during experiments and gas chromatography analysis. 913e22.
[28] Upadhyay DS, Khosla A, Chaudhari A, Patel RN. Effect of catalyst to lignite ratio
References on the performance of a pilot scale fixed bed gasifier. Energy 2019;189.
Accepted.
[29] Govt. of India. Qualifying, testing and performance evaluation of biomass
[1] “International Monetary Fund. Real GDP growth - annual percentage change. ”
gasifiers and gasifier-engine systems. Gasifier Action Research; 2000.
[Online], https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDP_RPCH@WEO/
[30] Dogru M, Howarth CR, Akay AAM, Keskinler GB. Gasification of hazelnut shells
OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD?year¼2020https://www.imf.org/external/
in a downdraft gasifier. Energy 2002;27:415e27.
datamapper/NGDP_RPCH@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD?year¼2020.
[31] Dinis N, Bruno V, Rouboa A. Assessment on steam gasification of municipal
[Accessed 11 April 2020].
solid waste against biomass substrates. Energy Convers Manag 2016;124:
[2] Central Statistic Office India. Energy statistics. 2019.
92e103.
[3] http://www.cea.nic.in/reports/monthly/installedcapacity/2020/installed_
[32] Erkiaga A, Lopez G, Amutio M, Bilbao J, Olazar M. Syngas from steam gasifi-
capacity-03.pdf. [Accessed 3 June 2020].
cation of polyethylene in a conical spouted bed reactor. Fuel 2013;109:461e9.
[4] Accessed, https://coal.nic.in/content/production-and-supplies. [Accessed 5
[33] Shen L, Gao Y, Xiao J. Simulation of hydrogen production from biomass
June 2020].
gasification in interconnected fluidized beds. Biomass Bioenergy 2008;32(2):
[5] Prabhnsu PKC. Malay Kr. Karmakar, Prakash Chandra, “A review on the fuel
120e7.
gas cleaning technologies in gasification process. J. Environ. Chem. Eng.
[34] Franco C, Pinto F, Gulyurtlu I, Cabrita I. The study of reactions influencing the
2015;3(2):689e702.
biomass steam gasification process q, 2003;82:835e42.
[6] Goyal RAV, Pushpavanam S. “Modeling and simulation of co-gasification of
[35] Avraam Karagiannidis. Waste to energy, opportunities and challenges for
coal and petcoke in a bubbling fluidized bed coal gasifier. Fuel Process Technol
developing and transition economies. 2012.
2010;91:1296e307.
[36] Bartocci P, Zampilli M, Bidini G, Fantozzi F. Hydrogen-rich gas production
[7] Stiegel GJ, Maxwell RC. Gasification technologies: the path to clean, affordable
through steam gasification of charcoal pellet. Appl Therm Eng 2018;132:
energy in 21st century. Fuel Process Technol 2001;71(1e3):79e97.
817e23.
[8] Shadle LJ, Breault RW. Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC). in
[37] Yan F, Luo S, Hu Z, Xiao B, Cheng G. “Hydrogen-rich gas production by steam
Handbook of Climate Change Mitigation 2012;3:1545e604.

s E. “Biomass gasification in fluidized gasification of char from biomass fast pyrolysis in a fixed-bed reactor : in-
[9] Gil JCJ, Aznar MP, Caballero MA, France
fluence of temperature and steam on hydrogen yield and syngas composition.
bed at pilot scale with Steam
Oxygen mixtures. Product distribution for very
Bioresour Technol 2010;101(14):5633e7.
different operating conditions. Energy Fuels 1997;11(6):1109e18.
[38] Adnan MA, Xiong Q, Hidayat A, Hossain MM. “Gasification performance of
[10] Meng X, de Jong W, Fu N, Verkooijen AHM. Biomass gasification in a 100 kWth
Spirulina microalgae e a thermodynamic study with tar formation. September
steam-oxygen blown circulating fluidized bed gasifier: effects of operational
2018 Fuel 2019;241:372e81.
conditions on product gas distribution and tar formation. Biomass Bioenergy
[39] Niu Y, Han F, Chen Y, Lyu Y, Wang L. Experimental study on steam gasi fi
2011;35(7):2910e24.
cation of pine particles for hydrogen-rich gas. J Energy Inst 2016;7:1e10.
[11] Patra TK, Sheth PN. Biomass gasification models for downdraft gasifier: a
[40] Reed T, Das A. Handbook of biomass downdraft gasifier engine systems.
state-of-the-art review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;50:583e93.
March. SERI; 1988.
[12] Singh Siwal S, Zhang Q, Sun C, Thakur S, Kumar Gupta V, Kumar Thakur V.
[41] Sharma M, Attanoor S, Dasappa S. Investigation into co-gasifying Indian coal
“Energy production from steam gasification processes and parameters that
and biomass in a down draft gasifier - experiments and analysis. Fuel Process
contemplate in biomass gasifier e a review. Bioresour Technol 2020;297:
Technol 2015;138:435e44.
122481. September 2019.
[42] Zhang Z. Tar formation and transformation in steam gasification of biomass in
[13] Warnecke R. Gasification of biomass: comparison of fixed bed and fluidized
a dual fluidised bed gasifier. ” University of Canterbury; 2017.
bed gasifier. Biomass Bioenergy 2000;18(6):489e97.
[43] Zhang B, Xiong S, Xiao B, Yu D, Jia X. Mechanism of wet sewage sludge py-
[14] Patel VR, Upadhyay DS, Patel RN. Gasification of lignite in a fixed bed reactor:
rolysis in a tubular furnace. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2011;36(1):355e63.
influence of particle size on performance of downdraft gasifier. Energy
[44] Yang H, Yan R, Chen H, Lee DH, Liang DT, Zheng C. Mechanism of palm oil
2014;78:323e32.
waste pyrolysis in a packed bed. Energy & Fuels May 2006;20(3):1321e8.
[15] Przybyla G, Szlek A, Haggith D, Sobiesiak A. Fuelling of spark ignition and
[45] Wang Q, Li K, Guo Z, Fang M, Luo Z, Cen K. Effects of CO2 atmosphere on slow
homogenous charge compression ignition engines with low calorific value
pyrolysis of high-ash lignite. Carbon Resour. Convers. 2018;1(1):94e103.
producer gas. Energy 2016;116:1464e78.
€ ffler G, Weigl K, Hofbauer H. Biomass steam gasification - an [46] Upadhyay DS, V Sakhiya AK, Panchal KR, Patel RN. Thermodynamic analysis of
[16] Schuster G, Lo
lignite gasification in the downdraft gasifier. J. Energy Environ. Sustain.
extensive parametric modeling study. Bioresour Technol 2001;77(1):71e9.
2018;5:58e64.
[17] Mermoud F, Golfier F, Salvador S, Van De Steene L, Dirion JL. Experimental and
[47] Sakhiya A, Chaturvedi A, Barasara V, Panchal K, Upadhyay DS, Patel RN.
numerical study of steam gasification of a single charcoal particle. Combust
Elemental and heat loss analysis of different feedstock in downdraft gasifier.
Flame 2006;145(1e2):59e79.
J. Energy Environ. Sustain. 2019;7:10e6.
[18] liu Y, wang Fanbin Meng D. Qingbang Ma, Hongde wang, “Effect of gasifying
[48] Sandeep K, Dasappa S. First and second law thermodynamic analysis of air
agents on sawdust gasification in a novel pilot scale bubbling fluidized bed
and oxy-steam biomass gasification. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2014;39(34):
system. Fuel 2019;249:112e8.
19474e84.
[19] Burra KG, Hussein MS, Amano RS, Gupta AK. Effect of oxygen addition in
[49] Prins MJ, Ptasinski KJ. Energy and exergy analyses of the oxidation and gasi-
steam gasification of chicken manure. Fuel 2017;189:428e35.
fication of carbon. Energy 2005;30(7):982e1002.
[20] Wang Y, Liu Q. Production of syngas from steam gasification of three different
[50] Cengel Yunus, Ghajar Afshin. Heat and mass transfer: fundamentals and ap-
ranks of coals and related reaction kinetics. J Energy Inst 2020;93(2):533e41.
plications. fifth ed. McGraw-Hill Education; 2014.
[21] Choi YK, Cho MH, Kim JS. Steam/oxygen gasification of dried sewage sludge in
[51] Forero-Nún ~ ez CA, Sierra-Vargas FE. Heat losses analysis using infrared ther-
a two-stage gasifier: effects of the steam to fuel ratio and ash of the activated
mography on a fixed bed downdraft gasifier. Int. Rev. Mech. Eng. 2016;10(4):
carbon on the production of hydrogen and tar removal. Energy 2015;91:
239.
160e7.
[22] de Sales CAVB, et al. Experimental study on biomass (eucalyptus spp.)