See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/361591748

Assessing the power generation potential and quality of producer gas from
blended of the cotton stalk and pistachio shell in an open core downdraft
gasifier

Article in International Journal of Ambient Energy · June 2022

DOI: 10.1080/01430750.2022.2095532

CITATION READS

1 73

3 authors, including:

Amit Kumar Dhaka Rajneesh Kaushal

National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra
4 PUBLICATIONS 20 CITATIONS 47 PUBLICATIONS 302 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Amit Kumar Dhaka on 10 September 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Ambient Energy

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/taen20

Assessing the power generation potential and

quality of producer gas from blended of the
cotton stalk and pistachio shell in an open core
downdraft gasifier

Amit Kumar Dhaka, Rajneesh Kaushal & Yash Pal

To cite this article: Amit Kumar Dhaka, Rajneesh Kaushal & Yash Pal (2022): Assessing the
power generation potential and quality of producer gas from blended of the cotton stalk and
pistachio shell in an open core downdraft gasifier, International Journal of Ambient Energy, DOI:
10.1080/01430750.2022.2095532

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01430750.2022.2095532

Published online: 11 Jul 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 54

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=taen20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/01430750.2022.2095532

Assessing the power generation potential and quality of producer gas from blended
of the cotton stalk and pistachio shell in an open core downdraft gasifier
Amit Kumar Dhakaa , Rajneesh Kaushal b and Yash Palc
a School of Renewable Energy and Efficiency, NIT, Kurukshetra, Kurukshetra, India; b Department of Mechanical Engineering, NIT Kurukshetra,
Kurukshetra, India; c Department of Electrical Engineering, NIT Kurukshetra, Kurukshetra, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The increasing energy demands require a sustainable eco-friendly renewable source of energy. Biomass as Received 30 July 2021
a sustainable and pollution-free source of energy is the most promising alternative. In the present study, a Accepted 30 May 2022
mix of the cotton stalk and pistachio shells as a feedstock in a weight ratio of 3:1 are gasified. The air is used KEYWORDS
as a gasifying agent in a downdraft gasifier. In the experimental work, the equivalence ratio (ø) is varied Cotton stalk; pistachio shell;
from 0.186 to 0.267. As a result, the maximum power is calculated as 62.795 kW with a feed rate of 39 kg/hr downdraft gasifier; power
at an equivalence ratio of 0.267. The experimental analysis shows the maximum cold gas efficiency and generation potential;
calorific value of PG as 87.5% and 6.6332 MJ/m3 , respectively at an equivalence ratio of 0.241. The maximum producer gas; equivalence
values of CH4 and H2 of PG are measured as 3.94% and 16.78 at an equivalence ratio of 0.227 and 0.247, ratio
respectively.

Abbreviations environment (AlNouss et al. 2020). The biomass sources are con-
verted into a useful fuel with high heat value in the form of
ASTM American Society for Testing and Material
producer gas or synthesis gas via various thermochemical tech-
CS Cotton stalk
niques. The producer gas is a mixture of combustible gases like
PS Pistachio shell
CO, H2 , CH4 along with some quantity of CO2 , N2 , and O2 . The
PG Producer Gas
physical and chemical properties of feedstock impact the effi-
SYN Gas Synthesis Gas
ciency and performance of the thermochemical process (Kate
HHV Higher Heating Value
et al. 2018). India produces 6.5 million tons of cotton annually
GHG Green House Gas
and the waste generated from the cotton crops is 2–3 times
CGE Cold Gas Efficiency
that of cotton production (Gupta et al. 2020). The cotton stalk,
CH4 Methane
tur, and soybean are the major crops that generate the high-
N2 Nitrogen
est amount of agricultural waste in the middle region of India
CO Carbon monoxide
and the waste generation from these crops are 3.6, 1.9, and
CO2 Carbon dioxide
1.3 tons/hectare, respectively (Pradhan et al. 2019). Imran et al.
H2 Hydrogen
(2020) reported that the (GHG) greenhouse gas intensity, which
is a ratio of CO2 emission and energy consumption in MJ, is
Units calculated to be 0.07 CO2 per MJ in the production of cot-
ton in the Punjab region of Pakistan. They also estimated that
% Percentage
1928 kg CO2 is generated per hectare. The cotton stalk takes
kJ/kg Kilojoule per Kilogram
around 6 months for 25–35% decomposition and that creates
kWe Kilo Watt Electrical
a problem for growing crops in the subsequent season. So com-
posting is not a good option (Jing et al. 2016). Also, the cotton
stalk cannot be used directly as fodder for animals because it
1. Introduction contains a higher amount of lignin which lies in the range of
25–31%. So it is not digestible for the animals (Glass and Al-
Fossil fuels form the primary source of energy source globally
Hamdani 2016). The agriculture waste can be used as fodder
which are finite in nature. These very sources are the major con-
if lignin is less than 10%. Therefore, it is necessary to treat the
tributors to emission of greenhouse gases. The biomass as a cotton stalk by thermo-chemical processes such as gasification
source of energy comes into the picture as it addresses the lim- and pyrolysis. Both are good options for treating the agriculture
itations associated with fossil fuels, i.e. it is a renewable source, waste to get a useful product like combustible gases for thermal
present in abundance, and moreover is essentially carbon neu- applications with less carbon emission (DeGroot and Shafizadeh
tral, and thus can aid to develop an energy sector with a clean 1984). The main methods that are used to treat the biomass are

CONTACT Amit Kumar Dhaka [email protected]; Rajneesh Kaushal [email protected]

© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2 A. K. DHAKA ET AL.

agrochemical, thermochemical, and direct combustion respec- material. They achieved a maximum calorific value and cold gas
tively (Sharma and Kaushal 2020c). The composition of synthe- efficiency of 7.35 MJ/m3 and 65.62% at an equivalence ratio of
sis gas depends upon the factors like pressure, temperature, 0.378. The maximum amount of CH4 and H2 obtained is 8.03%
gasification agent, and physical and elemental characteristics of and 16.96% at an equivalence ratio of 0.378 and 0.294 respec-
feedstock material used in the gasification process. The tar is tively. The percentage fraction of CO is higher in the sugarcane
produced as a byproduct during gasification process (Sharma bagasse gasification than in coir pith and rice husk gasifica-
and Kaushal 2020). The tar may block valves, pipes and injec- tion (Manikandan and Singh 2020). The maximum cold gas effi-
tors of the engine if used as combustible fuel in engines. This ciency and calorific value respectively, 83.07% and 7.59 MJ/m3 is
accounts for higher gas cleaning costs and maintenance costs achieved at an equivalence ratio of 0.251 during the gasification
(Chun et al. 2019). Therefore, tar minimisation is a major priority of the walnut shells in an open core downdraft gasifier having
during the gasification process in order to achieve better quality a feed rate varying from 68 to 77 kg/hr (Sharma and Kaushal
gaseous fuel (McFarlan and Maffei 2018). The chemical and phys- 2020b). The cotton stalk and rice husk material are also used as a
ical processes like catalytic action, water spraying, and thermal feedstock in a 95 kW gasification plant. According to the life cycle
cracking are used to remove the impurity from tar (Awais et al. assessment, valorisation of rice husk is the best option which has
2021). a lower production cost of 0.34 e/kWh as compared to the cot-
The air gasifying agent is responsible to increase the temper- ton stalk which costs 0.38 e/kWh (Chidikofan et al. 2017). The
ature of the gasifier up to 1000°C. This is due to the presence of energy efficiency of the raw cotton stalk is higher for the gasifi-
nitrogen in the air that is not good for any type of reactor (Lee, cation process compared to torrefactions and carbonisation that
Chung, and Ingley 2014). It is reported that when wooden sieves is 58.7%, 38.4%, and 46.5% respectively. The tar content of 4.41,
are used as a filter, the tar removal efficiency is 10%. Similarly, 2.24, and 0.10 gm/Nm3 has been obtained during the gasifica-
61% of tar is filtered using wooden sieves with a heat exchanger tion, torrefaction, and carbonisation of a cotton stalk (Ibrahim
and 97% of tar is removed with a wood saving filter with oil bub- et al. 2018).
bles (Thapa et al. 2017). Around 3.1 m3 syngas produced from Literature survey concludes that not much study has been
1 kg of coconut and sugarcane bagasse, the average tar drawn carried out on the electrical power generation capacity from
for feedstock is 2.5 g/Nm3 and the tar removal efficiency using the gasification process with the mixture of agriculture and
different instruments is 60.6% with cyclone separator, 54.2% industrial waste such as cotton and pistachio shell in an open
with wet scrubber, 56% with biomass separator, and 45.6 with core downdraft gasifier. The variation in the airflow rate, which
auxiliary filter when sugarcane bagasse used as feed material. acts as a gasifying agent in this experiment impacts the power
Also, the tar removal efficiencies achieved from coconut shells generation capacity. The airflow rate affects the temperature
are 54% with cyclone separator, 65% with biomass separator of the gasifier reactor shell which further affects the compo-
filter, 59.4% with the wet scrubber, and 52.9% with auxiliary sition of producer gas, particulate matter, and tar generation.
filter (Awais et al. 2021). An upward draft gasification system Therefore, an investigation is needed to evaluate the power gen-
is developed that produced 100 kW electrical power from the eration capacity from agriculture waste and industrial waste.
wood chips with a feed rate of 11 kg/hr (Dasappa et al. 2011). Hence, the present experimental work has been carried out on
The overall efficiency is achieved by18% for electricity produc- cotton stalk and pistachio shells mixed in 3:1 ratio by weight,
tion from the bark as biomass with the feed rate of 1.36 kg/kWh in an open core downdraft gasifier at the different airflow
(Ahlström et al. 2019). It is reported that the maximum H2 gas is rates to evaluate power generation capacity along with various
produced during gasification by using ignite mixed with a cake parameters like the composition of producer gas and gasifier
of sunflower seeds in a 1:1 weight ratio (Cabuk et al. 2020). Flu- efficiency.
idised bed gasification was found more environment friendly
as compared to downdraft gasifier on the basis of CO2 produc-
tion from sugarcane bagasse (Nurtono et al. 2020). The producer 2. Experimental materials and setup arrangement
gas is also used to produce electricity using a gas engine util-
2.1. Feedstock raw material and their preparation
ising woody biomass with a feed rate of 12.5 kg/hr. The exper-
iments have been carried out on air steam char fluidised bed The present investigation has been conducted on an open core
gasifier utilising woody biomass estimated that the power gen- downdraft gasifier with cotton stalk and pistachio shells used as
eration capacity is achieved to be 16.2 and 16.8 kW with slow a blended feedstock. The cotton stalks have been collected from
and fast pyrolysis respectively, the feedstock consumption rate the local farmers from Sirsa, Haryana and other blended material
being 12.5 kg/hr and the cold gas efficiency achieved for the pistachio shells have been bought from a pistachio processing
above two processes having 71.1% and 73.8% respectively (Situ- industrial unit, which is located in New Delhi. Both materials have
morang et al. 2019). The worldwide production of pistachio dried in an open environment under direct sunlight for 3 days
shells in 2017–18 is approximate 586,200 million tonnes and in to remove moisture content. To avoid the risk of choking the
2016 consumption rate was 669,860 million tonnes with shell. gasifier, the maximum size of pieces has been chopped in the
Pistachio consumption rate in India was 8042 million tonnes range of 40–45 mm as shown in Figure 1. The feedstock material
in 2017–18. Pistachio cover weight is around 45% of its total has been prepared by blending the cotton stalk and pistachio
weight and shell waste is generally openly dumped as solid shell in order of 75% and 25% on a weight basis. The higher
waste. heat value of blended material has been measured by an Auto-
Authors (Sharma and Kaushal 2020a) experimented on an matic bomb calorimeter (IP3, Arico instruments). The elements in
open core downdraft gasifier using pistachio shells as feed the feedstock have been tested with help of energy-dispersive
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY 3

Figure 1. Processing of feedstock material.

X-ray spectroscopy situated in the physics department of NIT 3. Experimental procedure

Kurukshetra.
The experimental setup (Figure 3) that has been used for this
study consists of a gasification shell of 116.3 kW capacity, a cen-
trifugal blower, gas cleaning units, flame tester, etc.
2.2. Experimental setup
In the present experimental analysis, an open core downdraft Step 1. Initially, during the first run the gasification shell is loaded
gasifier with having a rated capacity of 418.400 MJ/hr (Figure 2) with 35 kg of blended feedstock consisting of 26.25 kg of
has been used for the gasification of the blended biomass to pro- the chopped cotton stalk and 8.75 kg crushed pistachio
duce an ignitable gas called producer gas. This type of gasifier shell.
can also work with different variety of biowastes like coconut Step 2. Then after, A suction or negative pressure is created
shell, walnut shell, carpentry waste, garden waste, and agricul- inside the chamber by using the centrifugal blower so the
ture waste like rice husk, paddy straw, and wheat straw. The atmospheric air (gasification medium) can enter inside the
specifications of the gasifier used in the experiments are given chamber through an open core. The blower suction speed
in Table 1. has controlled by lug type butterfly valve with five chang-
The thermochemical reaction takes place in the downdraft ing positions. During the first run, the valve is in the first
gasifier chamber. This chamber is made up of stainless steel position which shows the lowest inlet airflow rate.
and is provided with an inner refractory lining of 50 mm thick- Step 3. Thereafter the inlet air velocity is measured with help of
ness for insulation. At the bottom of this gasifier chamber, a an anemometer (Tenma 72-6638), which is used to calculate
grate mechanism (SS-310) is coupled. This grate is used for the the inlet volumetric airflow rate.
removal of ash content from the chamber after the completion Step 4. A small amount of diesel, approximately 40 ml is sprayed
of an experimental run. A coarse filter, venturi, fine filter, and on the feedstock to initiate the ignition. It takes a short
fabric filter are connected in sequence to the gasifier. A water period, approximately 6–7 min, to start the ignition in the
pump is placed to provide continuous water to the venturi. The combustion zone, and during this time the diesel burns in
coarse filter is filled with activated charcoal while the fine filter maximum amount because of low explosive behaviour of
is filled with sawdust. The fabric filter contains a cloth arrange- feedstock at the high temperature. The period in between
ment wrapped inside. These filters ensure that the output gas is the start of ignition of input fuel and initiation of combus-
free from impurities and particulate matter. A blower is provided tion is called as starting time of the experiment.
as shown in the figure, so as to create a suction of atmospheric Step 5. During combustion, when the level of feedstock in
air in the gasifier chamber. A butterfly valve is placed adjacent the gasifier falls below a pre-determined point then the
to the blower which aids to vary the air intake quantity. At one blended feedstock mixer of CS and PS are filled regularly
end of the exit, a test flare is present for the testing of producer into the gasifier and this method is also used to determine
gas. the consumption rate (kg/hr) of feedstock.
4 A. K. DHAKA ET AL.

Figure 2. Open core downdraft gasifier for experimental study.

Table 1. Gasifier specifications. Step 8. A manually operated grate has been used for the removal
Manufacturing industry Chandrapur works of ash and char which is produced after each run of the
Type of gasifier Open core Downdraft
experiment.
Maximum Capacity (MJ/hr) 418.4 MJ/hr Step 9. After noting down all the parameters, the air flow-
Maximum Power Generation Capacity 116.3 kW controlled valve is changed to the next position and all the
Start-up mechanism Electrical Blower
parameters are checked again.
Temperature limit > 1000°C
Conversion Efficiency > 75%
Rated producer gas flow 25Nm3 /hr
3.1. Gasification reactions
Various gasification reactions are Equations (1) to (7), which
occurs during the gasification process shown in this section.
The chemical reactions with their energy changes during the
Step 6. After 15–20 min, the producer gas starts to be produced
gasification process are shown in Table 2.
and starts passing through various cleaning units like a
coarse filter, venturi scrubber, fine and fabric filter. The first
cleaning unit is a coarse filter filled with activated charcoal 4. Uncertainty analysis of instruments
that absorbs the sulphide content from the generated gas
and also restricts the passage of some coarse constituents. Instrumental uncertainty in experimental work have been anal-
The second cleaning unit is a venturi scrubber where impu- ysed by using Equation (8) (Sharma and Kaushal 2020a).
rities such as SO2 and H2S are dissolved in the water and the
water is sprayed as a jet and here is cooled to the tempera-  2  2  2
∂X ∂X ∂X
ture of the producer gas. A test flare has also been attached ωx = ωx21 + ωx22 + ωx23
after the Venturi scrubber to test the combustion proper- ∂x1 ∂x2 ∂x3
ties of the PG, whereby if a visible and stable flame has 1/
 2 2
been obtained it is then passed through a fine and cloth fil- ∂X
+ ··· + ωx2n (8)
ter. Fine and cloth filters are used to remove moisture and ∂xn
unburnt impurities, respectively.
Step 7. The subsequent stable readings are checked after every
15–20 min after the commencement of the experiment and where ωx is the resultant uncertainty and ωx1 , ωx2 ,ωx3 , . . . ωxn
at the final outlet, a gas analyser (ATS206A) is used to obtain is the uncertainty in the independent variable x 1 , x 2 , x 3 , . . . xn
the composition of producer gas. K-Type thermocouples respectively and X is a function of x 1 , x 2 , x 3 , . . . xn . The details of
have also been connected to various locations in the exper- the measuring intruments used in the experiments are given in
iment for measuring the temperature profile. Tables 3 and 4 shows the resultant uncertainty of parameters.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY 5

Figure 3. Schematic sketch of open core downdraft gasification setup.

Note: 1. Downdraft gasifier; 2. Coarse filter; 3. Venturi scrubber; 4. Lower part of venturi; 5. Fine filter; 6. Fabric filter; 7. Water storage tank; 8. Centrifugal blower; 9. Water pump; 10. Butterfly valve;
11. Tar storage tank; 12. Grate rotating system; 13. Producer gas outlet; 14. Air inlet; 15. Test flare.

Table 2. Various gasification chemical reactions with their energy changes of Chandrapur Works Pvt Ltd. The obtained data has shown in
(Mazhkoo et al. 2021; Pal 2019).
Table 5.
Energy changes The higher heat value of blended feedstocks has been calcu-
Nature of process Zone reaction (kJ/mol) lated by Equation (9) (Parikh et al. 2005)
Combustion reaction C + O2 ↔ CO2 −393.5 (1)
Partial oxidation C + 0.5O2 ↔ CO −110.5 (2)
Boudouard reaction C + CO2 ↔ 2CO +172 (3) HHV = [(0.3536 × FC) + (0.1599 × VM) − (0.0078 × Ash)]
Water-gas reaction C + H2 O ↔ H2 + CO +131.3 (4)
Water-gas shift reaction CO + H2 O ↔ CO2 + H2 −41.1 (5) (9)
Methanation C + 2H2 ↔ CH4 +74.80 (6) The required amount of stoichiometric oxygen is
Methanation reduction CH4 + H2 O ↔ 3H2 + CO +205.9 (7) 1.8249 kg per kg of fuel, which has been calculated by using
Equation (10).
Table 3. Measuring instruments.
Measuring 32
Sr. No. parameters Instruments Accuracy Oxygenstoichiometric = (C) + 8(H2 ) + (S) − (O2 ) (10)
12
1. Gas Composition Gas analyser (ATS206A) ±2%
2. Flow rate Rotameter ±2 m3 /sec
3. Air Velocity Anemometer ±0.01 m/s
4. Temperature K-Type Thermocouple ±2.2°C
5.2. Equivalence ratio (∅)
5. Weight Weight machine ±3 gm
6. Time (sec.) Stopwatch ±0.01 s
The performance of gasification is dependent on various param-
eters like consumption of biomass, air discharge rate, and time
duration of the experimental procedure. All these parameters
Table 4. Uncertainty of parameters.
are described in a single parameter known as the equivalence
ratio. Although all the constituent gases present in the air affect
Measuring parameters Uncertainty (ωx ) Units
the combustion process, only oxygen is considered in the air
Gas Composition ±2.384 % for the calculation of equivalence ratio since it is the only
Flow rate ±2.632 m3 /sec
Air velocity ±0.017 m/s gas responsible for combustion. In the experiment, the equiv-
Temperature ±2.610 °C alence ratio has varied from 0.186 to 0.267 and is shown in
Weight ±3.800 gm Table 6.
Time ±0.038 second
The equivalence ratio has been calculated by using
Equation (11) (Reed and Das 1988)
5. Results and discussion
 
5.1. Characterisation of blended feedstock sample The air flow rate of oxygen
∅= /
Biomass consumption rate actual
The feedstock sample used in the present work consists of cot-  
ton stalk and pistachio shells in the weight ratio of 3:1, which has The air flow rate of oxygen
(11)
been tested for proximate and ultimate analysis in the laboratory Biomass consumption rate stoichiometric
6 A. K. DHAKA ET AL.

5.3. Blend feedstock consumption rate In literature also observed that the consumption rate of the
cotton stalk is increased with the increase in airflow rate equally
It is observed from Table 6 that the feedstock consumption rate (Khalil et al. 2018).
increases from 32 to 39 kg/hr, as the increment is seen in the
equivalence ratio from 0.186 to 0.267. The increasing trend of the
equivalence ratio is caused by an increase in the rate of airflow 5.4. Power generation potential
which helps in better combustion of biomass in the combustion The producer gas from the gasification process also contains
zone (Figure 4). combustible gases and this is a primary parameter in the gas

Table 5. Proximate and ultimate analysis of the blended sample.

C (%) O (%) H (%) S (%) N (%) VM (%) FC (%) Ash (%) HHV (MJ/kg)
44.44 40.24 5.37 0.612 0.94 76.05 13.03 3.49 16.74

Figure 4. Effect of equivalence ratio on electric power generation and feedstock consumption rate.

Figure 5. Temperature variation of gasifier zone with an equivalence ratio.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY 7

engine application for the calculation of electric power. The esti- 62.795 kW at the equivalence ratio of 0.267 with a feedstock con-
mated electric power has been calculated from the following sumption rate of 39 kg/hr. The HHV of producer gas correspond-
equation (Situmorang et al. 2019). ing to which the maximum power generated is 565.39 MJ/kg.

(Total gas)(HHVgas )(ηgas engine )

Electric power(kWe) = (12)
3600 5.5. Gasifier zone temperatures
where HHVgas (MJ/hr) is the HHV of the collected total producer The temperature variation of different gasifier zones has been
gas and ηgas engine is the efficiency of the gas engine which has noted at various equivalence ratio points as shown in Figure 5.
assumed to be 40% (Situmorang et al. 2019). The total gas (kg/hr) In the investigation, the temperature of pyrolysis (T2) and com-
is the total producer gas has been collected from the fabric fil- bustion zone (T3) have reached their maximum value of 186°C
ter during the gasification process. The synthesis gas density is and 821°C respectively, with an equivalence ratio of 0.196.
0.95 kg/m3 (Mustafa, Calay, and Mustafa 2017) which has used in The temperature readings show an increasing trend with the
Equation (12). increased airflow rate. The increased quantity of air flowing into
As a result, the electric power generation value has varied the gasifier chamber enhances the combustion, thereby increas-
from 46.91 kW to 62.795 (in Table 5), with an equivalence ratio ing the rate of feedstock combustion which liberates more heat.
of 0.186–0.267. The maximum calculated power generation is The oxidation and partial oxidation reactions come into play
and aid in the temperature rise in the combustion zone. At the
higher airflow rate, the level of nitrogen content in the gasifier
Table 6. Experimental detail of CS and PS blend (75:25).
increases, which works as a carrier of heat energy. Due to this
Feedstock Producer gas Power reason the temperature has shown reduced in the pyrolysis and
consumption generation rate generation Producer gas combustion zone. Khalil et al. (2018) reported that the temper-
Run ∅ rate (kg/hr) (m3 /kg) (kWe) HHV (MJ/hr)
ature reduction and pyrolysis zone raise with the increase in air
1 0.186 32 2.05 46.910 422.365
2 0.196 34.2 2.14 54.304 488.940
flow rate. So, in the combustion zone, the temperature initially
3 0.227 36 2.18 57.339 516.269 increased and then decreased at a higher airflow rate. The tem-
4 0.241 37 2.21 60.192 541.950 perature distribution details at various points in the gasification
5 0.267 39 2.23 62.795 565.391
system have shown in Table 7.

Table 7. Temperature details of the gasification system.

Temperature (°C)
Equivalence Gas temperature Gas temperature
ratio (ø) Drying (T1) Pyrolysis (T2) Combustion (T3) Reduction (T4) after Coarse filter (T5) after venturi (T6)
0.186 97 168 780 795 396 71
0.196 120 186 821 807 432 67
0.227 95 155 764 706 319 65
0.241 92 151 757 693 298 68
0.267 96 164 711 719 327 70

Figure 6. Producer gas composition variation with an equivalence ratio (ø).

8 A. K. DHAKA ET AL.

5.6. Producer gas composition Table 8. The higher heating value of the producer gas component.

The composition of producer gases produced in the gasifica- Gas component Heating value (MJ/m3 )
tion process has been measured by the gas analyser (ATS206A). H2 12.76
CO 12.63
The variation in producer gases at distinct points of equivalence CH4 39.76
ratio has shown in Figure 6. Whereas noticed that the volume
percentage of CO2 has been decreasing in nature. This happens
due to the reduction reaction in the reduction zone. Methane
is formed in producer gas due to methane formation reaction value increases sharply because of the concentration of H2 and
Equation (6). The volume percentage of CH4 has reduced when CO and both will increase due to the reduction reaction. As
the equivalence ratio increases, because of the breakdown of result, the H2 content is increased due to the water-gas shift reac-
methane Equation (7). At higher temperatures above 600°C in tion (Equation (5)) and break down of methane (Equation (3)),
the reduction zone, the breakdown of methane occurs which and another content CO increases due to water gas reaction
causes an increase in the percentage of H2 as well as CO. The (Equation (4)) and Boudouard reaction (Equation (3)). The max-
water-gas shift reaction (Equation (5)) also helps to increase the imum calorific value of producer gas has been obtained 6.633
concentration of H2 . MJ/m3 at an equivalence ratio of 0.241.
As the result shows in Figure 6, the fraction percentage of CH4 Khalil et al. (2018) reported that the calorific value of pro-
and H2 have maximum i.e. 3.94% and 17.42% at the equivalence ducer gas decreases slightly at a higher airflow rate during the
ratio of 0.227 and 0.267 respectively. gasification of cotton stalk. The lower calorific value of producer
gas increases with an increase in the O2 content in the gasifying
agent (Wang et al. 2015). These literature results are similar to
5.7. Producer gas calorific value the results of the present work.
The producer gas calorific value has been calculated by
Equation (13) (Sharma and Kaushal 2020b)
5.8. Producer gas generation rate
Gas calorific value
The producer gas generation rate is affected by the equiva-
[p × Heating value]CH4 + [q × Heating value]H2 lence ratio and biomass consumption rate (kg/hr). Producer gas
+[r × Heating value]CO generation rate has been calculated by Equation (14)
= (13)
100
where p, q, and r are the respective percentage concentrations of Procuder gas flow rate
CH4 , H2 , and CO which have been measured by the gas analyser. Producer gas generation rate =
Feedstock consumption rate
Table 8 shows the higher heating values of these gases (CH4 , H2 , (14)
CO) (Rahmat and Rasid 2017). Result clearly reveals that the producer gas flow rate varies from
According to the results, the calorific value of producer gas 2.05 to 2.224 (m3 /kg) as the equivalence ratio changed from
increased from 6.134 to 6.633 MJ/m3 , with an equivalence ratio 0.186 to 0.267. This happens because of increase in air flow rate
of 0.186–0.241, then after slightly decreased 6.633–6.516 MJ/m3 is affect the biomass consumption rate and PG generation rate.
at an equivalence ratio of 0.267 as shown in Figure 7. The calorific The experimental data of gas generation is shown in Table 6.

Figure 7. Variation of higher heat value and cold gas efficiency with an equivalence ratio.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY 9

Table 9. Experimental results of existing studies.

Obtained Gas flow Heating Value Estimated power

Researcher Input Material rate (Nm3 /hr) (MJ/m3 ) CGE (%) potential (kW)
Pal (2019) Cotton Stalk 15 5.23 74.48 8.73
Sharma and Kaushal (2020a) Pistachio shell 140.26 7.35 65.62 115.42
Sharma and Kaushal (2020b) Walnut Shell 141 7.59 83.07 119.82
Present Study Blended (CS & PS) 86.77 6.515 87.5 62.795

5.9. Cold gas efficiency 1. The estimated electrical power generation has been
increased from 46.91 to 62.795 kW with the rise in equiv-
The cold gas efficiency term is defined to assess the potential of
alence ratio 0.186–0.267 and the maximum power gener-
the gasifier and to check whether the system is acceptable or not.
ation has obtained 62.795 kW at an equivalence ratio of
The cold gas efficiency has calculated by the Equation (15)
0.267.
2. The producer gas generation rate has obtained 2.05–2.224
[Heating value ∗ Yield]producer gas kg/m3 with a rise in equivalence ratio from 0.186 to 0.267.
CGE(%) = ∗ 100 (15)
[Heating vlaue]Feedstock 3. The producer gas constituents, CH4 and H2 have been mea-
sured maximum i.e. 3.94% and 17.42% at an equivalence
ratio of 0.227 and 0.267 respectively.
The producer gas and feedstock HHV units are in MJ/m3 and
MJ/kg respectively. The variation in cold gas efficiency with
The present study shows that the producer gas from blended
the equivalence ratio has shown in Figure 7. The cold gas effi-
feedstock material in a downdraft gasification system can be
ciency initially rose from 75.12% to 87.5%, as the equivalence
used for direct electrical power generation and thermal heat
ratio 0.186–0.241 changed from and when the equivalence ratio
application. Thus, in the future, the gasification system may also
changed from 0.241 to 0.267, the CGE slightly decreases from
be used for applications in IC engines, if certain factors such
87.5% to 84.88% in the last run of the experiment. The slight
as low moisture content, effective producer gas storage sys-
decrease in CGE at a higher equivalence ratio is because the
tem, and reducing tar production are addressed. The gasifica-
gasifier losses heat as the temperature falls in the combustion
tion studies should be more explored, to integrate it with other
zone. CGE in experiment their maximum value 87.5%, at the
technologies such as anaerobic digestion, supercritical water
equivalence ratio of 0.241.
gasification, plasma gasification, and other possible techniques.

6. Performance assessment Disclosure statement

The results of the present investigation work have been com- No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
pared with work of literature as depicted in Table 9. Pal (2019)
shows the gasification treatment of cotton stalk and obtained
ORCID
gas flow rate and heating value of 15 Nm3 /hr and 5.23 MJ/m3 , Rajneesh Kaushal http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9190-7107
respectively, at a cold gas efficiency of 74.48% and estimated
the power potential is 8.73 kW. Likewise (Sharma and Kaushal References
2020a) treated the pistachio shells through gasification, inves- Ahlström, Johan M., Alberto Alamia, Anton Larsson, Claes Breitholtz, Simon
tigated gas flow rate and heating value of 140.26 Nm3 /hr and Harvey, and Henrik Thunman. 2019. “Bark as Feedstock for Dual Fluidized
7.35 MJ/m3 , respectively at a cold gas efficiency of 65.62% with Bed Gasifiers—Operability, Efficiency, and Economics.” 43 (3): 1171–1190.
an estimated power potential of 115.42 kW. Sharma and Kaushal AlNouss, Ahmed, Gordon McKay, and Tareq Al-Ansari. 2020. “A Compari-
son of Steam and Oxygen fed Biomass Gasification Through a Techno-
(2020b) experimented on utilising walnut shells for gasification
Economic-Environmental Study.” 208: 112612.
and obtained gas flow rate and heating value of 141 Nm3 /hr and Awais, M., Wei Li, Anjum Munir, Muhammad Mubashar Omar, and Muham-
7.59 MJ/m3 at a cold gas efficiency of 83.07 with an estimated mad Ajmal. 2021. “Experimental Investigation of Downdraft Biomass Gasi-
power potential of 119.82 kW. fier fed by Sugarcane Bagasse and Coconut Shells.” Biomass Conversion
and Biorefinery 11 (2): 429–444.
Awais, Muhammad, Wei Li, Anjum Munir, Muhammad Mubashar Omar,
and Muhammad Ajmal. 2021. “Experimental Investigation of Downdraft
7. Conclusion and future prospects
Biomass Gasifier fed by Sugarcane Bagasse and Coconut Shells.” Biomass
In the present work, the producer gas generated from the gasi- Conversion and Biorefinery 11 (2): 429–444.
Cabuk, Busra, Gozde Duman, Jale Yanik, and Hayati Olgun. 2020. “Effect
fication of a blend of the cotton stalk and pistachio shell, and its
of Fuel Blend Composition on Hydrogen Yield in co-Gasification of Coal
associated electric power generation potential have been anal- and non-Woody Biomass.” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 45 (5):
ysed where the cotton stalk and pistachio shells are present in 3435–3443.
the weight ratio of 3:1. It is revealed that the maximum cold Chidikofan, G., et al. 2017. “Technical and Sustainability Assessment of Power
gas efficiency that is 87.5%, achieved higher as compared to the Production System Based on Cotton Stalk and Rice Husk Gasification in an
Isolated Area in Burkina Faso.” 2017 8th International Renewable Energy
other reported feedstock materials treatment. So, it is better to
Congress (IREC), IEEE.
utilise blended biomass feedstock as compared to single feed- Chun, Young Nam, and Hee Gaen Song. 2019. “Microwave-induced Cracking
stock material to get maximum output. The following results are and Reforming of Benzene on Activated Carbon.” Chemical Engineering
also discovered through the experiment: and Processing-Process Intensification 135: 148–155.
10 A. K. DHAKA ET AL.

Dasappa, S., D. N. Subbukrishna, K. C. Suresh, P. J. Paul, and G. S. Prabhu. 2011. McFarlan, A., and N. J. F. Maffei. 2018. “Assessing tar Removal in Biomass Gasi-
“Operational Experience on a Grid Connected 100 kWe Biomass Gasifica- fication by Steam Reforming Over a Commercial Automotive Catalyst.”
tion Power Plant in Karnataka, India.” Energy for Sustainable Development Fuel 233: 291–298.
15 (3): 231–239. Mustafa, A., Rajnish Kaur Calay, and Mohamad Y. Mustafa. 2017. “A Techno-
DeGroot, W. F., and F. J. F. Shafizadeh. 1984. “Kinetics of Gasification of Dou- Economic Study of a Biomass Gasification Plant for the Production of
glas Fir and Cottonwood Chars by Carbon Dioxide.” Fuel 63 (2): 210–216. Transport Biofuel for Small Communities.” Energy Procedia 112: 529–536.
Glass, D., and S. Al-Hamdani. 2016. “Kudzu Forage Quality Evaluation as an Nurtono, T., et al. 2020. “Comparison of Sugarcane Bagasse Conversion to
Animal Feed Source.” American Journal of Plant Sciences 7 (04): 702. Syngas in Downdraft and Fluidized bed Gasifier Using ASPEN PLUS.” AIP
Gupta, Ankita, Sonal K. Thengane, and Sanjay Mahajani. 2020. “Kinetics of Conference proceedings, AIP Publishing LLC.
Pyrolysis and Gasification of Cotton Stalk in the Central Parts of India.” Fuel Pal, R. K. 2019. “Gasification of Cotton Stalk in a Downdraft Gasifier.” Energy
263: 116752. Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 1–13.
Ibrahim, H. G., O. Sanogo, S. K. Ouiminga, T. Daho, and J. Koulidiati. 2018. Parikh, Jigisha, S. A. Channiwala, and G. K. Ghosal. 2005. “A Correlation for
“Impact of pre-Treatment by Torrefaction and Carbonization on Tem- Calculating HHV from Proximate Analysis of Solid Fuels.” Fuel 84 (5):
perature Field, Energy Efficiency and tar Content During the Gasification 487–494.
of Cotton Stalks.” Journal of Engineering and Technology Research 10 (2): Pradhan, Priyabrata, Prabodh Gadkari, Sanjay M. Mahajani, and Amit Arora.
7–18. 2019. “A Conceptual Framework and Techno-Economic Analysis of a
Imran, Muhammad, Orhan Özçatalbaş, and Muhammad Khalid Bashir. 2020. Pelletization-Gasification Based Bioenergy System.” Applied Energy 249:
“Estimation of Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse gas Emission of Cotton 1–13.
Crop in South Punjab, Pakistan.” Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Rahmat, N., and R. Rasid. 2017. “Gasification of Empty Fruit Bunch with Car-
Sciences 19 (3): 216–224. bon Dioxide in an Entrained Flow Gasifier for Syngas Production.” IOP
Jing, Feng, Yalong Kang, Jianxin Tan, Baogeng Tian, Fangxia Ma, and Jian- Conference Series: Materials Science and engineering, IOP Publishing.
guo Liu. 2016. “Decomposition Characteristics of Cotton Stalks from Fall Reed, T. B., and A. Das. 1988. Handbook of Biomass Downdraft Gasifier Engine
to Spring as Affected by Continuous Cropping.” Acta Agriculturae Scandi- Systems. Biomass Energy Foundation.
navica, Section B–Soil & Plant Science 66 (6): 510–515. Sharma, M., and R. Kaushal. 2020a. “Enhanced Producer Gas Generation by
Kate, G. U., and A. S. Chaurasia. 2018. “Gasification of Rice Husk in two-Stage Utilizing Pistachio Shells as a Biomass Feedstock in an Open Core Down-
Gasifier to Produce Syngas, Silica and Activated Carbon.” Energy Sources, draft Gasifier.” Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environ-
Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects 40 (4): 466–471. mental Effects, 1–12.
Khalil, A., Ayman Bakry, Magda El-Fakharany, and Karim Rabea. 2018. “Exper- Sharma, M., and R. Kaushal. 2020b. “Gasification of Walnut Shells in an Open
imental Study of Cotton Stalks Gasification in a Downdraft Reactor.” Core Downdraft Gasifier for the Producer gas Generation.” Energy Sources,
Journal of Engineering Research 2 (August): 1–15. Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 1–12.
Lee, U., J. N. Chung, and Herbert A. Ingley. 2014. “High-temperature Steam Sharma, M., and R. Kaushal. 2020c. “Advances and Challenges in the Gen-
Gasification of Municipal Solid Waste, Rubber, Plastic and Wood.” Energy eration of Bio-Based Fuels Using Gasifiers: A Comprehensive Review.”
& Fuels 28 (7): 4573–4587. International Journal of Ambient Energy 41 (14): 1645–1663.
Manikandan, P., and V. C. J. Singh. 2020. “Prediction of Gas Composition of a Situmorang, Y. A., et al. 2019. “Potential Power Generation on a Small-Scale
Fluidized Bed Gasifier in a Sugarcane Bagasse-Modeling.” IOP Conference Separated-Type Biomass Gasification System.” Energy 179: 19–29.
Series: Materials Science and engineering, IOP Publishing. Thapa, Sunil, Prakashbhai R. Bhoi, Ajay Kumar, and Raymond L. Huhnke. 2017.
Mazhkoo, S., Hossein Dadfar, MohammadSina HajiHashemi, and Omid “Effects of Syngas Cooling and Biomass Filter Medium on tar Removal.”
Pourali. 2021. “A Comprehensive Experimental and Modeling Investiga- Energies 10 (3): 349.
tion of Walnut Shell Gasification Process in a Pilot-Scale Downdraft Gasi- Wang, Z., Tao He, Jianguang Qin, Jingli Wu, Jianqing Li, Zhongyue Zi,
fier Integrated with an Internal Combustion Engine.” Energy Conversion Guangbo Liu, et al. 2015. “Gasification of Biomass with Oxygen-Enriched
and Management 231: 113836. air in a Pilot Scale two-Stage Gasifier.” Fuel 150: 386–393.

View publication stats