Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 14 (2019) 100480

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/csite

Thermodynamic assessment of the fixed-bed downdraft gasification

T
process of fallen leaves pelletized with glycerol as binder
William A. Gonzáleza, Felix Zimmermannb, Juan F. Péreza,∗
a
Grupo de Manejo Eficiente de la Energía (GIMEL), Departamento de Ingeniería Mecánica, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Antioquia, Calle 67
No. 53-108, Medellín, Colombia
b
Hamburg University of Technology, Am Schwarzenberg-Campus 1, 21073, Hamburg, Germany

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Keywords: In this work, the effect of airflow rate and glycerol content of pelletized fallen leaves (FL) on a
Garden waste biomass fixed bed gasification process is studied. FLs were collected in the main campus of the University
Waste to energy of Antioquia (Medellin, Colombia). Levels of airflow rate tested were 0.075, 0.150, and 0.225 kg/
Thermochemical conversion s/m2; and the glycerol content of pellets evaluated were 0 and 5%wt. When the airflow rate
Energy and exergy analyzes
increased, flame front velocity increased up to 51.3%. This behavior was attributed to high
Sustainable university campus
temperatures in the reaction front, which were favored by the decrease of fuel-air equivalence
ratio leading to high biomass consumption in the gasification process. Regarding the glycerol
content of the pellets, production of gaseous species was favored with this compound, where an
increase of CH4 by 25% and H2 by 20% was observed with regard to the raw pellets. The high
concentration of the gaseous fuel species leads to an increase of cold gas efficiency (CGE) as well
as chemical exergy efficiency (CEE) by ∼13%. Whereas, the irreversibilities (I) of the thermo-
chemical process decreased by 10% when pellets with glycerol content were gasified.

1. Introduction

Use of solid wastes for energy valorization is an alternative pathway compared to the common disposition in landfills. There is a
wide variety of biomass materials than can replace fossil fuels, by using the biomass as feedstock for thermochemical processes.
Biomass is carbon neutral, therefore, it is expected that biomass becomes one of the most important renewable energy sources in the
post-petrochemical period [1,2]. The low energy density of the waste biomass leads to drawbacks in collection and transport costs
[3]. Hence, some upgrading processes like pelletizing have been carried out for improving the chemical and physical properties of
these solid biofuels. The pelletizing process increases the energy density of biomass and decrease therefore the costs associated to the
transportation and handling. This is specially noted for biomass with low bulk density and heterogeneous shapes like grass, straw,
and forest wastes [4,5].
The conditions of the pelletizing process affect the combustion behavior of the densified fuel. Biswas et al. [6] found an increase of
the combustion time of pellets with an increase of moisture content and die temperature. Furthermore, a significant difference in the
combustion behavior between the pellets produced by a pelletizing plant and the ones produced by a single die pelletizer was
highlighted. This behavior was attributed to density and morphology differences between both pellet fuels. Simone et al. [2] con-
cluded that the pelletized biomass is not the most ideal fuel for downdraft gasifiers, since it generates high pressure drops in the bed;
however, the cold gas efficiency increases. Erlich et al. [7] evaluated pyrolysis and gasification of wood and sugar cane bagasse

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: juanpb@udea.edu.co (J.F. Pérez).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2019.100480
Received 16 April 2019; Received in revised form 7 May 2019; Accepted 6 June 2019
Available online 07 June 2019
2214-157X/ © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).
W.A. González, et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 14 (2019) 100480

pellets, analyzing the feedstock origin as well as the size of the pellets; and found out that bagasse is less reactive than wood, and that
bigger pellets lead to a slow gasification process. Sandamali et al. [8] carried out a pretreatment (steam exploded) to the biomass
pellets, to burn them under gasification regimes. Pretreated pellets generated higher CO, hydrocarbon, and tar fractions, whereas
unpretreated pellets were highly efficient in H2 yield.
Gasification is a promising alternative for energy recovery since it reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and at the same time
improves the energy security, and the economic development [9,10]. Therefore, there is a need of leveraging the wastes produced in
many industries, but also the ones generated by the nature, for instance, fallen leaves and lawn wastes. Fixed bed gasification is one of
the most used methods for energy recovery from waste biomass under thermochemical pathways [3]. Erlich et al. [11] studied a fixed
bed gasification process of wood and agroindustry waste pellets. They found out that different biomass types from several origins can
be used in a downdraft reactor by means of the variation of the air-fuel ratio. Nevertheless, a linear relation between the air-fuel ratio
and cold gasification efficiency was found. Jun et al. [12] compared the gasification process of raw rice husk and pelletized rice husk.
The heating value of the producer gas increased by 30%, and the cold gasification efficiency increased from 60% to 70% when the
pellets were gasified. Lajili et al. [13] evaluated agro-pellets of wastes, from the olive production process, under gasification and fast
pyrolysis to define design criteria of reactors. Pa et al. [14] characterized the gasification process of wood chips and wood wastes
pellets for heating applications. It was stated that wood pellets were better due to the decrease of fuel consumption and the less
negative impacts on air quality. Hilal-Al Naqbi et al. [15] evaluated gasification of fallen leaves mixtures with raw glycerol in an
updraft reactor, and found high stability of combustion process when dry leaves were used with 20% of glycerol.
The exergy is defined as the maximum useful work that can be obtained when a system achieves the dead state equilibrium. The
exergy efficiency is the ratio between the total exergy in the producer gas and the sum of exergy of the biomass and gasifying agent
fed to the gasification process [16]. This variable has been evaluated in order to estimate exergy efficiencies associate to the gasi-
fication process. Values of the exergy efficiency ranged from 28% up to 76.2% have been reported [17–22]. The effect of the steam
flow as gasifying agent on the gasification performance has also been analyzed. Watson et al. [16] reported that the increase of the
steam to biomass ratio (S/B, from 0.15 to 0.20) cause a decreasing of the exergy efficiency by 39.3%. Meanwhile, the use of air
instead of steam as gasifying agent increases the exergy efficiencies in the gasifier [23].
The University of Antioquia has a total area of ∼24 hectares, where ∼280 trees per hectare of gardens are seeded. The waste
production from the campus gardens, goes up to 2.85 ton/month of dry fallen leaves. These wastes are used at the University to
produce compost, which is used as fertilizer in the same gardens. During the composting greenhouse gases (CO2 and CH4) are
emitted. Currently, an excess of fallen leaves produced becomes a problem for the waste disposal at the University. Therefore, this
work aims to evaluate the fixed bed downdraft gasification process performance using fallen leaves pellets manufactured as densified
fuel.

2. Materials and methods

The thermochemical conversion process through fixed bed gasification was studied using fallen leave pellets, from the central
campus of the University of Antioquia (Medellin, Colombia), as feedstock. In the experimental stage, the two factors tested during
gasification were the air flow rate of gasifying agent and the glycerol content of the pellets. Levels of the air flow rate were 0.075 kg/
s/m2, 0.150 kg/s/m2, and 0.225 kg/s/m2, and the glycerol content levels were 0%wt and 5%wt.

2.1. Experimental setup

The experimental setup used consists of a fixed bed gasifier at laboratory scale, that operates under atmospheric pressure. Main
dimensions of the reactor are 102 mm of internal diameter, 185 mm of external diameter, and a bed length of 400 mm. The gasifying
agent during the process was air, obtained from a reciprocating compressor. Air flow was controlled by pressure regulators and
valves, and was measured by a PRM FMDFA15T10 air rotameter. The gas outlet of the gasifier had a conditioning unit (drying and
filtering), to measure syngas composition (O2, N2, CO2, CO, H2 and CH4) by means of an Agilent 3000 Micro GC gas chromatograph.
The gasifier was filled with biomass and was lit on the top. This reactor type is also known as an inverse or reverse downdraft
reactor, or a top-lit up-draft (TLUD) reactor [24]. The gasifying agent (air) was supplied from the bottom, generating a reaction front
propagation downwards. Temperature field was measured by six K-type thermocouples, that were placed each 30 mm. The ther-
mocouples were inserted up to the center of the reactor as the bed zone was being filled with biomass. A scheme of the experimental
setup is shown in Fig. 1.
In combustion or gasification processes, the equivalence ratio is defined in function of both parameters, as an air-fuel ratio or as a
fuel-air ratio. The equivalence ratio, Frg, is commonly used to indicate quantitatively whether a fuel-oxidizer mixture is rich, lean, or
stoichiometric; the equivalence ratio is defined in Equation (1).

(mair /mfuel)stoic (mfuel /mair)actual

Frg = =
(mair /mfuel)actual (mfuel /mair)stoic (1)

Therefore, for fuel-rich mixtures Frg > 1.0, for fuel-lean mixtures Frg < 1.0, and for a stoichiometric mixture Frg = 1.0. In com-
bustion applications, the equivalence ratio is the single most important factor in determining a system’s performance [25]. Here, the
gasification process had been characterized by fuel-air equivalence ratio (Frg > 1.0). A full description of this experimental config-
uration and the parameters derived are described in detail in Refs. [26,27].

2
W.A. González, et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 14 (2019) 100480

Fig. 1. Experimental setup: 1. Reciprocating compressor, 2. Filter and flow regulator, 3. Air rotameter, 4. Fixed bed gasifier, 5. K type thermo-
couples, 6. Data acquisition system, 7. Computer, 8. Gas conditioning, 9. Gas filter, 10. Vacuum pump, 11. Gas chromatograph.

2.2. Pellets biomass samples

The study was conducted with FL pellets, which were manufactured out of waste biomass from the central campus of the
University of Antioquia (Medellin, Colombia). The production of the pellets was accomplished with ground FLs (moisture content of
∼10%wt.), using a 3.75 kW roller pellet mill, with a nominal diameter of the die holes of 8 mm, and a capacity of 30–40 kg/h. The
pellets were manufactured with a glycerol content of 0 %wt. (G00) and 5 %wt. (G05). The addition of binders less than 5% are
allowed by the DIN 51731 standard [28]. Physicochemical properties of pellets and standard procedures are presented in Table 1.
The addition of glycerol as binder leads to a change of the physicochemical properties of the pelletized waste biomass. The bulk
and particle density of G05 pellets decreases by 12%. The glycerol favors the lubricity between the ground biomass and the die of the
pelletizer leading to inhibit the function of lignin as a natural binder and mainly favoring the mechanical interlocking [30,31]. The
hardness of the G05 pellets diminishes by 49% regarding the G00 pellets, which gives to the former a low compaction between the
ground material, so the diffusive process under thermochemical process could be favored.
The volatile matter of the G05 pellets is 4.5% higher than of the G00 pellets due to the addition of glycerol. Therefore, the fixed
carbon and ash content diminishes by 10% and 13%, respectively. The chemical composition is also affected, where the increase of
the oxygen content of the G05 pellets by 5% is highlighted; The oxygenation process of the fuel leads to a decrease of the stoi-
chiometric fuel-air ratio, which means that a high amount of fuel can be burned per unit of air mass under stoichiometric conditions.
Thereby, the G05 pellets are considered a more reactive fuel from a chemical point of view [32]. Furthermore, from a thermo-
gravimetric point of view, the G05 pellets are more reactive because of the reaction velocity during devolatilization is 2% higher than
the one of the G00 pellets. This is ascribed to the low hardness reached for the G05 pellets due to the low friction between the ground
material and the die of the pelletizer. The heating value increases for the G05 pellets by 4% because the glycerol has a calorific value
of 19 MJ/kg, which is higher than the one of FLs (12.89 MJ/kg). Therefore, herein, the effect of manufactured waste biomass pellets
on downdraft gasification process is studied from a first and second law of thermodynamics point of view.

2.3. Mass, energy, and exergy balances

Mass, energy, and exergy balances were estimated based on the approach proposed by Díez et al. [26]. Mass balance was based on
the global reaction of the biomass gasification process, Equation (2). From the biomass consumption rate and airflow supplied to the
process the molar flows of biomass (ṅbms ; mol/s), and air (ṅair ; mol/s), are respectively calculated. By means of the atomic balance for
carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, it was possible to raise four equations and to find values for the flows of gas (ṅgas ; mol/s),
water (ṅ H2O; mol/s), tar (ṅtar ; mol/s), and biochar (ṅbiochar ; mol/s).

3
W.A. González, et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 14 (2019) 100480

Table 1
Biomass characterization ( ± standard deviation).
Properties Standard Pellet sample

G00 G05

Bulk density [kg/m3] ASTM E873-82 524.7 ± 5.6 461.5 ± 9.0

Particle density [kg/m3] Oil immersion 1102.07 ± 32.2 980.21 ± 8.7
Particle average hardness [Shore D] ASTM D2240 49.0 ± 4.3 25.2 ± 3.2
Packing factor [-] - 0.48 0.47
Equivalent diameter [mm] - 14.4 ± 1.6 12.5 ± 1.1
Sphericity [-] Díez et al. [29] 0.78 ± 0.04 0.84 ± 0.03
Surface/volume ratio [mm-1] - 2.36 ± 0.64 1.51 ± 0.38
Moisture [% wt] ASTM D5142-04 5.02 ± 0.11 5.21 ± 0.18
Proximate analysis [%wt. d.b.]
Volatile matter ASTM D5142-04 69.04 72.09
Fixed carbon By difference 10.33 9.92
Ash ASTM D5142-04 20.63 17.99
Ultimate analysis [%wt. d.a.f.]
C ASTM D5378-08 51.71 ± 0.45 49.74 ± 0.03
H ASTM D5378-08 7.07 ± 0.15 6.91 ± 0.10
O By difference 41.22 ± 0.60 43.35 ± 0.07
Substitution formula [d.a.f] - CH1.6399O0.5979 CH1.6666O0.6536
Stoichiometric fuel/air ratio [-] Mass balance 0.1522 0.1612
Reactivity [min-1] Díez et al. [29] 0.0410 0.0416
LHVdb [MJ/kg] ASTM D2015 13.50 ± 0.07 14.02 ± 0.05

ṅbms (Cn Hm Op Nq) + ṅair (O2 + 3.76N2) → ṅgas (yCOCO + yCO2CO2 + yCH4 CH 4 + yH2H2 + yN2N2) + ṅ H2O (H2 O)

+ ṅbiochar (Cn′Hm′Op′ Nq′) + ṅtar (C6 H6) (2)

The energy balance proposed to find heat losses (Q̇ loss ; kW) through the gasifier walls is presented in Equation (3), where the
expressions on the left of the balance correspond to the input energies of biomass (fuel chemical energy, Ėbms ; kW) and air at
ambient temperature (Ėair ; kW). On the right side of the balance, energy outputs corresponding to gas (Ėgas ; kW), char (Ėchar ; kW), and
tar (Ėtar ; kW) based on their chemical energy.

Ėbms + Ėair = Ėgas + Ėchar + Ėtars + ĖH2O + Q̇ loss (3)

The destroyed exergy (Ėx dest ; kW) associated to biomass gasification process in the fixed bed reactor is calculated by the exergy
balance, see Equation (4). Ėx bms (kW) is the exergy of biomass, and Ėx gas (kW) is the gas producer exergy. The exergies of char (Ėx char ;
kW) and tar (Ėxtar ; kW) were estimated according to Wu et al. [21]. Ėxloss (kW) is the exergy due to the heat losses through the gasifier
wall, which heat losses were calculated according to Equation (3).

Ėx bms + Ėx air = Ėx gas + Ėx char + Ėxtar + Ėx H2O + Ėxloss + Ėx dest (4)

The cold gas efficiency (CGE) is a performance indicator of the gasification process, since it describes the chemical gas quality
with regard to the energy supplied by the solid fuel (see Equation (5)). Chemical exergy efficiency (CEE) was calculated through
Equation (6). CEE is the ratio between chemical exergy of the producer gas and the pellet exergy. By Equation (7), the percentage of
irreversibility (I) in the biomass gasification process was estimated.

Ėgas
CGE =
Ėbms (5)

Ėx ch, gas

CEE =
Ėx bms (6)

Ėx dest
I=
Ėx bms (7)

4
W.A. González, et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 14 (2019) 100480

Fig. 2. Performance parameters of fixed bed gasification in function of airflow rate and pellet glycerol content.

2.4. Statistical experimental design

The statistical analysis was conducted using the Statgraphics® software, version Centurion XVI. This analysis allows to evaluate
the effect of process parameters selected as statistical factors, which correspond to the airflow rate of the gasifying agent, and the
glycerol content of the biomass pellets. The multifactorial experimental design studies the effect of factors on the response variables
of the tests, that characterize the gasification process of the pellets as described in section 2.1. Evaluation of effects was carried out
through the analysis of variance (ANOVA) [26,27,33] using a confidence level of 95%. Therefore, if the P-value is lower than 0.05, a
significant statistical effect of the experimental factors is ascribed on the answer variables.

3. Results and discussion

The fixed bed downdraft gasification process was thermodynamically characterized, in order to analyze the effect of airflow rate
(airflow rate/cross section of the reactor) of gasifying agent, and the glycerol content in the pellets manufactured with waste biomass.
The aim is to assess the energy recovery of waste biomass by means of a thermodynamic analysis (mass, energy, and exergy balances)
of the gasification process of fallen leaves pellets. The airflow of 0.225 kg/s/m2 was stablished as the maximum rate, because at this
air rate, mixtures of FL pellets started to reach melting point of ashes. Low melting point ashes favors heat transfer problems in the
gasification-combustion process and leads to additional tasks such as maintenance for avoiding damage of the equipments.

3.1. Process parameters

Fig. 2a shows that flame front velocity (Vff) increases from 5.21 to 7.42 mm/min for G00, and from 5.95 to 9.0 mm/min for G05
when air flow rate increased (0.075–0.225 kg/s/m2). This behavior was expected due to the increase of process temperature ascribed
to higher air flows supplied to the process, which favors the increase of the process reaction velocity [26]. On the other hand, the
effect of glycerol content in the pellets leads to increase Vff between 12.6% and 21.2% when passing from G00 to G05. The higher Vff
for G05 is ascribed to the low packing factor (PF), since bulk and particle densities are lower than 12% with regard to G00 (Table 1).

5
W.A. González, et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 14 (2019) 100480

This fact allows more penetration of the radiative heat transfer in the flame front when G05 is used. The high penetration of radiative
heat transfer in the solid biomass favors drying and pyro-combustion processes during gasification, hence higher Vff are derived
[27,34]. Moreover, G05 has greater reactivity than G00 that is ascribed to the low hardness of the former (see Table 1). High
reactivity favors the degradation of the fuel under thermochemical processes [35], therefore, Vff under gasification regimes increases.
The specific fuel consumption (mbms; kg/h/m2) is shown in Fig. 2b. Its behavior is similar to the one of Vff when the air flow increases,
since there is a direct relation between Vff and mbms [34]. When the effect of glycerol content is evaluated on mbms, low differences
between G00 and G05 are observed, especially for the first two air flow levels. This is due to the fact that, despite higher Vff are
obtained for G05, its bulk density is 13.7% lower than the one of G00 (Table 1). Therefore, similar fuel consumptions are reached for
both fuels.
Fig. 2c shows the equivalence fuel-air ratio (Frg). When air flow increases from 0.075 to 0.225 kg/s/m2, a decrease of Frg by
51.81% and by 49.74% for G00 and G05, respectively, are achieved. This reduction was expected according to the combustion
theory, and is attributed to the decrease of the fuel-air actual ratio of the process (Fa), generated by the high air flow fed to the gasifier
[36]. Hence, Frg decreases and tends to move slightly closer to the combustion process. On the other hand, at constant airflow, Frg
does not significantly vary when gasification process is carried out with G00 and G05 pellets. This behavior is because similar actual
fuel-air equivalence ratios (Fa) were reached in the process, which is attributed to the similar mbms associated to G00 and G05.
Nevertheless, the very slight increase of Frg for G00 was ascribed to the higher stoichiometric equivalence ratio (Fstq) of G05, which
increased by 6% when passing from G00 to G05 (Table 1), leading to diminish the fuel-air equivalence ratio for G05.
It can be observed, that the maximum process temperature increases when the air flow rises (Fig. 2d). For G00 the maximum
process temperature increases from 789.34 to 1038.74 °C, for G05 from 746.51 to 986.08 °C, when airflow changes from 0.075 to
0.225 kg/s/m2. Analyzing the glycerol content at fixed airflow, reductions of ∼5% in the maximum temperature are obtained for G05
comparing G00. This behavior is due to the low bulk and particle density of G05, which is ascribed to the glycerol content addition to
the mixture. Thus, the low density favors the penetration of radiative heat transfer, while temperatures in the reaction front decreases
[24,27]. Furthermore, according to Wei et al. [37], fuels mixed with glycerol could require more heat to evaporate this compound,
leading to diminish the temperature inside reactor.
The mass balance (gas -Ygas-, char -Ychar-, and tar -Ytar-mass yields) is depicted in Fig. 3. The increase of Vff and reaction tem-
perature of the process favored by the increase of airflow rate, leads to increase the gas amount (Ygas) from 83.56 to 92.38% for G00,
and from 81.20 to 91.99% for G05 (see Fig. 3). Regarding Ychar, it decreases by 10–57.34% due to the increase of gasifying agent
because the solid-gas reactions of the process are favored [26]. Furthermore, the increase of the maximum process temperature with
the airflow (0.075–0.225 kg/s/m2) favors tars cracking reactions leading to a decrease of the tars yield (Ytar) [38]. When G05 is used
instead of G00, Tmax of the gasification process decreases, hence, Ygas and Ytar decrease by 2% and 44%, respectively, while Ychar
increases by ∼30% because the solid-gas reactions are inhibited due to the low reaction temperature.

3.2. Producer gas composition

If the airflow increases, the process gets close to combustion regimens, which leads to a decrease of the fuel-air equivalence ratio

Fig. 3. Gas, char, and tar mass yields in function of air flow rate and pellet glycerol content.

6
W.A. González, et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 14 (2019) 100480

Fig. 4. Composition of producer gas in function of air flow rate and pellet glycerol content.

(Frg) and the combustible gases in the producer gas [26]. Fig. 4 shows the composition of producer gas obtained in this work. If
airflow increases from 0.075 to 0.225 kg/s/m2, a decrease of CO content is observed, whereas at 0.150 kg/s/m2 a maximum/op-
timum point of CO yield for G00 and G05 is reached. The maximum point of CO at this rate is because of the temperature increases
from 789.34 °C to 962.40 °C under substoichiometric conditions (Frg > 1.0) (Fig. 2d) favoring the production of CO, which is mainly
attributed to the activated of char gasification reaction (2C + O2→2CO) and the tars reforming (C6H6.2O0.2+5.8H2O→6CO+8.9H2)
[39,40]. Nevertheless, the amount of oxygen in the gasification reaction increases (Equation (2)) if the air flow increases up to
0.225 kg/s/m2. Therefore, the fuel-air equivalence ratio diminishes (Fig. 2c) and the complete oxidation reactions of the light vo-
latiles (CH4, CO, and tars) are favored, which leads to increase the concentration of CO2, while the CO decreases [26,39,40]. The
thermochemical process continues under gasification regime when the air flow supplied was 0.225 kg/s/m2, however its maximum
temperature inside the reactor (1038.7 °C) does not significantly vary with regard to the one at 0.150 kg/s/m2 regardless of the fuel
type. This performance was ascribed to the melting points of the ashes reached in this experimental mode (0.225 kg/s/m2), where the
phase change of the inert material inhibits the partial oxidation reaction of the char (2C + O2→2CO), which also contributes to the
reduction of CO concentration in the producer gas [39,40]. Furthermore, H2 and CH4 contents decrease by ∼60% and by ∼80%,
respectively, when air flow increases. This fact is due to a high amount of gasifying agent increases fuel oxidation rate reducing the
combustible quality of the producer gas. Regarding effect of glycerol content on FLs pellets (see Fig. 4), a reduction of CO content is
observed, which leads to a slightly increase of CO2. The content of hydrogenated species (H2 and CH4) increases when G05 is used
instead of G00 during all air flow levels considered in this study. This behavior is in agreement with other studies, where hydrogen
yield increases in thermochemical processes (gasification and pyrolysis) ascribed to the increase of glycerol content in the fuel
[38,41].

3.3. Thermodynamic assessment

The slight trend to combustion regimens promoted by the increase of air flow rate, affects the composition of producer gas and its
calorific value. Fig. 5a shows that when air flow rises from 0.075 to 0.225 kg/s/m2, the LHVgp decreases from 3.02 to 1.25 MJ/Nm3
for G00, and from 3.36 to 1.64 MJ/Nm3 for G05. Moreover, significant difference for LHVgp at 0.150 kg/s/m2 is not observed with
regard to the LHVpg obtained at 0.075 kg/s/m2. This behavior is attributed to the high production of CO reached in the medium level
(Fig. 4). Furthermore, when G05 pellets were gasified, the concentration of H2 and CH4 increase leading to increase the LHVpg
between 3.12 and 11.26%.
Fig. 5b shows the cold gas efficiency (CGE). This variable increases by 62.84% for G00, and by 56.52% for G05, when air flow
increases from 0.075 to 0.150 kg/s/m2. This growing trend is because, despite there is a slight decrease of LHVgp, a significant
increase of producer gas flow is observed (Fig. 3). Conversely, the lowest CGE (between 28.41 and 29.93%) reached in this work is
associated to the maximum air flow rate tested (0.225 kg/s/m2). This low CGE achieved is attributed to reduction of the producer gas
quality (less LHVgp) and to the rise of biomass involved in the gasification process (mbms). Comparing both fuels pellets (G00 and
G05) at fixed air rates, when G05 is gasified instead of G00, CGE increases between 5.35 and 12.96%. The highest CGE is reached
with G05, which is ascribed to the best combustible quality of the producer gas. The chemical exergy efficiency (CEE) is shown in
Fig. 5c. CEE shows a similar behavior to the one of CGE for both factors (air flow rate and glycerol content in the fuel). This behavior
is due to both efficiencies evaluate fuel chemical quality (heating value) and mass flow of the producer gas [26].
Irreversibilities (I) of the gasification process have a contrary behavior to the ones obtained for CGE and CEE (Fig. 5d). Therefore,
when the air flow increases from 0.075 to 0.150 kg/s/m2, the irreversibilities decrease between 9.23 and 34.10%. This reduction is
attributed to the optimum reaction temperatures for solid-gas conversion, which lead to have a gas with higher energy and exergy

7
W.A. González, et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 14 (2019) 100480

Fig. 5. Effect of airflow rate and pellet glycerol content on gasification process performance.

levels. The tests conducted with an air flow of 0.225 kg/s/m2 reached the highest irreversibilities, which is due to the low quality of
the producer gas attributed to the low Frg (1.92–1.95). Therefore, exergy destruction (irreversibilities) increases. The lower irre-
versibilities reached for G05 with regard to G00 are attributed to a producer gas with high LHVgp.

3.4. Statistical analysis

Table 2 shows the ANOVA results of the multifactorial experimental design with a confidence level of 95% (P-value < 0.05). A
significant effect of the air flow rate on mbms, Frg, Tmax, Ygas, H2, and LHVgp is achieved. Whereas, glycerol content in the fuel
significantly affects H2 concentration. Nevertheless, some P-values closer to 0.05 are observed, hence, with a significance level of
90%, air flow significantly affects Vff, Ychar and CH4; and glycerol content in the fuel affects significantly Tmax and Ygas.
Statistical effects that were found are in agreement with the experimental results, since with the increase of gasifying agent (air) a
higher Vff and biomass consumption are promoted due to the increase of reaction temperature, while the fuel-air equivalence ratio
decreases due to high amount of air involved in the process. Moreover, higher air flows increase the producer gas yield, and the high
reaction rate caused by high temperatures, favors solid-gas reactions. This fact leads to decrease char content in the products of the
gasification process. In addition, the gaseous species concentration in the producer gas diminishes when air flow increases, which is
ascribed to the favored solid-gas conversion and oxidation reactions that lead to obtain a low LHVgp.
A decrease of the maximum reaction temperature (Tmax) when glycerol content in the mixture increases is observed. This behavior
is due to the high penetration of the radiative heat transfer in the solid biomass, which leads to decrease the maximum reaction
temperature in the reaction front, and to decrease the char production in the process. Additionally, it was observed that fuels pellets
with glycerol as binder favor formation of hydrogenated compounds in the producer gas.

4. Conclusions

From the experimental work, where effect of air flow rate of gasifying agent and the glycerol content of pellets on the fixed bed

8
W.A. González, et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 14 (2019) 100480

Table 2
Summary of ANOVA results for the effect of the air flow rate and pellets glycerol content.
Experimental variable Factors

Air flow rate Glycerol content

P-value Effect P-value Effect

Vff 0.0518 Not significant 0.1070 Not significant

mbms 0.0466 Significant 0.4860 Not significant
Frg 0.0115 Significant 0.1412 Not significant
Tmax 0.0123 Significant 0.0543 Not significant
Ygas 0.0106 Significant 0.0660 Not significant
Ychar 0.0589 Not significant 0.1748 Not significant
Ytar 0.1757 Not significant 0.3407 Not significant
CO 0.1799 Not significant 0.6439 Not significant
CO2 0.3636 Not significant 0.7343 Not significant
CH4 0.0967 Not significant 0.3907 Not significant
H2 0.0151 Significant 0.0450 Significant
LHVgp 0.0233 Significant 0.1026 Not significant
CGE 0.1107 Not significant 0.1691 Not significant
CEE 0.1846 Not significant 0.1552 Not significant
I 0.1991 Not significant 0.2949 Not significant

gasification process were evaluated, the following findings can be drawn. The increase of air flow rate leads to increase Vff, mbms, Tmax
and Ygas, whereas, Frg, Ychar, Ytar tend to decrease. Vff and mbms increase because the high gasifying agent flow (air) supplied favors
high reaction temperatures (Tmax), caused by the slight closeness to combustion regimens (decrease of Frg). Increase of Ygas and
decrease of Ychar are attributed to the high amount of air, which favors solid-gas reactions, then, higher oxidation of fuel is obtained.
The Ytar depletion with airflow is attributed to tar cracking reactions, which are favored by high temperatures in the bed. Regarding
quality of producer gas, the increase of air flow leads to decrease combustible species (CO, H2 and CH4) due to the reduction of Frg,
which is caused by higher oxidation of the solid fuel. The depletion of combustible species (CO, H2 and CH4) with airflow has
associated a diminish of the LHVgp by 58.61%.
Regarding glycerol content of pellets, when passing from G00 to G05, an increase of Vff and Ychar was observed, whereas, Frg,
Tmax, Ygas and Ytar decreased. The increase of Vff is attributed to the high reactivity and low packing of G05, which favored the
penetration of the radiative heat transfer in the solid fuel. Therefore, a low Tmax of the process leads to generate low oxidation of the
solid biofuel, that favors the increase of Ychar and the decrease of Ygas. Due to lower density of G05 than the G00, there is not
significant variation of mbms, therefore, the decrease of Frg is attributed to the high Fstq of G05 with regard to G00. Also, when G05 is
used as fuel, hydrogenated gaseous species (H2 and CH4) increased, hence, an increase of LHVgp by 25% for G05 is obtained com-
paring with G00.
The thermodynamic performance of the process, CGE and CEE increase by 63% when air flow varies from 0.75 to 0.150 kg/s/m2,
due to a slight decrease of LHVgp and a high production rate of producer gas in 0.150 kg/s/m2. For an air flow rate of 0.225 kg/s/m2,
the lowest CGE and CEE are obtained. These lowest values are attributed to the low chemical energies and exergies of producer gas.
On the other hand, when G05 was used instead of G00, CGE and CEE increased, due to the highest chemical energies and exergies,
which is ascribed to high production of H2 and CH4. Regarding irreversibilities, a contrary behavior to the one of CGE and CEE was
obtained. The irreversibilities decrease between 9.23 and 34.10%, when the airflow increases from 0.075 to 0.150 kg/s/m2.
Lastly, it is highlighted the feasibility to energy recover from the waste biomass analyzed. Herein, the fallen leaves produced from
the gardens of the University of Antioquia were pelletized and gasified caring the melting point of the ashes. The best gasification
parameters under our experimental conditions (0.150 kg/s/m2 and G05) reached 3.19 MJ/Nm3 of LHVpg, 60.4% of CGE, 55.8% of
CEE, and 10.4% of irreversibility; with a flame front velocity of ∼7 mm/min, 2.2 of fuel-air equivalence ratio, 90.15% of gas and
9.48% of char yields.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the support of the University of Antioquia through the projects PRG2017-16230 and Sostenibilidad
2019–2020, and through Tutor Student Program.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2019.100480.

References

[1] T. Maneerung, X. Li, C. Li, Y. Dai, C.-H. Wang, Integrated downdraft gasification with power generation system and gasification bottom ash reutilization for clean

9
W.A. González, et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 14 (2019) 100480

waste-to-energy and resource recovery system, J. Clean. Prod. 188 (2018) 69–79, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.287.
[2] M. Simone, F. Barontini, C. Nicolella, L. Tognotti, Gasification of pelletized biomass in a pilot scale downdraft gasifier, Bioresour. Technol. 116 (2012) 403–412,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.03.119.
[3] S. Jun, Y. Son, Y. Kim, J. Lee, Gasi fi cation and power generation characteristics of rice husk and rice husk pellet using a downdraft fi xed-bed gasi fi er, Renew.
Energy 42 (2012) 163–167, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.08.028.
[4] A. Strandberg, M. Thyrel, N. Skoglund, T.A. Lestander, M. Broström, R. Backman, Biomass pellet combustion : cavities and ash formation characterized by
synchrotron X-ray micro-tomography, Fuel Process. Technol. 176 (2018) 211–220, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2018.03.023.
[5] A. Gupta, S.K. Thengane, S. Mahajani, CO2gasification of char from lignocellulosic garden waste: experimental and kinetic study, Bioresour. Technol. 263 (2018)
180–191, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.04.097.
[6] A.K. Biswas, M. Rudolfsson, M. Broström, K. Umeki, Effect of pelletizing conditions on combustion behaviour of single wood pellet, Appl. Energy 119 (2014)
79–84, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.12.070.
[7] C. Erlich, E. Bjornbom, D. Bolado, M. Giner, T.H. Fransson, Pyrolysis and gasification of pellets from sugar cane bagasse and wood, Fuel 85 (2006) 1535–1540,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2005.12.005.
[8] D. Sandamali, A. Mueller, S. Fleck, T. Kolb, J. Karol, W. Yang, W. Blasiak, Gasification characteristics of steam exploded biomass in an updraft pilot scale gasi fi
er, Energy 71 (2014) 496–506, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.04.100.
[9] S.K. Sansaniwal, M.A. Rosen, S.K. Tyagi, Global challenges in the sustainable development of biomass gasification: an overview, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 80
(2017) 23–43, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.215.
[10] R. Alamsyah, E.H. Loebis, E. Susanto, L. Junaidi, N.C. Siregar, An experimental study on synthetic gas (syngas) production through gasification of Indonesian
biomass pellet, Energy Procedia 65 (2015) 292–299, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.01.053.
[11] C. Erlich, T.H. Fransson, Downdraft gasification of pellets made of wood , palm-oil residues respective bagasse : experimental study, Appl. Energy 88 (2011)
899–908, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.08.028.
[12] A. Gupta, S.K. Thengane, S. Mahajani, CO2 gasification of char from lignocellulosic garden waste : experimental and kinetic study, Bioresour. Technol. J. 263
(2018) 180–191, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.04.097.
[13] M. Lajili, C. Guizani, F.J.E. Sanz, M. Jeguirim, Fast pyrolysis and steam gasification of pellets prepared from olive oil mill residues, Energy 150 (2018) 61–68,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.02.135.
[14] A. Pa, X.T. Bi, S. Sokhansanj, Bioresource Technology A life cycle evaluation of wood pellet gasification for district heating in British Columbia, Bioresour.
Technol. 102 (2020) 6167–6177, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.02.009.
[15] A. Hilal-alnaqbi, S.B. Al-omari, M.Y.E. Selim, Assessment of tree leaves flakes mixed with crude glycerol as a bioenergy source, BioMed Res. Int. 2016 (2016).
[16] J. Watson, Y. Zhang, B. Si, W.T. Chen, R. de Souza, Gasification of biowaste: a critical review and outlooks, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 83 (2018) 1–17, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.10.003.
[17] M.S. Rao, S.P. Singh, M.S. Sodha, A.K. Dubey, M. Shyam, Stoichiometric, mass, energy and exergy balance analysis of countercurrent fixed-bed gasification of
post-consumer residues, Biomass Bioenergy 27 (2004) 155–171, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2003.11.003.
[18] V.R. Patel, D. Patel, N.S. Varia, R.N. Patel, Co-gasification of lignite and waste wood in a pilot-scale (10 kWe) downdraft gasifier, Energy 119 (2017) 834–844,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.11.057.
[19] R. Toonssen, N. Woudstra, A.H.M. Verkooijen, Exergy analysis of hydrogen production plants based on biomass gasification, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 33 (2008)
4074–4082, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.05.059.
[20] A. Abuadala, I. Dincer, G.F. Natever, Exergy analysis of hydrogen production from biomass gasification, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 35 (2009) 4970–4980, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.08.066.
[21] Y. Wu, W. Yang, W. Blasiak, Energy and exergy analysis of high temperature agent gasification of biomass, Energies 7 (2014) 2107–2122, https://doi.org/10.
3390/en7042107.
[22] D. Iribarren, A. Susmozas, F. Petrakopoulou, J. Dufour, Environmental and exergetic evaluation of hydrogen production via lignocellulosic biomass gasi fi cation,
J. Clean. Prod. 69 (2014) 165–175, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.068.
[23] M. Hosseini, I. Dincer, M.A. Rosen, Steam and air fed biomass gasification : comparisons based on energy and exergy, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 37 (2012)
16446–16452, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.02.115.
[24] J.F. Pérez, P.N. Benjumea, A. Melgar, Sensitivity analysis of a biomass gasification model in fixed bed downdraft reactors : effect of model and process parameters
on reaction front, Biomass Bioenergy 83 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.10.014.
[25] S.R. Turns, An Introduction to Combustion: Concepts and Application, second ed., MacGraw-Hill, Boston, 2000.
[26] H.E. Díez, I. Natalia, J.F. Pérez, Mass, energy, and exergy analysis of the microgasification process in a top- lit updraft reactor, Effects of firewood type and forced
primary airflow 29 (2018) 82–91, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2018.07.003.
[27] Y.A. Lenis, J.F. Pérez, A. Melgar, Fixed bed gasification of Jacaranda Copaia wood: effect of packing factor and oxygen enriched air, Ind. Crops Prod. 84 (2016)
166–175, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.01.053.
[28] A. García-Maraver, V. Popov, M. Zamorano, Data Bank A review of European standards for pellet quality, Renew. Energy 36 (2011) 3537–3540, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2011.05.013.
[29] H.E. Díez, J.F. Pérez, Physicochemical characterization of representative firewood species used for cooking in some Colombian regions, Int. J. Chem. Eng. (2017)
2017.
[30] Z. Liu, A. Quek, R. Balasubramanian, Preparation and characterization of fuel pellets from woody biomass , agro-residues and their corresponding hydrochars,
Appl. Energy 113 (2014) 1315–1322, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.08.087.
[31] W. Stelte, J.K. Holm, A.R. Sanadi, S. Barsberg, J. Ahrenfeldt, U.B. Henriksen, A study of bonding and failure mechanisms in fuel pellets from different biomass
resources, Biomass Bioenergy 35 (2010) 910–918, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.11.003.
[32] P. Guetti, DTG combustion Correlations behaviour of coal, Fuel 65 (1986) 636–639.
[33] Y.A. Lenis, A.F. Agudelo, J.F. Pérez, Analysis of statistical repeatability of a fi xed bed downdraft biomass gasi fi cation facility, Appl. Therm. Eng. 51 (2013)
1006–1016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2012.09.046.
[34] W.A. González, J.F. Pérez, S. Chapela, J. Porteiro, Numerical Analysis of Wood Biomass Packing Factor in a Fixed-Bed Gasification Process vol. 121, (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.01.057.
[35] S. Ramos-carmona, J. Daniel, J.F. Pérez, Industrial Crops & Products Torrefaction of patula pine under air conditions : a chemical and structural characterization,
Ind. Crops Prod. 118 (2018) 302–310, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2018.03.062.
[36] J. Porteiro, D. Patiño, J. Collazo, E. Granada, J. Moran, J.L. Miguez, Experimental analysis of the ignition front propagation of several biomass fuels in a fixed-
bed combustor, Fuel 89 (2010) 26–35, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2009.01.024.
[37] L. Wei, L.O. Pordesimo, A. Haryanto, J. Wooten, Bioresource Technology Co-gasification of hardwood chips and crude glycerol in a pilot scale downdraft gasifier,
Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2011) 6266–6272, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.02.109.
[38] P. Bartocci, G. Bidini, F. Asdrubali, C. Beatrice, F. Frusteri, F. Fantozzi, Batch pyrolysis of pellet made of biomass and crude glycerol : mass and energy balances,
Renew. Energy 124 (2018) 172–179, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.06.049.
[39] J.F. Pérez, A. Melgar, F. V Tinaut, Modeling of fixed bed downdraft biomass gasification : application on lab-scale and industrial reactors, Int. J. Energy Res.
(2014) 319–338, https://doi.org/10.1002/er.
[40] C.A. Estrada, A. Melgar, J.F. Pérez, Performance prediction of a decentralized power plant ( 120 kWe ) using a multi-particle model of a downdraft biomass
gasification process, Energy Convers. Manag. 181 (2019) 258–271, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.12.002.
[41] V.K. Skoulou, A.A. Zabaniotou, Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis Co-gasification of crude glycerol with lignocellulosic biomass for enhanced syngas
production, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 99 (2013) 110–116, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2012.10.015.

10