NUMERICAL MODELING OF BIOMASS GASIFICATION USING COW DUNG AS FEEDSTOCK

doi:10.15302/J-FASE-2023500

Front. Agr. Sci. Eng.

2023, Vol. 10

Issue (3) : 458-467 https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FASE-2023500

RESEARCH ARTICLE

NUMERICAL MODELING OF BIOMASS GASIFICATION USING COW DUNG AS FEEDSTOCK

Yajun ZHANG¹, Sen YAO¹(

), Jianjun HU¹, Jiaxi XIA¹, Tao XIE², Zhibin ZHANG¹, Hai LI¹

¹. Key Laboratory of New Materials and Facilities for Rural Renewable Energy of Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Mechanical & Electrical Engineering, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450002, China
². Institute of Industrial Catalysis, School of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China

Download: PDF(2551 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

● Gasification of cow dung was evaluated using Aspen Plus software.

● Optimum reaction conditions were utilized to maximize hydrogen production.

● Steam gasification can effectively increase hydrogen production.

● Optimum hydrogen production was achieved at 800 °C and steam/biomass of 1.5 and 0.1 MPa.

In this study, a biomass gasification model was developed and simulated based on Gibbs free energy minimization by using software Aspen Plus. Two reactors, RYIELD and RGIBBS, were moslty used. The biomass feedstock used was cow dung. The model was validated. The composition, H₂/CO ratio and low heating value (LHV) of the resulting synthetic gas (also known as syngas) was estimated by changing the operating parameters of gasification temperatures, steam and biomass ratios and pressures. Simulation results showed that increased gasification temperature helped to elevate H₂ and CO content and H₂ peaked at 900 °C. When steam increased as the gasification agent, H₂ production increased. However, the steam/biomass (S/B) ratio negatively affected CO and CH₄, resulting in lower LHV. The optimal S/B ratio was 1.5. An increase in pressure lead to a decrease in H₂ and CO content, so the optimal pressure for gasification was 0.1 MPa.

Keywords Aspen Plus biomass gasification manure of livestock and poultry simulation syngas

Corresponding Author(s): Sen YAO

Online First Date: 06 June 2023 Issue Date: 20 September 2023

Cite this article:

Yajun ZHANG,Sen YAO,Jianjun HU, et al. NUMERICAL MODELING OF BIOMASS GASIFICATION USING COW DUNG AS FEEDSTOCK[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2023, 10(3): 458-467.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fase/EN/10.15302/J-FASE-2023500
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fase/EN/Y2023/V10/I3/458

Fig.1 Flow chart of biomass gasification.

Tab.1 FORTRAN statement

Tab.2 Functions of Aspen Plus modules

Reactions	Heat of reaction (kJ·mol⁻¹)	Reaction number
$C + O 2 → C O 2$	−394	R1
$C + 0.5 O 2 = C O$	−111	R2
$C + C O 2 → 2 C O$	+172	R3
$C + H 2 O → H 2 + C O$	+131	R4
$C + 2 H 2 O → C O 2 + 2 H 2$	+77	R5
$C O + H 2 O → C O 2 + H 2$	−41	R6
$C H 4 + H 2 O → C O + 3 H 2$	+206	R7
$C + 2 H 2 → C H 4$	−75	R8

Tab.3 Gasification reactions

Tab.4 Biomass composition analysis

Tab.5 Manure gasification simulation parameters

Tab.6 Comparison of simulated and experimental values

Fig.2 Effects of temperature on gasification results.

Fig.3 Effects of steam/biomass (S/B) ratio on resulting gasification results.

Fig.4 Effects of pressure on gasification results.

Fig.5 Effects of low heating value (LHV) and H₂/CO varying with different temperatures and steam/biomass ratios.

Fig.6 Effect of pressure on syngas low heating value (LHV) and H₂/CO ratio.

1	G, Katsaros D S, Pandey A, Horvat G A, Almansa L E, Fryda J J, Leahy S A Tassou . Experimental investigation of poultry litter gasification and co-gasification with beech wood in a bubbling fluidised bed reactor—Effect of equivalence ratio on process performance and tar evolution. Fuel, 2020, 262: 116660 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.116660
2	S, Valizadeh H, Hakimian A, Farooq B H, Jeon W H, Chen Lee S, Hoon S C, Jung Seo M, Won Y K Park . Valorization of biomass through gasification for green hydrogen generation: a comprehensive review. Bioresource Technology, 2022, 365: 128143 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2022.128143 pmid: 36265786
3	P, Lv R, Wu J, Wang Y, Bai L, Ding J, Wei X, Song G Yu . Energy recovery of livestock manure and industrial sludge by co-hydrocarbonisation coupled to pyrolysis and gasification. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2022, 374: 133996 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133996
4	A L Jr, Maglinao S C, Capareda H Nam . Fluidized bed gasification of high tonnage sorghum, cotton gin trash and beef cattle manure: Evaluation of synthesis gas production. Energy Conversion and Management, 2015, 105: 578–587 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.08.005
5	H, Wu M A, Hanna D D Jones . Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions of feedlot manure management practices: land application versus gasification. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2013, 54: 260–266 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.04.011
6	J, Jia L, Shu G, Zang L, Xu A, Abudula K Ge . Energy analysis and techno-economic assessment of a co-gasification of woody biomass and animal manure, solid oxide fuel cells and micro gas turbine hybrid system. Energy, 2018, 149: 750–761 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.02.057
7	M, Fernandez-Lopez J, Pedroche J L, Valverde L Sanchez-Silva . Simulation of the gasification of animal wastes in a dual gasifier using Aspen Plus (R). Energy Conversion and Management, 2017, 140: 211–217 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.03.008
8	H K, Jeswani A, Whiting A, Martin A Azapagic . Environmental and economic sustainability of poultry litter gasification for electricity and heat generation. Waste Management, 2019, 95: 182–191 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.05.053 pmid: 31351603
9	M, Tańczuk R, Junga S, Werle M, Chabinski L Ziolkowski . Experimental analysis of the fixed bed gasification process of the mixtures of the chicken manure with biomass. Renewable Energy, 2019, 136: 1055–1063 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.05.074
10	S, Zhou L, Han G, Huang Z, Yang J Peng . Pyrolysis characteristics and gaseous product release properties of different livestock and poultry manures: comparative study regarding influence of inherent alkali metals. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 2018, 134: 343–350 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2018.06.024
11	G, Katsaros D S, Pandey A, Horvat G A, Almansa L E, Fryda J J, Leahy S A Tassou . Gasification of poultry litter in a lab-scale bubbling fluidised bed reactor: impact of process parameters on gasifier performance and special focus on tar evolution. Waste Management, 2019, 100: 336–345 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.09.014 pmid: 31581030
12	G, Zhu J, Huang Z, Wan H, Ling Q Xu . Cow dung gasification process for hydrogen production using water vapor as gasification agent. Processes, 2022, 10(7): 1257 https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10071257
13	Priall O, De C, Brandoni V, Gogulancea M, Jaffar N J, Hewitt K, Zhang Y Huang . Gasification of Biowaste Based on Validated Computational Simulations: A Circular Economy Model to Handle Poultry Litter Waste. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 2022, 13(9): 3899–3911 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-022-01815-9
14	N D, Couto V B, Silva E, Monteiro A Rouboa . Assessment of municipal solid wastes gasification in a semi-industrial gasifier using syngas quality indices. Energy, 2015, 93(Part 1): 864−873
15	Y, Xin H, Cao Q, Yuan D Wang . Two-step gasification of cattle manure for hydrogen-rich gas production: effect of biochar preparation temperature and gasification temperature. Waste Management, 2017, 68: 618–625 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.06.007 pmid: 28623020
16	A A Rabah . Livestock manure availability and syngas production: a case of Sudan. Energy, 2022, 259: 124980 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.124980
17	L, Tian E, Wang L, Liu R, Zhao S Zhi . Investigation on the gasification behavior and kinetic analysis of cattle manure under the flue gas atmosphere. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery, 2022 [Published Online] doi:
18	D S, Pandey E, Yazhenskikh M, Müeller M, Ziegner A, Trubetskaya J J, Leahy M Kwapinska . Transformation of inorganic matter in poultry litter during fluidised bed gasification. Fuel Processing Technology, 2021, 221: 106918 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2021.106918
19	P C, Roy A, Datta N Chakraborty . Assessment of cow dung as a supplementary fuel in a downdraft biomass gasifier. Renewable Energy, 2010, 35(2): 379–386 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2009.03.022
20	X, Xiao D D, Le L, Li X, Meng J, Cao K, Morishita T Takarada . Catalytic steam gasification of biomass in fluidized bed at low temperature: conversion from livestock manure compost to hydrogen-rich syngas. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2010, 34(10): 1505–1512 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.05.001
21	G, Cavalaglio V, Coccia F, Cotana M, Gelosia A, Nicolini A Petrozzi . Energy from poultry waste: an Aspen Plus-based approach to the thermo-chemical processes. Waste Management, 2018, 73: 496–503 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.05.037 pmid: 28579143
22	A, Horvat D S, Pandey M, Kwapinska B B, Mello A, Gómez-Barea L E, Fryda L P L M, Rabou W, Kwapinski J J Leahy . Tar yield and composition from poultry litter gasification in a fluidised bed reactor: effects of equivalence ratio, temperature and limestone addition. RSC Advances, 2019, 9(23): 13283–13296 https://doi.org/10.1039/C9RA02548K pmid: 35520763
23	G, Katsaros D S, Pandey A, Horvat S Tassou . Low temperature gasification of poultry litter in a lab-scale fluidized reactor. Energy Procedia, 2019, 161: 57–65 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2019.02.058
24	N C, Taupe D, Lynch R, Wnetrzak M, Kwapinska W, Kwapinski J J Leahy . Updraft gasification of poultry litter at farm-scale—A case study. Waste Management, 2016, 50: 324–333 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.02.036 pmid: 26948170
25	L, Liu Y, Huang C Liu . Prediction of rice husk gasification on fluidized bed gasifier based on Aspen Plus. BioResources, 2016, 11(1): 2744–2755 https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.11.1.2744-2755
26	M, Puig-Arnavat J C, Bruno A Coronas . Review and analysis of biomass gasification models. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2010, 14(9): 2841–2851 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.07.030
27	M, Al-Zareer I, Dincer M A Rosen . Influence of selected gasification parameters on syngas composition from biomass gasification. Journal of Energy Resources Technology, 2018, 140(4): 041803 https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4039601
28	S M, Beheshti H, Ghassemi R Shahsavan-Markadeh . Process simulation of biomass gasification in a bubbling fluidized bed reactor. Energy Conversion and Management, 2015, 94: 345–352 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.01.060
29	M, Niu Y, Huang B, Jin X Wang . Simulation of syngas production from municipal solid waste gasification in a bubbling fluidized bed using Aspen Plus. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2013, 52(42): 14768–14775 https://doi.org/10.1021/ie400026b
30	Andrés J M, de M, Vedrenne M, Brambilla E Rodríguez . Modeling and model performance evaluation of sewage sludge gasification in fluidized-bed gasifiers using Aspen Plus. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 2018, 69(1): 1–11 pmid: 30325261
31	F, Huang S Jin . Investigation of biomass (pine wood) gasification: experiments and Aspen Plus simulation. Energy Science & Engineering, 2019, 7(4): 1178–1187 https://doi.org/10.1002/ese3.338
32	M N, Nguyen F, Alobaid B Epple . Process simulation of steam gasification of torrefied woodchips in a bubbling fluidized bed reactor using Aspen Plus. Applied Sciences, 2021, 11(6): 2877 https://doi.org/10.3390/app11062877
33	C A, Wang M, Luo G, Tang L, Jin L, Zhao D Che . Staged co-gasification characteristics of pyrolyzed semi-coke and antibiotic filter residue under oxy-fuel condition. Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2022, 17(5): e2812 https://doi.org/10.1002/apj.2812
34	K, Liu Q, Yuan Y, Tian Y, Xin H Cao . Characteristics of pyrolysis and gasify products of cattle manure in two high temperature modes of multi-stage pyrolysis process. Acta Energiae Solaris Sinica, 2019, 40(7): 1980−1988 (in Chinese)
35	M, Faraji M Saidi . Hydrogen-rich syngas production via integrated configuration of pyrolysis and air gasification processes of various algal biomass: process simulation and evaluation using Aspen Plus software. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2021, 46(36): 18844–18856 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.03.047
36	M P, González-Vázquez F, Rubiera C, Pevida D T, Pio L A C Tarelho . Thermodynamic analysis of biomass gasification using Aspen Plus: comparison of stoichiometric and non-stoichiometric models. Energies, 2021, 14(1): 189 https://doi.org/10.3390/en14010189
37	M, Shahabuddin S Bhattacharya . Co-gasification characteristics of coal and biomass using CO2 reactant under thermodynamic equilibrium modelling. Energies, 2021, 14(21): 7384 https://doi.org/10.3390/en14217384
38	J, Favas E, Monteiro A Rouboa . Hydrogen production using plasma gasification with steam injection. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2017, 42(16): 10997–11005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.03.109

[1]	Yulin HU, Kang KANG, Iker Zulbaran ALVAREZ, Nasim MIA, Aadesh RAKHRA. SIMULATION OF O₂-BLOWN CO-GASIFICATION OF WOOD CHIP AND POTATO PEEL FOR PRODUCING SYNGAS[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2023, 10(3): 448-457.
[2]	John NSOR-ATINDANA, Maoshen CHEN, Liu WEI, Khin Myat NOE, Yue LI, Fang ZHONG. *Implications of static in vitro* digestion of starch in the presence of dietary fiber**[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2018, 5(3): 340-350.
[3]	Yongjun ZHENG, Shenghui YANG, Xingxing LIU, Jie WANG, Tomas NORTON, Jian CHEN, Yu TAN. The computational fluid dynamic modeling of downwash flow field for a six-rotor UAV[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2018, 5(2): 159-167.
[4]	Yifu ZHANG,Hongwen LI,Jin HE,Qingjie WANG,Ying CHEN,Wanzhi CHEN,Shaochun MA. Effect of mulching with maize straw on water infiltration and soil loss at different initial soil moistures in a rainfall simulation[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2016, 3(2): 161-170.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed