The optimization of in-situ tar reduction and syngas production on a 60-kW three-staged biomass gasification system: theoretical and practical approach

  • Shanhui ZhaoEmail author
  • Xiaolong Bi
  • Xiaojun Pan
  • Yi Su
  • Wenguang Wu
Original Article


In order to develop more efficient biomass thermochemical conversion technology, a 60-kW three-staged biomass gasification system was constructed, and pinewood was used as material to investigate the effect of key influential factors on gasifier operation. Results show that the tar yield in pyrolysis stage was around 43,023 mg/Nm3, which was mainly consisted of primary tar compounds, such as acids, furans, and phenols. Sum of phenols compounds account for about 50.1% of total tar compounds. With the increase of excess air coefficient, the temperature of char-bed was improved, which benefited the reduction reactions in char bed. At ER = 0.35, the operation of the gasifier achieved an optimization value: gasification efficiency, carbon conversion rate, and tar yield were 76.77%, 81.91%, and 99 mg/Nm3 respectively. Subsequently, a 3D CFD (computational fluid dynamics) model of the throat section was built. Six kinds of air injection styles were designed and simulated. Results show that tangential air blow with reasonable angle (θ = 30° in this work) improves the flow field in the furnace and eliminate flow stagnation zone near the wall, which benefits the tar cracking in the throat section.

Graphical abstract


Biomass Tar Gasification Excess air coefficient CFD 


Funding information

This work was supported by Science Foundation of Nanjing Institute of Technology (YKJ201813) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51706094).


  1. 1.
    Bridgwater A (1995) The technical and economic feasibility of biomass gasification for power generation. Fuel 74(5):631–653. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Czernik S, Bridgwater A (2004) Overview of applications of biomass fast pyrolysis oil. Energy Fuel 18(2):590–598. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bridgwater A (2003) Renewable fuels and chemicals by thermal processing of biomass. Chem Eng J 91(2):87–102. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vreugdenhil B, Zwart R, Neeft JPA (2009) Tar formation in pyrolysis and gasification. ECN.
  5. 5.
    Han J, Kim H (2008) The reduction and control technology of tar during biomass gasification/pyrolysis: an overview. Renew Sust Energ Rev 12(2):397–416. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zwart R, van der Heijden S, Emmen R, Dall Bentzen J, Ahrenfeldt J, Stoholm P, Krogh J (2010) Tar removal from low-temperature gasifiers. Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN)
  7. 7.
    Fjellerup J, Ahrenfeldt J, Henriksen U, Gøbel B (2005) Formation, decomposition and cracking of biomass tars in gasification. Technical University of Denmark. Department of Mechanical Engineering.
  8. 8.
    Beaty P Nexterra-gasification of bark–a pragmatic development roadmap for gasification. In: TAPPI 2007 International Conference on Renewable Energy, May, 2007. pp 10–11Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Neubert M, Reil S, Wolff M, Pöcher D, Stork H, Ultsch C, Meiler M, Messer J, Kinzler L, Dillig M (2017) Experimental comparison of solid phase adsorption (SPA), activated carbon test tubes and tar protocol (DIN CEN/TS 15439) for tar analysis of biomass derived syngas. Biomass Bioenergy 105:443–452. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Simell P, Ståhlberg P, Kurkela E, Albrecht J, Deutsch S, Sjöström K (2000) Provisional protocol for the sampling and anlaysis of tar and particulates in the gas from large-scale biomass gasifiers. Version 1998. Biomass Bioenergy 18(1):19–38. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Su Y, Luo Y, Chen Y, Wu W, Zhang Y (2011) Experimental and numerical investigation of tar destruction under partial oxidation environment. Fuel Process Technol 92(8):1513–1524. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brandt P, Larsen E, Henriksen U (2000) High tar reduction in a two-stage gasifier. Energy Fuel 14(4):816–819. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Henriksen U, Ahrenfeldt J, Jensen TK, Gøbel B, Bentzen JD, Hindsgaul C, Sørensen LH (2006) The design, construction and operation of a 75 kW two-stage gasifier. Energy 31(10–11):1542–1553. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kan T, Strezov V, Evans TJ (2016) Lignocellulosic biomass pyrolysis: a review of product properties and effects of pyrolysis parameters. Renew Sust Energ Rev 57:1126–1140. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang S, Dai G, Yang H, Luo Z (2017) Lignocellulosic biomass pyrolysis mechanism: a state-of-the-art review. Prog Energy Combust Sci 62:33–86. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bu Q, Lei H, Zacher AH, Wang L, Ren S, Liang J, Wei Y, Liu Y, Tang J, Zhang Q (2012) A review of catalytic hydrodeoxygenation of lignin-derived phenols from biomass pyrolysis. Bioresour Technol 124:470–477. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Amen-Chen C, Pakdel H, Roy C (2001) Production of monomeric phenols by thermochemical conversion of biomass: a review. Bioresour Technol 79(3):277–299. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    El-Rub ZA, Bramer EA, Brem G (2008) Experimental comparison of biomass chars with other catalysts for tar reduction. Fuel 87(10–11):2243–2252. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shen Y (2015) Chars as carbonaceous adsorbents/catalysts for tar elimination during biomass pyrolysis or gasification. Renew Sust Energ Rev 43:281–295. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Philopp Morf PH, Nussbaumer T (2002) Mechanisms and kinetics of homogeneous secondary reactions of tar from continuous pyrolysis of wood chips. Fuel 81:843–853. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jess A (1995) Reaktionskinetische Untersuchungen zur thermischen Zersetzung von Modellkohlenwasserstoffen. Erdol Erdgas Kohle 111(11):479–484Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Duffy NT, Eaton JA (2013) Investigation of factors affecting channelling in fixed-bed solid fuel combustion using CFD. Combustion and flame 160(10):2204–2220. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bryden KMRK (1996) Numerical modeling of a deep, fixed bed combustor. Energy Fuel 10:269–275. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Westbrook CKDF (1984) Chemical kinetic modeling of hydrocarbon combustion. Prog Energy Combust Sci 10:1–57. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    DONGHOON SHINSC (2000) The combustion of simulated waste particles in a fixed bed. Combustion and Flame 121(1–2):167–180. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    RPL WPJ (1988) Global reaction schemes for hydrocarbon combustion. Combustion and Flame 73(233–249).
  27. 27.
    Blasi CD (2000) Dynamic behaviour of stratied downdraft gasiers. Chem Eng Sci 55:2931–2944. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Biba VMJ, Klose E, Malecha J (1978) Mathematical model for the gasification of coal under pressure. Ind Eng Chem Process Des Dev 17:92–98. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jess A (1996) Mechanisms and kinetics of thermal reactions of aromatic hydrocarbons from pyrolysis of solid fuels. Fuel 75(12):1441–1448. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shanhui Zhao
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Xiaolong Bi
    • 1
  • Xiaojun Pan
    • 1
  • Yi Su
    • 2
  • Wenguang Wu
    • 2
  1. 1.Nanjing Institute of TechnologyNanjingChina
  2. 2.Shanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations