4.

Results and Discussion

4.1.Measured Parameters
Tables 4 - 7 show the measured parameters acquired during the testing of the fuels. The preheat
temperature, measured from the outer walls of the gasifier, was maintained at temperatures
above 200 °C. The outlet temperature, measured from the immediate pipe leading to the gasoline
generator set, was shown to be at temperatures near or exceeding room temperature. The fuel
weight was measured before feeding the fuel into the gasifier. There was no biomass fuel added
in between the first and second trials for each feed.

Table 4: Measured parameters for coffee husks fuel testing

Parameter Unit Feed 1 Feed 1 Feed 2 Feed 2 Feed 3 Feed 3

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 1 Trial 2
Preheat °C 209 180 227 221 220 204
Temperature
Outlet °C 37 35 34.9 38 40 41
Temperature
Fuel Weight kg 1 1 1 1 1 1
Combustion s 300 300 300 300 300 300
Time

Table 5: Measured parameters for corn cob fuel testing

Parameter Unit Feed 1 Trial 1 Feed 1 Trial 2 Feed 2 Trial 1 Feed 2 Trial 2
Preheat °C 208 208 206.5 201.9
Temperature
Outlet °C 34 34.7 34.7 34.7
Temperature
Fuel Weight kg 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Combustion s 300 300 300 300
Time
 Table 6: Measured parameters for mango pit testing

Parameter Unit Feed 1 Trial 1 Feed 1 Trial 2 Feed 2 Trial 1 Feed 2 Trial 2
Preheat °C 208 208 200 195
Temperature
Outlet °C 40 40 40.8 43
Temperature
Fuel Weight kg 1 1 1 1
Combustion s 300 300 300 300
Time

Table 7: Measured parameters for cogon grass fuel testing

Parameter Unit Feed 1 Feed 1 Feed 2 Feed 2 Feed 3

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 1
Preheat °C 225 225 229 226 218
Temperature
Outlet °C 40 40 40.8 40 40.5
Temperature
Fuel Weight kg 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Combustion s 300 300 300 300 300
Time

A number of trials were performed for each biomass fuel to obtain at least 30 data points in order
to minimize errors and to produce a more accurate tabulation of data. The gathered data for
voltage and current were used to calculate the power output using EQUATION # P=IV.
Figures 6 to 9 below show the power output for each trial per feed of the different biomass fuels.
(6a)

(6b)
(6c)

(6d)
 (6e)

(6f)
Figure 6a-6f: Power output per trial per feed for coffee husk testing
(7a)

(7b)
 (7c)

(7d)
Figure 7a-7d: Power output per trial per feed for corn cob testing
(8a)

(8b)
 (8c)

(8d)
Figure 8a-8d: Power output per trial per feed for mango pit testing
(9a)

(9b)
(9c)

(9d)
 (9e)
Figure 9a-9e: Power output per trial per feed for Cogon grass testing

From the graphs shown in Figures 6 to Figure 9, there are no apparent trends in the generated
power from the gasification process of each biomass fuel. Some trials generate power at an
almost constant level while others show major variances in power output. These differences in
trends between trials are caused by the method by which data points are collected. As there are
no specific pattern and method in recording each data point and data gathering was done by
different members of the group, it is inevitable that the power output trends per trial will differ
from other trials.

Although there are no patterns in the power output of each trial, it can be seen that the first trial
of every feed yields more data points than the succeeding second trial. This is caused by the
amount of producer gas generated inside the gasifier chamber. As explained in the methodology
part of this paper, producer gas generated from the gasification of each biomass fuel is what
allows the generator set to run until the supply of producer gas runs out. Since the gasifier is too
small for the capacity of the generator set, the gasification process cannot keep up with the
consumption of producer gas. Thus, the supply of producer gas runs out until such time when the
gasification process has once again generated ample producer gas for a second trial. However,
the amount of producer gas available for the second trial is considerably less than the amount
consumed during the first trial as the biomass fuel had already been significantly reduced during
the first gasification process. Since no biomass fuel was added in between trials, the operation
time of the first trial is more than that of the second trial. This allowed for more time for data
collection during the first trials of each feed. Table 8 below tabulates the peak and average power
outputs of each biomass fuel testing.

Table 8: Peak and average power output of each biomass fuel

Fuel Peak Power Output (W) Average Power Output (W)
Coffee husk 4860 3263.529
Corn cob 3696 3084.9
Mango pit and peel 2960 2598.611
Cogon grass 2640 2002

The data presented in Figure 3 to Figure 6 were processed to yield 20 median data points for
every biomass fuel testing. The post-processed data for coffee husk testing is listed in Table 9
below.

Table 9: Post-processed data for coffee husk testing

Test Number Current (A) Voltage (V) Power (W)
7 18.8 200 3760
9 16.4 200 3280
11 17.7 200 3540
15 17.2 200 3440
16 16.6 200 3320
19 17.1 200 3420
20 17.6 200 3520
21 16.7 200 3340
27 15.7 200 3140
28 14.8 200 2960
29 15.2 200 3040
31 14.1 200 2820
32 15 200 3000
 33 14.3 200 2860
37 13.9 200 2780
40 15.4 200 3080
42 18.1 200 3620
44 17.7 200 3540
45 14.2 200 2840
47 13.9 200 2780
Average 16.02 200 3204

From the data presented in Table 9, median power output for coffee husk fuel testing is around
2,780 W to 3,760 W with an average power output of 3,204 W. The post-processed data for corn
cob testing is listed in Table 10 below.

Table 10: Post-processed data for corn cob testing

Test Number Current (A) Voltage (V) Power (W)
1 15.3 220 3366
5 14.8 220 3256
11 15.4 220 3388
13 23.1 150 3465
14 22.3 150 3345
15 22.5 150 3375
16 22.1 150 3315
17 22.4 150 3360
18 20.1 150 3015
19 19.9 150 2985
20 20.4 150 3060
21 19.5 150 2925
22 24.5 130 3185
23 23.6 130 3068
24 23.4 130 3042
25 22.4 130 2912
26 22.3 130 2899
27 22.6 130 2938
28 22.6 130 2938
29 23.4 130 3042
Average 21.13 152.5 3143.95
From the data presented in Table 10, median power output for corn cob fuel testing is around
2,899 W to 3,465 W with an average power output of 3,413.95 W. This is 1.87% less than that of
coffee husk testing. This minimal difference in average power output is due to the heating value
of coffee husk and corn cob as they have an almost equal higher heating value at 18.9 for coffee
husk and 18.7 for corn cob. The post-processed data for mango pit testing is listed in Table 11
below.

Table 11: Post-processed data for mango pit testing

Test Number Current (A) Voltage (V) Power (W)
1 23.3 100 2330
2 26.7 100 2670
4 26.2 100 2620
5 25.4 100 2540
6 27.6 100 2760
7 26.7 100 2670
8 27.9 100 2790
10 25.1 100 2510
12 27.6 100 2760
14 28.1 100 2810
16 27.3 100 2730
19 25.5 100 2550
22 26.3 100 2630
25 25.6 100 2560
27 27.1 100 2710
31 22.9 100 2290
34 27.4 100 2740
35 27.7 100 2770
36 26.6 100 2660
37 27.7 100 2770
Average 26.435 100 2643.5

From the data presented in Table 11, median power output for mango pit fuel testing is around
2,290 W to 2,810 W with an average power output of 2,643.5 W. This is 15.92% less than that of
corn cob testing and 17.49% less than that of coffee husk testing. The post-processed data for
corn cob testing is listed in Table 12 below.
 Table 12: Post-processed data for Cogon grass testing
Test Number Current (A) Voltage (V) Power (W)
2 28.7 80 2296
3 22.2 80 1776
4 22.3 80 1784
6 28.7 80 2296
10 26.9 80 2152
13 29.2 80 2336
14 28.7 80 2296
16 28.6 60 1716
17 29.4 60 1764
20 29.9 60 1794
22 28.9 60 1734
23 28.8 60 1728
27 29.2 60 1752
29 29 80 2320
31 28.1 80 2248
32 27.5 80 2200
33 24.4 80 1952
34 22.5 80 1800
35 25.1 80 2008
36 23.3 80 1864
Average 27.07 74 1990.8

From the data presented in Table 12, median power output for Cogon grass fuel testing is around
1,716 W to 2,336 W with an average power output of 2,002 W. This is 24.69% less than that of
mango pit testing, 36.68% less than that of corn cub testing, and 37.87% less than that of coffee
husk testing. These variances in average power output are caused by the heating value of the
different fuels. Fuels with high heating value can generate more power than those with lower
heating value. This is depicted in EQUATION # P=mHV where power is directly proportional
to the mass flow rate and heating value of the fuel. Figure 10 below illustrates the effect of the
heating value of the fuel on the amount of power generated by the gasification process of the
different biomass fuels.
 Figure 10. Fuel vs. higher heating value and power

From the graph presented in Figure 10, it can be seen that the power output line follows the same
trend as the heating value line. This, as aforementioned, is due to EQUATION # P=mHV where
power generated is directly proportional to the heating value of the fuel used. In order to observe
the effect of the mass flow rate on the power generated, the average power output of each feed
for every biomass fuel was processed in order to obtain the adjusted power output per kilogram
of fuel input. Table 13 below lists this data. Adjusted power output was obtained by calculating
the average power output per feed assuming a mass input of one kilogram.

Table 13: Average power output per kilogram of biomass fuel input
Fuel Feed Number Mass Input (kg) Average Power Output (W) Adjusted Power Output (W)
Feed 1 1 2951.764706 2951.764706
Coffee husk Feed 2 1 3583.75 3583.75
Feed 3 1 3273.333333 3273.333333
Feed 1 0.75 3085.5 4114
Corn cob
Feed 2 0.75 3084.5 4112.666667
Feed 1 1 2550 2550
Mango pit
Feed 2 1 2580 2580
 Feed 1 0.5 2305.142857 4610.285714
Cogon grass Feed 2 0.5 1638.857143 3277.714286
Feed 3 0.5 2107 4214
.
From the presented data in Table 13, it can be seen that the adjusted power output does not
follow the same trend as that shown in Figure 10. From EQUATION # P=mHV, however,
power output is directly proportional to the mass flow input and the heating value. Assuming a
constant mass flow input of one kilogram for all biomass fuels with varying heating values, the
power output for each biomass fuel must then follow the same trend as that of its heating values.
Since the adjusted power output does not follow the same trend, it means that the mass flow
input referred to in the EQUATION # P=mHV is the mass flow input of the producer gas rather
than the mass flow input of the biomass fuel.

Figures 11-14 are illustrated below in order to study the effect of gasifier properties such as
preheat and outlet temperatures.

Coffee Husk
4000

3500
Average Power Output (W)

3000

2500

2000
Power
1500

1000

500

0
180 204 209 220 221 227
Preheat Temperature (C)

(11a)
 Coffee Husk
4000

3500
Average Power Output (W)

3000

2500

2000
Power
1500

1000

500

0
34.9 35 37 38 40 41
Outlet Temperature (C)

(11b)
Figure 11a-11b: Average power output at the different preheat and outlet temperatures for
coffee husk testing

Corn Cob
3500

3400
Average Power Output (W)

3300

3200

3100
Power
3000

2900

2800
201.9 206.5 208 208
Preheat Temperature (C)

(12a)
 Corn Cob
3500

3400
Average Power Output

3300

3200

3100
Power

3000

2900

2800
34 34.7 34.7 34.7
Outlet Temperature (C)

(12b)
Figure 12a-12b: Average power output at the different preheat and outlet temperatures for corn
cob testing

Mango Pit
2750

2700
Average Power Output (W)

2650

2600
Power
2550

2500

2450
195 200 208 208
Preheat Temperature (C)

(13a)
 Mango Pit
2750

2700
Average Power Output (W)

2650

2600
Power
2550

2500

2450
40 40 40.8 43
Outlet Temperature (C)

(13b)
Figure 13a-13b: Average power output at the different preheat and outlet temperatures for
mango pit testing

Cogon Grass
2500
Average Power Output (W)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
218 225 225 226 229
Preheat Temperature (C)

(14a)
 Cogon Grass
2500
Average Power Output (W)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
40 40 40 40.5 40.8
Outlet Temperature (C)

(14b)
Figure 14a-14b: Average power output at the different preheat and outlet temperatures for
Cogon grass testing

From Figures 11-14, it can be seen that the preheat and outlet temperatures have no significant
effects on the power generated by the gasification process of different biomass fuels. There are
also no visible trends on any biomass fuel.

To check for the efficiency of the gasifier system, Table 14 tabulates the average power output
for each biomass fuel and their efficiency given a target of five kW.

Table 14: Efficiency of each biomass fuel

Fuel Average Power Output (W) Efficiency (%)
Coffee husk 3204 64.08
Corn cob 3143.95 62.879
Mango pit 2643.5 52.87
Cogon grass 1990.8 39.816
5. Conclusion and Recommendations
5.1. Summary of Results
From the results gathered from the experimentation, it can be seen that the main factor that
affects the power output for each biomass fuel is its heating value. The higher the heating value
of the fuel, the more power it can generate by means of gasification process of the fuel. The
gasifier specifications and properties such as the preheat and output temperatures do not have
any effect on the power generation of the system. It is important to note, however, that the
gasification process performed in this study was maintained at a preheat temperature of at least
200°C. Also, the dimensions of the gasifier are too small to supply a continuous amount of
producer gas for power generation.

5.2. Plans for Future Work

It is recommended for future studies that the gasifier to be used have proper sealing in order to
avoid producer gas from leaking out of the system and to increase efficiency. A mechanism that
would allow biomass fuel to be constantly fed into the gasifier without letting much producer gas
from leaking is also recommended as this would allow for a continuous supply of producer gas to
avoid intermittency.