[TCBiomass2011]

Variation of Feedstock in a Dual Fluidized Bed Steam Gasifier Influence on Product Gas, Tar Content
and Composition
Johannes C. Schmid, Ute Wolfesberger, Stefan Koppatz, Christoph Pfeifer, and Hermann Hofbauer
Vienna University of Technology, Institute of Chemical Engineering, Getreidemarkt 9, A-1060 Vienna, Austria
Corresponding author: Email: johannes.schmid@tuwien.ac.at, Tel.: +43 1 58801 166 385
A steam blown dual fluidized bed gasification
plant was used to yield a nitrogen (N2) free product
gas (synthesis gas) from various biomass fuels. In
addition to the variation of process parameters like
temperature, steam to carbon ratio, fluidization
rate and the influence of different bed materials,
various feedstock inputs affected the generation of
the product gas. This study focuses on the
gasification of different biomass feedstock. The
variation of biomass implies wood chips, wood
pellets, sewage sludge pellets and straw pellets. The
chosen evaluated experimental results are all
gained from the uniformly operated classical
100kWth DualFluid gasifier at Vienna University
of Technology at constant gasification temperatures
between 800C and 810C. The composition and
ash melting behavior of each feedstock is displayed,
as well as the ranges of the product gas
compositions generated. Beside the main gaseous
product gas components, typical content ranges of
dust and char are highlighted. The content and
composition of tar in the product gas is discussed.
Further it is possible to present gravimetrical and
GCMS measured tar values. Not less than five
significant component-groups of tar will also be
outlined for each feedstock.
Keywords: biomass, gasification,
circulating fluidized bed, synthesis gas

reforming,

INTRODUCTION
The thermo-chemical conversion of biogenous
feedstock is a promising option to advance the ecofriendly and efficient production of heat and power,
as well as the generation of valuable products for
chemical the industry based on renewable sources.
Biomass is particularly relevant as this feedstock
constitutes the only carbon source available within
the range of renewables [1].
Fluidized bed processing is applied by
preference for the gasification of various carbonic
fuels, and therefore also for biomass. This
technology intensely promotes the conversion of
the solid feedstock into a valuable gas by an
excellent gas-solid contact and heat transfer. The
application of biomass derived product gas as
precursor for various syntheses might increase the
share of renewables in the chemical industry in
contrast to fossil fuels. Air blown fluidized bed
concepts were proposed for the gasification of
biomass. However, conventional gasification with

air yields a product gas which is highly diluted with

nitrogen, to the disadvantage of the heating values
of the product gas (4 to 6MJ/mstp). In contrast, a
dual fluidized bed (DFB) steam gasifier system
enables the generation of a nitrogen free product
gas [2, 3].

Fig. 1: Basic principal of the DualFluid gasification technology

The successful and prominent DualFluid

gasification technology for biomass was developed
at the Vienna University of Technology in the
nineties [4, 5]. The basic principal of dual fluidized
bed gasification is shown in Figure 1. The product
gas and syngas yielded has a high heating value of
11 to 15MJ/mstp. This reactor concept combines a
steam blown bubbling fluidized bed and an air
blown fast fluidized bed. Loop seals enable a
continuous circulation of solids between the
separate reactor parts. A circulation of solids
matter, which mainly involves bed material, serves
to transport heat to the gasification zone. Heat
transfer to the fuel particles and the conversion of
biomass into a hydrogen rich product gas with high
specific energy content take place in contact with
bed material particles inside the bubbling fluidized
bed. The heat demand for the allothermal steam
gasification is generated in a fast fluidized bed by
combustion of residual char with air. This part of
the system is necessary for the required circulation
rate of bed material particles. Therefore the
fluidized bed in the combustion zone has an
efficient transport characteristic.
The dual fluidized bed concept is highly
qualified for scale up. The technical feasibility of
the DualFluid technology has been proven in the
early 2000s with the combined heat and power
plant (CHP) Gssing in Austria [6, 7]. In particular,
a wide range of experimental data was gathered at
several but almost similar generations of 100kWth

dual fluidized bed pilot plants at the Vienna

University of Technology [8]. These data highly
supported the scale up of the CHP Gssing with a
fuel input of 8MWth [9]. A sketch of the reactor
system and a basic energy flow sheet of the CHP in
Gssing are displayed in Figure 2 and Figure 3.
With regard to efficiency consideration it has to be
mentioned that a process of drying the wet wood
chips is not realized in Gssing. The cold gas
efficiency would be significantly higher with drying
the feedstock by theoretically usable heat.
Further CHP based on the DualFluid concept
went into operation in Oberwart/Austria [10], or are
currently
being
erected
and
undergoing
commissioning [11, 12]. However, the technology
has to meet new challenges. The system flexibility
with regard to the application of different feedstock
is a major issue of current experimental research
[13 - 18]. Beside the application of conventional
wood as feedstock, it is aimed to enlarge the range
of applicable fuels. Thus, the extension of the
feedstock basis for the dual fluidized bed system
promotes the flexibility in terms of the economy of
the system [19]. The current work outlines the
technical feasibility of different feedstock. The
chosen evaluated data are all gained from the
uniformly operated 100kWth gasification plant at
Vienna University of Technology. Due to the up
scaling potential of DFB gasification processes, the
clearly arranged results in this publication are
highly valuable and representative for larger
gasification plants using the same steam blown
DualFluid technology.

Fig. 2: Reactor system of the 8MWth CHP in Gssing/Austria

Fig. 3: Basic energy flow sheet of the CHP in Gssing/Austria

EXPERIMENTAL
Figure 4 presents the 100kWth gasifier at the
Vienna University of Technology. All important
elements like loop seals, process media inputs,
solids separator and various feedstock hopper
arrangements are visible in this sketch. The dashed
line indicates the global solids circulation rate of
the bed material in the reactor system. Olivine sand
with a mean particle diameter of 0.5mm is used as
the bed material. Feedstock hopper 1 was used for
all experimental results presented in this
publication. Thus, the fuel input was always
realized directly into the bubbling fluidized bed of
the gasification reactor, which favors a prompt
intermixing of fuel particles into the fluidized bed
in contrast to top-down charging of the fuel
particles. There are specific requirements of the
feeding system in order to ensure the transport of
fuels with various calorific values and size
distribution. As the feeding system of solid fuels is
a very important part of a gasification plant,
especially at industrial scale [20], a few words are
required to explain the other hopper installations.
The feeding arrangement of hopper 3 is equivalent
to a spreader feeding. It enables a comparison of
different locations of fuel input. The partially water
cooled screw feeding equipment of hopper 4 allows
the possibility of feeding materials with low
melting temperatures. In order to guarantee the
highest safety demands, all hoppers of the 100kWth
gasification plant are locked gas tight and flushed
with nitrogen. For comparison of the experimental

results the gasification process of all experiments

took place within a temperature range of 800C to
810C, which corresponds to the temperature of the
bubbling bed. To point out typical conditions of
fluid dynamics the ranges of operating parameters
for the gasification reactor during all performed
experiments of this publication are displayed in
Table 1.
Table 1: Typical ranges of operating conditions of the 100kWth
gasifier plant at the Vienna University of Technology (values for
bubbling fluidized gasification reactor)
bed material
size distribution
m
minimum fluidization velocity Umf
m/s
terminal velocity Ut
m/s
steam to fuel ratio
kgH2O/kgfuel,dry
thermal power, feed gasifier
kW
temperature in gasifier
C
superficial gas velocity U
m/s
fluidization ratio U/Ut
fluidization ratio U/Umf
-

olivine
400 600
0.08 0.18
3.8 6.4
0.8 1.1
66 97
800 810
0.38 0.50
0.06 0.13
2.1 6.2

inputs are measured with high quality flowmeters

(rotameter) from the company Krohne. A
standardized arrangement of sampling equipment is
used to analyze the content of dust, char and tar in
the product gas stream [21]. For entrained dust and
char contents as well as for the amount and
composition of tars a minimum of 3 samples are
generally taken. Therefore the experimental results
presented are average values of each series of
samples. The arrangement of sampling equipment
for dust, char and tars is shown in Figure 5. The
high molecular weight (heavy) tar compounds are
quantified as the mass of tars left after vacuum
evaporation of the solvent (toluene). This is referred
to as gravimetric tar. The medium molecular
weight tar compounds such as naphthalene are
detected by gas chromatography coupled with mass
spectrometry (GCMS). The tar sampling and
analysis procedure, as well as the comprehensible
chosen classification of tars, are described in detail
elsewhere [17, 22, 23].

Fig. 4: 100kWth gasifier at the Vienna University of Technology

Main product gas components like H2, CO,

CO2 and CH4 are analyzed by Rosemount
NGA2000 measurement equipment. C2H4, C2H6,
C3H8 and N2 values are measured with a Syntech
Spectras GC 955 gas chromatograph. A high
amount of temperature (thermocouples) and
pressure sensors guarantees an effective process
control and a smooth and continuous operation of
the whole gasification facility. All process media

Fig. 5: Dust, char and tar sampling scheme

The main elemental composition, volatiles,

water and ash content, as well as the ash melting
behavior of the feedstock fuels were analyzed
according to international standards at the test
laboratory for combustion systems at the Vienna
University of Technology. Additionally, the X-ray
fluorescence spectroscopy (XRF) offers a rough

overview of the main elemental ash components.

All value ranges are given in relative percentage
weight of elements. The ash melting behavior is
determined by the standardized characteristic
temperature method. Two temperatures are
specified: The deformation temperature, where the
first rounding of the edges of a cubic sample
occurs; and the flow temperature, where the sample
is molten to a flat disk with defined geometrical
conditions (specific height). The ash melting
temperature is an important and critical issue for
fluidized bed operation. Ash melting has to be
prevented inside fluidized beds.
The software package IPSEpro is used for
evaluation and validation of the process data which
were gathered during the experiments. Further, the
mass and energy balance for the experimental runs
is computed with this tool. IPSEpro is a software
package originating from the power plant sector,
which offers stationary process simulations based
on flow sheet handling. The software uses an
equation-oriented solver. Various validated models
are also used to safeguard up scaling results of
future industrial plants and achieve reliable data for
efficiencies and costs. The software package
IPSEpro is described in detail elsewhere [24, 25].

In the first part of this section, the results from

the basic analysis of softwood pellets, hardwood
chips, straw/wood blended pellets, sewage sludge
pellets and straw pellets are presented in Table 2 to
Table 4. In Table 4 the typical carbon to hydrogen
ratio of biogenous fuels is evident. Thus it appears
that the ratios of the various fuels are all very
similar. The ash melting behavior is displayed in
Table 5. The ash content of sewage sludge and
straw is significantly high. Therefore the elemental
ash composition for these ashes is given in Table 6.
Ash analyses were made directly from the residual
ash of the fresh fuel pellets. The presented values
cannot be compared directly to downstream ash
probes from combustion or gasification plants. It
makes a difference if ash is taken after conversion
in a fluidized bed as bed ash, cyclone ash or bag
filter ash. Fines caused by abrasion and attrition
effects of the fluidized bed material are added to the
discharged ash. The next important point is that all
values are dependent on the source of the fuel.
Sewage sludge pellets of different sources have a
particularly wide range of composition. So the
results of the basic elemental analysis and the XRF
analysis in Table 2 to Table 6 only represent the
presented and used fuels as basic materials.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Table 2: Lower heating value, volatiles, ash contents and water contents of various fuels, wt.% = percentage by weight
FEEDSTOCK / FUEL
lower heating value
lower heating value
water content
ash content
volatile matter

kJ/kg (dry)
kJ/kg (moist)
wt.%
wt.% (dry)
wt.% (dry)

softwood
pellets
18750
17460
6.1
0.3
86.5

hardwood
chips
18180
17010
5.7
1.0
84.0

40%straw/60%wood
blended pellets
18470
16270
10.5
1.6
82.4

100% straw
pellets
17680
16100
7.9
6.7
77.3

sewage sludge
pellets
12420
10800
11.0
41.5
55.4

100% straw
pellets
6.7
46.9
5.4
39.5
0.55
0.52
0.41

sewage sludge
pellets
41.5
29.7
3.7
20.2
3.9
1.01
0.05

Table 3: Main elements of various fuels, free from water, relative weight percentage
FEEDSTOCK / FUEL
ash content
C, carbon
H, hydrogen
O, oxygen
N, nitrogen
S, sulfur
Cl, chlorine

wt.%(dry)
wt.%(dry)
wt.%(dry)
wt.%(dry)
wt.%(dry)
wt.%(dry)
wt.%(dry)

softwood
pellets
0.3
50.2
6.0
43.4
0.05
0.005
0.003

hardwood
chips
1.0
48.8
5.9
44.1
0.15
0.02
0.003

40%straw/60%wood
blended pellets
1.6
49.9
5.7
42.6
0.25
0.02
0.01

Table 4: Calorific elements of various fuels, free from water, ash-free, relative weight percentage
FEEDSTOCK / FUEL
C, carbon
H, hydrogen
O, oxygen
N, nitrogen
S, sulfur
Cl, chlorine

wt.%(dry, ash-free)
wt.%(dry, ash-free)
wt.%(dry, ash-free)
wt.%(dry, ash-free)
wt.%(dry, ash-free)
wt.%(dry, ash-free)

softwood
pellets
50.4
6.1
43.5
0.05
0.005
0.003

hardwood
chips
49.3
5.9
44.6
0.15
0.015
0.003

40%straw/60%wood
blended pellets
50.7
5.7
43.3
0.25
0.02
0.01

100% straw
pellets
50.3
5.8
42.3
0.59
0.56
0.44

sewage sludge
pellets
50.7
6.3
34.5
6.67
1.73
0.09

hardwood
chips
1420
1460

40%straw/60%wood
blended pellets
900
1240

100% straw
pellets
720
1080

sewage sludge
pellets
1140
1240

Table 5: Ash melting behavior of various fuels

FEEDSTOCK / FUEL
deformation temperature
flow temperature

C
C

softwood
pellets
1400
1450

Considering the ash melting temperature of

100% straw in Table 5, we are able to determine
that this type of feedstock is not suitable for
gasification at around 800C. Especially because
the combustion part of the system will have
temperature of up to 850C. Therefore 40% straw
shavings and 60% wood dust (by weight) were
mixed together and then pelletized. These blended
pellets are suitable to reach the minimum
requirements for ash melting behavior. Furthermore
it is mentioned that the straw for the blended pellets
was not from the same source then the 100% straw
pellets. It was observed that wood pellets and also
blended pellets of straw and wood have a very good
cohesion behavior. Even in the fluidized bed of the
gasifier this type of pellets were not pulverized
immediately. Bed material samples from the lower
loop seal showed that char particles coming from
the gasification zone have almost the same shape as
the initial pellets.

Table 6: Elemental ash characteristics of straw pellets and

sewage sludge pellets (XRF analysis), main elements, relative
values, dry, free of carbon and oxygen
FUEL
ELEMENT
Na, wt%
Mg, wt%
Al, wt%
Si, wt%
P, wt%
S, wt%
Cl, wt%
K, wt%
Ca, wt%
Ti, wt%
V, wt%
Mn, wt%
Fe, wt%
Cu, wt%
Zn, wt%
Cr,Co,Ni,As, wt%

100% straw
pellets

sewage sludge
pellets

< 0.5
<3
<1
45 50
<2
<2
37
30 35
6 10
< 0.5
< 1x10-4
< 1x10-4
< 0.5
< 1x10-4
< 1x10-4
< 5x10-5 (per)

<1
<3
6 10
13 16
8 12
24
< 0.1
25
25 30
<3
< 0.5
< 0.5
24 30
< 0.5
<1
< 5x10-2 (per)

Table 7: Process parameters of gasification experiments with various fuels, gasification reactor: GR, combustion reactor: CR
FEEDSTOCK/FUEL
PARAMETER
gasification temperature, GR
combustion temperature, CR
feedstock/fuel input, GR
feedstock/fuel input, GR
fuel to combustion reactor, CR
overall fuel input, GR & CR
product gas output, GR
lower heating value of gas, GR
product gas power, GR
cold gas yield/efficiency, GR
overall gas efficiency, experiments, GR & CR
overall gas efficiency, typical for 10MW plant
overall gas efficiency, estimated for 100MW plant
steam to carbon ratio, GR
steam to carbon ratio, GR
steam to fuel ratio, GR

C
C
kg/h
kW
kW
kW
m3stp/h
MJ/m3stp
kW(cold,tar&char-free)
kW/kW
kW/kW
kW/kW
kW/kW
kgH2O/kgC
molH2O/molC
kgH2O/kgfuel,dry

softwood
pellets

hardwood
chips

802
862
20.0
97.0
23.1
120.1
15.7
14.0
61.1
0.63
0.51
0.64 - 0.73
0.71 - 0.75
1.6
1.1
0.8

807
859
16.0
75.6
22.4
98.0
13.6
13.4
50.8
0.67
0.52
0.64 - 0.73
0.71 - 0.75
2.0
1.4
1.0

40%straw
60%wood
blended
pellets
800
844
16.8
75.9
25.6
101.5
16.1
12.4
55.4
0.73
0.55
0.64 - 0.73
0.71 - 0.75
2.2
1.5
1.1

sewage
sludge
pellets
810
897
22.0
66.0
30.8
96.8
15.9
11.8
52.0
0.79
0.54
0.64 - 0.73
0.71 - 0.75
3.0
2.0
0.9

Fig. 6: Main gaseous components of product gas yielded from various biomass fuels, relative product gas composition, vol.% (dry)

In the second part of this section, the main process

parameters due to the gasified fuels are shown in
Table 7. Figure 6 proposes the main gaseous
product gas components followed by an additional
data set with in Table 8. Furthermore it can be
expected that the product gas from sewage sludge
also comprises a significant content of ammonia
(NH3>2vol.%), similar to investigations with other
nitrogen rich fuels [15]. The listed components
given at dry basis complete the product gas
composition to 100 percent in volume.
Table 8: Additional typical data of product gas with regards to
all presented and gasified biomasses
C2H4, ethylene
vol.% (dry)

2 3.5

C2H6 & C3H8, sum of ethane & propane

vol.% (dry)

0.5 - 1

N2, nitrogen
vol.% (dry)

content have higher volume flows than gas streams

with lower hydrogen but higher methane content.
Figure 7 displays the contents of solid particles
entrained from the gasification reactor. Carbonic
fines are called char, whereas mineral fines
without carbon content are called dust. The dust
content in the gas produced is ten times higher for
gasification of sewage sludge pellets in comparison
with the average value of the other fuels utilized.
This corresponds to the fraction of ash in the
feedstock. So the high fraction of fines (dust), in
case of sewage sludge, is in good agreement with
the high ash content in the feedstock. The amount
of gravimetric and GCMS gauged tars per water
free standard cubic meter of product gas is
presented in Figure 8. In addition Figure 9 shows
the relative composition of the GCMS tar values
measured.

3-6

H2O, water content

vol.%

40 - 55

lower heating value

MJ/m3stp (dry, tar&char free)

11 - 14

Fig. 8: Gravimetric tar and sum of GCMS measured tar content

Fig. 7: Char and dust contents in product gas

It has to be taken into account that the value of

nitrogen (N2) is not a leakage of gas flow between
the combustion and gasification reactor. As already
mentioned, the amount of N2 in the product gas is a
result of flushing the feedstock hoppers due to
safety requirements. Gas leakage through the two
steam fluidized loop seals is almost zero. Rather
high differences in product gas output (volume
flow), in consideration of the fuel input, are visible
in Table 7. The reason is the variation of the main
product gas components as shown in Figure 6. It is
obvious that gas streams with increased hydrogen

DISCUSSION
Since the feedstock composition varies over a
wide range it is not possible to set all process
parameters to similar values. In addition to
chemical similarity, it must be taken into account
that the fluid dynamics in the reactor is also an
important parameter to ensure operating conditions
without any problems [26, 27]. Furthermore, the
conversion of carbonic fuels in a fluidized bed
seems to be simple: Throw solid fuel into well
mixed bed material particles at very high
temperature - of course there will be a
decomposition of the fuel into predominantly
gaseous components. But the chemical reaction
pathways and also the fluid dynamics inside the
fluidized bed is very complex. This is the reason
why meaningful experimental results are so
important in this area of research and development.

Fig. 9: Relatively tar composition of GCMS tar values (middle of circles) by weight percentage, PAHs: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

Figure 8 and 9 show that the conversion of tar

is significantly improved with increased ash content
of the fuels and, as consequence, with higher
mineral fines (dust) in the product gas. Methane as
a main gas and naphthalene as the tar component
are very stable substances. As long as the
theoretically possible reaction equilibriums are not
reached, it is obvious that a low value of methane is
an indicator for good conversion procedures in the
fluidized bed of the gasification reactor [28]. It was
already investigated in other publications that
beside the overall amount of tar components, the
relatively GCMS tar composition is also an
indicator of conversion pathways. As already
highlighted, the relative amounts of phenols and
furans clearly decrease with higher temperatures
[22, 23]. Further, it is anticipated that higher
fractions of phenols are caused by the higher inputs
of lignin, which is a part of the composition of
woody feedstock. Thus, the share of lignin, which
is a phenolic macromolecule, results in a higher
content of phenols in the product gas. The higher
fraction of phenols might be compensated at higher
temperatures. So the decomposition of phenols and
furans is favored with increasing temperatures.
Since polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
which include naphthalene are more stable the
relative values of tar components are increasing at
the same time.
From the results presented in Figure 9, it can
be stated that the lower content of phenols and
furans in the produced gas from sewage sludge
pellets show a similarity to the higher conversion
rates achieved with higher temperature (as just
described). There is no wide difference in the
gasification temperatures for all test runs, as the
temperature is varying between 800C to 810C.
This means that the lower tar content and the
identified lower relative values of phenols and
furans for fuels with higher ash content, like
sewage sludge pellets, have to be supported in a
different way (molecular composition of feedstock,

content and composition of ash). However, it is

found that the absolute amount of GCMS and
gravimetric tars (see Figure 8) is lower for
straw/wood pellets and sewage sludge compared to
softwood pellets and hardwood chips. A
considerable influence of the entire complex of ash
components on the decomposition of the
hydrocarbons is anticipated. In particular, the
softwood pellets are nearly ash free as the content is
0.3wt.%(dry) compared to sewage sludge. The
effect can be explained with catalytic reactions in
contact with the fine ash particles of the feedstock
inside the fluidized bed and in the freeboard.
Potassium (K), calcium (Ca) and iron (Fe) in the
straw and sewage sludge ash are of particular
interest in these matters. Thus, the feedstock
promotes the decomposition of tars by its own ash
components. A coating of the bed material is also
visible and thus it seems to significant enhance the
slightly catalytically active bed material [29, 30].
An image (microsection) of such a coated olivine
particle optained from a scanning electron
microscope (SEM) is shown in Figure 10.

Fig. 10: SEM image of coated bed material particle, olivine [29]

Thus the coating of bed material inside the

fluidized bed is enhanced with ash rich fuels, or
with the use of additives like limestone/dolomite
powder [31]. Since the contact with bed material
particles is very important, the increase in

fluidization velocity supporting the conversion of

tar and methane was also investigated [32]. Both
effects are suitable possibilies for increasing the
conversion rates and efficiency in fluidized
gasification system.

Fig. 11: Typical various operation parameters of the DualFluid gasifier with 16.8kg/h 40%straw/60%wood blended pellets as feedstock

At industrial size plants (10 to 100 MWth like

mentioned in Table 7) feed stream preheating is
carried out, process control is optimized and
specific heat losses are clearly smaller than for the
100kWth gasifier. In particular, with the integration
of drying the feedstock the overall efficiencies of
industrial units are significantly higher [10, 33].
Cold gas and overall efficiencies given in Table 7
are pure chemical energy ratios. The cold gas
yield/efficiency is defined as the ratio of calorific
power of the product gas as output and the calorific
power from the moist feedstock as input. The
overall efficiency also takes the calorific input of
the fuel to the combustion reactor into account.
Figure 11 displays typical ranges of various
operation parameters from the DualFluid
gasification plant at the Vienna University of
Technology for a specific fuel (straw/wood blended
pellets). Therefore the clearly arranged data set can
be compared with the basic energy flow sheet of the
8MWth plant in Gssing presented in Figure 3.
Nevertheless the focus on the results from the small
sized test facility does not predominately rest on
efficiency driven considerations.

CONCLUSION & OUTLOOK

DualFluid systems are increasingly used for
energy conversion technologies such as steam
gasification, sorption enhanced reforming (calcium
looping) and chemical looping processes
(combustion respectively reforming) [32]. In the
case of industrial utilization, wood chips are a
comparatively expensive fuel. To be able to use
alternative fuels at a lower price, the focus of
research and development lies on the gasification of
alternative biogenous and residual fuels. Thus an
impressively large range of different fuels have
been gasified with the 100kWth DualFluid gasifier
at the Vienna University of Technology. The results
of gasifying softwood, hardwood, straw/wood
blends and sewage sludge are represented in this
publication.
The
results
of
gasification
investigations with waste wood, bark, reed, lignite,
coal, coal/wood mixtures and plastic residues are
available in other publications [13 - 17]. Other
results from the gasification experiments of the
residues of palm oil production or other remnants
are in progress but not yet publicized.

The experiments with different feedstock have

proven the general suitability and feasibility of
gasification in the DFB reactor system. Thus, it is
concluded that the presented gasifier system is
highly flexible with regard to the application of
diverse feedstock (from woody biomass to
residuals). But it is also evident that the separation
between bubbling bed and freeboard in the classical
dual fluidized bed gasification system is responsible
for high solids entrainment, if inhomogeneous fuels
with high ash contents like dried sewage sludge, or
waste wood are used. Fine ash particles are
immediately elutriated into the freeboard and
entrained from the gasification zone. The results
also show the importance of catalytically active
solids for tar reforming and for the enhanced
process of olivine coating. Ashes of different
sources seem to have positive influences on the in
situ conversion of hydrocarbons, similar to the
addition of dolomite powder. An extensive gassolids contact between bed material, ashy fines,
additives and the gaseous phase is crucial to
produce a high quality syngas out of various fuels,
varying in composition, size distribution, ash
content, and physical condition. Therefore a novel
dual circulating fluidized bed (DCFB) concept with
countercurrent effect in the gasification section and
with multistage solids separation systems, for
coarse and fine particles on each side, is under
construction at the Vienna University of
Technology [18, 32, 34].
NOMENCLATURE
DFB
CHP
mstp

dual fluidized bed

combined heat and power unit
cubic meters at standard conditions for
temperature and pressure (0C, 1.013bar)
wt.% percentage by weight
vol.% percentage by volume
GCMS gas chromatography coupled with
mass spectrometry
PAHs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
SEM scanning electron microscope
DCFB dual circulating fluidized bed
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge the
work of the Test Laboratory for Combustion
System at the Institute of Chemical Engineering at
Vienna University of Technology. This work is part
of the project G-volution II under the New
Energies 2020 calls of the Austrian Climate and
Energy Fund processed by the Austrian Research
Promotion Agency (FFG). The work has been
accomplished in cooperation with TECON
Engineering GmbH.
LITERATURE CITED

[1] Brown, R.C., (2011). Thermochemical Processing of

Biomass: Conversion into Fuels, Chemicals and Power. Wiley
Series in Renewable Resources

[2] Kaltschmitt, M., Hartmann, H., Hofbauer, H., (2009).

Energie aus Biomasse. 2. Auflage, Heidelberg, Germany,
Springer-Verlag
[3] Knoef, H.A.M., (2005). Handbook Biomass Gasification,
Eschede, The Netherlands, Biomass Technology Group
[4] Hofbauer, H., Stoiber, H., Veronik, G., (1995). Gasification
of Organic Material in a Novel Fluidized Bed System. In
Proceedings of the 1st SCEJ Symposium on Fluidization, Tokyo,
Japan
[5] Hofbauer, H., Veronik, G., Fleck, T., Rauch, R., (1997). The
FICFB - Gasification Process. Developments in Thermochemical
Biomass Conversion, Vol. 2
[6] Rauch, R., Hofbauer, H., Bosch, K., Siefert, I., Aichernig, C.,
Tremmel, H., Voigtlaender, K., Koch, R., Lehner, R., (2004).
Steam Gasification of Biomass at CHP Plant Gssing Status of
the Demonstration Plant. In Proceedings of 2nd World
Conference and Technology Exhibition on Biomass for Energy,
Industry and Climate Protection, Rome, Italy
[7] Tirone, J. (2007). Dead-end Austrian Town Blossoms with
Green Energy. Article, August 28, 2007, New York Times
[8] Hofbauer, H., Koppatz, S., Schmid, J.C., (2011). Dual
Fluidized Beds at the Vienna University of Technology.
Accepted for oral presentation at the International Conference on
Polygeneration Strategies (ICPS11), Vienna, Austria
[9] Bohlar-Nordenkampf, M., Bosch, K., Rauch, R., Kaiser, S.,
Tremmel, H., Aichernig, C., Hofbauer, H., (2002). Scale-up of a
100kWth Pilot FICFB-Gasifier to a 8MWth FICFB-Gasifier
Demonstration Plant in Gssing. In Proceedings of the 1st
Ukrainian Conference on Biomass for Energy, Kiev, Ukrain
[10] Kotik, J., (2010). ber den Einsatz von Kraft-WrmeKopplungsanlagen auf Basis der Wirbelschicht-Dampfvergasung
fester Biomasse am Beispiel des Biomassekraftwerks Oberwart.
Dissertation, Vienna University of Technology, Austria
[11] Klotz, T., (2010). 15 MW Fuel-Power Biomass Gasification
Plant Villach - A regional Energy-Supply-Showcase., Innsbruck,
Austria, Ortner GmbH
[12] Aichernig, C., (2011). Indirect Gasification. Prsentation,
Egatec2011, Copenhagen, Dnmark, Repotec Umweltechnik
GmbH
[13] Pfeifer, C., Koppatz, S., Hofbauer, H., (2011). Steam
Gasification of Variouse Feedstocks at a Dual Fluidized Bed
Gasifier: Impacts of Operation Conditions and Bed Materials.
Biomass Conversion Biorefinery, Vol. 1
[14] Kitzler, H., Pfeifer, C., Hofbauer, H., (2011). Gasification
of Reed in a 100 kW Dual Fluidized Bed Steam Gasifier. In
Proceedings of the 19th European Biomass Conference, Berlin,
Germany
[15] Wilk, V., Kitzler, H., Koppatz, S., Pfeifer, C., Hofbauer, H.,
(2011). Gasification of Waste Wood and Bark in a Dual
Fluidized Bed Steam Gasifier. Biomass Conversion Biorefinery,
Vol. 1
[16] Wilk, V., Kern, S., Kitzler, H., Koppatz, S., Schmid, J.C.,
Hofbauer, H., (2011). Gasification of Plastic Residues in a Dual
Fluidized Bed Gasifier Characteristics and Performance
Compared to Biomass. Accepted for oral presentation at the
International Conference on Polygeneration Strategies (ICPS11),
Vienna, Austria
[17] Aigner, I., Pfeifer, C., Hofbauer, H., (2011). CoGasification of Coal and Wood in a Dual Fluidized Bed Gasifier.
Fuel, Vol. 90

[18] Schmid, J.C., Pfeifer, C., Kitzler, H., Prll, T., Hofbauer, T.,
(2011). A new Dual Fluidized Bed Gasifier Design for Improved
In Situ Conversion of Hydrocarbons. Accepted for oral
presentation at the International Conference on Polygeneration
Strategies (ICPS11), Vienna, Austria
[19] Bridgewater, A.V., Bohlar-Nordenkampf, M.A., (2005).
Economics of Biomass Gasification. In H.A.M. Knoef,
Handbook Biomass Gasification, Eschede, The Netherlands,
Biomass Technology Group
[20] Vogel, A., Bohlar-Nordenkampf, M., Hofbauer, H., (2006).
Teil 1:
Technologische
und
verfahrenstechnische
Untersuchungen. In Analyse und Evaluierung der thermochemischen Vergasung von Biomasse, Schriftenreihe:
Nachwachsende Rohstoffe, Band 29, Landwirtschaftsverlag
[21] CEN BT/TF 15439, (2006). Biomass Gasification Tar and
Particles in Product Gases Sampling and Analysis.
[22] Milne, T.A., Evans, R.J., Abatzoglou, N., (1998). Biomass
gasifier Tars: Their Nature, Formation and Conversion.
Golden, Colorado, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
[23] Wolfesbereger, U., Aigner, I., Hofbauer, H., (2009). Tar
Content and Composition in Producer Gas of Fluidized Bed
Gasification of Wood Influence of Temperature and Pressure.
Environmantal Progress & Sustainable Energy, Vol. 28
[24] Prll, T., Hofbauer, H., (2008). Development and
Application of a Simulation Tool for Biomass Gasification
Based Processes. International Journal of Chemical Reactor
Engineering: Vol.6
[25] Mller, S., Stidl, M., Prll, T., Rauch, R., Hofbauer, H.,
(2011). Hydrogen from Biomass - Large Scale Hydrogen
Production Based on a Dual Fluidized Bed Steam Gasification
System, Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery, Vol.1
[26] Glicksman L.R., (1982). Scaling Relationships for Fluidized
Beds. Chem. Eng. Sci., Vol. 39, No.9,
[27] Leckner, B., Werther, J., (2000). Scale-up of Circulating
Fluidized Bed Combustion. Energy Fuels, American Chemical
Society, Vol.14
[28] Schuster., G., Lffler, G., Weigl,. K., Hofbauer, H., (2001).
Biomass Steam Gasification an Extensive Parametic Modeling
Study. Bioresource Technology, Vol.77
[29] Kirnbauer, F., Hofbauer, H. (2011). Investigations on Bed
Material Changes in a Dual Fluidized Bed Steam Gasification
Plant in Gssing, Austria. Energy Fuels, American Chemical
Society
[30] Kirnbauer, F., Kotik, J., Hofbauer, H., (2011).
Investigations on Organic Matter in DFB Biomass SteamGasification Plants in Gssing/Austria and Oberwart/Austria. In
Proceedings of the 19th European Biomass Conference, Berlin,
Germany
[31] Corella, J., Aznar, M.P., Gil, J., Caballero, M.A., (1999).
Biomass Gasification in Fluidized Beds: Where to Locate the
Dolomite to Improve Gasification? Energy Fuels, Vol.13,
American Chemical Society
[32] Schmid, J., Prll, T., Pfeifer, C., Hofbauer, H., (2011).
Improvement of Gas-Solid Interaction in a Dual Circulating
Fluidized Bed System. In Proceedings of the 9th European
Conference on Industrial Furnaces and Boilers, Estoril, Portugal
[33] Prll, T., Rauch, T., Aichernig, C., Hofbauer, H., (2005).
Fluidized Bed Steam Gasification of Solid Biomass Analysis
and Optimization of Plant Operation using Process Simulation.

In Proceedings 18th International Conference on Fluidized Bed

Combustion, Toronto, Canada
[34] Pfeifer, C., Schmid, J., Prll, T., Hofbauer, H., (2011). Next
Generation Biomass Gasifier. In Proceedings of the 19th
European Biomass Conference, Berlin, Germany