{"title":"Comparative analysis of aspen plus simulation strategies for woody biomass air gasification processes","authors":"Usman Khan Jadoon, Ismael Díaz, Manuel Rodríguez","doi":"10.1016/j.biombioe.2025.107626","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Biomass gasification is gaining attention because of its role in transition to a low-carbon chemical industry, providing a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels in energy and chemical production. However, accurate modeling remains challenging due to the variability in syngas composition across varying biomass types, gasifiers, and operating conditions. This study evaluates the performance of thermodynamic equilibrium modeling (TEM), restricted thermodynamic modeling (RTM), and kinetic modeling (KM) by Aspen Plus to model a fluidized bubbling-bed reactor. The novelty of the research lies in the comparative evaluation of these models in diverse woody biomasses and gasification conditions, addressing a significant gap in the field. Experimental data was curated and used to assess the predictive precision of each approach, focusing on syngas components such as H<sub>2</sub>, CO, CO<sub>2</sub>, and CH<sub>4</sub>. Moreover, sensitivity analysis was performed within the RTM framework to identify optimal approach temperatures for selected. On the basis of these approach temperatures, syngas predictions were carried out, which are referred to as the optimal solution (OS). RTM demonstrated the highest accuracy, with an average RMSE of 0.0793, while TEM showed the lowest accuracy with RMSE of 0.1735. KM and OS had intermediate precision, with RMSE values of 0.1593 and 0.1282, respectively. These results demonstrate that RTM is the most accurate and OS is a reliable alternative when kinetic data are unavailable. This study offers valuable information on the selection of effective modeling strategies for biomass gasification and the development of technologies based on syngas.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":253,"journal":{"name":"Biomass & Bioenergy","volume":"194 ","pages":"Article 107626"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomass & Bioenergy","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0961953425000376","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Biomass gasification is gaining attention because of its role in transition to a low-carbon chemical industry, providing a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels in energy and chemical production. However, accurate modeling remains challenging due to the variability in syngas composition across varying biomass types, gasifiers, and operating conditions. This study evaluates the performance of thermodynamic equilibrium modeling (TEM), restricted thermodynamic modeling (RTM), and kinetic modeling (KM) by Aspen Plus to model a fluidized bubbling-bed reactor. The novelty of the research lies in the comparative evaluation of these models in diverse woody biomasses and gasification conditions, addressing a significant gap in the field. Experimental data was curated and used to assess the predictive precision of each approach, focusing on syngas components such as H2, CO, CO2, and CH4. Moreover, sensitivity analysis was performed within the RTM framework to identify optimal approach temperatures for selected. On the basis of these approach temperatures, syngas predictions were carried out, which are referred to as the optimal solution (OS). RTM demonstrated the highest accuracy, with an average RMSE of 0.0793, while TEM showed the lowest accuracy with RMSE of 0.1735. KM and OS had intermediate precision, with RMSE values of 0.1593 and 0.1282, respectively. These results demonstrate that RTM is the most accurate and OS is a reliable alternative when kinetic data are unavailable. This study offers valuable information on the selection of effective modeling strategies for biomass gasification and the development of technologies based on syngas.
期刊介绍:
Biomass & Bioenergy is an international journal publishing original research papers and short communications, review articles and case studies on biological resources, chemical and biological processes, and biomass products for new renewable sources of energy and materials.
The scope of the journal extends to the environmental, management and economic aspects of biomass and bioenergy.
Key areas covered by the journal:
• Biomass: sources, energy crop production processes, genetic improvements, composition. Please note that research on these biomass subjects must be linked directly to bioenergy generation.
• Biological Residues: residues/rests from agricultural production, forestry and plantations (palm, sugar etc), processing industries, and municipal sources (MSW). Papers on the use of biomass residues through innovative processes/technological novelty and/or consideration of feedstock/system sustainability (or unsustainability) are welcomed. However waste treatment processes and pollution control or mitigation which are only tangentially related to bioenergy are not in the scope of the journal, as they are more suited to publications in the environmental arena. Papers that describe conventional waste streams (ie well described in existing literature) that do not empirically address ''new'' added value from the process are not suitable for submission to the journal.
• Bioenergy Processes: fermentations, thermochemical conversions, liquid and gaseous fuels, and petrochemical substitutes
• Bioenergy Utilization: direct combustion, gasification, electricity production, chemical processes, and by-product remediation
• Biomass and the Environment: carbon cycle, the net energy efficiency of bioenergy systems, assessment of sustainability, and biodiversity issues.