Comparative analysis of aspen plus simulation strategies for woody biomass air gasification processes

IF 5.8 2区 生物学 Q1 AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING Biomass & Bioenergy Pub Date : 2025-01-30 DOI:10.1016/j.biombioe.2025.107626
Usman Khan Jadoon, Ismael Díaz, Manuel Rodríguez
{"title":"Comparative analysis of aspen plus simulation strategies for woody biomass air gasification processes","authors":"Usman Khan Jadoon,&nbsp;Ismael Díaz,&nbsp;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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Biomass & Bioenergy
Biomass & Bioenergy 工程技术-能源与燃料
CiteScore
11.50
自引率
3.30%
发文量
258
审稿时长
60 days
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.
期刊最新文献
Oxidative depolymerization of lignin through biphasic system for enhanced monomer yields and improved valorization Utilization of locally sourced waste fats for biodiesel production: Experimental characterization and environmental life cycle assessment Catalytic synthesis of lactic acid from cellulose over easily-prepared niobium-doped titania by solution combustion synthesis A review of advanced techniques in hydrotreated vegetable oils production and life cycle analysis Valorization of betel leaf industry waste: Extraction of cellulose nanocrystals and their compatibility with starch-based composite films
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1