LAPSE:2025.0206
Published Article

LAPSE:2025.0206
Comparative Assessment of Aspen Plus Modeling Strategies for Biomass Steam Co-gasification
June 27, 2025
Abstract
The urgent need for sustainable energy drives the exploration of biomass and plastic waste co-gasification, a promising route for producing clean fuels and chemicals, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and minimizing fossil fuel dependence. Modeling and simulation are vital for optimizing this process, particularly syngas yield, yet comparative studies on Aspen Plus modeling techniques for steam co-gasification are limited. This research addresses this gap by comparing three Aspen Plus strategies: thermodynamic equilibrium modeling (TEM), restricted thermodynamic modeling (RTM), and kinetic modeling (KM), for simulating the co-gasification of pine sawdust and polyethene (PE) with steam in bubbling fluidized bed gasifier (BFBG). The primary objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of each strategy in predicting the syngas composition under varying conditions. Three models were developed in Aspen Plus on the basis of each strategy, and their predicted syngas compositions were compared with published experimental data. A detailed sensitivity analysis was performed within the RTM framework to obtain optimized values of the approach temperatures to enhance predictive accuracy. The results showed that RTM provided the highest precision, with an average root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.0296, while TEM showed the lowest precision with RMSE of 0.1234. KM performed moderately with an RMSE of 0.0929. These findings demonstrate that RTM is superior for predicting the syngas composition for this co-gasification process, and its optimized solution presents a viable alternative when detailed kinetic data are lacking, thus reducing computational expense.
The urgent need for sustainable energy drives the exploration of biomass and plastic waste co-gasification, a promising route for producing clean fuels and chemicals, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and minimizing fossil fuel dependence. Modeling and simulation are vital for optimizing this process, particularly syngas yield, yet comparative studies on Aspen Plus modeling techniques for steam co-gasification are limited. This research addresses this gap by comparing three Aspen Plus strategies: thermodynamic equilibrium modeling (TEM), restricted thermodynamic modeling (RTM), and kinetic modeling (KM), for simulating the co-gasification of pine sawdust and polyethene (PE) with steam in bubbling fluidized bed gasifier (BFBG). The primary objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of each strategy in predicting the syngas composition under varying conditions. Three models were developed in Aspen Plus on the basis of each strategy, and their predicted syngas compositions were compared with published experimental data. A detailed sensitivity analysis was performed within the RTM framework to obtain optimized values of the approach temperatures to enhance predictive accuracy. The results showed that RTM provided the highest precision, with an average root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.0296, while TEM showed the lowest precision with RMSE of 0.1234. KM performed moderately with an RMSE of 0.0929. These findings demonstrate that RTM is superior for predicting the syngas composition for this co-gasification process, and its optimized solution presents a viable alternative when detailed kinetic data are lacking, thus reducing computational expense.
Record ID
Keywords
Aspen Plus, Equilibrium modeling, Kinetic modeling, Syngas prediction
Subject
Suggested Citation
Jadoon UK, Díaz I, Rodríguez M. Comparative Assessment of Aspen Plus Modeling Strategies for Biomass Steam Co-gasification. Systems and Control Transactions 4:346-351 (2025) https://doi.org/10.69997/sct.124830
Author Affiliations
Jadoon UK: Departamento de Ingeniería Química Industrial y del Medioambiente, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Industriales, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Díaz I: Departamento de Ingeniería Química Industrial y del Medioambiente, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Industriales, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Rodríguez M: Departamento de Ingeniería Química Industrial y del Medioambiente, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Industriales, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Díaz I: Departamento de Ingeniería Química Industrial y del Medioambiente, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Industriales, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Rodríguez M: Departamento de Ingeniería Química Industrial y del Medioambiente, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Industriales, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Journal Name
Systems and Control Transactions
Volume
4
First Page
346
Last Page
351
Year
2025
Publication Date
2025-07-01
Version Comments
Original Submission
Other Meta
PII: 0346-0351-1684-SCT-4-2025, Publication Type: Journal Article
Record Map
Published Article

LAPSE:2025.0206
This Record
External Link

https://doi.org/10.69997/sct.124830
Article DOI
Download
Meta
Record Statistics
Record Views
1234
Version History
[v1] (Original Submission)
Jun 27, 2025
Verified by curator on
Jun 27, 2025
This Version Number
v1
Citations
Most Recent
This Version
URL Here
https://psecommunity.org/LAPSE:2025.0206
Record Owner
PSE Press
Links to Related Works
References Cited
- Osman, A.I., et al., Cost, environmental impact, and resilience of renewable energy under a changing climate: a review. Environmental chemistry letters, 2023. 21(2): p. 741-764 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-022-01532-8
- Lee, U., J.N. Chung, and H.A. Ingley, High-Temperature Steam Gasification of Municipal Solid Waste, Rubber, Plastic and Wood. Energy & Fuels, 2014. 28(7): p. 4573-4587 https://doi.org/10.1021/ef500713j
- Chang, A.C.C., et al., Biomass gasification for hydrogen production. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2011. 36(21): p. 14252-14260 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.05.105
- Ahmed, I. and A.K. Gupta, Syngas yield during pyrolysis and steam gasification of paper. Applied Energy, 2009. 86(9): p. 1813-1821 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.01.025
- Pinto, F., et al., Co-gasification study of biomass mixed with plastic wastes. Fuel, 2002. 81(3): p. 291-297 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-2361(01)00164-8
- Jadoon, U.K., I. Díaz, and M. Rodríguez, Comparative analysis of aspen plus simulation strategies for woody biomass air gasification processes. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2025. 194: p. 107626 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2025.107626
- Acar, M.C. and Y.E. Böke, Simulation of biomass gasification in a BFBG using chemical equilibrium model and restricted chemical equilibrium method. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2019. 125: p. 131-138 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.04.012
- Neves, D., et al., Characterization and prediction of biomass pyrolysis products. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 2011. 37(5): p. 611-630 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2011.01.001
- Cao, Y., Y. Bai, and J. Du, H2-rich gas production from co-gasification of biomass/plastics blends: A modeling approach. Journal of the Energy Institute, 2024. 112: p. 101454 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2023.101454
- Ajorloo, M., et al., Recent advances in thermodynamic analysis of biomass gasification: A review on numerical modelling and simulation. Journal of the Energy Institute, 2022. 102: p. 395-419 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2022.05.003
(0.08 seconds)
[0.08 s]

