Science of the Total Environment 628–629 (2018) 1278–1286

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

Biomass gasification-gas turbine combustion for power generation

system model based on ASPEN PLUS
Weijuan Lan a,⁎, Guanyi Chen b,⁎, Xinli Zhu b, Xuetao Wang a, Chunmei Liu a, Bin Xu a
a
College of Vehicle and Traffic Engineering, Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang 471003, PR China
b
School of Environmental Science & Engineering, State Key Laboratory of Engines, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300350, PR China

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• An integrated system model was An integrated model for power generation from biomass gasification-gas turbine combustion system.
established based on ASPEN PLUS.
• The flow of the integrated model for
power generation from biomass
gasification-gas turbine combustion
was described.
• A higher temperature is conducive to
a higher syngas composition.
• The simulated data are consistent
with the experimental values.
• The model can simulate the integrated
system and obtain the main parame-
ters of gas turbine.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: ASPEN PLUS is an important tool for process design. But in the biomass gasification-gas turbine combustion
Received 20 December 2017 field, ASPEN PLUS has not been extensively studied. In this paper, the operation unit in the biomass
Received in revised form 12 February 2018 gasification-gas turbine combustion power generation system was introduced. Based on ASPEN PLUS, an in-
Accepted 13 February 2018
tegrated system model for power generation by biomass gasification-gas turbine combustion was devel-
Available online xxxx
oped. The model consists of biomass gasification and gas-cleaning system, gas turbine combustion
Keywords:
system, and power generation system. The main aim of this research was to develop an integrated power
Biomass gasification generation system model, to predict the gasifier performance and power generation under various operat-
Gas turbine combustion ing conditions. Parameters such as temperature, equivalence ratio (ER), and catalyst affected the syngas
Power generation composition and heating value. The results show that the simulated data are consistent with the experi-
ASPEN PLUS mental data. Considering M701F gas turbine as the research object, the process of integrated power gener-
Model ation system was described. The simulation of biomass gasification-gas turbine combustion integrated
power generation system can simulate the integrated system and obtain the main parameters of gas tur-
bine. The system model based on ASPEN PLUS can be used to predict power generation capacity from bio-
mass gasification-gas turbine combustion system.
© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

⁎ Corresponding authors.
E-mail address: lanwj2003@126.com (W. Lan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.159
0048-9697/© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 W. Lan et al. / Science of the Total Environment 628–629 (2018) 1278–1286 1279

1. Introduction bed gasifier by considering the hydrodynamic and reaction kinetics si-
multaneously. They used four ASPEN PLUS reactor models and external
Biomass energy has attracted more and more attention in the past FORTRAN subroutines for hydrodynamics and kinetics to simulate the
decades (Chen et al., 2017). It can be preferable choice for the replace- gasification process. Im-orb et al. (2016) developed a model for a bio-
ment of conventional fossil fuels in the near future. Gasification is a ther- mass gasification combined with a Fischer Tropsch process using
mochemical process which converts carbonaceous materials into Aspen plus to perform a techno-economic analysis of the integrated
syngas (Laxmi et al., 2017). This is achieved by reacting the material at process with rice straw feedstock for green fuel They modeled oxygen
high temperature in an environment with oxygen and/or steam. Due supported gasification at 1000 °C, water gas shift at 150 °C to adjust
to the low-oxidation conditions, gasification can be seen as a more envi- H2/CO ratio to 2.37, and a slurry phase FT reactor at 220 °C and 20 bar.
ronmentally friendly way of using biomass, as the pollutant emissions Chen et al. (2007) established a model of biomass gasification based
are lower (Jennifer et al., 2016). ASPEN PLUS is a problem-oriented on Gibbs free energy minimization. The authors performed a sensitivity
input program used to facilitate the calculation of physical, chemical, analysis with ER and bed temperature, the results indicate that the gas
and biological processes. It can be used to describe processes involving composition was mostly affected by the bed temperature. The syngas
solids in addition to vapor and liquid streams (Puig et al., 2010). It is heating value and gasification efficiency were mostly affected by the
an important tool for process design. It is used to simulate coal conver- ER. The effects of air temperature on gas composition and gasification
sion such as in the methanol synthesis process (Kundsen et al., 1982; efficiency were also evaluated. They also found that the simulation
Schwint, 1985), indirect coal liquefaction processes (Barker, 1983), inte- values are consistent with the experimental data. Zhang et al. (2007)
grated coal gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plants (Phillips carried out the simulation calculation of char gasification of biomass py-
et al., 1986), and atmospheric fluidized-bed combustor processes rolysis products and the direct gasification of raw materials using ASPEN
(Douglas and Young, 1990). PLUS. The model was composed of RYIELD and RGIBBS units, and the gas
Researchers have developed models by using ASPEN PLUS to avoid phase reaction was assumed to be in the equilibrium state. The results
complex processes and to develop the simplest possible model that show that the best working condition of the entrained flow gasification
can incorporate the main gasification reactions. In the field of biomass was the final pyrolys is temperature of 300 °C and O/C ratio between 0.9
gasification, many researchers modeled the process of gasification by and 1.1. The gasification temperature and conversion rate of carbon in-
using ASPEN PLUS. For instance, Beheshti et al. (2015) developed a creased with increasing O/C molar ratio. For the semi-char at 300 °C, the
model to simulate air-steam gasification of biomass in a bubbling air temperature was preheated to 550 °C. The gasification temperature
fluidised bed for hydrogen and syngas production. Mathieu and reached up to 1056 °C, and the carbon conversion rate was close to
Dubuisson (2002) modeled wood gasification in a fluidized bed using 100%.
ASPEN PLUS. The model was based on the minimization of Gibbs free Other researchers also modeled the gasification of coal and biomass
energy, the flow of model was also described. The gasification processes using ASPEN PLUS. For example, Yan and Rudolph (2000) developed a
were uncoupled to pyrolysis, combustion, Boudouard reaction, and gas- model for a compartmented fluidized-bed coal gasifier process. Sudiro
ification. The authors performed sensitivity analyses with respect to dif- et al. (2009) modeled the gasification process to obtain synthetic natu-
ferent parameters such as the oxygen factor, air temperature, oxygen ral gas from petcoke. Paviet et al. (2009) described a very simple two-
content in air, operating pressure, and steam injection. Doherty and step model of chemical equilibrium in a wood biomass gasification pro-
Reynolds (2013) developed a model in Aspen Plus for a fast internally cess. Robinson and Luyben (2008) developed an approximate gasifier
circulating fluidized bed (FICFB) gasifier. Begum et al. (2013) developed model, this model can be used for dynamic analysis using ASPEN Dy-
an Aspen Plus model for an integrated fixed bed gasifier and predicted namics. They used a high-molecular-weight hydrocarbon present in
the steady-state performance of the model for different biomass feed- the ASPEN library as a pseudo fuel, and the proposed approximate
stocks. Mansaray et al. (2002a, 2002b, 2002c) used ASPEN PLUS to sim- model captured the essential macroscale thermal, flow, composition,
ulate a dual-distributor-type fluidized-bed rice husk gasifier. The model and pressure dynamics. Doherty et al. (2008) and Doherty et al.
was based on the homogeneous equilibrium theory, material and en- (2009) developed a model for a circulating fluidized bed and studied
ergy balances, and the two-phase theory of gas-solid fluidized beds. the effect of diverse operating parameters including the ER, tempera-
The three equilibrium reactions (water-gas shift, methanation, and ox- ture, level of air preheating, biomass moisture, and steam injection on
idation) were used in the model. The model was kinetic-free and capa- the product gas composition, gas heating value, and cold gas efficiency.
ble of predicting the reactor temperature and composition, higher Van der Meijden et al. (2009) also used ASPEN PLUS as a modeling tool
heating value, and production rate of the produced gas. The fluidized to quantify the differences in overall process efficiency for producing
bed was operated on wheat straw at various equivalence ratios (ERs), synthetic natural gas in three different gasifiers (entrained-flow,
fluidization velocities, and bed heights. Both the predicted and experi- allothermal, and circulating fluidized-bed gasifiers).
mental bed temperatures increased linearly with the increase in ER. However, in the biomass gasification-gas turbine combustion field,
Sensitivity of the kinetic-free homogeneous equilibrium model devel- ASPEN PLUS has been less extensively studied. The main aim of this re-
oped for the fluidized bed gasification of cereal straw was tested search was to develop an integrated power generation system model of
under a wide range of parameters, including ER, bed height, fluidization a CFB biomass gasifier, and to predict the gasifier performance and
velocity, solid circulation coefficient, nitrogen–oxygen ratio, and fuel power generation capacity under various operating conditions. Firstly,
distribution function. The results show that the bed temperature was an integrated system model was developed in order to avoid complex
sensitive to changes in all these parameters. Mitta et al. (2006) modeled processes. Secondly, the details of how operating conditions (such as
a fluidized-bed type gasification plant with air and steam using ASPEN temperature, ER and catalyst) effect on gasifier performance were eval-
PLUS, validated the results using a gasification pilot plant located at uated. Thirdly in order to simulate the integrated system and obtain the
the Chemical Engineering Department of Technical University of Catalo- main parameters of gas turbine, M701F gas turbine was taken as the re-
nia (UPC). Their gasification model was divided into three different search object, the process of integrated power generation system was
stages: drying, devolatilization-pyrolysis, and gasification–combustion. described.
Sreejith et al. (2013) developed an equilibrium model based on Gibbs
free energy minimization for steam gasification of biomass using the 2. Model of biomass gasificatio-gas cleaning system
Aspen Plus process simulator. They assumed that carbon is fully con-
verted to product gases and no tar content is present in the gaseous It is necessary to prepare various basic data according to the require-
product. Nikoo and Mahinpey (2008) developed a model capable of ments of software input conditions when ASPEN PLUS is used. The em-
predicting the steady-state performance of an atmospheric fluidized- pirical method is very important to build a successful simulation
1280 W. Lan et al. / Science of the Total Environment 628–629 (2018) 1278–1286

Table 1
Reactor model (Ma, 2008).

Model Name Description Input Variables

RGIBBS Equilibrium reactor Calculate based on the minimum free energy of GIBBS due to the limitation of atomic equilibrium Pressure, temperature
RYIELD Yield reactor Calculation the chemical reactor of the distribution ratio of known reaction products and unknown reaction kinetics model Pressure, temperature

process. If a suitable gasification reaction model of biomass gasification conventional solid elements, i.e., the product of gasification was the
process is established, the effects of different factors such as the gas simplest form of each element such as O2, H2, S, C, N2, and ASH. Pyrolys
yield, gas composition, and heating value on biomass gasification can heat (QDCOMP) was supplied as a part of the heat generated by the gas-
be simulated and analyzed. ification module. The parameters needed for DECOMP pyrolysis module
was to set the pyrolysis temperature to calculate the equilibrium.
2.1. Assumption of biomass gasification system model GASIFIER module simulated the biomass gasifier as well as its internal
process. SSPLIT module after the GASIFIER module simulated the sepa-
In this paper, biomass gasification was performed in a fluidized gas- ration of gas and solid.
ifier. The reaction was close to balance at high temperatures. The Gibbs The energy flow in this process was as follows: Some of the heat gen-
free energy minimization principle was applied to the gasification reac- erated by the carbon combustion was the heat loss of the entire system,
tion. A biomass gasification model was established under certain as- and some flowed to the pyrolysis reactor. The remaining heat was sup-
sumptions as follows (Wang et al., 2004): plied to the gasification reaction to generate gas. In this study, the heat
① The gasifier is in a stable state, all the parameters do not change loss of the system was about 2% of the low heating value of biomass. In
with time. the pyrolysis module, the carbon conversion ratio was 99% in the gas-
② The material and agent were mixed completely and momentarily ifier using Fortran language.
in the furnace.
③ The H, O, N, and S in the biomass were all converted into gas- 2.3. Model description
phase products, while the C did not change completely with the
conditions. The simulation of biomass gasification - gas cleaning process was di-
④ There is no pressure decrease in the gasifier. vided into two parts: Biomass gasification and gas cleaning. The gasifi-
⑤ The ash in biomass is inert and is not involved in the gasification cation process was carried out as follow: The raw material BIOMASS
process. was put into the DECOMP module after preheating to 300 °C to calculate
⑥ The temperature of biomass particles is uniform and without the elemental yield. In this module, the biomass was decomposed into
gradient. routine solid elements, i.e., the gasification product was the simplest
⑦ All the reactions are fast and reach to balance. form of each element such as O2, H2, S, C, N2, and ash. The product
DECPROD entered the GASIFY reactor to calculate the gasification prod-
2.2. Biomass gasification system -gas cleaning system uct according to the kinetic parameters, the product is raw gas with high
temperature GAS1.
To develop a biomass gasification system-gas cleaning system, The gas cleaning process was carried out as follows: The raw gas
RYIELD and RGIBBS reactor modules were selected. The inputs of the GAS1 was separated in the cyclone SPLIT(SSPLIT model) after coming
gasification reactor module are shown in Table 1. out of the gasifier. The separated gas GAS2 was transferred to the con-
The material flow in the process was as follows: Biomass gasification denser COOLING (HEATER model), achieving cooling and heat transfer.
gas components such as CO, H2, CO2, CH4, N2, H2O, and O2 were The products mixed with gas and tar (GLPROD) were passed through
defined as the routine components. BIOMASS and ASH were the non- the gas–liquid separator SEP module, producing clean gas GAS3. Then,
conventional components. DECOMP module was simulated by yield re- the clean gas GAS3 was transferred to the gas turbine combustor. Bio-
actor RYIELD. In this module, the biomass was decomposed into some mass gasification and gas cleaning process are shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. The flow of biomass gasification - gas cleaning system.

 W. Lan et al. / Science of the Total Environment 628–629 (2018) 1278–1286 1281

BURN TURBINE

GAS3

FUEL GEN

SPLIT
AIR3-3
COMP

AIR3-1

AIR2 AIR3
EXHEATER
AIR3-2

Fig. 2. Gas turbine system flow chart.

2.4. Physical property method carried out at a high temperature (1000 K) and atmospheric pressure.
Therefore, it is reasonable to use the RKS-BM equation.
The nonconventional solid component is a substance characterized
by an empirical coefficient known as the component property. It is 3. Model of gas turbine combustion system
mixed with diverse solids. ASPEN PLUS can automatically handle such
substances and simplifies when they are not involved in the calculation 3.1. Gas turbine combustion system module
of chemical equilibrium and phase equilibrium (Wu et al., 2003). In this
study, ASPEN PLUS was used to classify the components, process types, Higher quality gas is required for a gas turbine (H2S ≤ 200 mg/m3, tar
and reaction conditions to select the physical methods by providing the and impurity b100 mg/m3) (Wu et al., 2003). For the integrated power
relevant information. The application of BK10, RK-SOAVE, and PR-BM of system, COMPR module was used to simulate the compressor. TURBINE
this model did not significantly affect the final result, because it is a gen- module was used to simulate the turbine. BURN module was used to
eral estimation method suitable for various temperature and pressure simulate the combustion chamber. A reactor module (RGIBBS) simula-
conditions. The physical properties of RKS-BM were selected based on tion chamber was built based on ASPEN PLUS. Because the gas turbine
the RK-Soave equation. This method is not only suitable for the mixture system is also one of the major factors affecting the integrated system,
of nonpolar and weak polar components such as (hydrocarbons, CO2, the gas turbine power generation system should be simulated.
and H2), but also suitable for biomass processing. Correct calculation re-
sults can be obtained even when the RKS-BM method is used in all the 3.2. Process description
temperature and pressure ranges, it can also be used to simulate hydro-
carbon refining and processing under high temperature and high pres- M701F gas turbine was selected as the research object based on
sure conditions. In this paper, the biomass gasification process was ASPEN PLUS. The process was carried out as follows: The air AIR2 was

Fig. 3. Flow chart of the integrated model for power generation from biomass gasification-gas turbine combustion system.
1282 W. Lan et al. / Science of the Total Environment 628–629 (2018) 1278–1286

fed into the compressor, compressed, and heated by the compressor

COMP-AIR (COMPR module). Then, the air was defined as AIR3. The
compressor exhaust was divided into two parts by assuming that all
the cooling air was removed from the compressor outlet: About 83%
of the air AIR3–1 was mixed with clean gas GAS3 and burned in the
combustion chamber, then produced gas FUEL. About 17% of the air
AIR3–2 was extracted from the compressor outlet, cooled, and pressur-
ized through the cooler COOLING (EXHEATER unit). The cooling air
AIR3–3 was mixed with the combustion chamber exhaust FUEL in the
turbine inlet and fed into the TURBINE (COMPR module). Then, the
gas turbine TURBWK (COMPR module) was operated. Finally, the gas
was discharged from the gas turbine with cooling air after cooling and
depressurization (Dong et al., 2005). The gas turbine module flow
chart is shown in Fig. 2.

3.3. Physical model and transitivity method

The physical methods used in the production of syngas in ASPEN

PLUS are PR-BM (using the Peng Robinson equation of state with
Boston–Mathias function) and RKS-BM (using the Redlich–Kwong–
Soave equation of state with Boston-Matthias function). However, for
a biomass gasification system, RKS-BM is more appropriate. In the pro- Fig. 4. Effect of gasification temperature on syngas composition at ER = 0.15.
cess simulation, it is necessary to set up the tearing flow, convergence
method, convergence module, and convergence order. These can be au-
tomatically determined by ASPEN PLUS and set by the user. To obtain a
better convergence, the Broyden method was selected in this simula- Based on ASPEN PLUS, the process of the integrated system can be
tion. It is important that the initial estimate of the input tearing flow is described as follows: raw material BIOMASS was preheated to 300 °C
one of the conditions for fast convergence. If not convergent, the num- and transferred to the DECOMP module to calculate the elemental
ber of iterations can be increased. yield. The biomass was decomposed into conventional solid elements,
i.e., the gasification product was the simplest form of elements, for ex-
4. Model of power generation system ample, O2, H2, S, C, N2, and ash (ASH). The product DECPROD was trans-
ferred to the reactor GASIFY to calculate the gasification production
At present, the main studies about the simulation of integrated sys- according to the kinetic parameters. The product was raw gas with a
tems are methanol and power system, dimethyl ether, and power sys- high-temperature GAS1 raw gas. GAS1 was separated in the cyclone
tem. Biomass gasification-gas turbine combustion has not been SPLIT(SSPLIT model) after coming out of the gasifier. The separated
extensively studied. Thermodynamic simulation has been used in the gas GAS2 was transferred to condenser COOLING (HEATER model),
process unit in the literature (Zhou et al., 2008; Benito et al., 2007). Be- achieving cooling and heat transfer. The products mixed with gas and
cause of the influence of reactor heat transfer, an actual industrial reac- tar (GLPROD) were passed through the gas–liquid separator SEP mod-
tion system cannot reach thermodynamic equilibrium. There is a certain ule, and produced clean gas GAS3. Then, the clean gas was transferred
deviation between the simulated and actual data. At the same time, to the gas turbine combustor. The air AIR2 was fed into the compressor,
most of the current models consist of a single unit operation (Li et al., compressed, and heated using the compressor COMP-AIR (COMPR
2007; Ma et al., 2004), an integrated system model was not developed.
It is difficult to determine the advantages and disadvantages of a system
from macroscopic perspective. In this paper, an integrated system
model for power generation by biomass gasification-gas turbine com-
bustion was developed based on ASPEN PLUS.
The process of biomass gasification-gas turbine combustion power
generation system was as follows: a low-heating-value gas was pro-
duced, after removing impurities, it was condensed into clean gas. The
clean gas was fed into the combustion chamber, thus driving the gas
turbine to generate power.

Table 2
Biomass gasification simulation parameter settings.

Item Parameter settings

Environment 20 °C
temperature
Heat exchanger Inlet temperature of water: 20 °C
Inlet parameters Biomass flow: 1 kg/h; CaO/Biomass (w/w) = 0–30%
Gasifying agent Pressure: Constant pressure; temperature: 20 °C
Condenser Inlet temperature: 650–900 °C; outlet temperature:150
°C
Heat loss 2LHV% (Gao et al., 2008)
Gasification reactor Pressure: constant pressure; temperature: 650–900 °C
Carbon conversion rate 98%
Ash Heat capacity 1.2 kJ/(kg·K)
Fig. 5. Effect of gasification temperature on syngas composition at ER = 0.20.
 W. Lan et al. / Science of the Total Environment 628–629 (2018) 1278–1286 1283

Fig. 6. Effect of gasification temperature on syngas composition at ER = 0.25.

Fig. 8. Effect of CaO/B on syngas composition.

module).The air was defined as AIR3. The compressor exhaust was di- conditions are shown in Table 2. The effects of operating conditions on
vided into two parts by assuming that all the cooling air was removed biomass gasification performance were evaluated.
from the compressor outlet: About 83% of the air AIR3–1 was mixed
with clean gas GAS3 and burned in the combustion chamber, then pro- 5.1.1. Effect of gasification temperature
duced gas FUEL. About 17% of the air AIR3–2 was extracted from the The model was validated against the experiments of Lan (2013) con-
compressor outlet, cooled, and pressurized through the cooler ducted on a pilot scale CFB gasifier. The experimental results were com-
COOLING (EXHEATER unit). The cooling air AIR3–3 was mixed with pared with the simulation results using the ASPEN PLUS model. The
the combustion chamber exhaust FUEL in the turbine inlet and fed comparisons between the experimental and simulation results on syn-
into the TURBINE (COMPR module). Then, the gas turbine TURBWK gas composition are shown in Figs. 4–6. H2, CO, CO2, and CH4 were the
was operated. Finally, the gas was discharged from the gas turbine main components of gasification syngas.
with cooling air after cooling and depressurization. The flow chart of A higher temperature was found to be conducive to a higher volume
the integrated system is shown in Fig. 3. fraction of combustible gas. A higher temperature slightly increases the
yields of H2 and CH4. With the increase in temperature, the composition
of CO increased significantly, decreasing the CO2 yield. The simulated
5. Simulation analysis of biomass gasification-gas cleaning system data of CO and CO2 compositions are lower than the experimental re-
sults. However, the simulated data of CH4 and H2 compositions are
5.1. Simulation results higher than the experimental results. This can be explained as follows:
In the chemical equilibrium, the composition of CnHm almost reaches
To investigate the accuracy of the model, the results of biomass gas- 0% when the Gibbs free energy is minimized. Therefore, CnHm and
ification on fluidized bed were verified. The main input parameters and other hydrocarbons are not considered in the simulation. According to
the elemental balance of H and chemical equilibrium, the simulated
data of CH4 and H2 compositions are higher than the experimental
results.

5.1.2. Effect of ER
The effect of ER on syngas composition was investigated. In this
study, Fig. 7 shows the comparison of simulation and experimental re-
sults at a given temperature of 750 °C.
Fig. 7 shows that the simulated data are consistent with the experi-
mental values, and the basic trend is almost the same. With the increase
in ER, the yields of H2, CO, and CH4 decreased. However, the yields of
CO2 increased. The simulated data of CH4 and H2 are higher than the ex-
perimental results. However, CO and CO2 compositions obtained from
the simulation are lower than the experimental results. This is because

Table 3
Proximate analysis, ultimate analysis, and high heating value (HHV) of wood flour.

Proximate analysis (wtar%) Ultimate analysis (wt%) HHV (kJ/kg)

Ma Va FCa Aa C H N S O
4.9 77.3 17.7 0.4 47 6.9 3.4 0.1 42.2 19,070
a
Fig. 7. Effect of ER on syngas composition at 750 °C. M – moisture; V – volatile matters; FC – fixed carbon; A – ash.
1284 W. Lan et al. / Science of the Total Environment 628–629 (2018) 1278–1286

Table 4 Table 6
Comparison of simulation and experimental results. The main calculation conditions of the system.

Syngas composition (%) and low Experimental Simulation Reactor Parameters

heating results results
Gasifier Pressure: atmospheric pressure; temperature: 750 °C; carbon conversion
value (kJ/kg)
rate: 98%; temperature of crude gas/clean gas at outlet heat exchanger:
H2 7.70 7.85 150 °C
CO 23.50 23.05 GT Model: M701F; compression ratio: 17; inlet temperature: 1400 °C,
CO2 10.70 9.93 cooling air rate: 17%; adiabatic efficiency of the gas turbine: 0.9; exhaust
CH4 5.30 6.72 pressure: 0.1047 MPa
CnHm 0.36 0.00
Low heating value 5930 5880
Table 7
The main simulation results of thermal parameters.

when the Gibbs free energy is minimized in the chemical equilibrium, Temperature Pressure (bar) Vapor Enthalpy MMkal/h
the composition of CnHm almost became 0%. Therefore, in the simula- (°C) (Frac)
tion, CnHm and other hydrocarbons are ignored among the gaseous AIR2 20 1.01325 1 −5.0312
products. In addition, the simulation process follows the elemental bal- AIR3–1 400.5726 17.32658 1 160.7655
ance of H and chemical equilibrium. The yields of CnHm and other hy- AIR3–2 400.5726 17.32658 1 36.6841
GAS3 338 1.01325 1 −26.0023
drocarbons are equal to those of H2 and CH4 in the simulation.
FUEL 1400.6452 17.32658 1 49.9782
Therefore, the CH4 and H2 compositions obtained from the simulation EXH 597.400 1.10895 1 −412.0078
are higher than the experimental results. AIR4 (Cooling) 20 15.0647 1 −1.4968

5.1.3. Effect of catalyst 5.2.1. Simulation results of wood flour gasification

In this study, CaO was used as the catalyst in the simulation and ex- Table 4 shows that the simulated data are consistent with the exper-
periments. The effect of catalyst on syngas composition was evaluated imental results. The model ignores the CnHm, and the simulation process
by changing the ratio of CaO/B. Fig. 8 shows the comparison of simula- follows the elemental balance of H. Therefore, the compositions of H2
tion with experimental results regarding the effect of CaO/B on syngas and CH4 obtained from the simulation are higher than the experimental
composition at a given temperature of 750 °C. results. The results indicate that the model has a universal applicability.
Fig. 8 shows that the syngas compositions vary significantly with in-
creasing CaO content from 0% to 20%. The increase in CaO content 5.3. Simulation analysis of gas turbine combustion system
clearly increased the yield of H2, the composition of CO increased as
well. The content of CO2 in syngas decreased with the increase in CaO 5.3.1. Selection of relative parameters of gas turbine combustion system
content. However, the yield of CH4 slightly increased. Compared to the In the gas turbine system, the parameters input into the ASPEN PLUS
experimental results, the simulated data of CO2 was lower, and that of simulation software can be divided into three types: (1) flow rate, tem-
H2 was higher. This is probably because CaO reacted with CO2 and was perature, pressure, and components of system inlet air AIR2 and fuel
completely consumed. However, ASPEN PLUS simulation software ig- GAS3, (2) input pressure ratio and isentropic efficiency of compressor
nores the loss of CaO. Therefore, the CO2 composition obtained from and turbine module, (3) exhaust pressure and heat loss LOSSHEAT of
simulation is lower than the experimental result, and H2 composition combustion chamber module (Dong et al., 2005). The parameters re-
is higher. Therefore, the consumption of CaO should be considered in quired in the thermodynamic calculation model are listed in Table 5.
the simulation if the conditions permit. Furthermore, the simulation re- In addition, the gas turbines work under standard conditions, in which
sults show that the addition of CaO slightly affected the compositions of the atmospheric parameters are as follows: The temperature is 15 °C,
CH4 and CO, consistent with the experimental results. and the pressure is 101,325 Pa. The relative humidity is 60% (Ma,
2008). The M701F gas turbine produced by Mitsubishi was selected as
the object in this study.
5.2. Model sensitivity analysis
5.4. Simulation results and analysis of integrated power generation system
To verify the universality of the model, the operation data (Wu et al., from biomass gasification-gas turbine combustion
2003) of Sanya wood flour gasification power plant in Hainan were se-
lected and analyzed. The proximate and ultimate analyses are shown in 5.4.1. Simulation of system
Table 3. Table 4 shows the comparison of the simulation and experi- The clean gas simulated using the gasification–purification system
mental results (Chen et al., 2007) of syngas composition and low described in Section 5.1 was used in this simulation. The main calcula-
heating value at 750 °C. tion conditions of the system are shown in Table 6. On the ASPEN
PLUS software platform, Fortran language program was used to simu-
late the entire power generation system. Tables 7 and 8 show the simu-
lation and calculation results.
Table 5
Design parameters of M701F gas turbine.
5.4.2. Simulation results
Parameters Design value The results show that the temperatures of the gas turbine and smoke
Compressor pressure ratio 17 emission are consistent with the operating regulations. The net powers
Turbine pressure ratio 17 of the system calculated in the simulation are listed in Table 9.
Net power (MW) 270
Inlet temperature of gas turbine (°C) 1400
Outlet temperature of gas turbine (°C) 586 Table 8
Air flow rate (kg/s) 651 The main simulation results of work flow.
Net efficiency (%) 38.2
Unit COMPWK TURBWK Network
Isentropic efficiency of gas turbine 0.900
Heat balance calculation temperature (°C) 1245 Power MW 265.32803 −535.82241 −270.49438
 W. Lan et al. / Science of the Total Environment 628–629 (2018) 1278–1286 1285

Table 9 Beheshti, S.M., Ghassemi, H., Shahsavan-Markadeh, R., 2015. Process simulation of bio-
The main simulation results of operating parameters. mass gasification in a bubbling fluidized bed reactor. Energy Convers. Manag. 94,
345–352.
Parameters Design value Benito, M., García, S., Ferreira-Aparicio, P., 2007. Development of biogas reforming Ni-La-
Al catalysts for fuel cells. J. Power Sources 169, 177–183.
Compressor pressure ratio 17.033 Chen, H.P., Zhao, X.F., Mi, T., Dai, Z.H., 2007. Simulation of biomass gasification by ASPEN
Turbine pressure ratio 16.816 PLUS. J. Huazhong Univ. Sci. Technologi. 35, 49–52.
Net power (MW) 270.494 Chen, G.Y., He, S.R., Cheng, z.j., Guan, Y.N., 2017. Many studies have investigated the py-
Inlet temperature of gas turbine (°C) 1480.6452 rolysis behavior of different manures using TG analysis and different kinetic analysis
Outlet temperature of gas turbine (°C) 597.400 methods. Bioresour. Technol. 243, 69–77.
Power consumption rate of compressor 0.1187 Doherty, W., Reynolds, A., 2013. Aspen Plus simulation of biomass gasification in a steam
Isentropic efficiency of compressor 0.895 blown dual fluidised bed. Mater. Process Energy. 212–220.
Isentropic efficiency of gas turbine 0.900 Doherty, W., Reynolds, A., Kennedy, D., 2008. Simulation of a circulating fluidised bed bio-
Combustion efficiency of combustor 0.991 mass gasifier using ASPEN PLUS-a performance analysis. In: Ziebik, A., Kolenda, Z.,
Stanek, W. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Efficiency,
Heat balance calculation temperature (°C) 1238.000
Cost, Optimization, Simulation and Environmental Impact of Energy Systems.
Doherty, W., Reynolds, A., Kennedy, D., 2009. The effect of air preheating in a biomass CFB
gasifier using Aspen Plus simulation. Biomass Bioenergy 33, 1158–1167.
Dong, J., Wang, S.L., Chen, H.P., Zhang, X.L., 2005. Performance analysis of M701F gas tur-
Table 9 shows that the net power and inlet temperature of gas tur- bine. Electric Power Sci. Eng. 4, 12–14.
bine are 270.494 MW and 1480.6 °C, respectively. The simulations are Douglas, P.L., Young, B.E., 1990. Modelling and simulation of an AFBC steam heating plant
close to the set value. Thus, the calculation method for gas turbine using ASPEN/SP. Fuel 70, 145–154.
Gao, Y., Xiao, J., Shen, L.H., 2008. Simulation of hydrogen production from biomass
model is relatively reliable. gasification in interconnected fluidized beds. Acta Energiae Solaris Sinica. 29,
894–899.
6. Conclusions Im-orb, K., Simasatitkul, L., Arpornwichanop, L., 2016. Techno-economic analysis of the
biomass gasification and Fischer Tropsch integrated process with off-gas recircula-
tion. Energy 94, 483–496.
In this paper, an integrated system model was developed in order to Jennifer, H., Nader, M., Ehsan, M., 2016. Simulation of air-steam gasification of woody
avoid complex processes. The process of integrated power generation biomass in a bubbling fluidized bed using Aspen Plus: a comprehensive model
including pyrolysis, hydrodynamics and tar production. Biomass Bioenergy 95,
system was described. The details of how operating conditions (such 157–166.
as temperature, ER and catalyst) effect on gasifier performance were Kundsen, R.A., Bailey, T., Fabiano, L.A., 1982. Experience with ASPEN while simulating a
evaluated. M701F gas turbine was taken as the research object in new methanol plant. AIChESymp Ser. 78–214.
Lan, W.J., 2013. Experimental Study and Simulation of Biomass Gasification Coupled With
order to simulate the integrated system and obtain the main parameters
Gas Turbine for Power Generation. Tianjin University, Tianjin.
of gas turbine. The system model based on ASPEN PLUS can be used to Laxmi, P.R.P., Wang, Q., Gunther, K., 2017. Steam gasification of biomass with subsequent
predict power generation capacity from biomass gasification-gas tur- syngas adjustment using shift reaction for syngas production: an Aspen Plus model.
bine combustion system. Renew. Energy 101, 484–492.
Li, Y.B., Xiao, R., Jin, B.S., 2007. Thermodynamic equilibrium calculations for the reforming
of coke oven gas with gasification gas. Chem. Eng. Technol. 30, 91–98.
(1) To investigate the accuracy of the model, the results of biomass Ma, S.Q., 2008. Simulation and Analysis on IGCC System Based on ASPEN PLUS. North
gasification on fluidized bed were verified. A higher temperature China Electric Power University, Beijing.
Ma, L.W., Ni, W.D., Li, Z., 2004. A simulating research on liquid-phase methanol synthesis
is conducive to a higher syngas composition. A higher tempera- technology applying to polygeneration system. Coal Conv. 27, 7–12.
ture slightly increased the yields of H2 and CH4. With the increase Mansaray, K.G., Al-Taweel, A.M., Ghaly, A.E., Hamdullahpur, F., Ugursal, V.I., 2002a. Math-
in temperature, the composition of CO increased significantly ematical modeling of a fluidized bed Rice husk Gasifier: part I-model development.
Energy Sources, Part A 22, 83–98.
while decreasing the CO2 yield. The simulated data of CO and
Mansaray, K.G., Ghaly, A.E., Al-Taweel, A.M., Hamdullahpur, F., Ugursal, V.I., 2002b. Math-
CO2 compositions are lower than the experimental results. ematical modeling of a fluidized bed rice husk Gasifier: part II -model sensitivity. En-
(2) With the increase in ER, the yields of H2, CO, and CH4 increased. ergy Sources, Part A 22, 167–185.
Mansaray, K.G., Ghaly, A.E., Al-Taweel, A.M., Ugursal, V.I., Hamdullahpur, F., 2002c. Math-
However, a higher ER decreased the CO2 composition. The simu-
ematical modeling of a fluidized bed rice husk gasifier: part III – model verification.
lated data of CH4 and H2 are higher than the experimental results. Energy Sources, Part A 22, 281–296.
However, CO and CO2 compositions obtained from the simula- Mathieu, P., Dubuisson, R., 2002. Performance analysis of a biomass gasifier. Energy
tion are lower than the experimental results. Convers. Manag. 43, 1291–1299.
Mitta, N.R., Ferrer-Nadal, S., Lazovic, A.M., Perales, J.F., Velo, E., Puigjaner, L., 2006.
(3) An increase in CaO content clearly increased the yield of H2, as Modelling and simulation of a type gasification plant for synthesis gas produc-
well as the composition of CO. The CO2 content in syngas de- tion. Proceedings of 16th European Symposium on Computer Aided Process En-
creased with the increase in CaO content. However, the yield of gineering and 9th International Symposium on Process Systems Engineering,
pp. 1771–1776.
CH4 increased slightly. Nikoo, M.B., Mahinpey, N., 2008. Simulation of biomass gasification in fluidized bed reac-
(4) Considering M701F gas turbine as the research object, the pro- tor using ASPEN PLUS. Biomass Bioenergy https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2,13-
cess of integrated power generation system was described. The 20.
Paviet, F., Chazarenc, F., Tazerout, M., 2009. Thermochemical equilibrium modelling of a
simulation of biomass gasification-gas turbine combustion inte- biomass gasifying process using Aspen Plus. Int. J. Chem. React. Eng. 7, A40.
grated power generation system can simulate the integrated sys- Phillips, J.N., Erbes, M.R., Eustis, R.H., 1986. Study of the off-design performance of inte-
tem and obtain the main parameters of gas turbine. grated coal gasification. Combined Cycle Power Plants, Computer-aided Engineering
of Energy Systems, Vol. 2-Analysis and Simulation, Proceedings of the Winter Annual
Meeting of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Puig, A.M., Bruno, J.C., Coronas, A., 2010. Review and analysis of biomass gasification
Acknowledgements models. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 14, 2841–2851.
Robinson, P.J., Luyben, W.L., 2008. Simple dynamic gasifier model that runs in Aspen dy-
This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of He- namics. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 47, 7784–7792.
Schwint, K.T., 1985. Great Plains ASPEN Model Development, Methanol Synthesis
nan Province (No. 162300410014), Henan University of Science and Flowsheet. Final Topical Report. Scientific Design Co., Inc., USA.
Technology PhD startup fund Projects (No. 09001759), the National Sreejith, C.C., Muraleedharan, C., Arun, P., 2013. Performance prediction of steam gasifica-
Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51506046). tion of wood using an ASPEN PLUS thermodynamic equilibrium model. Int.
J. Sustainable Energy 33 (2), 416–434.
Sudiro, M., Zanella, C., Bressan, L., Fontana, M., Bertucco, A., 2009. Synthetic natural gas
References (SNG) from petcoke: model development and simulation. Proceedings of the 9th In-
ternational Conference on Chemical and Process Engineering (ICheaP-9).
Barker, R.E., 1983. ASPEN Modeling of the Tri-state Indirect-liquefaction process. Oak Van der Meijden, C.M., Veringa, H.J., Rabou, L.P.L.M., 2009. The production of synthetic
Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, USA. natural gas (SNG): a comparison of three wood gasification systems for energy
Begum, S., Rasul, M., Akbar, D., Ramzan, N., 2013. Performance analysis of an integrated balance and overall efficiency. Biomass Bioenergy https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fixed bed gasifier model for different biomass feedstocks. Energies. 12, 6508–6524. biombioe.2009.11.001.
1286 W. Lan et al. / Science of the Total Environment 628–629 (2018) 1278–1286

Wang, Y., Dai, Z.H., Yu, G.S., 2004. Simulation of entrained-flow bed coal gasifier by the Zhang, W.W., Chen, X.L., Wang, F.C., 2007. Process simulation of biomass entrained flow
method of Gibbs free energy minimization. Coal Conv. 27, 27–33. gasification based on ASPEN PLUS. Acta Energiae Solaris Sinica 28, 1360–1364.
Wu, C.Z., Wu, Z.S., Zheng, S.P., Dai, X.W., 2003. The testing results of 1MW biomass electric Zhou, L., Hu, S.Y., Li, Y.R., Zhou, Q.H., 2008. Study on co-feed and co-production system
energy generation system. Acta Energiae Solaris Sinica. 24, 531–535. based on coal and natural gas for producing DME and electricity. Chem. Eng. J. 136,
Yan, H.M., Rudolph, V., 2000. Modeling a compartmented fluidized bed coal gasifier pro- 31–40.
cess using ASPEN PLUS. Chem. Eng. Commun. 183, 1–8.