Review 1674

Özge Çepelioğullar Mutlu*

Thomas Zeng
This is an open access article under
the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial
License, which permits use, distri-
bution and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original
work is properly cited and is not
used for commercial purposes.
Supporting Information
available online
Challenges and Opportunities of Modeling
Biomass Gasification in Aspen Plus:
A Review
Aspen Plus has become one of the most common process simulation tools for
both academia and industrial applications. In the last decade, the number of the
papers on Aspen Plus modeling of biomass gasification has significantly increased.
This review focuses on recent developments and studies on modeling biomass
gasification in Aspen Plus including key aspects such as tar formation and model
validation. Accordingly, challenges in modeling due to specific assumptions and
limitations will be highlighted to provide a useful basis for researchers and end-
users for further process modeling of biomass gasification in Aspen Plus.
Keywords: Aspen Plus, Biomass gasification, Equilibrium approach, Kinetic approach, Tar
formation
Received: February 05, 2020: revised: May 14, 2020; accepted: June 24, 2020
DOI: 10.1002/ceat.202000068

1 Introduction perspective, the main goal is the development of a realistic pro-

Gasification is a complex process in which chemical reactions
as well as heat and mass transfer mechanisms take place. Many
parameters such as the feedstock type, gasifier configuration,
gasification agent, temperature, and pressure can affect the
operational performance and the syngas quality [1]. However,
experimental optimization of the process for a certain feedstock
is not only time-consuming but also expensive. Simulating the
gasification process based on available experimental data on
pilot or industrial scale can support process optimization and
contribute to improved plant design. Also, computational tools
are effective to determine process limitations and hazardous or
undesirable operational conditions [2].
Several process simulation tools have been employed lately
to model, optimize, and simulate complicated processes such
as biomass gasification. ChemCAD, Matlab, Aspen Plus as well
as computational fluid dynamics including GAMBIT, FLUENT,
and OPENFOAM are some of these common modeling soft-
ware packages [3]. The main advantage of Aspen Plus is the
high flexibility regarding different process configurations,
which allows to optimize varying operational conditions and
determine limitations of processes subject to these conditions.
Also, a variety of process concepts can be designed including
extensive heat exchangers and auxiliary components as well as
the possibility of linkage with specialized software tools and
techno-economic analysis.
In the bioenergy sector, concepts such as oxycombustion of
biomass for nearly zero-net emissions [4], pressurized anaero-
bic digestion and biogas upgrading [5], and techno-economic
assessment of biomass-based chemical production [6] have
been investigated using Aspen Plus. Even though each study
handles the modeling process from a different technological
cess model with high efficiency and product quality. The num-
ber of studies dealing with biomass gasification has signifi-
cantly increased, especially within the last decade [7–60], and
there are many review studies based on a variety of aspects
[61–70]. However, as compiled in Tab. S1 in the Supporting
Information (SI), only in some of these studies Aspen Plus
modeling was addressed.
Puig-Arnavat et al. discussed Aspen Plus modeling of bio-
mass gasification briefly in their review [61]. The authors high-
lighted that there were many studies on modeling coal gasifi-
cation with Aspen Plus while only limited work on modeling
biomass gasification was performed at that time, in which
modeling was mostly based on the equilibrium approach.
These included basic gasification reactions and neglected the
hydrodynamic complexity of the gasifiers and tar formation.
Accordingly, Ahmed et al. [62] published a review study
focusing on biomass tar modeling concepts in Aspen Plus.
Modeling solid waste gasification in Aspen Plus was reviewed
by Hantoko et al. [63]. Yet, there is still lack of a review with
emphasis on modeling and validation of biomass gasification
in Aspen Plus, even though.
This review focuses on modeling biomass gasification itself
in Aspen Plus, especially giving attention to model validation
and tar formation by discussing different process configu-
rations based on equilibrium and kinetic approaches. Since
–
Dr. Özge Çepelioğullar Mutlu, Thomas Zeng
oezge.cepeliogullar.mutlu@dbfz.de
DBFZ Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum gemeinnützige GmbH,
Department of Thermochemical Conversion, Torgauer Strasse 116,
04347 Leipzig, Germany.

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2020, 43, No. 9, 1674–1689 ª 2020 The Authors. Published by WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. www.cet-journal.com
 Review 1675

developed process models have a specific purpose or applica-
tion, they should be validated to confirm the applicability of
the model [71]. The comparison of the model with lab- or real-
scale applications is important due to the constraints and the
assumptions made in the simulation model. Commonly, syngas
compositions derived from author’s own experimental data or
from literature are used to verify the modeling results [12–16].
Moreover, the assessment of the developed model for another
biomass type plays an important role to test the limitation of
the process. Typically, modeling of the gasification behavior is
focused on one specific biomass type rather than investigating
the effect of different feedstock types on the process perfor-
mance. Yet, this aspect should also be considered in terms of
model validation.
Another important issue that plays a significant role not only
in the modeling but also in model validation is the tar forma-
tion. To simplify the models, in most cases, tar formation is not
included at all or considered assuming the formation of an
inert compound [13, 16, 72]. Due to the advances in Aspen Plus
enabling more tailored process modeling, more studies em-
ploying the kinetic modeling approach were published recently,
which included tar formation by representing it as several
model compounds [12, 72–74]. Extensive discussions on mod-
eling tar formation in gasification are not within the focus of
this paper and can be found elsewhere [64, 75–77]. The current
paper reviews modeling studies on biomass gasification using
Aspen Plus (see Tab. 1) by discussing essential modeling steps.
The core aspects in this paper are (i) model validation, (ii) in-
clusion of tar formation, and (iii) fuel flexibility of the devel-
oped models. Challenges in process modeling from general and
hydrodynamic perspectives are also covered.

Table 1. Summary of the literature reviewed in this paper.

Feedstock Gasification agent Type of gasifier Ref.

MSW, wood, green wastes, coffee bean husks Air FixB [3]

MSW Air FixB [7]

Karanja seed cake O2, steam FixB [8]

MSW Air, steam Bubbling FBR [9]

Pine sawdust Steam, air FBR [10]

Wood Air Circulating FBR [11]

Olive kernel, corn cob, sunflower stalks, rapeseed stalks, corn stalks Air Bubbling FBR [12]

Palm kernel shell Steam Dual FBR [13]

Wood Steam Bubbling FBR [14]

Pine sawdust Steam, air Bubbling FBR [15]

Wood Steam Dual FBR [16]

Wood Steam, air FBR [72]

Spruce Steam, air Dual FBR [74]

Coal, wood waste Air Entrained flow/drop furnace [73]

Food waste, MSW, poultry waste Air Lab-scale hybrid [18]

Agricultural residue Air Downdraft [19]

Raw and torrefied bamboo Steam, air Downdraft FixB [20]

Pine sawdust Steam Two-staged [21]

Wood chips Air Dual FBR [22]

Hardwood chips Air Pilot-scale downdraft [23]

Wood chips Steam, air Bubbling FBR [24]

Microalgae Steam, O2 Downdraft [25]

Wood Steam FBR [26]

Straw Steam Circulating FBR + bubbling FBR [27]

Coconut coir pith and its char Steam FBR [28]

Wood chips, sawdust, mixed paper wastes Air Downdraft FixB [29]

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2020, 43, No. 9, 1674–1689 ª 2020 The Authors. Published by WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. www.cet-journal.com
 Review 1676

Continued Table 1.

Feedstock Gasification agent Type of gasifier Ref.

Palm kernel shell Steam FBR [30]

RDF Air Downdraft FixB [31]

Pine wood Steam, oxygen Modified moving downdraft [32]

Hazelnut shells Steam, air, oxygen Lab-scale FBR [33]

Pine wood Steam Downdraft FixB [34]

Sewage sludge Air+steam FBR [35]

Forest residue Steam, air Downdraft FixB [36]

Pine sawdust, rice husk, corn core, legume straw, wood chips O2-enriched air Cyclone [37]

Cow manure-derived hydrochar CO2 Dual [38]

Wood chips Air Downdraft [39]

Hazelnut, pinewood Air Downdraft [40]

MSW Air FixB [41]

Pine Steam Double-chamber [42]

Waste tyre Air FBR [43]

MSW Air Updraft FixB [44]

Palm frond, mangrove, rice husk, microalgae Steam, oxygen Downdraft [45]

Coconut shell CO2-O2 Downdraft [46]

Wood pellets Steam Dual FBR [47]

Sawdust Air, steam – [48]

Sugarcane bagasse Steam, air Circulating FBR [49]

Animal manure Steam, CO2 Dual [50]

Coffee bean husks, green wastes, food wastes, MSW, pine sawdust, Steam FBR [51]
wood chip, wood residue

MSW Steam Microwave plasma [52]

Sugarcane bagasse Steam Downdraft, FBR [53]

49 biomass types and five model compounds Supercritical water Tubular reactor [54]

Sewage sludge Supercritical water Autothermal [55]

Wood Supercritical water FBR [56]

Glucose, hydroxymethylfurfural and phenol mixture Supercritical water – [57]

Algae Supercritical water SCWG reactor [58]

Soybean straw, flax straw Sub-, supercritical FixB tubular reactor [59]
water

Sewage sludge, microalgae, grape marc, glycerol, phenol Supercritical water – [60]

MSW: municipal solid waste, FixB: fixed-bed , FBR: fluidized-bed reactor, RDF: refuse-derived fuel, SCWG: supercritical water gasification.

2 Biomass Gasification
Gasification is defined as the thermochemical conversion of
carbonaceous materials into combustible gases, which is gener-
ally performed between 600-1500 C in the presence of steam,
air, O2, CO2 or the mixture of these gases depending on the
focus of the process [2, 68]. The main product of a typical gasi-
fication process, known as syngas, consists of a mixture of H2,
CO, CO2, CH4, N2, H2O, and other light hydrocarbons as is
illustrated in Fig. 1 [14]. Syngas has a wide range of application

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2020, 43, No. 9, 1674–1689 ª 2020 The Authors. Published by WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. www.cet-journal.com
 Review
Figure 1. Stages and products of downdraft gasification process. Reprinted with
permission from [64] (Copyright 2019, Elsevier).
areas such as engines, turbines, burners, and fuel cells or as raw
material for fuel production or in catalytic and biocatalytic
processes to synthesize valuable compounds [68, 78]. The gasi-
fication process consists of different steps including drying,
devolatilization, and pyrolysis, partial oxidation (combustion)
of volatiles and the char. Biomass gasification takes place in
reactors called gasifiers, categorized by different criteria such as
the type of the gasification environment, bed material, heat
supply source, and the characteristics of the fluid mechanics in-
side the bed. Each gasifier type has its own design, construction
and operational characteristics along with different application
areas [65, 79]. Brief information about the most common gasif-
Figure 2. General process flowsheet of biomass gasification in Aspen Plus (grey boxes indicate the compounds).
Chem. Eng. Technol. 2020, 43, No. 9, 1674–1689 ª 2020 The Authors. Published by WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA.
1677
ier types can be found in Tab. S2. Further details of
the biomass gasification process are available else-
where [61, 64, 69, 80, 81].
3 Modeling Biomass Gasification
in Aspen Plus: Equilibrium and
Kinetic Approaches
In Aspen Plus modeling, biomass is defined as a
‘‘non-conventional’’ compound due to its hetero-
geneous nature. Thus, it does not participate in
phase or chemical equilibrium calculations unless
it is converted into its conventional compounds
(C, H2, O2, N2, S, Cl2, H2O etc.) [82]. Representa-
tion of non-conventional materials is mostly pro-
vided by the respective component attributes based
on its proximate and ultimate analyses. Following
that, the type of the property method has to be
specified considering the requirements of the pro-
cess [83]. The most common property methods in
gasification modeling are the Peng-Robinson cubic
equation-of-state (PENG-ROB) [12, 19, 20], Peng-
Robinson cubic equation-of-state with the Boston-
Mathias alpha function (PR-BM) [18, 21, 22],
IDEAL method [23, 72], Redlich-Kwong-Soave
(RKS) cubic equation-of-state [73], and Redlich-Kwong-Soave
(RKS-BM) cubic equation-of-state with Boston-Mathias alpha
function [3, 7, 16]. Two main properties of biomass, i.e., density
and enthalpy, are computed mostly using the built-in models
‘‘DCOALIGT’’ and ‘‘HCOALGEN’’, respectively.
The definition of the process specifications is followed by
development of a process flowsheet. Generally, the process is
divided into different subprocesses which are represented by
choosing the most appropriate operation block, as summarized
in Tab. S3, or the combination of the different blocks to repre-
sent a certain gasification step. An overview of flowsheet steps
for biomass gasification is presented in Fig. 2.
www.cet-journal.com
 Review
Drying is the first step in which biomass is mixed with a hot
drying agent (air, nitrogen or flue gas) using a mixer and fed to
the RStoic block by assuming the removal of moisture from the
biomass as a chemical reaction [84]. It is important to note that
drying in the RStoic block generally represents the ‘‘drying
step’’ which takes place during the gasification process. De-
pending on the moisture of the selected feedstock, there may
be a need to dry the biomass as ‘‘pretreatment step’’ first. In this
case, it is possible to select other dryer blocks such as convec-
tive dryer or contact dryer to model this stage. These dryer
models may require more design information such as length,
residence time, flow direction, particle size or drying kinetics.
Drying is followed by decomposition in the RYield block to
convert biomass into its ‘‘conventional’’ compounds. During bi-
omass decomposition, it is assumed that yield and composition
of the devolatilization products can be derived from the ulti-
mate and proximate analysis of the fuel [12, 14, 23]. After
decomposition, biomass gasification takes place, which will be
explained in detail later on. As last step, partial combustion is
generally modeled in the RStoic block. Char is mixed with oxy-
gen or air to be combusted, and then this stream is sent to a
cyclone block for separation of final gas products and solids.
These steps, of course, may involve more blocks or further
user-defined calculation blocks depending on the aim or design
or the complexity of the overall process.
There are two fundamental approaches for modeling of bio-
mass gasification, i.e., equilibrium and kinetic. The equilibrium
approach, classified as stoichiometric and non-stoichiometric,
is applied for the prediction of the syngas composition by as-
suming that the reactants are ideally mixed and react with each
other in an infinite period of time. Stoichiometric models are
based on the equilibrium constants and require the selection of
the appropriate reactions along with the equilibrium constants
for the estimation of the final product composition. However,
especially for complex processes, this approach may cause
some errors due to lack of available information [1]. Therefore,
in order to handle this problem, a non-stoichiometric modeling
approach based on minimization of the Gibbs free energy can
be applied. One of the advantages of this approach is that it
requires almost no details of the system for the process descrip-
tion and the prediction of its outcome [85]. Equilibrium mod-
eling in Aspen Plus is performed using the RGibbs block which
is based on the minimization of the Gibbs free energy of the
system in terms of the mole numbers of the species present in
Figure 3. Aspen Plus simulation model of a hybrid biomass gasifier; flowsheet recreated for higher resolution based on Ramzan et al.
[18].
Chem. Eng. Technol. 2020, 43, No. 9, 1674–1689 ª 2020 The Authors. Published by WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA.
1678
all phases, i.e., reactants, products [1]. The details of this
approach can be found elsewhere [2, 20].
Kinetic modeling, on the other hand, is generally applied for
the estimation of the syngas yield and the composition after a
finite time (or in a finite volume in a fluid) for a given operat-
ing condition and gasifier configuration [1]. Consequently, this
approach can be considered as more realistic concerning the
real situation in the gasifier, in particular for lower gasification
temperatures and shorter residence times. The common gasifi-
cation reactions used in kinetic modeling are described else-
where [25, 26, 62, 86]. Aspen Plus allows the integration of the
reaction kinetics by a user-defined Fortran subroutine. In this
approach, reaction kinetics along with the bed hydrodynamics
of the gasifier can also be included.
In modeling biomass gasification, most of the studies applied
total kinetic models while semi-kinetic and reversible rate ex-
pressions were less commonly applied [64]. In case of modeling
with Aspen Plus, semi-kinetic models were most commonly
employed. Two process blocks, i.e., RCSTR and RPLUG, can be
used. RCSTR is mostly taken to study different types of fluid-
ized-bed reactors to mimic the conversion behavior due to its
perfect mixing assumption [14]. The reactor bed and free-bed
sections can be modeled by representing them as two con-
nected RCSTR blocks with the integration of the hydrodynamic
bed properties [10, 14, 24, 72]. On the other hand, RPLUG ena-
bles to study varying configurational parameters such as the
optimal length, height, and diameter of the gasifier [73]. There-
fore, choosing the suitable Aspen Plus block has an important
effect on the process development.
3.1 Modeling Gasification Based on the
Equilibrium Approach with the RGibbs Block
Tab. 2 provides an overview about equilibrium modeling
approaches with the RGIBBS block. In the following, selected
cases which used more than one biomass type as feedstock will
be discussed in detail focusing on studies dealing with model-
ing fixed-bed gasifiers.
A hybrid biomass gasifier model [18] was developed to com-
pare the performance of feedstocks such as food waste, munici-
pal solid waste (MSW), and poultry wastes by using a RGibbs
block (Fig. 3). The tar and the other heavy hydrocarbons were
defined as non-equilibrium products to simplify the model.
www.cet-journal.com
 Review 1679

Table 2. Studies based on the equilibrium modeling approach in Aspen Plus.

Aspen Plus Property method Modeling tar formation Validationa) Parametric study Ref.
configuration

RYield, RGibbs RKS-BM – E/M Air-to-fuel ratio, temperature, different biomass [3]
types

RYield, RGibbs RKS-BM – E/M Temperature, air-to-fuel ratio [7]

RYield, RGibbs IDEAL – E Temperature, ER, SBR [8]

RYield, RGibbs – – Temperature, ER, oxygen percentage in the [9]

enriched air, MSW moisture content, steam/MSW

RYield, RGibbs – – E/M Temperature, ER, effect of air preheating [11]

RYield, RGibbs PR-BM – E/M Temperature, ER, biomass moisture content, SBR [18]

RYield, RGibbs PENG-ROB – E/M ER and moisture content [19]

RYield, RGibbs PENG-ROB – E/M ER and steam supply ratio [20]

RYield, RGibbs PR-BM As C6H6 E/M Temperature, steam amount [21]

RYield, RGibbs PR-BM – E/M Temperature, biomass moisture content, SBR, air- [22]
fuel ratio

RYield, RGibbs IDEAL – E/M Temperature, ER, moisture content [23]

RYield, RGibbs PENG-ROB As CH2O, C4H6O3,C2H4O2 E/M ER, steam addition [25]
and C3H6O2

RYield, RGibbs RK – E/M Temperature,pressure, SBR [26]

RYield, RGibbs – – – Temperature, SBR, recirculation of bed particles [27]

RYield, RGibbs PR-BM – – Temperature, steam-to-feed ratio, feedstock type [28]

RYield, Requil PR-BM – E/M Temperature, ER, [29]

RYield, RGibbs PR-BM – E Temperature, SBR [30]

RYield, RGibbs NRTL, HOC – E/M ER [31]

RYield, RGibbs PENG-ROB C4H4O E/M Temperature, ER, steam-to-C ratio [32]

RYield, RGibbs PR-BM As C7H8 and C10H8 E/M SBR, temperature [33]

RYield, RGibbs PR-BM – E Particle size, temperature, gasifying agent dosage [34]

RYield, RGibbs – – E Temperature, ER, air + steam as gasifying agent [35]

RYield, RGibbs RKS-BM – E/M Temperature, SBR, H2 production, LHV [36]

RYield, RGibbs IDEAL, PR-BM – E/M Temperature, gasification temperature, ER, [38]
gasifying agents

RYield, RGibbs PR-BM – E/M Gasifying agent, temperature, ER, moisture content [39]

RYield, RGibbs – – – Temperature, ER, moisture content [41]

RYield, RGibbs PR-BM As C6H6 E/M SBR, temperature, tar cracking [42]

RYield, RGibbs – – E Temperature, fuel-to-air ratio, fuel-to-H2O ratio [43]

RYield, RGibbs – – – Flue gas, ER, temperature [44]

RYield, RGibbs PENG-ROB no tar E/M Temperature, ER, steam-to-carbon ratio [45]

RYield, RGibbs – – E/M CO2 recycling ratio, on different operational [46]

parameters, comparison of the current system
with the conventional gasification

RYield, RGibbs – – E Restricted eq. and full eq. models to study syngas [47]
composition

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2020, 43, No. 9, 1674–1689 ª 2020 The Authors. Published by WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. www.cet-journal.com
 Review 1680

Continued Table 2.

Aspen Plus Property method Modeling tar formation Validationa) Parametric study Ref.
configuration

RGibbs – Using correlations E/M Temperature, ER, sorbent addition, gasifying agent, [48]
regression analysis

RYield, RGibbs – As C10H8 E/M Temperature, ER, SBR [49]

RYield, RGibbs PR-BM – E/M Temperature, gasifying agent, gasifying [50]

agent/biomass

RYield, RGibbs PR-BM – E/M Temperature, SBR, shift reaction temperature [51]

RYield, RGibbs IDEAL C6H6O, C16H10, C12H4Cl4O2 E Temperature, steam supply [52]

RYield, RGibbs PR – E/M Gasifier type, temperature, SBR [53]

RYield, RGibbs PR, RKS – E/M Biomass composition, temperature, biomass feeding [54]
concentrations

RYield, RGibbs PR-BM – E/M Temperature, feed concentration [55]

RYield, RGibbs PR-BM C6H6, C7H8, C10H8 E/M Temperature, pressure, mass ratio of tars to [56]
supercritical water

RGibbs IDEAL – – Temperature, pressure, feed concentration [57]

RStoic, RGibbs PR with van der – E/M Temperature, feed concentration [58]
Waals mixing rule

RYield, RGibbs PR – E Comparison of experimental and theoretical gas [59]

yields under optimum conditions

RGibbs – – – Temperature, pressure, feed concentration [60]

a)
E: Validation based on author’s own experimental study; E/M: Validation based on experimental/modeling literature data; ER: equiva-
lence ratio, SBR: steam-to-biomass ratio, NRTL: non-random two liquid, HOC: Hayden-O’Connell.

The simulation results were verified with an experimental
study from the literature [87] in terms of syngas composition.
Modeling and experimental results were found to be in line
except the results for the gasification of poultry waste which
was traced back to the high ash content of poultry waste
(~ 50 wt %) that might have caused problems during gasifica-
tion. In a further step of the study, a detailed parametric analy-
sis was carried out and it was concluded that the performances
of MSW and poultry waste can be improved by mixing with
other biomasses indicating that the chosen biomass type plays
an important role in the process.
Begum et al. [3] studied the performance of an integrated
fixed-bed gasifier based on an equilibrium model assuming
that there is enough residence time for reactions to reach equi-
librium. The authors selected wood, coffee bean husks, green
wastes, MSW, and food wastes as feedstock. The modeling
results were validated with experimental data provided from a
lab-scale gasifier [87] for MSW and food waste in terms of syn-
gas composition. Based on the validation, a parametric study
was performed to determine the optimal operation conditions.
The authors concluded that their gasification model could be
applied for other biomass types to estimate the syngas compo-
sition.
In the study of Násner et al., an Aspen Plus model of a gasifi-
cation pilot plant combined with an Otto cycle internal com-
bustion engine was developed to understand the gasification
behavior of refuse-derived fuel (RDF) [31]. In the equilibrium-
based model, tar formation was neglected. The stoichiometric
mass balances were done in Excel, which was linked to the
reactor block. In addition, an existing MATLAB model was
improved and integrated in Aspen Plus to calculate the equilib-
rium temperature in the gasifier’s reduction zone. Model vali-
dation was based on gasification of eucalyptus due to lack of
experimental data of RDF in terms of H2, CO, and CH4 com-
position in syngas. The standard deviations between experi-
mental and model results were 2.8 % on average.
It is possible to find studies on modeling supercritical water
gasification in Aspen Plus [54–60]. An interesting model for
the supercritical water gasification of biomass was proposed by
Louw et al. in order to understand how the composition of dif-
ferent biomasses influences the system’s performance [54]. The
effect of feedstock composition regarding C, H, and O content
on gasification performance was modeled using different model
components as well as 49 biomass feedstocks. The effects of
inorganics and ash were neglected. The C and H contents were
combined into the C/H ratio, and generalized contour plots
were developed to understand the effects of operational param-
eters and to determine the thermodynamic limits of the pro-
cess. The model validation was performed with results from
gasification of glycerol [88], cornstarch and sawdust mixtures
[73, 89] as well as microalgae [90] in terms of the syngas com-
position. The authors concluded that the biomass composition
has a significant impact on performance indicators such as gas
yield, energy content of the product gas or cold gas efficiencies

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2020, 43, No. 9, 1674–1689 ª 2020 The Authors. Published by WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. www.cet-journal.com
 Review 1681

and should thus be considered during the modeling studies
[54].
Tar formation [21, 25, 42, 45, 49] was included in several
studies though it was either considered as an inert compound
or the comparison of the tar yields was not incorporated in the
validation studies. For instance, tar formation in the pyrolysis
stage was included in an Aspen Plus model [25] for a two-stage
biomass pyrolysis and gasification using three different micro-
algae as feedstocks. Due to the insufficient pyrolysis tempera-
ture for high tar conversion, the authors assumed tar as inert
compound. CH4 and O2 were also supposed as non-reacting
compounds in the pyrolysis stage. In the combustion zone, the
controlled use of O2 was applied for the complete conversion
of tar into syngas. The results were validated in terms of syngas
composition as well as tar yield with experimental results of an-
other study [91]. Tar yield from the model was calculated as
1 %, while experimentally it was determined as 2.5 %, which
was attributed to the fact that tar formation was only consid-
ered in the pyrolysis zone.
In another study [45], the focus of the model was the investi-
gation of the gasifying agent injection through various zones
for an effective tar cracking process at high temperatures. Tar
was represented as C4H4O based on the literature [92, 93]. The
pyrolysis step was divided into two sections. In pyrolysis-A, the
formation of volatiles, tar, char, and ash was modeled, while
pyrolysis-B was dominated by water-shift reactions and the re-
verse CO2 reforming reactions. In pyrolysis-B, the zone, tar,
and char were assumed as non-reacting compounds consider-
ing the equilibrium was not achieved. The validation was based
on the comparison of the temperatures and composition of the
syngas with an experimental study [94] as well as a convention-
al gasification model [17]. The authors stated that their model
accuracy was better than the conventional model, since tar
formation was included. However, the model validation in
terms of tar formation was not reported in the study.
Puig-Gamero et al. [42] also developed an integrated process
simulation including pine gasification, syngas cleaning, and
methanol synthesis by including tar formation using C6H6 as
model compound. The simulation results were validated with
the experimental data from a double-chamber gasifier pilot
plant in terms of syngas composition [95]. The authors stated
that the deviations between model and experimental data could
be attributed to the selection of the equilibrium model, since
experimental data also included reaction kinetics. As a result of
their parametric study, tar formation was reduced by increasing
gasification temperature and steam flow rates. In addition to
these studies on fixed-bed gasifiers, Ardila et al. [49] proposed
a model for the syngas production in a circulating fluidized-
bed reactor by representing the tar as naphthalene in order to
decrease the model complexity. The results from the Aspen
Plus model were then validated with experimental data from
another study [96]. However, the model validation for the tar
formation was not reported in this study either.
3.2 Modeling Gasification Based on the Kinetic
Approach with RCSTR, RPLUG, and other
User-Defined Blocks
The kinetic approach is mostly selected to model fluidized-bed
gasifiers using RCSTRs [10, 14, 24, 72], RPLUG [73, 74], FBR
block [13] or user-defined blocks [15] in case the users want to
create their own process unit. Studies based on the kinetic
approach are summarized in Tab. 3.
Regarding studies that neglect tar formation, Nikoo and
Mahinpey developed an extensive Aspen Plus model to simu-

Table 3. Studies based on the kinetic modeling approach in Aspen Plus.

Aspen Plus Property Modeling tar formation Validationa) Bed hydro- Parametric study Ref.
configuration method dynamics

RYield, RGibbs, – Future work E/M x Temperature, SBR, ER, biomass [10]
RCSTR particle size

RYield, RGibbs, PENG–ROB As C6H6, C6H5OH, C10H8 E – Temperature, ER, energetic assessment [12]
RCSTR

RGibbs, RCSTR RKS–BM – E/M – Steam flow, temperature, residence time [16]

User defined – Empirical equations E/M x Temperature, SBR, ER [15]

RYield, CFB PR–BM – E – Temperature, SBR [13]

(fluidized bed block)

RGibbs, RCSTR – Primary tar E/M x Temperature, SBR [14]

RYield, RGibbs, IDEAL – E x Air-to-fuel ratio, SBR, temperature [72]

RCSTR

RYield, RGibbs, RK C6H6, C6H5OH, C7H8, E/M – Comparison of model results in terms [74]
RPLUG C10H8 of syngas composition and tar content

RYield, RGibbs, RKS as C6H6 E – Gasifier diameter, height, fuel type [73]
RPLUG

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2020, 43, No. 9, 1674–1689 ª 2020 The Authors. Published by WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. www.cet-journal.com
 Review 1682

Continued Table 3.

Aspen Plus Property Modeling tar formation Validationa) Bed hydro- Parametric study Ref.
configuration method dynamics

RYield, RCSTR – x E/M x Temperature, SBR, ER, biomass particle [24]

size

RYield, RGibbs, – x E/M – Temperature, ER, oxygen enrichment [37]

RCSTR

RYield, RGibbs, – C6H6, C7H8, C3H6O, E/M – ER, temperature, moisture content, [40]
RCSTR, RPLUG C6H5OH etc. biomass composition
a)
E: Validation based on author’s own experimental study; E/M: Validation based on experimental/modeling literature data; SBR: steam-
to-biomass ratio, ER: equivalence ratio.

late gasification of pine sawdust [10]. Hydrodynamic equations
for the bubbling bed as well as the char combustion kinetics
were employed from the literature. Representation of the bed
and freeboard sections were modeled by two RCSTRs as in
Fig. 4. The modeling results were validated with experimental
data from another study on pine gasification carried out in a
lab-scale fluidized-bed reactor which revealed that syngas com-
position was sensitive to gasification temperature [97]. The
model was characterized by deviations in H2 production, which
was explained by the exclusion of tar formation. Based on these
results, it was proposed that inclusion of the tar formation
could improve the model, which can be realized by conducting
additional experimental studies and implementing the obtained
results to the model. Temperature- and heating rate-dependent
parameters (x,y,z) can be incorporated in the tar formula
Figure 4. Aspen Plus flow sheet for fluidized-bed gasification process. Reprinted
with permission from [10] (Copyright 2008, Elsevier).
(CxHyOz) of the model. Radial dispersion through the reactor
is planned to be taken into account in future work by perform-
ing an extensive modeling including bed hydrodynamics
assumptions [10].
There are also studies in which tar formation was considered
during modeling and validation. Beheshti et al. [24] simulated
a biomass gasification process in a bubbling fluidized-bed reac-
tor using an air-steam mixture as gasification agent. A semi-
kinetic approach was employed with several empirical correla-
tions considering the system could not fully achieve a complete
equilibrium. First-order reaction kinetics were proposed,
claiming that this assumption does not cause major deviations
in the model [10, 98], even though in a previous work the reac-
tion order was found to be lower than 1 [99]. The model was
validated with experimental data from another study on gasifi-
cation of wood pellets in a bubbling fluidized-bed
reactor [100]. The model was also tested for other
biomass types, which were beech wood [101] and
wood [102]. Thus, the correlations were employed
to estimate the decomposition behavior for specific
biomass types. The authors stated that the devel-
oped model can also be used for other biomass
types by assuming that fast devolatilization occurs
due to high temperatures.
Damartzis et al. [12] proposed a process model
including the main gasification steps as well as a
gas-cleaning unit and an internal combustion en-
gine. A mixture of three aromatic compounds rep-
resented the tar as product of the pyrolysis step by
assuming that around 20 wt % of the feedstock was
converted into tar consisting of benzene (60 %),
toluene (20 %), and naphthalene (20 %). The model
was validated with experimental data from olive
kernel gasification in a packed-bed reactor with
olivine catalyst for tar cracking. However, the ex-
clusion of catalytic effects in the model caused
deviations. Another interesting aspect is the inves-
tigation of impacts of five biomass types including
olive kernel, corncob and stalks, soya, and rapeseed
on the performance of the gasification system. The
authors found that with respect to ultimate and
proximate analyses the differences between selected
biomasses were not significant, so that any ligno-
cellulosic biomass can be used in the gasification

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2020, 43, No. 9, 1674–1689 ª 2020 The Authors. Published by WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. www.cet-journal.com
 Review
for power production. In conclusion, limitations such as inte-
gration of bed hydrodynamics, tar formation approximations,
and the inclusion of geometry information of the system were
highlighted as further improvements for a better system assess-
ment.
Cao et al. studied the gasification behavior of five feedstocks
including pine sawdust, rice husk, corn core, and wood chips
in oxygen-enriched atmosphere [37]. Even though tar forma-
tion was taken into account, details of tar modeling were scarce
in the study. The validation of the model was done using exper-
imental data from a cyclone gasifier in terms of syngas compo-
sition. The predicted results from the model were in good
agreement, except for CO2 due to the catalytic activity of min-
erals from biomass at higher temperatures (> 790 C). Temper-
ature was found to be the key parameter, and higher tempera-
tures resulted in lower tar formation. Gasification of pine
sawdust resulted in the highest gas yields as well as gas heating
values while the lowest tar yield was obtained for rice husk gas-
ification.
Smith et al. developed and compared two Aspen Plus gasifi-
cation models based on equilibrium and kinetic approaches
[40]. For the equilibrium model, a RGIBBS block with the
exclusion of tar formation was employed. To build a model that
better describes the gasification process, additional RCSTR and
RPLUG blocks were integrated in the kinetic-based model to
perform heterogeneous and homogeneous reactions, respec-
tively (Fig. 5). The developed models were validated using two
experimental cases of hazelnut and pinewood gasification. The
authors also investigated the effects of biomass composition on
gasification behavior by changing the C/H ratios of the feed-
stock. Validation indicated a better agreement of the experi-
mental data with the kinetic model than with the equilibrium
model. A higher C content in the feedstock resulted in a higher
share of CO in the syngas and higher oxygen demand. Based
on the kinetic model, tar was considered as main compound
Figure 5. Aspen Plus process diagram for a downdraft gasifier; flowsheet recreated for higher resolution based
on Smith et al. [40].
Chem. Eng. Technol. 2020, 43, No. 9, 1674–1689 ª 2020 The Authors. Published by WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA.
1683
like acetone, benzene, naphthalene, propionic acid, toluene,
and phenol. It was concluded that among all the simulated tar
compositions, acetone takes approximately 50 %; benzene and
naphthalene are the main components of tar.
Depending on the aim of the process, it is also possible to
build up different flowsheets using other Aspen Plus blocks or
user-defined models. Pauls et al. [15] created a model based on
an existing Aspen Plus model [10] for gasification of pine saw-
dust. Improvements were based on integration of a tempera-
ture-dependent pyrolysis model, an adapted hydrodynamic
model, extensive reaction kinetics along with the modeling of
tar formation. A user-defined reactor was developed to deal
with the complexity of a bubbling fluidized-bed gasifier. Tar
was modeled as CaHbOc which was then converted into differ-
ent compounds. The model validation was based on a compari-
son of the model results with experimental results from gasifi-
cation of pine dust [103] whereas results of an improved model
were also compared with the original model. Researchers
claimed that the adaptions on tar modeling successfully im-
proved the prediction of H2 and CO contents in the syngas.
However, CH4 and CO2 prediction was less accurate due to
uncertainty in the empirical equations. One of the reasons for
deviations was explained with the mass transfer limitations
during the char combustion reaction. Integration of the other
hydrocarbon combustion reactions (tar, CH4, etc.) together
with mass and heat transfer mechanisms within the reactor
were proposed as further improvements of the model.
Adeyemi and Janajreh [73] developed a model to study gasi-
fication of Kentucky coal and wood waste. Tar was modeled as
benzene due to the short residence time in the entrained-flow
reactor at high temperatures. The main cracking of the com-
pounds was modeled in the RGIBBS block. A RPLUG block
was implemented to model char gasification, homogeneous
reactions, and to study optimal gasification configurations in
terms of diameter and height of the gasification reactor. Simu-
www.cet-journal.com
 Review
lation results were validated in terms of CO and CO2 composi-
tion at the reactor outlet with an experimental study in which
gasification of Kentucky coal in an air-blown gasifier was per-
formed. The authors stated that even though the RPLUG block
resembles a 1D reactor with lack of turbulence flow that has an
important effect on the reactor flow reactivity, the obtained
results from the model were promising. The model was also
tested based on fuel type (waste wood vs. coal). The CO and
H2 productions were found to be lower, while CO2 production
was higher for waste wood compared to coal gasification.
Therefore, it was concluded that the composition of the feed-
stock has a significant effect for simulation of syngas composi-
tion.
In another study [74], biomass gasification was modeled
based on several conversion steps in an isothermal yield reactor
by implementing different correlations for pyrolysis along with
reaction kinetics for char gasification. An RPLUG block was
used to model secondary reactions by a semi-detailed kinetic
mechanism. Ten tar components were categorized into four
main groups: benzene, phenol, toluene, and naphthalene. Due
to the complex nature of pyrolysis, a simplified correlation was
employed to predict the yield of pyrolysis products. This corre-
lation was based on previous experimental and detailed tar
analysis. Coupling was performed by transferring reactor inlets
(mass and enthalpy flow rates, temperature, and pressure, etc.)
from Aspen to the Fortran files while the outputs of Fortran
calculations (product mass flow rates, etc.) were then trans-
ferred back to Aspen Plus. Model development and validation
were based on two dual fluidized bed technologies, namely
TNEE [104] and FERCO [14, 105]. Validation studies showed
that the models of both technologies underpredicted the CO2
fraction, while they overpredicted the CO fraction in syngas.
The developed models were successful in predicting CH4 frac-
tions in the syngas, which was a good indicator of the model
accuracy for the pyrolysis step considering essentially CH4 is
produced in this conversion step along with primary tar con-
version. The comparison of tar yields were also found in agree-
ment as a result of the selected pyrolysis correlation and
detailed reaction kinetics, which plays an important role in
modeling tar conversion.
4 Opportunities and Challenges
in Modeling with Aspen Plus
In general, it is possible to select an equilibrium or kinetic
approach to model biomass gasification using Aspen Plus
based on the aim of the study. The equilibrium approach is
more applicable if the thermodynamic limitations of the gasifi-
cation process is in the focus with respect to operating condi-
tions and the syngas composition. An equilibrium model is
suitable for high gasification temperatures (> 1500 K), consider-
ing that the thermodynamic equilibrium is not fully achieved
during relatively lower temperatures [1, 2, 61, 106]. Even
though equilibrium models are less advanced than kinetic
models, they are still capable of modeling gasification processes
especially for fixed-bed gasifiers (downdraft or updraft) operat-
ing nearly at equilibrium conditions. Still, there are also studies
based on this approach to model other types of gasifiers like
Chem. Eng. Technol. 2020, 43, No. 9, 1674–1689 ª 2020 The Authors. Published by WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA.
1684
fluidized-bed gasifiers [11, 22, 26, 27, 43, 47, 49, 51]. However,
neglecting tar modeling, duration and heterogeneity of the
reaction within the gasifier and heat losses limit the modeling
to fluidized-bed gasifiers [64]. With the kinetic approach, reac-
tion kinetics are also considered during modeling. This
approach can be more suitable for modeling fluidized-bed gas-
ifiers, since it also enables integration of bed hydrodynamics.
However, all these parameters may limit not only the applic-
ability of the model to different plant designs but also increase
the complexity of the model with respect to computational
efforts.
On the other hand, each method may require several
assumptions not only to reduce the computational efforts but
also to address unknown data. In Tab. 4, some of these assump-
tions adopted in the literature are summarized. Most studies
assume that the process is steady-state, isothermal with a
homogeneous temperature and pressure profile, and no pres-
sure drops inside the reactor allowing the reactants to reach the
equilibrium state [8, 12, 20, 73]. However, in reality, inhomoge-
neous temperature profiles and heat losses cannot be avoided.
Pressure drops in the gasifiers, especially in fluidized-bed gasif-
iers, mark another challenge, which may result in poor syngas
quality. In some cases, modeling 1D gasifiers was based on the
assumption that any changes throughout the reactor can only
occur in axial direction [73] which also contradicts with real
applications. Short residence times of reactants may also cause
non-equilibrium states.
In terms of assumptions related to gasification products,
modeling tar formation stands as one of the challenges and
there is still no consensus in the literature. Tar is either not
considered to simplify the model, especially in studies based on
equilibrium approach (see Tab. 2) or is represented by certain
model compounds (i.e., C6H6, C6H5OH, C10H8) or as a mix-
ture of these compounds [12, 25, 42, 49, 74]. However, different
assumptions and tar representations in models not only make
comparison of each study more difficult but also withdrawing a
certain conclusion on whether the inclusion and/or exclusion
of tar formation is better. Therefore, each study has to be eval-
uated from its main technological conditions and assumptions.
On the other hand, char is modeled either as only pure solid
carbon or assumed to contain ash as well. The catalytic effects
due to certain interactions of inorganics/salts incorporated in-
side the char and ash are neglected [107]. Accumulation of
these fractions at the bottom of the gasifier within time is also a
serious problem in practice. Accordingly, in case of catalysis
use in gasification experiments, their effects are either not con-
sidered [37] or it was concluded that the deviations between
experimental and modeling results are based on the lack of
catalytic effects in the models [13].
Main compounds of the syngas are mostly modeled as CO,
CO2, CH4, H2, O2, and N2 whereas the other hydrocarbon
gases are commonly not included. Sulfur is assumed to form
only H2S while the formation of air pollutants such as COS,
H2S, and CS2 is also excluded. Similarly, nitrogen forms only
NH3. In addition, the biomass particles are assumed to be
spherical and uniform in size by supposing a constant average
particle diameter [15].
Implementation of the bed hydrodynamics into the models
is still not a very common approach and often stated as a future
www.cet-journal.com
 Review 1685

Table 4. General and hydrodynamic assumptions in Aspen Plus modeling (*in some studies).

Common assumptions in Aspen Plus modeling Ref.

General assumptions

Process is steady-state and isothermal. [3, 8, 10 13, 18, 20, 23, 25, 26, 42, 48, 51, 72, 73]

Devolatilization occurs instantly and the syngas consists of CO, H2, CO2, CH4, H2O, O2 and N2.

Gases in the system are distributed uniformly.

Char is comprised of only pure carbon and/or ash as well.

Catalytic effects are ignored.

Particles are spherical with uniform diameter.

Pressure drops are neglected, pressure and temperature distribution within the system is uniform.

No unconverted carbon present in the product.

Tar and other heavy hydrocarbons are ignored.*

Sulfur reacts to form only H2S.*

Formation of air pollutants such as COS, H2S, CS2, NH3, and HCN are neglected.*

No nitrogen oxides are produced, only NH3 is formed.*

Residence times are long enough to reach the equilibrium state.

Hydrodynamic assumptions

FBRs contain two sections including bed and freeboard.* [10, 14, 15, 24, 72]

Fluidization state is maintained in the bubbling regime.

Mixing of the solid particles inside the reactor such as bed material, ash, and char is perfect.

FBR is one-dimensional, meaning any changes throughout the reactor are considered to happen
only in the axial direction.

Volumetric flow rate of the gases increases corresponding to the production of the gas products
in parallel with the increasing height. Solid volume fraction decreases due to the grouping of the
bubbles in the bed and returning of the solid particles to the bed.

Gasifier is divided into a finite number of elements with constant hydrodynamic parameters.

improvement [12, 14, 43]. Researchers mostly follow the same
modeling approach by assuming that the gasifier contains two
main sections (i.e., bed and freeboard) represented by two
RSCTR blocks with their perfect mixing conditions
[10, 14, 24, 72]. However, in practice, there are many issues
affecting the fluidization mechanism inside the gasifier.
Agglomeration, for instance, is usually caused by the formation
of low-melting silicates, which interact with sand particles in-
side the reactor by covering them with an adhesive layer, which
at further steps tend to grow towards bigger agglomerates
[108, 109]. Thus, defluidization can be caused resulting in
sudden shutdowns or expensive maintenance problems in
practice [108].
Based on the reviewed studies, it is possible to model gasifi-
cation with a variety of feedstocks using Aspen Plus. In this
regard, Louw et al. provides an extensive feedstock database
(see Tab. 1) and discusses the effects of biomass composition
on supercritical biomass gasification [54]. However, there are
not many studies testing their model for other types of bio-
mass. In fact, this feature can be useful to study the gasification
behavior of feedstocks, which are not easy to handle in reality.
Some researchers take this opportunity to model challenging
feedstocks with varying composition (e.g., MSW, RDF, etc.)
[3, 18, 31, 41, 44] or with high moisture (e.g., sludge, food
processing wastes etc.) [6, 18, 35, 50, 55, 60] which may cause
operational problems or feedstocks with environmental
hazardous effects (e.g., waste tires etc.) [48].
In terms of thermodynamic properties, different empirical
correlations (Boie, Dulong, Grummel and Davis, Mott and
Spooner, Institute of Gas Technology (IGT)) are available for
modeling which were originally used to calculate the heating
value of coal [84]. These empirical equations are also applied in
modeling biomass gasification. Rönsch and Wagner [110] stud-
ied how these empirical correlations can cause deviations when
they were adapted for wood or straw. The authors defined the
elemental compositions of the selected biomasses and calcu-
lated the heating values using these approaches in Aspen Plus.
The results showed that the Mott and Spooner, the IGT, and
the Boie correlations were within an acceptable statistical range
for wood, while the Mott and Spooner correlation led to rea-

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2020, 43, No. 9, 1674–1689 ª 2020 The Authors. Published by WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. www.cet-journal.com
 Review 1686

sonable results for wheat straw. It was reported that the higher
heating value (HHV) was underestimated by most correlations.
In another study [74], the authors used the DCOALIGT meth-
od with IGT correlations to determine the density of biomass
and char, and they reported a significant deviation for char
heat capacity and the density calculated in the simulation com-
pared to their experimental values. A correlation equation from
literature [111] was used to adjust the heat capacity of the char,
while a constant value (i.e., 170 kg m–3) was taken as char den-
sity.
Considering all these aforementioned limitations, validation
of the models with preferably experimental and/or modeling
studies in literature is important to get an insight about the
capability of the developed model. Even though there are stud-
ies in which model validation was based on authors’ own
experimental data (see Tabs. 2 and 3), simulation models were
typically validated with literature data, especially in terms of
syngas composition. It is always worth to create a connection
between the proposed models, whose results can be validated
with its own experimental data, in case it is available.
Consequently, it is important to take these points into
account during model development while building up the flow-
sheet and/or choosing an appropriate method. Thus, it is im-
portant to understand the properties of the selected fuel as well
as the requirements of the gasification process.
like heat and mass transfer mechanisms, or better tar represen-
tation in the model could also be very useful to develop tailored
process models that are more realistic.
The Supporting Information for this article includes addi-
tional references to the primary literature relevant for this
research [112, 113].
Supporting Information
Supporting Information for this article can be found under
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ceat.202000068.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of
the EU’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program for
the project titled ‘‘DRALOD-Renewables-based drying technol-
ogy for cost-effective valorization of waste from the food pro-
cessing industry’’ under the grant agreement number 820554.
Open access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
[Correction added on September 21, 2020, after first online
publication: Projekt Deal funding statement has been added.]
The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

5 Summary and Conclusions

Abbreviations
Biomass gasification is generally modeled in Aspen Plus based
on the equilibrium approach, which assumes complete char ER equivalence ratio
conversion and generally does not include tar formation as well FBR fluidized-bed reactor
as reactor design. This approach can be useful to establish a FixB fixed-bed
relationship between operating conditions and thermodynamic HHV higher heating value
limitations of the process. In contrast, a kinetic-based model HOC Hayden-O’Connell
requires more detailed information related to reaction kinetics IGT Institute of Gas Technology
and bed hydrodynamics. Thus, it could be a better approach to MSW municipal solid waste
start the process development based on equilibrium models NRTL non-random two liquid
and to continue with the kinetic approach in case an extensive PENG-ROB Peng-Robinson cubic equation-of-state
process model is required. PR-BM Peng-Robinson cubic equation-of-state with the
Another important issue is the integration of tar formation. Boston-Mathias alpha function
To reduce the complexity of the model, tar is often not RDF refuse-derived fuel
included by assuming an inert compound or it is defined by RKS Redlich-Kwong-Soave (RKS) cubic equation-of-
certain basic model compounds. Handling tar formation dur- state
ing gasification processes is still one of the biggest challenges in RKS-BM Redlich-Kwong-Soave cubic equation-of-state
modeling. In several cases, it was shown that neglecting or sim- with Boston-Mathias alpha function
plification of tar formation in modeling resulted in deviations SBR steam-to-biomass ratio
between the modeled product gas composition and the experi- SCWG supercritical water gasification
mental results.
During modeling, some assumptions have to be made based
on the gasifier type, aim of the process or the type of selected References
modeling approach. At this point, validation of the model
results with experimental data, in case it is available, or other [1] D. Baruah, D. C. Baruah, Renewable Sustainable Energy
experimental/modeling studies in the literature becomes more Rev. 2014, 39, 806–815. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
important to realize the limitations of the model. j.rser.2014.07.129
Lastly, the Aspen Plus model of the process can be extended [2] P. Basu, Biomass Gasification, Pyrolysis, and Torrefaction:
by combining with other software (i.e., MATLAB) or other Practical Design and Theory, 2nd ed., Academic Press,
Aspen-related programs (i.e., Aspen Custom Modeler) or addi- Elsevier, Amsterdam 2018.
tional packages for the integration of internal process dynamics

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2020, 43, No. 9, 1674–1689 ª 2020 The Authors. Published by WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. www.cet-journal.com
 Review
[3] S. Begum, M. G. Rasul, D. Akbar, N. Ramzan, Energies 2013,
6 (12), 6508–6524. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/en6126508
[4] I. A. Shah, X. Gou, J. Wu, Energies 2019, 12 (10), 1949. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3390/en12101949
[5] D. Scamardella, C. D. Crescenzo, A. Marzocchella, A. Moli-
no, S. Chianese, V. Savastano, R. Tralice, D. Karatza, D. Mus-
marra, Chem. Eng. Trans. 2019, 74, 55–60. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.3303/CET1974010
[6] A. Athaley, B. Saha, M. Ierapetritou, AIChE J. 2019, 1–15.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.16660
[7] S. Begum, M. G. Rasul, D. Akbar, Procedia Eng. 2014, 90,
710–717. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.11.800
[8] K. N. Dhanavath, K. Shah, S. K. Bhargava, S. Bankupalli,
R. Parthasarathy, J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2018, 6 (2), 3061–
3069. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2018.04.046
[9] M. Niu, Y. Huang, B. Jin, X. Wang, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
2013, 52 (42), 14768–14775. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/
ie400026b
[10] M. B. Nikoo, N. Mahinpey, Biomass Bioenergy 2008, 32 (12),
1245–1254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.
02.020
[11] W. Doherty, A. Reynolds, D. Kennedy, Biomass Bioenergy
2009, 33 (9), 1158–1167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biombioe.2009.05.004
[12] T. Damartzis, S. Michailos, A. Zabaniotou, Fuel Process.
Technol. 2012, 95, 37–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.fuproc.2011.11.010
[13] M. Hussain, L. D. Tufa, S. Yusup, H. Zabiri, Biofuels 2018, 9
(5), 635–646. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17597269.2018.
1461510
[14] P. Kaushal, R. Tyagi, Renewable Energy 2017, 101, 629–636.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.09.011
[15] J. H. Pauls, N. Mahinpey, E. Mostafavi, Biomass Bioenergy
2016, 95, 157–166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biombioe.2016.10.002
[16] M. S. Eikeland, R. K. Thapa, B. M. Halvorsen, Proc. of the
56th SIMS 2015, 149–156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3384/
ecp15119149
[17] T. H. Jayah, L. Aye, R. J. Fuller, D. F. Stewart, Biomass Bio-
energy 2003, 25 (4), 459–469.
[18] N. Ramzan, A. Ashraf, S. Naveed, A. Malik, Biomass Bio-
energy 2011, 35 (9), 3962–3969. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.06.005
[19] A. Gagliano, F. Nocera, M. Bruno, G. Cardillo, Energy Proce-
dia 2017, 111, 1010–1019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.egypro.2017.03.264
[20] P. C. Kuo, W. Wu, W. H. Chen, Fuel 2014, 117, 1231–1241.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.07.125
[21] M. Zhai, L. Guo, Y. Wang, Y. Zhang, P. Dong, H. Jin, Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 2016, 41 (47), 21926–21935. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.10.037
[22] W. Doherty, A. Reynolds, D. Kennedy, Aspen plus simula-
tion of biomass gasification in a steam blown dual fluidised
bed, in Materials and processes for energy: communicating
current research and technological developments (Ed: A. Mén-
dez-Vilas), Formatex Research Centre, Badajoz 2013.
[23] J. Han, Y. Liang, J. Hu, L. Qin, J. Street, Y. Lu, F. Yu, Energy
Convers. Manage. 2017, 153, 641–648. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2017.10.030
Chem. Eng. Technol. 2020, 43, No. 9, 1674–1689 ª 2020 The Authors. Published by WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA.
1687
[24] S. M. Beheshti, H. Ghassemi, R. Shahsavan-Markadeh, Ener-
gy Convers. Manage. 2015, 94, 345–352. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.01.060
[25] M. A. Adnan, M. M. Hossain, Energy Convers. Manage.
2018, 165, 783–793. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2018.03.078
[26] C. C. Sreejith, C. Muraleedharan, P. Arun, Int. J.Sustainable
Energy 2011, 33 (2), 416–434. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/
14786451.2012.755977
[27] L. Shen, Y. Gao, J. Xiao, Biomass Bioenergy 2008, 32 (2),
120–127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.
08.002
[28] A. AlNouss, P. Parthasarathy, M. Shahbaz, T. Al-Ansari,
H. Mackey, G. McKay, Appl. Energy 2020, 261, 114350. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114350
[29] S. Safarian, C. Richter, R. Unnthorsson, JPEE 2019, 7 (6),
12–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/jpee.2019.76002
[30] M. Shahbaz, S. Yusup, A. Inayat, M. Ammar, D. O. Patrick,
A. Pratama, S. R. Naqvi, Energy Fuels 2017, 31 (11), 12350–
12357. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b02670
[31] A. M. L. Násner, E. E. S. Lora, J. C. E. Palacio, M. H. Rocha,
J. C. Restrepo, O. J. Venturini, A. Ratner, Waste Manage.
2017, 69, 187–201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.
2017.08.006
[32] M. A. Adnan, H. Susanto, H. Binous, O. Muraza, M. M.
Hossain, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42 (27), 17009–
17019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.05.187
[33] V. Marcantonio, E. Bocci, D. Monarca, Energies 2020, 13 (1),
53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/en13010053
[34] F. Huang, S. Jin, Energy Sci. Eng. 2019, 5, 103. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1002/ese3.338
[35] J. M. de Andrés, M. Vedrenne, M. Brambilla, E. Rodrı́guez,
J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 2018, 1–11. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2018.1500404
[36] R. Tavares, E. Monteiro, F. Tabet, A. Rouboa, Renewable
Energy 2020, 146, 1309–1314. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.renene.2019.07.051
[37] Y. Cao, Q. Wang, J. Du, J. Chen, Energy Convers. Manage.
2019, 199, 111628. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.
2019.05.054
[38] P. Saha, M. Helal Uddin, M. Toufiq Reza, Energy Convers.
Manage. 2019, 191, 12–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2019.04.012
[39] W. Tauqir, M. Zubair, H. Nazir, Energy Convers. Manage.
2019, 199, 111954. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.
2019.111954
[40] J. D. Smith, A. Alembath, H. Al-Rubaye, J. Yu, X. Gao,
H. Golpour, Chem. Eng. Technol. 2019, 42 (12), 2505–2519.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ceat.201900304
[41] C. Chen, Y. Jin, J. Yan, Y. Chi, J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. A 2010,
11 (8), 619–628. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.A0900792
[42] M. Puig-Gamero, J. Argudo-Santamaria, J. L. Valverde,
P. Sánchez, L. Sanchez-Silva, Energy Convers. Manage. 2018,
177, 416–427. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.
2018.09.088
[43] N. R. Mitta, S. Ferrer-Nadal, A. M. Lazovic, J. F. Perales,
Enric Velo, L. Puigjaner, Comput. Aided Chem. Eng. 2006,
21, 1771–1776.
[44] C. Chen, Y. Jin, J. Yan, Y. Chi, Fuel 2013, 103, 58–63. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2011.06.075
www.cet-journal.com
 Review
[45] M. M. Adnan, H. Susanto, H. Binous, M. Muraza, M. M.
Hossain, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42 (16), 10971–
10985. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.01.156
[46] B. Prabowo, M. Aziz, K. Umeki, H. Susanto, M. Yan,
K. Yoshikawa, Appl. Energy 2015, 158, 97–106. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.060
[47] C. H. Liao, M. Summers, R. Seiser, R. Cattolica, R. Herz,
Environ. Prog. Sustainable Energy 2014, 33 (3), 732–736.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.11945
[48] S. Rupesh, C. Muraleedharan, P. Arun, Resource-Efficient
Technol. 2016, 2 (2), 94–103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.reffit.2016.07.002
[49] Y. C. Ardila, J. E. J. Figueroa, B. H. Lunelli, R. M. Filho,
M. R. Wolf Maciel, Comput. Aided Chem. Eng. 2012, 30,
1093–1097. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-59520-
1.50077-4
[50] M. Fernandez-Lopez, J. Pedroche, J. L. Valverde, L. Sanchez-
Silva, Energy Convers. Manage. 2017, 140, 211–217. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.03.008
[51] L. P. R. Pala, Q. Wang, G. Kolb, V. Hessel, Renewable Energy
2017, 101, 484–492. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.
2016.08.069
[52] A. Tungalag, B. Lee, M. Yadav, O. Akande, Energy 2020, 198,
117296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117296
[53] T. Nurtono, F. B. K. Agung, M. D. Indriani, H. D. Nanda,
I. R. Jayanti, S. Winardi, 2nd Int. Conf. on Chemical Process
and Product Engineering (ICCPPE) 2019, 2020, 1–9. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5140951
[54] J. Louw, C. E. Schwarz, J. H. Knoetze, A. J. Burger, Bioresour.
Technol. 2014, 174, 11–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biortech.2014.09.129
[55] P. M. Ruya, R. Purwadi, S. S. Lim, Energy Convers. Manage.
2020, 206, 112458. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.
2019.112458
[56] W. Wan, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2016, 41 (33), 14573–
14582. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.04.237
[57] M. S. H. K. Tushar, A. Dutta, C. Xu, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
2015, 40 (13), 4481–4493. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2015.02.033
[58] A. Rahbari, M. B. Venkataraman, J. Pye, Appl. Energy 2018,
228, 1669–1682. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.
2018.07.002
[59] J. A. Okolie, S. Nanda, A. K. Dalai, J. A. Kozinski, Energy
Convers. Manage. 2020, 208, 112545. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112545
[60] L. Fiori, M. Valbusa, D. Castello, Bioresour. Technol. 2012,
121, 139–147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.
06.116
[61] M. Puig-Arnavat, J. C. Bruno, A. Coronas, Renewable Sus-
tainable Energy Rev. 2010, 14 (9), 2841–2851. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.07.030
[62] A. M. A. Ahmed, A. Salmiaton, T. S. Y. Choong, W. A. K. G.
Wan Azlina, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2015, 52,
1623–1644. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.125
[63] D. Hantoko, M. Yan, B. Prabowo, H. Susanto, X. Li, C. Chen,
Current Dev. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2019, 259–281. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-64083-3.00013-0
[64] S. Safarian, R. UnnÞórsson, C. Richter, Renewable Sustain-
able Energy Rev. 2019, 110, 378–391. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2019.05.003
Chem. Eng. Technol. 2020, 43, No. 9, 1674–1689 ª 2020 The Authors. Published by WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA.
1688
[65] A. A. P. Susastriawan, H. Saptoadi, Purnomo, Renewable
Sustainable Energy Rev. 2017, 76, 989–1003. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.112
[66] C. Loha, S. Gu, J. de Wilde, P. Mahanta, P. K. Chatterjee,
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2014, 40, 688–715. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.199
[67] T. K. Patra, P. N. Sheth, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev.
2015, 50, 583–593. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2015.05.012
[68] I. L. Motta, N. T. Miranda, R. M. Filho, M. R. Wolf Maciel,
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2018, 94, 998–1023. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.06.042
[69] S. Ferreira, E. Monteiro, P. Brito, C. Vilarinho, Energies
2019, 12 (1), 160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/en12010160
[70] V. S. Sikarwar, M. Zhao, P. Clough, J. Yao, X. Zhong, M. Z.
Memon, N. Shah, E. J. Anthony, P. S. Fennell, Energy Envi-
ron. Sci. 2016, 9 (10), 2939–2977. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1039/C6EE00935B
[71] R. G. Sargent, Proc. of the 2011 Winter Simulation Conference
2011, 183–198.
[72] S. Begum, M. G. Rasul, D. Akbar, D. Cork, Energies 2014,
7 (1), 43–61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/en7010043
[73] I. Adeyemi, I. Janajreh, Renewable Energy 2015, 82, 77–84.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.10.073
[74] L. Abdelouahed, O. Authier, G. Mauviel, J. P. Corriou,
G. Verdier, A. Dufour, Energy Fuels 2012, 26 (6), 3840–3855.
[75] C. Font Palma, Energy Fuels 2013, 27 (5), 2693–2702. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1021/ef4004297
[76] C. Li, K. Suzuki, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2009, 13
(3), 594–604. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2008.01.009
[77] C. Font Palma, Appl. Energy 2013, 111, 129–141. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.04.082
[78] R. C. Brown, Thermochemical Processing of Biomass: Conver-
sion into Fuels, Chemicals and Power, John Wiley & Sons,
New York 2011.
[79] A. Anukam, S. Mamphweli, P. Reddy, E. Meyer, O. Okoh,
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2016, 66, 775–801. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.046
[80] A. Molino, V. Larocca, S. Chianese, D. Musmarra, Energies
2018, 11 (4), 811. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/en11040811
[81] M. Klemm, in Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and
Technology (Ed.: R. A. Meyers), Springer, New York 2012.
[82] K. I. M. Al Malah, Aspen Plus: Chemical Engineering Appli-
cations, John Wiley & Sons, New York 2017.
[83] Aspen Technology Inc., Aspen Plus Physical Property System:
Physical Property Models and Methods 11.1, 2001.
[84] Aspen Technology Inc., Getting Started Modeling Processes
with Solids: Version No. V8.4, 2013.
[85] S. De, A. K. Agarwal, V. S. Moholkar, B. Thallada, Coal and
Biomass Gasification: Recent Advances and Future Chal-
lenges, Springer Nature, Singapore 2018.
[86] E. R. Widjaya, G. Chen, L. Bowtell, C. Hills, Renewable Sus-
tainable Energy Rev. 2018, 89, 184–193. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.023
[87] S. Naveed, A. Malik, N. Ramzan, M. Akram, Nucleus 2009,
46 (3), 77–81.
[88] A. J. Byrd, K. K. Pant, R. B. Gupta, Fuel 2008, 87, 2956–
2960. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2008.04.024
www.cet-journal.com
 Review
[89] M. J. Antal, S. G. Allen, D. Schulman, X. Xu, R. J. Divilio,
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2000, 39 (11), 4040–4053. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1021/ie0003436
[90] A. G. Chakinala, D. W. F. Brilman, W. P. M. van Swaaij, S. R.
A. Kersten, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2010, 49 (3), 1113–1122.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/ie9008293
[91] G. Duman, M. A. Uddin, J. Yanik, Bioresour. Technol. 2014,
166, 24–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.
2014.04.096
[92] H. de Lasa, E. Salaices, J. Mazumder, R. Lucky, Chem. Rev.
2011, 111 (9), 5404–5433. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/
cr200024w
[93] G. W. Huber, S. Iborra, A. Corma, Chem. Rev. 2006, 106 (9),
4044–4098. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/cr068360d
[94] H. Susanto, A. A. C. M. Beenackers, Fuel 1996, 75 (11),
1339–1347. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-2361(96)
00083-X
[95] B. Hejazi, J. R. Grace, X. Bi, A. Mahecha-Botero, Energy
Fuels 2017, 31 (11), 12141–12155. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b01833
[96] M. Gabra, E. Petterson, R. Backman, B. Kjellstorm, Biomass
Bioenergy 2001, 21, 351–369. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0961-9534(01)00043-5
[97] P. M. Lv, Z. H. Xiong, J. Chang, C. Z. Wu, Y. Chen, J. X. Zhu,
Bioresour. Technol. 2004, 95 (1), 95–101.
[98] A. Tremel, M. Gaderer, H. Spliethoff, Int. J. Energy Res.
2013, 37 (11), 1318–1330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/
er.2933
[99] S. J. Yoon, Y. C. Choi, J. G. Lee, Energy Convers. Manage.
2010, 51 (1), 42–47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2009.08.017
[100] M. Campoy, A. Gómez-Barea, F. B. Vidal, P. Ollero, Fuel Pro-
cess. Technol. 2009, 90 (5), 677–685. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.fuproc.2008.12.007
Chem. Eng. Technol. 2020, 43, No. 9, 1674–1689 ª 2020 The Authors. Published by WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA.
1689
[101] R. Radmanesh, J. Chaouki, C. Guy, AIChE J. 2006, 52 (12),
4258–4272. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.11020
[102] H. Kitzler, C. Pfeifer, H. Hofbauer, Fuel Process. Technol.
2011, 92 (5), 908–914. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.fuproc.2010.12.009
[103] P. Lv, J. Chang, Z. Xiong, H. Huang, C. Wu, Y. Chen, J. Zhu,
Energy Fuels 2003, 17 (3), 677–682. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1021/ef020181l
[104] X. Deglise, P. Magne, A. Donnot, J. P. Large, Y. Molodstof,
A. Lelan, in Biomass for Energy, Industry and Environment:
Proc.s of the 6th Int. Conf. on Biomass, 1992.
[105] H. F. Feldman, M. A. Paisley, H. R. Appelbaum, D. R. Taylor,
Conversion of Forest Residues to a Methane-Rich Gas in a
High Throughput Gasifier, Technical Report, Battelle Colum-
bus Div., OH 1988.
[106] A. V. Bridgwater, Fuel 1995, 74 (5), 631–653. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1016/0016-2361(95)00001-L
[107] A. Kruse, E. Dinjus, Z. Phys. Chem. 2005, 219, 341–366.
[108] M. Bartels, W. Lin, J. Nijenhuis, F. Kapteijn, J. R. van Om-
men, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2008, 34 (5), 633–666. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2008.04.002
[109] A. A. Khan, d. W. Jong, P. J. Jansens, H. Spliethoff, Fuel
Process. Technol. 2009, 90 (1), 21–50. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.fuproc.2008.07.012
[110] S. Rönsch, H. Wagner, DBFZ Workshop Fließschemasimula-
tion in der Energietechnik 2012.
[111] K. Raznjevik, Handbook of Thermodynamic Tables and
Charts, Hemisphere Publishing Corp., McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York 1976.
[112] J. Lee, S. Park, H. Seo, M. Kim, S. Kim, J. Chi, K. Kim,
Korean J. Chem. Eng. 2012, 29 (5), 574–582. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11814-011-0217-z
[113] Aspen Technology Inc., Aspen Plus, User Guide, Version
10.2, Vol. 2000.
www.cet-journal.com