Energy 209 (2020) 118457

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

A deep learning approach for prediction of syngas lower heating value

from CFB gasifier in Aspen plus®
€

ur Ozveren
Furkan Kartal , Ug *

Department of Chemical Engineering, Marmara University, Goztepe Campus, 34722, Kadikoy, Turkey

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

Article history: Aspen Plus® is one of the practicable software for investigation of the biomass gasification character-
Received 21 January 2020 istics. Also, artificial neural networks (ANN) as a deep learning approach are often used in the prediction
Received in revised form of parameters such as syngas composition, lower heating value (LHV), exergy, etc. However, to our best
27 June 2020
knowledge, a universal deep learning model based on the thermodynamic equilibrium approach to
Accepted 23 July 2020
predict LHV of syngas in circulating fluidized bed (CFB) gasifier is not available in literature yet. In this
Available online 28 July 2020
paper, a unique CFB gasifier model was developed in Aspen Plus® as a tool to create a total of over 1
million datasets for the training of a deep learning model that predicts the LHV of the syngas. The CFB
Keywords:
Biomass gasification
gasifier model was found to be in agreement with the results when compared with the experimental
Deep learning data in the literature. 56 biomass with various elemental and proximate properties were gasified in a
Circulating fluidized bed gasifier newly developed CFB gasifier model under different operating conditions by using sensitivity analysis in
Artificial neural network Aspen Plus®. A novel artificial neural network model, which is regularized with Levenberg-Marquardt
Lower heating value algorithm was used as a deep learning model with a 6-12-1 tangent sigmoid architecture to predict
Aspen plus® LHV of syngas in circulating fluidized bed (CFB) gasifier, requiring minimal specificity as compared to
commercial simulators require significant modelling effort and test runs. Results showed that the esti-
mated LHV of the syngas in an agreement with the calculated values. The coefficient of determination
score was calculated as R2 > 0.99 for all datasets.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In our modern world, a major part of energy requirements is
supplied by fossil fuels [1,2]. However, these finite energy resources
are running out rapidly due to the increasing demand for domestic
and industrial energy [3]. Furthermore, continuous consumption of
fossil fuels causes negative environmental, social, and political in-
fluences such as an increase of CO2, SOx and NOx concentrations,
climate change, foreign dependence, etc. In summary, human so-
ciety needs clean, sustainable, renewable, and global energy sour-
ces [4e6].
Biomass is provided by organic materials in nature and can be
found in a wide range and large sources. As a renewable source,
biomass energy takes place as third after oil and coal [7]. The fact
that biomass is the largest primary energy source after fossil fuels
have encouraged many researchers to work on biomass. Moreover,
biomass is also the only renewable energy source that can be used
* Corresponding author.
€
E-mail address: ugur.ozveren@marmara.edu.tr (U. Ozveren).
both as fuel and can be converted into raw chemical products [8].
Converting biomass to energy sources like liquid biofuels, biogas,
and syngas through thermochemical and biological processes is
quite possible [9,10].
Gasification is a thermochemical conversion process of carbo-
naceous fuel into product gas which mainly includes carbon
monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, and methane with some
unconverted char, tar, and ash, additionally trace amount of nitro-
gen, oxygen, and sulfide including chemical structures [11]. There is
a number of methods that can transform biomass into fuel, how-
ever, gasification looks promising technique when other biomass
conversion methods are compared in the way of hazardous emis-
sions, conversion efficiencies, and international policies [12e14].
High-grade gas can be acquired as a product of the gasification
process depending on gasification conditions and this product gas
can be used on electricity generation in fuel cells or chemical
substance production [15].
Fluidized bed reactors are extensively preferred for combustion
and gasification of coal and biomass. Currently, fluidized bed gas-
ifiers (or circulating bed gasifiers) are used globally for biomass

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118457
0360-5442/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 €
F. Kartal, U. Ozveren / Energy 209 (2020) 118457
gasification systems largely [16]. Fluidized bed gasifiers have
several advantages; improving mass and heat transfer character-
istics, providing excellent contact between the solid and gas,
ensuring the high degree of turbulence, enhancing volumetric ca-
pacity and heat storage, and increasing the ability to control the
temperature [17]. Due to an increase in overall gasifier efficiency,
circulating fluidized bed gasifiers are preferred to conventional
bubbling fluidized bed gasifiers [18].
To determine gasification characterization and examine gasifier
performances, several simulators and mathematical models have
been developed and used by researchers. Aspen Plus® is an
equation-oriented simulation program that enables to analyze
biological, chemical, and physical processes. Generally, it is used for
simulation of chemical processes include solid, liquid, and gaseous
phases under identified circumstances based on energy and mass
balances and phase equilibrium database. Aspen Plus® has ac-
quired big popularity among thermodynamic equilibrium pro-
grams by researchers and design engineers. Moreover, it has been
used many times for simulation of various processes involving
biomass [19e21] and coal [22,23] gasification further plasma
gasification processes [24].
There are two approaches (a single-compartment and a two-
compartment) in the modeling of a fluidized bed gasifier; one is
an overall equilibrium approach where the whole hydrodynamic
complexity of a system is neglected and the other is the hydrody-
namic modeling where the complexity of the gasifier system is
considered [19]. These models are competent to predict composi-
tion, lower heating value, and exergy of syngas depending on
gasification conditions such as gasifier temperature and pressure,
gasification agent/fuel ratio, bed height, the velocity of fluids,
physicochemical properties of the fuel, etc. Due to the complexity of
the gasification process including reaction rate kinetics, hydrody-
namics, and a large amount of volatile content in the biomass, re-
searchers have used Gibbs equilibrium calculation in their
thermodynamic models. Mathieu and Dubuisson [20] simulated
wood gasification in a fluidized bed gasifier using Aspen Plus®.
Their calculations are based on Gibbs energy minimization [25].
Similarly, Pala et al. [26] investigated the steam gasification of
biomass using Aspen Plus® in their integrated model. All reactions
reach chemical equilibrium in the Gibbs energy minimization-
based models which can’t be observed in real gasifiers usually.
Furthermore, the temperature in the gasifier stays steady-state and
homogenous regardless of the geometry of the gasifier. Although
Gibbs free energy minimization based thermodynamic models
have many assumptions, the authors validated their models with
experimental results and used these models to calculate many
parameters (cold gas efficiency, syngas composition, exergy anal-
ysis, char formation, etc.) in the gasification process.
Gasification parameters such as syngas composition, lower
heating value, carbon conversion efficiency, and cold gas efficiency
may be examined by different software like Aspen Plus®, genetic
programming, artificial neural network, etc. Artificial neural net-
works (ANN) are extensively used in engineering problems such as
prediction, recognition of patterns, and signal processing [27]. ANN
models are black-box models which do not require any mathe-
matical description about the system hence, they are very func-
tional to use when data set include complicated non-linearities like
in biomass gasification process [28]. Pandey et al. [29] developed an
artificial neural network model with high prediction accuracy
furthermore, an ANN model has been used to predict the lower
heating value of fuels in a gasifier system. However, artificial neural
network models have been developed for biomass gasification
infrequently since they need a huge number of data sets about
samples.
The purpose of this study, for the first time, is to develop a
universal deep learning model that predicts the syngas LHV for any
kind of biomass in a circulating fluidized bed gasifier. Since the ANN
models require a huge number of datasets, a new CFB gasifier
model was developed in Aspen Plus® software based on the ther-
modynamic equilibrium approach to calculate more than a million
operating conditions. Instead of modeling effort requiring and
time-consuming simulation program, an easy-to-compute and
simple implemented universal predictor was aimed to be devel-
oped. Thus, the estimation of a parameter in a complicated gasifi-
cation system was predicted using a more functional deep learning
model rather than using traditional methods.
2. Methodology
2.1. Feedstock data selection
In this paper, a comprehensive literature review was conducted
to obtain various biomass feedstocks. During the biomass selection
process, attention was paid to the fact that the biomass samples
were large in number and had different properties. Choosing
biomass with similar characteristics will increase the probability of
being in the training dataset, which will cause the model to pro-
duce a biased result. The proximate analysis and ultimate analysis
results of the samples were taken from the literature and ECN
(Energy Research Center of The Netherlands Organisation for
Applied Scientific Research) laboratories biomass classifications
[30], while the first 8 of the biomasses’ proximate analysis was
determined according to ASTM Standard D 5142-04 (Netzsch STA
409 PC Luxx), and ultimate analysis was performed using ASTM
Standard D5373-2. The biomass feedstocks used in this study listed
in Table 1.
2.2. Modeling of circulating fluidized bed gasifier in Aspen Plus®
In the present study, Aspen Plus® was used to simulate complex
reactions and different gasification zones which is widely popular
nowadays. If a convenient circulating fluidized bed gasifier model
can be established; composition, exergy, and lower heating value
can be analyzed by performing a parametric study on the devel-
oped model. The equilibrium models are one of the most frequently
preferred models that are expected to provide a wide range of
feasibility and ease of their formulation. In this model, it is assumed
that the reacting components reach the most stable state. Briefly,
the entropy is maximized, or the Gibbs free energy is minimized. In
this study, the Gibbs free energy minimization method was used in
the development process of the CFB gasifier model.
2.2.1. Simulation assumptions
The following assumptions were made for the newly developed
CFB gasifier model [47]:
C The entire gasification system is steady-state and isothermal
C Volatile products after the biomass devolatilization majorly
include H2, O2, CO, CO2, CH4, and H2O.
C Tar and other heavy hydrocarbons are neglected in the final
gas composition.
C Char only contains carbon and ash.
C Ash is considered inert, not involving in the reactions.
C All reactions occur fast and reach the chemical equilibrium.
2.2.2. Gibbs free energy minimization
In the current study, “RGibbs” reactors have a crucial effect on
the newly developed gasifier model. Gasification reactions mostly
occur in “RGibbs” reactors which are based on a chemical method
 €
F. Kartal, U. Ozveren / Energy 209 (2020) 118457 3

Table 1
Proximate analysis (db, wt%) and ultimate analysis (db, wt%) values of the biomass feedstock.

SAMPLE M FC VM ASH C H O N S

Almond Shell 2.27 20.48 78.29 1.23 44.09 5.59 45.98 0.15 2.96
Barley Straw 2.69 14.53 71.59 13.88 30.51 4.29 48.35 0.40 2.57
Hazelnut Husk 3.96 23.83 67.11 9.06 36.15 4.92 47.25 0.74 1.88
Hazelnut Shell 3.07 26.12 73.00 0.88 40.35 5.40 50.62 0.48 2.27
Olive Pomace 3.08 22.19 70.78 7.03 42.71 5.16 41.80 1.38 1.92
Rice Husk 3.92 14.42 65.67 19.91 28.85 3.96 45.43 0.68 1.17
Rice Straw 2.73 15.18 70.63 14.19 32.92 4.39 46.06 0.67 1.77
Wheat Straw 2.35 15.55 69.40 15.05 30.55 4.23 47.74 0.61 1.82
Apple Pulp [31] 5.70 18.20 79.00 2.80 49.56 8.43 38.19 0.97 0.05
Apricot Stones [32] 6.40 19.40 80.40 0.20 51.40 6.29 41.81 0.20 0.10
Beet Pulp [30] 83.30 14.11 61.50 24.39 35.50 4.74 34.09 1.28 0.00
Bread [30] 9.48 17.36 79.68 2.96 45.75 7.12 41.14 2.86 0.17
Cherry Pits [33] 6.00 17.10 82.00 0.90 53.41 7.04 38.05 0.30 0.30
Coconut Shell [32] 5.60 23.40 76.10 0.50 52.34 6.57 39.50 0.30 0.80
Coffee Husk [34] 11.40 31.30 64.60 4.10 42.10 4.60 47.57 1.53 0.10
Corn (Shelled) [35] 9.00 20.70 77.90 1.40 41.70 6.40 49.30 1.10 0.10
Cotton Gin Waste [36] 10.30 8.48 82.16 9.36 49.03 4.71 35.09 1.45 0.36
Cotton Stalk [37] 15.00 22.65 74.20 3.15 47.58 5.96 42.94 0.25 0.12
Grape Seeds [33] 7.60 22.20 75.30 2.50 54.02 6.83 34.99 1.46 0.20
Greenhouse Waste [30] 1.00 19.10 71.00 9.90 42.70 5.80 40.13 1.20 0.27
Hair Residues [30] 17.80 12.30 84.20 3.50 40.00 5.70 35.71 12.40 2.69
Leather [38] 14.10 16.90 77.30 5.80 49.31 8.52 22.12 12.42 1.83
Lemon Pellets [30] 9.14 17.17 78.98 3.85 44.48 6.47 44.33 0.87 0.00
Mint Straw [39] 16.82 19.42 69.80 10.78 45.22 5.52 35.76 2.47 0.25
Miscanthus [30] 8.40 5.57 91.70 2.73 48.30 5.90 42.39 0.57 0.11
Mun. Sol. Wst. Compost [40] 25.62 6.70 53.59 39.71 33.78 3.71 20.29 1.83 0.68
Municipal Solid Waste [41] 6.16 10.58 72.60 16.82 49.23 8.15 23.73 1.82 0.25
Municipal Solid Waste 1 [30] 6.40 26.00 18.00 56.00 25.20 1.60 14.40 0.60 2.20
Municipal Solid Waste 2 [30] 57.31 10.68 52.36 36.96 33.96 6.41 18.39 2.74 1.54
Municipal Solid Waste 3 [30] 16.69 10.52 53.39 36.09 34.44 4.16 22.82 1.69 0.80
Mustard Husk [34] 5.60 27.50 68.60 3.90 44.30 8.84 42.39 0.38 0.19
Oat Straw [42] 8.20 13.60 80.50 5.90 47.60 5.80 40.12 0.50 0.08
Olive Husk [30] 9.48 26.98 67.50 5.52 49.37 7.84 35.88 1.28 0.11
Onion Peel [30] 13.20 16.20 69.68 14.12 38.24 5.00 41.91 0.57 0.16
Organic Domestic Waste [30] 9.70 11.00 40.20 48.80 25.84 3.32 20.75 1.29 0.00
Paper [43] 10.30 14.10 83.60 2.30 40.27 5.99 51.15 0.10 0.19
Peanut Shells [44] 7.99 20.28 71.57 8.15 47.6 5.35 37.07 1.65 0.18
Pepper Waste [34] 9.70 34.20 58.40 7.40 42.32 2.96 43.61 3.15 0.56
Pistachio Shells [30] 7.53 16.96 81.63 1.41 50.19 6.30 41.20 0.68 0.22
Residual Wood [30] 0.43 17.54 81.65 0.81 49.03 6.04 44.00 0.11 0.01
Rubber [43] 0.45 13.37 39.6 47.03 25.33 2.46 24.85 0.14 0.19
Rubber Tyre Waste [45] 1.48 21.80 71.60 6.60 81.15 7.10 3.32 0.25 1.58
Sawdust [30] 4.82 16.37 82.30 1.33 48.81 6.13 43.61 0.10 0.02
Soya Bean Husk [34] 6.30 75.90 19.00 5.10 43.08 6.36 44.52 0.85 0.09
Sewage Sludge 1 [30] 9.90 11.50 53.50 35.00 34.00 4.90 20.10 4.70 1.30
Sewage Sludge 2 [30] 9.60 10.80 58.50 30.70 36.50 5.20 20.81 5.60 1.19
Sewage Sludge 3 [46] 7.60 9.00 42.80 48.20 25.17 3.11 18.34 3.68 1.50
Sewage Sludge 4 [30] 8.65 5.10 51.75 43.15 30.88 4.36 15.61 4.76 1.24
Sewage Sludge 5 [30] 7.97 11.56 62.10 26.34 39.21 5.82 21.54 5.94 1.15
Sewage Sludge 6 [30] 7.61 10.35 63.50 26.15 39.36 5.68 21.71 5.96 1.14
Sunflower Husk [34] 9.10 29.00 69.10 1.90 50.42 4.91 42.18 0.59 0.00
Sunflower Seed Shells [30] 11.60 26.90 70.00 3.10 50.79 6.00 39.40 0.59 0.12
Waste Paper [30] 5.17 9.18 82.90 7.92 49.31 7.07 34.85 0.70 0.15
Wood Chips [30] 10.30 19.60 78.70 1.70 52.20 5.90 39.87 0.30 0.03
Wood Pellets [30] 10.40 20.39 77.26 2.35 48.90 6.17 41.29 1.19 0.10
Wood Pellets 2 [30] 7.83 17.06 82.64 0.30 50.66 6.33 42.62 0.08 0.01

called Gibbs free energy minimization. mixture can be given as [48,49]:

Total Gibbs energy of a reacting system can be expressed with
the following equation:
yi 4i P
mi ¼ m0i þ RTln ¼ m0i þ RTlnai (2)
X
N P0
GT ¼ ni mi (1)
i¼1 where m0i is the standard chemical potential of a pure ideal gas
species, y is the vapor molar fractions, Fi is the fugacity coefficient
where “n” is the number of moles and “m” is the chemical potential of a species in a mixture phase, P is the total pressure and P0 is the
of chemical species “i”. reference pressure at the given temperature.
Then the chemical potential of a species in a vapor or liquid Using Eq. (1) and Eq. (2) can be rewritten as:
4 €
F. Kartal, U. Ozveren / Energy 209 (2020) 118457
X
N X
N
GT ¼ ni m0i þ ni RTlnai
i¼1 i¼1
where “ai” is the respective activity term.
The purpose of Eq. (3) is finding the value of the set of “ni” for
which makes the Gibbs free energy minimum, obligated to the
elemental balance restriction given by:
X
N (LM) is using the combination of two minimization techniques
aij ni ¼ Aj
i¼1
where “aij” expresses the number of atoms of the “j”th element in a
mole of “i”th species, “Aj” is the total number of atoms of the “j”th
element in the reaction mixture. Gibbs free energy of a system can
be minimized by performing the Lagrange multiplier method as
follows [50]:
vL Xk
¼ DG0f ;i þ RTlnai þ li aij ¼ 0
vni j¼1
where “li” stands for the Lagrange multiplier and the “L” implies
the Lagrange function.
2.3. Artificial neural network (ANN) working principles
ANN model is a structure including some different layers orga-
nized with neurons or nodes to overcome non-linear problems
including engineering ones. Artificial neural network models, like a
human brain, train itself by using experiences and create a pattern
to produce the output [51]. ANNs don’t produce analytical results;
they only produce numerical results that make them black-box
models [52]. There are several types of neural networks to create
a model however, in chemical engineering applications Feed-
Forward Neural Network (FFNN) is mostly used [53]. FFNN com-
prises of single layers and multi-layers’ perceptron.
An input layer, hidden layer/layers, and output layer inter-
connected with each other, and each layer have weight, bias vector,
and output vector [54]. The hidden layer sums the input signals and
uses the activation function to produce an output signal:
! Pn 
X
yj ¼ f Wij xi þ bj
i¼1
where “f” represents the activation function, “Wij” stands for the
weight of the link between “ith” input and “jth” neuron and bj is the
bias for the unit “j”. To ensure influential learning of the network. a
x
hyperbolic function is used; tangent sigmoid “f ðxÞ ¼ eex e
x
þex ” and
logarithmic sigmoid “f ðxÞ ¼ 1
1þex ”
functions are commonly used to
succeed in this objective [29,55].
The entire output data generated by neurons are gathered in the
output layer. Each output neuron “Qk” sums the weighted input
signal and performs the activation function described in Eq. (8):
X fluid and aqueous streams (MIXED), conventional solid streams
Qk ¼ factivation Vjk yj þ bk
j¼1
The weights “Wij” of each connection between neurons in
contiguous layers specified by nonlinear optimization algorithms to
update weights. The error between predicted and target values is
calculated and an optimization algorithm performed to change
weights. Finally, weights are determined after many iterations.
There is not any certain rule to determine how much hidden
layer and the neuron is needed when constructing an artificial
neural network model. Consequently, the determination of these
(3)
values is carried out entirely by the trial and error method [56].
Backpropagation is one of the most used methods for modeling
of neural networks. It is a supervised learning technique mostly
used for the approach of nonlinear matching. Among the several
learning algorithms, Levenberg-Marquardt (LM) is widely used in
gasification processes [57e59]. LM’s most outstanding feature is
being a stable and fast training algorithm. Levenberg-Marquard
(4) like the Gauss-Newton and Gradient-descent methods [60]. LM
equation is shown in Eq. (9):
J t J þ mI ¼ J t xE (9)
where “J” stands for the Jacobian matrix for the network; “I” is the
identity matrix; “m” is the Levenberg-Marquardt training algo-
rithm; “E” is the error vector [55].
2.4. Performance of the ANN model
(5)
In a feed-forward neural network, instances’ values move for-
ward from input to output between layers proportionally, errors
propagated back and the weight and bias values of the previous
layer in the model are re-adjusted to minimize the error. This
process improves the generalization performance of the ANN
model and provides a better prediction of the output value for new
instances. The error in the network is calculated by comparing the
difference between the estimated values and the actual values.
Initially, the calculated error presents a significant deviation,
however, as the number of iterations increases, the error reaches a
minimum value further it does not change significantly as the
number of iterations increases. To evaluate the prediction accuracy
of the ANN model, Mean Square Error (MSE) in Eq. (10) and coef-
ficient of determination R2 in Eq. (11) are commonly used. Equa-
tions follow:
n  2
1X
MSE ¼ Ypredicted  Yactual (10)
n i¼1
Pn  2
Ypredicted  Yactual
i¼1
R2 ¼ 1  (11)
2
i¼1 Ypredicted  Ymean
(6)
where “n” is the number of instances, “Ypredicted” is the generated
value from the ANN model, “Yactual” is the target value and “Ymean”
is the mean value of target outputs.
3. Results
3.1. Model description
The steady-state simulation of the gasification process of bio-
masses in the circulating fluidized bed gasifier was executed in
Aspen Plus® V11. The classification of the streams is as follows:
(8)
(CISOLID), and non-conventional solid streams (NCSOLID). Besides,
the Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK) equation of state was chosen with
STEAMNBS as the free-water method.
Since biomass is defined as a non-conventional solid structure,
enthalpy and density calculations are made using HCOALGEN and
DCOALIGT modules, respectively. Fig. 1 shows the flowsheet dia-
gram in Aspen Plus® of the simulation whereas Table 2 lists a brief
explanation of the blocks used.
 €
F. Kartal, U. Ozveren / Energy 209 (2020) 118457 5

Fig. 1. Aspen Plus® flowsheet simulation of the gasification process.

Table 2
Description of blocks in the gasification model.

Block Name Aspen Plus® ID Description

DECOMP RYIELD Decomposes biomass (non-conventional solid) into conventional components using calculator module
PYRO (400  C) RGIBBS Minimizes the Gibbs free energy and simulates pyrolysis & gasification reactions
GASIFIER (800  C)
COMBUSTR (1050  C) RGIBBS Minimizes the Gibbs free energy and simulates combustion reactions
SPLITTER FSPLIT Dispenses streams homogenously into desired blocks
SPLIT1
MIXER MIXER Combines streams into a single stream
CYCLONE CYCLONE Removes solid particles from gas
SEP1 SEP Separator of the CO (100%), CO2 (60%) and CH4 (85%)
SEP2 SEP Separator of the solid particles (C and Ash)
WATSEP SEP Separator of the H2O (100%)

Table 3
Comparison of syngas composition between literature and model.

Woody Biomass Hazelnut Shell Pine Sawdust

Comp. dry %vol Literature [62] Model Comp. dry %vol Literature [63,64] Model Comp. dry %vol Literature [65] Model

H2 49 49.2 H2 28.9 28.9 H2 22.8 22

CO 20 19.9 CO 21.7 28.4 CO 43.3 42.8
CO2 23 21 CO2 31.8 32.5 CO2 13.2 11.8
CH4 6 9.4 CH4 9.5 9.1 CH4 14.4 23.1

Rice Husk Pinewood Chips Eucalyptus Wood

Comp. %vol Literature [66] Model Comp. %vol Literature [67] Model Comp. %vol Literature [68] Model

H2 8.3 9.3 H2 9.0 9.3 H2 6.5 6.1

CO 18.9 17.5 CO 16.0 15.8 CO 17.7 17.7
CO2 13.0 11.9 CO2 17.0 13.1 CO2 15.0 14.7
CH4 3.0 5.9 CH4 6.0 6.1 CH4 5.0 7.8

The gasification process mainly divided into three zones: py-
rolysis, gasification, and combustion. The “BIOMASS” stream con-
tains the specifications of the biomass feed into the circulating
fluidized bed gasifier. Since biomass a non-conventional solid ma-
terial it requires proximate and ultimate analysis values to char-
acterize feedstock which was already given in section 2.1. The
characterized biomass feed enters the yield reactor called
“DECOMP” and gets converted into conventional volatile matters
and solid materials. This reactor may be considered to represent the
primary pyrolysis of carbon-based fuel, but it should be noted that
pyrolysis does not only take place in this section. The conversion
into volatile matters and solids occurs through the calculator
module by utilizing the proximate and ultimate analysis informa-
tion defined in the “BIOMASS” stream. Since pyrolysis is a complex
and uncertain phenomenon [61], it can be assumed that secondary
pyrolysis occurs in the reactor “PYRO” after the “DECOMP” reactor.
Thus, pyrolysis occurs in both RYIELD reactor and RGIBBS reactor.
The products of “PYRO”, where predominantly secondary pyrolysis
takes place, flows into the separator “SEP100, thereby access of
products to the reactor “GASIFIER” was prevented. The “GASIFIER”
block is an RGIBBS reactor, where the gasification reactions of
volatile matters and solids are dominant. However, it should be
noted that for RGIBBS reactors, these reactors determine the
products to be released by minimizing Gibbs free energy using the
reactants at the specified temperature and pressure. The reason for
saying they represent pyrolysis or gasification zones is that we can
manipulate the composition of the products to be formed by
adjusting the temperature of the reactors and the feed rate of
6 €
F. Kartal, U. Ozveren / Energy 209 (2020) 118457

Table 4
Characteristics of input data in the ANN model for the CFB gasifier model.

Input variables for ANNs Range Increment

C (mass %) 25.17e81.15 e
H (mass %) 1.6e8.84 e
O (mass %) 3.32e51.15 e
Gasification Temperature ( C) 700e1100 20
Fuel Feed Rate (kg/h) 20e40 1
Steam Feed Rate (kg/h) 5e80 1.5

gasification agents. The steam, which is a gasification agent, flows

the splitter block “SPLITTER” and sends 10% of its contents to the
“PYRO” reactor, and 90% to the “GASIFIER” reactor. Afterward, the
products obtained from the pyrolysis and gasification reactors
blend in the “MIXER” block. These combined streams advance into
the block “SEP200 and the unconverted carbon, together with the
ash, is flowed into the combustion reactor “COMBUSTR”. In order to
obtain a simulation of the combustion zone successfully, 5% of the
gases produced in the pyrolysis and gasification zones are flowed
into the “COMBUSTR” reactor using the “SPLIT100 block. The un-
converted carbon and gas products are burned with air, at the same
time, the three main areas that we consider for the gasifier, py-
rolysis, gasification, and combustion zones are simulated. After the
combustion zone, ash, and, if exist, a small amount of carbon which
is still not converted flow into the cyclone. The outlet gas, which is
substantially free of solid particles in the cyclone, proceeds to the
separator called “WATSEP”. In this block, the water and/or nitrogen
in the product gas is purged to give a dry and/or inert-free syngas.

3.2. Model validation

To test the accuracy of the newly developed model, it should be

compared with the results of experimental studies in the literature
about gasification in circulating fluidized bed gasifiers. The gasifi-
cation process was simulated under the same conditions in
experimental studies by using input variables such as gasifier
temperature and pressure, proximate and ultimate analysis values
of biomass, the flow rate of fuel and gasification agent. A compar-
ison of syngas compositions in experimental studies and simula-
tion results is given in Table 3.
As shown in Table 3, the results of the newly developed model
successfully show similarity with experimental studies when they
are run under the same operating conditions and with the same
input variables. The Gibbs reactors used in the simulation program
assume the reactions occur rapidly and reach chemical equilibrium;
whereas, in experimental studies, conversion rates of reactions
vary depending on the residence time. In the gasification process
carried out in the simulation program, many heavy hydrocarbons
and tar are decomposed and reached chemical equilibrium under
operating conditions finally gets converted into gaseous products Fig. 2. Effect of the mass percentage of C, H and O on syngas LHV. (a) Carbon, (b)
Hydrogen, (c) Oxygen.
such as CH4, H2, CO, and CO2. Moreover, the design parameters of
the reactor vary depending on the type of fuel to be used, but the
developed model in this study can be used for diverse types of
and oxygen percentage in the ultimate analysis of the fuel, gasifier
biomass; these results in the model achieving acceptable results temperature, mass flow rates of biomass and steam were selected
during the gasification of different fuels.
as input variables.
Instances were generated performing sensitivity analysis on the
3.3. Selection of input variables for ANN model newly developed CFB gasifier model in Aspen Plus®. The charac-
teristics of the input variables are presented in Table 4.
Gasification is a complex event in which many reactions take The C, H, and O values in the ultimate analysis result of the
place during the process. These reactions affect the chemical biomass are constant for each run whereas gasifier temperature
composition of the syngas, indirectly affecting the lower heating varies from 700  C to 1100  C in increments of 20  C. Meanwhile,
value of the syngas. Reactions are majorly influenced by gasification the mass flow rate of the biomass was changed in increments of
parameters such as operating conditions, reactor design, gasifica- 1 kg/h from 20 kg/h to 40 kg/h, and the mass flow rate of steam was
tion agent, and fuel properties. In this paper, the carbon, hydrogen,
 €
F. Kartal, U. Ozveren / Energy 209 (2020) 118457 7

Fig. 3. Effect of temperature on LHV of syngas.

Fig. 4. Effect of steam feed rate on LHV of syngas.

changed in increments of 1.5 kg/h from 5 kg/h to 80 kg/h. After all
these variables were adjusted, the simulation was run, and
1,101,719 input-output datasets were obtained.
3.3.1. Effect of C, H and O values of feedstock
The chemical potential of the components has great importance
in the model based on the Gibbs free energy minimization method.
Hence, it is explicit that the chemical composition of the syngas
produced by the reactions is highly interrelated to the chemical
content of the biomass. Since the biomass is primarily composed of
carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen the chemical substances associated
with the reactions are tightly related to these elements [69]. Ac-
cording to Chelgani et al. [70], carbon generally appears in the
highest percentage among these three elements and also used as an
indicator for determining the rank of fuel. In addition to carbon
percentage, carbon/oxygen and carbon/hydrogen ratios can be used
as an indicator to determine the quality of solid fuels. Fig. 2 dem-
onstrates the mass percentages of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen in
the ultimate analysis in the training set.
As shown in Fig. 2, as the carbon and hydrogen content of the
8 €
F. Kartal, U. Ozveren / Energy 209 (2020) 118457

Fig. 5. ANN model structure to predict LHV of syngas from biomass gasification in a CFB gasifier.

Table 5
Details of the ANN model.

Detail Specification

Network type Feedforward backpropagation

Training algorithm Levenberg-Marquardt backpropagation (TRAINLM)
Learning function Gradient descent with momentum weight and bias (LEARNGDM)
Transfer function Hyperbolic tangent sigmoid (TANSIG)
Data division Random
Performance function Mean square error (MSE)
Number of neurons in the input layer 6 (C, H, O, fuel feed rate, steam feed rate, and gasifier temperature)
Number of neurons in the hidden layer 12
Number of neurons in the output layer 1
Number of epochs 1000 iterations

biomass increases, the LHV of the syngas increases as well, how- endothermic reactions, according to the Le Chatelier’s principle
ever, the exact opposite for oxygen. When the figures are examined, [72,73].
the syngas with the highest LHV stands out rubber tyre waste. The High temperatures in the gasifier increase the concentration of
high amount of carbon-hydrogen and the very low amount of ox- H2 and CO in the produced gas and decrease the CO2 and H2O
ygen in the ultimate analysis promoted the growth of reactive concentration. This occurrence has been observed in studies several
substances (especially carbon) in the biomass. Moreover, the low times by researchers [74e78]. The fact that the Boudouard reaction
moisture content with ash and the high percentage of volatile (Equation (12)) and water-gas reaction (Equation (13)) are endo-
matters with fixed carbon indicate these elements come from the thermic reactions [79] explains this decremental change in the
reactive structures. Biomasses with low LHV of syngas are formed reactants.
from oxygen-rich volatile substances even if the amount of volatile .
substances is high. C þ CO2 %2CO DH298
0
¼ þ172 MJ kmol (Eq.12)

3.3.2. Effect of gasification temperature .

Because it has a considerable effect on the equilibrium state of C þ H2 O%CO þ H2 DH298
0
¼ þ131 MJ kmol (Eq.13)
reactions, the temperature is one of the very important parameters
for gasifier and it is very challenging to control directly [71]. The Therefore, the syngas obtained at high temperatures has a high
temperature of the reactor can be changed by an external factor, but calorific value; further Ali et al. [80] and Monteiro et al. [81] proved
also get affected by chemical reactions. Higher temperatures shift that at higher temperatures in the gasifier provides a syngas with a
the chemical equilibrium to the side of reactants in the case of high hydrogen content and a low tar content. In addition to
exothermic reactions, and to the side of products in the case of increasing H2 yield at high temperatures, the water-gas shift
 €
F. Kartal, U. Ozveren / Energy 209 (2020) 118457
Fig. 6. MSE obtained during training, validation, and testing, using the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm.
reaction (Equation (14)) which is exothermic, is also driving in the
reverse direction [78].
.
CO þ H2 O%CO2 þ H2 DH298
0
¼ 41 MJ kmol (Eq.14)
Furthermore, another advantage of the high temperature is that
it reduces tar and char yield.
Fig. 3 shows the LHV of the syngas obtained from the circulating
fluidized bed gasifier model developed in Aspen Plus® of the
selected biomasses for the training dataset in the study. The mass
flow rates of biomass and steam were kept constant at 40 kg/h. The
gasifier temperature varies between 700  C and 1100  C.
As seen in Fig. 3, the lower heating value of the syngas increases
with increasing gasifier temperature. Among the biomasses, the
ones with the highest and lowest LHVs and those with a slight
increase in the LHV with increasing temperature were shown with
a thick line. Since the behavior of other biomasses is similar to each
other, it was left as a thin line for better visualization. As mentioned
above, the concentration of favorable gaseous components in-
creases at high temperatures. This aspect shows that the behavior
of the model works in accordance with the theoretical knowledge,
in short, it successfully simulates the gasification process. However,
it is observed that the lower heating values of biomass such as beet
pulp, MSW compost, MSW 2 given in Table 1 increase nonapparent
with temperature. The common feature of these biomasses is that
they contain relatively higher moisture and ash than other bio-
masses. The fact that the ash does not react and the humidity de-
creases the quality of the fuel reduces the concentration of reacting
substances in the fuel such as fixed carbon and volatile matters. The
biomass with the highest lower heating value is rubber tyre waste
9
(thick light blue on the top). In addition to having relatively low
moisture and ash content, high carbon and low oxygen content in
ultimate analysis improve the quality of the fuel. Rice husk (thick
light green on the bottom) stands out as the biomass with the
lowest LHV of the syngas because of its low carbon/oxygen ratio
and high ash content.
3.3.3. Effect of steam to biomass ratio
The steam/biomass ratio (SBR) is defined as the ratio of the
amount of steam entering the reactor to the biomass supplied to
the reactor [82].
As the SBR increases, the amount of H2 gas in the synthesis gas
increases owing to heterogeneous char-steam gasification reactions
and this has been determined for various types of biomass
[77,83e85]. In addition, the increasing attitude of H2O drives the
water-gas shift reaction (Eq. (14)) to the products side which pro-
vides a higher fraction of H2 and CO2. On the other hand, contin-
uous H2 production also increases CH4 production by
heterogeneous methane formation reactions (Equation (15)).
.
C þ 2H2 %CH4 DH298
0
¼ 74:8 MJ kmol (Eq.15)
In real applications, it is critical to determine the suitable SBR
according to the operating conditions. The higher amount of steam
provides higher partial pressure in the reactor, which favors the
water-gas, water-gas shift, and steam reforming reactions [81]
however, the temperature of the reactor diminishes, and steam
generation costs are not negligible as well.
Fig. 4 demonstrates the LHV of the syngas obtained from the
circulating fluidized bed gasifier model developed in Aspen Plus®
10
F. Kartal, U. Ozveren / Energy 209 (2020) 118457
Fig. 7. Comparison between the data generated by Aspen Plus® and the data predicted by the ANN model for circulating fluidized bed gasifier. (a) Training, (b) Test, (c) Validation.
of the selected biomasses for the training dataset in the study. The
biomass flow rate and the gasifier temperature were kept constant
at 40 kg/h and 840  C, respectively. The steam feed rate varies
between 5 kg/h and 80 kg/h.
As can be seen in Fig. 4, the LHV of the syngas decreases as the
steam flow increases. When the syngas compositions of the bio-
masses were examined, a rapid increase in the H2 fraction was
observed due to heterogeneous steam gasification reactions. Af-
terward, the H2 fraction shows deceleration and even reduction.
Meanwhile, contrary to the decrease in the hydrogen fraction, the
methane fraction increased due to heterogeneous CH4 formation
reactions. Depending on the rate of this change in the H2 and CH4
fractions, the rate of decrease of the LHV varies according to the
biomass. In addition to these, a continuous decrease in the CO and
increase in the CO2 fraction is also observed due to the WGS reac-
tion. As a result, the LHV of the syngas shows a stable decrease.
Fuels, which are low quality, have high ash content, and lower C/O
€
ratio show a limited contribution to syngas LHV. Therefore, beet
pulp and MSW 2 seem almost in a constant LHV at increasing steam
amount. The common feature of these biomasses is that they have
high ash and/or moisture content, as well as a low C/O ratio. The
low composition of the reactive structures in the fuel caused
ambiguous change even if the amount of steam was continuously
increased. Rice husk (thick light green on the bottom), which has
high oxygen-rich volatile matters, is seen as biomass with the
lowest LHV. In contrast to the rice husk, the rubber tyre waste has
the highest LHV with an extremely high C/O ratio.
3.4. ANN topology
There are several types of neural networks to create a model
however, in chemical engineering applications Feed-Forward
Neural Network (FFNN) is mostly used [53]. FFNN comprises of
single layers and multi-layers’ perceptron. In this paper, Neural
 €
F. Kartal, U. Ozveren / Energy 209 (2020) 118457
Fig. 8. Comparison between the data generated by Aspen Plus® and the data predicted by the ANN model for external biomasses. (a) Coconut shell, (b) Coffee husk, (c) Grape seeds,
(d) MSW 1, (e) SS 6, (f) Wheat straw, (g) Wood pellets.
Networks Toolbox in MATLAB® (R2019a) was used to create a feed-
forward ANN model [86]. In Fig. 5 illustration of the model is given.
ANN model consists of 3 layers: an input layer, a hidden layer,
and an output layer. The input layer consists of 6 neurons; 3 for the
carbon, hydrogen and oxygen values in the ultimate analysis result
of biomass, and 3 for the feed rate of the biomass, the feed rate of
steam, and the gasifier temperature. The hidden layer was deter-
mined in one layer with the 1 neuron. Since there is no precise rule
that calculates the number of layers and the number of neurons
within the layer, these numbers were determined by trial and error
to minimize the cost function. By repeatedly running the model,
1000 iterations for this study, weights between each layer, and bias
values of neurons are optimized. Finally, the cost function value was
settled to the minimum value.(see Table 5)
11
3.5. Assessment of developed ANN model
In order to increase the generalization capability of the model,
the dataset is divided into three sets: 80% of the training set
(881,375 datasets), 10% of the validation set (110,172 datasets), and
10% of the test set (110,172 datasets). The instances in each of the
three datasets were arbitrarily selected.
The number of neurons in the hidden layer was tested starting
from 6 neurons to 15 neurons. As a result of different runs, the
lowest MSE for the hidden layer was found with 12 neurons. Fig. 6
demonstrates the MSE value for the different number of iterations
(epochs).
It can be seen in Fig. 6, the MSE was settled in 18,435.4 after
approximately 600 epochs. The MSE value converged to a mini-
mum value while the number of iterations increases, however after
a certain number of iterations, the MSE value was continued
steadily. This means that weights and biases of the ANN model
12 €
F. Kartal, U. Ozveren / Energy 209 (2020) 118457

Fig. 8. (continued).

weren’t changing during iterations. scores are higher than 0.9940. These results show that the ANN
The coefficient of determination (R2) assigns the correlation model can accurately predict the LHV of the syngas produced by the
between the predicted and measured. A comparison of LHV data of CFB gasifier model for external biomasses. Although external bio-
syngas is presented in Fig. 7. masses have numerous physicochemical properties, the results of
As can be seen in plots, all R2 scores are higher than 0.9960 in the model are quite satisfactory.
training, test, and validation. This value implies that while esti-
mating the values generated by the simulation model, the ANN
4. Conclusion
model shows quite satisfactory performance.
Among the 56 biomasses, 7 of them (coconut shell, coffee husk,
The gasification performances of various biomasses under a
grape seeds, municipal solid waste 1, sewage sludge 6, wheat straw,
steam atmosphere in a circulating fluidized bed reactor were
wood pellets) were separated from others, and each one has
examined with a model developed using Aspen Plus® software. To
distinctly different physicochemical properties. ANN model was
test the accuracy of this newly developed model, based on the
forced to estimate the LHV of the syngas for external fuels. By doing
thermodynamic equilibrium method, syngas compositions were
this, the performance of the model was evaluated for biomass that
compared with biomass gasification processes performed in fluid-
has no previous knowledge about it. The separated 7 biomasses
ized bed gasifiers in the literature. Along with the validation pro-
were tested individually, and the target value and the model result
cess, it was seen that the model could simulate the gasification
were compared. Fig. 8 shows the coefficient of determination (R2)
process with an acceptable margin of error. Thus, gasification per-
scores for external biomasses.
formances of biomasses can be examined through the model.
Plots demonstrate in Fig. 8, all coefficient of determination
Datasets were created using the CFB model for 56 biomasses in
 €
F. Kartal, U. Ozveren / Energy 209 (2020) 118457
the literature. These datasets, generated over 1 million, were used
to create a new ANN model. The ANN model was trained to esti-
mate the LHV of the syngas using 6 input variables. The perfor-
mance of the ANN model was satisfactory both with its low MSE
value (18435.4) and its high coefficient of determination value
(R2 > 0.99). In order to test the generalization capability of the
model, 7 biomasses with different features were not included in
any dataset. The estimation performance of the ANN model was
also satisfactory for these biomasses (R2 > 0.99).
In conclusion, if the ANN model is trained with a sufficient
number and type of biomass LHVs, the model can estimate the LHV
of new biomasses fairly good. The ANN model provides ease for
people who don’t know how to use Aspen Plus® software. More-
over, calculations that take a long time using numerical methods
for large databases and complicated systems are faster and easier to
apply with the deep learning approach. By using the ultimate
analysis of the fuel together with the operating conditions, the LHV
of the produced syngas to be can be estimated for any kind of
biomass.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Furkan Kartal: Data curation, Investigation, Software, Supervi-
sion, Validation, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing -
review & editing. Ug €

ur Ozveren: Conceptualization, Data curation,
Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology,
Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Valida-
tion, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review &
editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
This work has been supported by Marmara University Scientific
Research Projects Coordination Unit under grant number FEN-A-
090414-0087.
References
[1] Statistics I. Key world energy statistics. Paris, France: International Energy
Agency; 2014.
[2] Rühl C. BP statistical review of world energy. 2008. Juin.
[3] Mallick D, Mahanta P, Moholkar VS. Co-gasification of coal and biomass
blends: chemistry and engineering. Fuel 2017;204:106e28.
[4] Safarian S, Unnthorsson R. An assessment of the sustainability of lignocellu-
losic bioethanol production from wastes in Iceland. Energies 2018;11(6):1493.
[5] Safarian S, Sattari S, Hamidzadeh Z. Sustainability assessment of biodiesel
supply chain from various biomasses and conversion technologies. BioPhysi-
cal Economics and Resource Quality 2018;3(2):6.
[6] Materazzi M, et al. Thermodynamic modelling and evaluation of a two-stage
thermal process for waste gasification. Fuel 2013;108:356e69.
[7] Bapat D, Kulkarni S, Bhandarkar V. Design and operating experience on flu-
idized bed boiler burning biomass fuels with high alkali ash. New York, NY
(United States): American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 1997.
[8] Chan FL, Tanksale A. Review of recent developments in Ni-based catalysts for
biomass gasification. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;38:428e38.
[9] Converti A, et al. Biogas production and valorization by means of a two-step
biological process. Bioresour Technol 2009;100(23):5771e6.
[10] Carlini M, et al. An economical evaluation of anaerobic digestion plants fed
with organic agro-industrial waste. Energies 2017;10(8):1165.
[11] Susastriawan A, Saptoadi H. Small-scale downdraft gasifiers for biomass
gasification: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;76:989e1003.
[12] Devi L, Ptasinski KJ, Janssen FJ. A review of the primary measures for tar
elimination in biomass gasification processes. Biomass Bioenergy 2003;24(2):
125e40.
[13] Sansaniwal S, et al. Recent advances in the development of biomass
13
gasification technology: a comprehensive review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2017;72:363e84.
[14] Panwar N, Kothari R, Tyagi V. Thermo chemical conversion of biomasseEco
friendly energy routes. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16(4):1801e16.
[15] Miao Q, et al. Model validation of a CFB biomass gasification model. Renew
Energy 2014;63:317e23.
[16] Bridgwater AV. Renewable fuels and chemicals by thermal processing of
biomass. Chem Eng J 2003;91(2e3):87e102.
[17] Sadaka SS, Ghaly A, Sabbah M. Two phase biomass air-steam gasification
model for fluidized bed reactors: Part Idmodel development. Biomass Bio-
energy 2002;22(6):439e62.
[18] Ju F, et al. Experimental study of a commercial circulated fluidized bed coal
gasifier. Fuel Process Technol 2010;91(8):818e22.
[19] Mansaray K, et al. Mathematical modeling of a fluidized bed rice husk gasifier:
Part I-Model development. Energy Sources 2000;22(1):83e98.
[20] Mathieu P, Dubuisson R. Performance analysis of a biomass gasifier. Energy
Convers Manag 2002;43(9e12):1291e9.
[21] Kaushal P, Tyagi R. Advanced simulation of biomass gasification in a fluidized
bed reactor using ASPEN PLUS. Renew Energy 2017;101:629e36.
[22] Yan H-M, Rudolph V. Modelling a compartmented fluidised bed coal gasifier
process using aspen plus. Chem Eng Commun 2000;183(1):1e38.
[23] Duan W, et al. ASPEN Plus simulation of coal integrated gasification combined
blast furnace slag waste heat recovery system. Energy Convers Manag
2015;100:30e6.
[24] Favas J, Monteiro E, Rouboa A. Hydrogen production using plasma gasification
with steam injection. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42(16):10997e1005.
[25] Altafini C, Mirandola A. A chemical equilibrium model of the coal gasification
process based on the minimization of the gibbs free energy. In: Florence world
energy Research symposium-FLOWERS97; 1997.
[26] Pala LPR, et al. Steam gasification of biomass with subsequent syngas
adjustment using shift reaction for syngas production: an Aspen Plus model.
Renew Energy 2017;101:484e92.
[27] Alrashed AA, et al. Effects on thermophysical properties of carbon based
nanofluids: experimental data, modelling using regression, ANFIS and ANN.
Int J Heat Mass Tran 2018;125:920e32.
[28] Puig-Arnavat M, et al. Artificial neural network models for biomass gasifica-
tion in fluidized bed gasifiers. Biomass Bioenergy 2013;49:279e89.
[29] Pandey DS, et al. Artificial neural network based modelling approach for
municipal solid waste gasification in a fluidized bed reactor. Waste Manag
2016;58:202e13.
[30] Laboratories E. ECN Phyllis classification. Phyllis2 2019. Available from:
https://phyllis.nl/.
[31] Suarez-Garcıa F, et al. Inorganic matter characterization in vegetable biomass
feedstocks. Fuel 2002;81(9):1161e9.
[32] Razvigorova M, et al. On the composition of volatiles evolved during the
production of carbon adsorbents from vegetable wastes. Fuel 1994;73(11):
1718e22.
[33] Petrov N, et al. Preparation of activated carbons from cherry stones, apricot
stones and grape seeds for removal of metal ions from water. In: Proceedings
of the 2nd OlleIndstorm symposium on renewable energy-bioenergy; 1999.
[34] Werther J, et al. Combustion of agricultural residues. Progress in energy and
combustion science 2000;26(1):1e27.
[35] Smeenk J, Brown RC, Eckels D. Determination of vapor phase alkali content
during biomass gasification. In: Fourth biomass conference of the Americas
August. Congreso realizado en Oakland, California, EE. UU; 1999.
[36] Magasiner N, de Kock J. Design criteria for fibrous fuel fired boilers. Energy
World 1987;150:4e12.
[37] Sun Z, et al. Combustion characteristics of cotton stalk in FBC. Biomass Bio-
energy 2010;34(5):761e70.
[38] Godinho M, et al. High-temperature corrosion during the thermal treatment
of footwear leather wastes. Fuel Process Technol 2011;92(5):1019e25.
[39] Miles TR, et al. Alkali deposits found in biomass power plants: a preliminary
investigation of their extent and nature, vol. 1. Golden, CO (United States);
Miles (Thomas R …: National Renewable Energy Lab.; 1995.
[40] Gomez-Barea A, et al. Devolatilization of wood and wastes in fluidized bed.
Fuel Process Technol 2010;91(11):1624e33.
[41] Dunnu G, Maier J, Scheffknecht G. Ash fusibility and compositional data of
solid recovered fuels. Fuel 2010;89(7):1534e40.
[42] Theis M, et al. Fouling tendency of ash resulting from burning mixtures of
biofuels. Part 2: Deposit chemistry. Fuel 2006;85(14e15):1992e2001.
[43] Li A, et al. Experimental studies on municipal solid waste pyrolysis in a
laboratory-scale rotary kiln. Energy 1999;24(3):209e18.
[44] Lu Y, et al. Hydrogen production by biomass gasification in supercritical wa-
ter: a parametric study. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2006;31(7):822e31.
[45] Chang Y-M, Kang J-S, Ho C-C. Circulating fluidized bed incineration of in-
dustrial solid wastes. Waste Manag Res 1992;10(4):357e69.
[46] Doorn J, et al. Combined combustion of biomass, municipal sewage sludge and
coal in an atmospheric fluidised bed installation. Netherlands Energy
Research Foundation ECN; 1996.
[47] Gagliano A, et al. Development of an equilibrium-based model of gasification
of biomass by Aspen Plus. In: 8th international conference on sustainability in
energy and buildings, seb-16, vol. 111; 2017. p. 1010e9.
[48] Lwin Y. Chemical equilibrium by Gibbs energy minimization on spreadsheets.
Int J Eng Educ 2000;16(4):335e9.
[49] Koukkari P. Introduction to constrained Gibbs energy methods in process and
14 €
F. Kartal, U. Ozveren / Energy 209 (2020) 118457
materials research. 2014. VTT.
[50] Shabbar S, Janajreh I. Thermodynamic equilibrium analysis of coal gasification
using Gibbs energy minimization method. Energy Convers Manag 2013;65:
755e63.
[51] Basu P. Biomass gasification and pyrolysis: practical design and theory. Aca-
demic press; 2010.
[52] Baruah D, Baruah D. Modeling of biomass gasification: a review. Renew Sus-
tain Energy Rev 2014;39:806e15.
[53] Shahbaz M, et al. Artificial neural network approach for the steam gasification
of palm oil waste using bottom ash and CaO. Renew Energy 2019;132:
243e54.
[54] Garson GD. Interpreting neural-network connection weights. AI Expet
1991;6(4):46e51.
[55] Ozonoh M, et al. Performance evaluation of gasification system efficiency
using artificial neural network. Renew Energy 2020;145:2253e70.
[56] Baruah D, Baruah D, Hazarika M. Artificial neural network based modeling of
biomass gasification in fixed bed downdraft gasifiers. Biomass Bioenergy
2017;98:264e71.
[57] Benardos P, Vosniakos G-C. Optimizing feedforward artificial neural network
architecture. Eng Appl Artif Intell 2007;20(3):365e82.
[58] Scott D, et al. Prediction of the functional properties of ceramic materials from
composition using artificial neural networks. J Eur Ceram Soc 2007;27(16):
4425e35.
[59] Ayodele BV, Cheng CK. Modelling and optimization of syngas production from
methane dry reforming over ceria-supported cobalt catalyst using artificial
neural networks and BoxeBehnken design. J Ind Eng Chem 2015;32:246e58.
[60] Nhuchhen DR, Salam PA. Estimation of higher heating value of biomass from
proximate analysis: a new approach. Fuel 2012;99:55e63.
[61] Basu P, Kaushal P. Modeling of pyrolysis and gasification of biomass in flu-
idized beds: a review. Chem Prod Process Model 2009;4(1).
[62] Myo € ha
€nen K, Palonen J, Hyppa €nen T. Modelling of indirect steam gasification
in circulating fluidized bed reactors. Fuel Process Technol 2018;171:10e9.
[63] Rajabi Hamedani S, et al. Life cycle performance of hydrogen production via
agro-industrial residue gasificationda small scale power plant study. Energies
2018;11(3):675.
[64] Marcantonio V, et al. Process analysis of hydrogen production from biomass
gasification in fluidized bed reactor with different separation systems. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2019;44(21):10350e60.
[65] Tursun Y, et al. Biomass gasification for hydrogen rich gas in a decoupled
triple bed gasifier with olivine and NiO/olivine. Bioresour Technol 2019;272:
241e8.
[66] Mallick D, Mahanta P, Moholkar VS. Co-gasification of biomass blends: per-
formance evaluation in circulating fluidized bed gasifier. Energy 2020;192:
116682.
[67] Lan W, et al. Research on the characteristics of biomass gasification in a flu-
idized bed. J Energy Inst 2019;92(3):613e20.
[68] Cardoso J, et al. Comparative 2D and 3D analysis on the hydrodynamics
behaviour during biomass gasification in a pilot-scale fluidized bed reactor.
Renew Energy 2019;131:713e29.
[69] Xing J, et al. Estimating biomass major chemical constituents from ultimate
analysis using a random forest model. Bioresour Technol 2019;288:121541.
[70] Chelgani SC, Mesroghli S, Hower JC. Simultaneous prediction of coal rank
parameters based on ultimate analysis using regression and artificial neural
network. Int J Coal Geol 2010;83(1):31e4.
[71] La Villetta M, Costa M, Massarotti N. Modelling approaches to biomass gasi-
fication: a review with emphasis on the stoichiometric method. Renew Sus-
tain Energy Rev 2017;74:71e88.
[72] Motta IL, et al. Biomass gasification in fluidized beds: a review of biomass
moisture content and operating pressure effects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2018;94:998e1023.
[73] Ahmad AA, et al. Assessing the gasification performance of biomass: a review
on biomass gasification process conditions, optimization and economic eval-
uation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;53:1333e47.
[74] Armstrong L, Gu S, Luo K. Parametric study of gasification processes in a BFB
coal gasifier. Ind Eng Chem Res 2011;50(10):5959e74.
[75] Ismail TM, et al. Parametric studies in the gasification agent and fluidization
velocity during oxygen-enriched gasification of biomass in a pilot-scale flu-
idized bed: experimental and numerical assessment. Renew Energy
2020;147:2429e39.
[76] Zhang Y, Lei F, Xiao Y. Computational fluid dynamics simulation and para-
metric study of coal gasification in a circulating fluidized bed reactor. Asia Pac
J Chem Eng 2015;10(2):307e17.
[77] Ku X, Li T. T. Løvas, EulerianeLagrangian simulation of biomass gasification
behavior in a high-temperature entrained-flow reactor. Energy Fuels
2014;28(8):5184e96.
[78] Ku X, Li T, Løvås T. CFDeDEM simulation of biomass gasification with steam in
a fluidized bed reactor. Chem Eng Sci 2015;122:270e83.
[79] Adnan MA, et al. Enhancement of hydrogen production in a modified moving
bed downdraft gasifiereA thermodynamic study by including tar. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2017;42(16):10971e85.
[80] Ali DA, et al. Co-gasification of coal and biomass wastes in an entrained flow
gasifier: modelling, simulation and integration opportunities. J Nat Gas Sci
Eng 2017;37:126e37.
[81] Monteiro E, et al. Assessment of the miscanthus gasification in a semi-
industrial gasifier using a CFD model. Appl Therm Eng 2017;123:448e57.
[82] Ramos A, et al. Co-gasification and recent developments on waste-to-energy
conversion: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;81:380e98.
[83] Shen L, Gao Y, Xiao J. Simulation of hydrogen production from biomass
gasification in interconnected fluidized beds. Biomass Bioenergy 2008;32(2):
120e7.
[84] Gil J, et al. Biomass gasification in atmospheric and bubbling fluidized bed:
effect of the type of gasifying agent on the product distribution. Biomass
Bioenergy 1999;17(5):389e403.
[85] Dou B, Song Y. A CFD approach on simulation of hydrogen production from
steam reforming of glycerol in a fluidized bed reactor. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2010;35(19):10271e84.
[86] Beale MH, Hagan MT, Demuth HB. Neural network toolbox. User’s Guide,
MathWorks 2010;2:77e81.
̊