Simulation of Plastic Gasification: Approach and Preliminary Results

Conversion
of
Waste
plastic to Energy. A
modeling approach to the
problem
A process model is developed for Polyethylene gasification in
a tubular reactor using Aspen Plus simulator. The proposed
model (s) addresses the kinetic modeling. Effects of
parameters that control gasification are tabulated in detail.
Ahsan Qayum
7/7/2011
Contents
1.
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 4
2.
Theory ................................................................................................................................................... 5
Table 1: ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
Table 2. ..................................................................................................................................................... 7
3.
Objectives & Goals of Research ........................................................................................................... 8

Problem Statement .................................................................................................................................... 9
4.
Literature review ................................................................................................................................. 10

Previous studies on Plastic gasification: ................................................................................................. 10
Previous work on modeling .................................................................................................................... 11
Table 3 .................................................................................................................................................... 14
Table 4 .................................................................................................................................................... 15
Table 5 .................................................................................................................................................... 16
Table 6 .................................................................................................................................................... 17
5.
Methodology and principles................................................................................................................ 18

Process assumptions: .............................................................................................................................. 18
Process simulation software .................................................................................................................... 18
Thermodynamic equilibrium models: ..................................................................................................... 20
Process Model Development: ................................................................................................................. 22
Reaction kinetics: .................................................................................................................................... 22
Devolitization:..................................................................................................................................... 22
Volatiles combustion .......................................................................................................................... 22
Char gasification ................................................................................................................................. 23
Kinetic Modeling .................................................................................................................................... 23
Selection criteria ..................................................................................................................................... 23
Preliminary results for the kinetic model: ............................................................................................... 24
Table 7 .................................................................................................................................................... 24
Kinetic Model 1-1[13] ............................................................................................................................ 25
Parameter studied : Temperature ............................................................................................................ 25
Parameter studied : Steam to fuel ratio ................................................................................................... 26
Parameter studied : Equivalence ratio ..................................................................................................... 27
Kinetic Model 1-2 [13] ............................................................................................................................... 28


Future work ............................................................................................................................................. 32
6.
References:.......................................................................................................................................... 33
7.
Appendices.......................................................................................................................................... 35
Gibbs Model 1............................................................................................................................................. 35

Kinetic Model 2-1[8] .............................................................................................................................. 38
Kinetic Model 2-2 [8] ............................................................................................................................. 41
Kinetic Model 3-1[16] ............................................................................................................................ 44
Kinetic Model 4-1[22] ............................................................................................................................ 47
Kinetic Model 4-2[22] ............................................................................................................................ 50
1. Introduction
Recent study shows that around 11 billion plastic bags were used in U.A.E in 2010. 53.7% of the
bags used were non-biodegradable [1]. This means nearly 120,000 tonnes of non-biodegradable
plastic waste was generated in 2010 alone. This creates a problem as not every plastic bag in
circulation can be recycled and they eventually end up as litter or in landfills.
Furthermore, plastics are notoriously difficult to recycle. The process of collecting them for
recycling or sending to landfill is expensive. And with the ever increasing environmental
concerns and restrictions, it is becoming difficult to properly dispose plastic without damaging
the environment.[2]
The solution to this problem can be the conversion of the waste plastics into useful energy. This
can be done in various ways such a pyrolysis, incineration and gasification [3]. Each of the
methods has its own advantages and disadvantages. For our study and research, gasification is
chosen over the other two technologies purely because of the fact that this process gives a higher
yield of synthesis gas (syngas). Syngas produced from this process can then be cooled down,
cleaned and combusted in gas turbines to produce electricity [4].
The early use of gasification date backs to 1800s. Having developed in the 19th century, its main
use was to provide town gas (a low heating value gas used for lighting and heating purposes).
With the introduction of natural gas in the 20th century, and the decline of the town gas industry,
gasification became a specialized niche technology with limited application. However, with time,
the gasification process improved and with the technological progress, the capacities of the
system expanded steadily. [5]
2. Theory
By definition, gasification is the conversion of hydrocarbon-based fuel in the presence of water
and oxygen to produce syngas, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. These reforming
reactions are endothermic and the energy required is provided by the exothermic combustion
reactions, which comes from burning a portion of the hydrocarbon feedstock. [6]
As discussed earlier, gasification is the chosen process for our study and polyethylene, a
commonly used plastic, is the fuel of interest to us. A number of studies have been done on the
gasification of plastics including waste plastics and polymers such as polystyrene and PVC.
However, the gasification of polyethylene is a nascent area and limited information is available
about the process in the literature. [4, 7-12].
Gasification in simple terms means conversion of carbonaceous fuels to gas. Gasification is the
result of chemical reactions between carbon in the feed and steam, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen
in the gasifier vessel as well as chemical reactions between resulting gases [5] . Gasification
reactions, their H and kinetic parameters are presented in Table 1:
Table 1:
Reaction
no.
Reactions:
C + H2OCO +
H2
C + 2H2CH4
C+2H2O
CO2+2H2
CH4+ H2OCO
+ 3H2
-35
6
2.0105
s-1
11922
Cal/mol [13]
1.4108
s-1
42.87
Cal/mol [14]
6474.7
atm-1
3136047
Cal/mol [8]
1.05107
m s-1
55412
Cal/mol [15]
0.12
s-1
35609
Cal/mol [13]
21103
m s-1
55000
Cal/mol [15]
0.046
s-1
4.40
s-1
26855
3.24108
References
(units)
Cal/mol [8]
Cal/mol
[13]
C + CO2 2
CO
+206
5
EA
+75
+171
Order
of EA
reaction (n) (value)
K (value)
- 74.8
2
K
(units)
H
(MJ/kmol)
3.4107
s-1
42.87
Cal/mol [14]
1107
m s-1
3000
Cal/mol [15]
3105
s-1
29805
Cal/mol [13]
312
s-1
30000
Cal/mol [16]
4.2251015 s-1
57347
Cal/mol
2107
86000
Cal/mol [15]
m s-1
106exp (-6370/T)
Cal/mol [13]
Kw=520exp(-7230/T)
CO
+
H2OCO2 + H2
-111
7
C+O2 CO2
CH4+
+222.35
2H2OCO2 +
4H2
1.955106
s-1
16033.7
Cal/mol [16]
7103
m s-1
7165.4
Cal/mol [15]
9.35104
s-1
Cal/mol [14]
39.3
1.0201015 s-1
Cal/mol [16]
58254.5
Table 2.
Ultimate and proximate analysis of polyethylene:[17]
Moisture content (wt %)
0.02
Proximate analysis (wt%, dry basis)

Volatile matter
99.85
Fixed carbon
Ash
0.15
Ultimate analysis (wt%, dry basis)

Carbon
85.81
Hydrogen
13.86
Oxygen
Nitrogen
0.12
Sulphur
0.06
3. Objectives & Goals of Research

The primary goal of this research is to compile the kinetic parameters available for the
gasification reactions and to build a kinetic model in Aspen Plus that would simulate the
gasification of Polyethylene. The model would then be used to generate results that are
qualitatively comparable to the available literature. Parameters such as temperature, equivalence
ratio, steam to fuel ratio would be studied.
A complete sensitivity analysis will also be performed once the model is up and running giving
qualitatively results. The model will provide a good starting point on the simulation of
Polyethylene as so far, a simulation model of Polymer gasification is missing. The model should
be able to predict the optimum conditions of gasification for a lab scale gasifier. (Optimum
conditions = Temperature, Steam to fuel ratio, Equivalence ratio)
Furthermore, the data generated would then be used to calculate several response variables. The response
variables are:
Carbon to gas conversion
Carbon monoxide efficiency
Hydrogen efficiency
Combined carbon monoxide and hydrogen efficiency
Energy efficiency
Note: All the initial models have already been prepared and the preliminary results generated from them
are given in the appendices. Besides the effects of parameters, two response variables, namely carbon
monoxide efficiency and hydrogen efficiency have also been plotted.
Problem Statement
Effects of kinetic parameters on the yield of syngas. This project is focused on finding and
reporting the kinetic parameters for the gasification reactions, their variations from author to
author and their effects on the yield of syngas and response variables when physical parameters
such as Temperature, Equivalence ratio and steam to fuel ratio are varied.
4. Literature review
Previous studies on Plastic gasification:
Tsuji and Hayatama in 2007 investigated the gasification of waste plastics PE and PS
(Polyethylene and Polystyrene respectively) using steam reforming. They found that the carbon
conversion increased with the increase in temperature. High temperature favours steam
reforming which in turn increases hydrogen and decreases the methane formation. The yield of
carbon monoxide was also found to increase with the increasing temperature. By varying
steam/carbon (S/C) ratio at fixed temperature (1023 K), it was found that carbon conversion
increases by increasing S/C ratio. Increasing the S/C ratio also increased the gas compositions of
Hydrogen and carbon dioxide according to water gas shift reactions.
Wu and Williams [10] in their study of pyrolysis-gasification of post consumer municipal plastic
wastes concluded that gasification temperature had an important influence on the product yield
and gas composition. The hydrogen composition in the gas increased with increasing
temperature, as did the overall gas yield. The composition of carbon monoxide also increased
with increasing the gasification temperature. Steam to fuel (S/F) ratio was also studied and it was
reported that increasing the S/F ratio increases the hydrogen production and decreases the carbon
monoxide production. These results concurred with their other studies of polypropylene [9, 11].
Similar studies have been repeated by the same authors and the results when changing the
parameters on the outlet gas composition remains the same.
He et al [17] analyzed the syngas production from catalytic gasification of waste polyethylene.
Their work consisted of steam gasification of waste polyethylene using NiO/-Al2O3 as a catalyst
in a fixed bed reactor. Gas compositions were studied at different temperatures. Higher
temperatures favoured the endothermic reactions according to Le Chateliers principle and
10
therefore the increase in the contents of H2 and CO with an increase in temperature was
attributed to water gas shift reaction, Boudouard reactions and carbon gasification reactions. A
significant decrease in the methane production was also reported. The lower heating value of
syngas decreased when temperature was increased.
Mastral et al [4] in 2003 carried out experiments to analyze the gas compositions under various
conditions. Both pyrolysis and gasification experiments were performed but the results of
gasification experiments have been considered for our study. At temperatures higher than 700C,
air was used as a gasifying medium. The CO yield increased with temperature favoured by
Boudouard and water shift reactions. H2 yield increases at higher temperatures. Methane is too
strongly influenced by high temperatures and the yield increases at higher temperature.
Previous work on modeling
Nikoo et al [8] proposed a model for biomass gasification in an atmospheric fluidized bed using
Aspen Plus simulator. The proposed model addressed both the reaction kinetic modeling and
hydrodynamic parameters. Using 4 reactors, they were able to model gasification in a fluidized
bed [18]. An RYIELD model was used to break the biomass into its basic constituents followed
by volatile combustion in an RGIBBS reactor. Two RCSTRs were used in series to simulate the
char gasification in a fluidized with each RCSTR representing the bed-zone and other freeboard
zone. External written FORTRAN subroutines for hydrodynamics and kinetics nested in Aspen
Plus were used to simulate the gasification process.
The model was used to study the performance of the gasifier and the gas yields under various
conditions. From the model, it was observed that temperature increases the production of
hydrogen and improves the carbon conversion efficiency whilst increasing the equivalence ratio
increases the carbon dioxide production and carbon conversion efficiency. They also observed
11
that increasing steam to biomass ratio increased hydrogen production and carbon conversion
efficiency whereas the biomass particle size (0.25-0.75mm) did not affect the composition of the
outlet gases.
In 2009, Doherty et al [19] also developed a model using Aspen Plus. The model was based on
minimizing the Gibbs free energy and a restricted equilibrium method used to calibrate and
compare it against the experimental data [20]. Operating parameters were varied and studied over
a range. The increase in temperature (of the gasifier) increased the production hydrogen and
carbon monoxide. Meanwhile the increasing the equivalence ratio (ER) maximized the hydrogen
and carbon monoxide production. The optimum operating conditions without air preheating were
found to be ER = 0.34-0.345 and gasifier temperature = 837-874 C. Effects of air-preheating
were also considered and it was concluded that air preheating increases the production of
combustible gases, Hydrogen and Carbon monoxide, which in turn improves the product gas
heating value and the gasifier cold gas efficiency. It was also noted that air preheating is
effective at low ERs and should not be used for ERs greater than 0.35. The steam injection
increased the hydrogen content in the syn-gas.
Mitta et al [7] in 2006 studied the effects of gasification temperature, steam to fuel (S/F) ratio
and equivalence ratio (ER) on the gasification of tyres. Sensitivity analysis was performed to
monitor the dependence of the parameters listed above on the composition of the produced gas
from the gasifier. Their model was based on an equilibrium reactor (RGIBBS). They also
incorporated a RSTOIC and RYIELD to dry and breakdown the feed respectively. Hydrogen and
carbon monoxide production increased when increasing the temperature of the gasifier whereas a
decrease was observed in the yield of carbon dioxide and methane. This effect was attributed to
12
the steam methane reforming and CO2 reforming reactions.
Increasing the ER led to the
increase of hydrogen and carbon monoxide production whilst increasing the S/F ratio caused the
hydrogen production to fall while registering a slight increase in carbon monoxide yield.
Wenyi Tan and Qin Zhong [21] in 2010 studied the effects of gasification temperature, pressure
and S/F ratio on a biomass gasifier. Their model was an isothermal model with no pressure loss
and where the gasification reactions took place at equilibrium. They concluded that an increase
in S/F ratio increased hydrogen yield whilst an increase in temperature or pressure led to a
decrease of hydrogen production. Opposite was observed for the carbon monoxide production.
Important results from the literature review have been summarized in tabular form. It gives a
clear indication on how a certain parameter affects the yield of the product gases. Please refer to
Table 3-6.
Our research is unique as it aims to present a kinetic model to predict the yield of gases formed
during the gasification of Polyethylene. This had not been studied before and its a novel area.
The literature presented above clearly shows a gap that needs to be filled in. No researcher has so
far done modeling on gasification of polyethylene. And from the information compiled in Table
6, it is clearly evident that kinetic modeling is rare for the case of biomass and coal, let alone
polymers.
Therefore a clear niche is available and this will be filled in with our research and modeling
work. The kinetic parameters obtained are from literature and have been previously used to
model coal or biomass gasification.
13
Table 3
constant
800850
Two-stage
reac. System
Two-stage
reac. System
800850
800850
Fluidized Bed
640850
Reactor Type
Waste
Plastic
5mm
flakes
Two-stage
tubular
furnace
600 900
PE
5 mm
2 mm
pellets
700900
600900
PP
Fixed Bed
Reactor
Two-stage
reac. System
PS
2 mm
pellets
Two-stage
reac. System
2 mm
pellets
2 mm
pellets
0.225 mm
flakes
Material
PP
HDPE
HDPE
(): Increase in property

(): Decrease in property
(): Not Provided
Range
(C)
H2 CH4 CO CO2
C conv. Eff
Measured variables
Particle
size
Char/tars
Gas Yield
C2C4
constant
Property Studied: Temperature

Experiment conditions
Author
Steam gasification. Carrier gas used

is N2
[10]
Steam catalytic gasification
[17]
Steam catalytic gasification. Carrier

gas used is N2
gas used is N2
gas used is N2
gas used is N2
Air-N2 mixture at low temperature
(700C) and only air at higher
temperatures. T >700C
[9]
[11]
[11]
[11]
[4]
Table 4
PP
HDPE
PP
C conv. Eff
PS
H2 CH4 CO CO2
C2C4
Char/tars
Material
Gas Yield
Property Studied: Equivalence Ratio (Increase)
0.1-0.4
0.1-0.4
0.1-0.4
0.20.45
Measured variables
Particle
size
Reactor Type
2 mm
pellets
2 mm
pellets
2 mm
pellets
Two-stage reac.
System
Two-stage reac.
System
Two-stage reac.
System
2 mm
Fluidized bed
Range

(): Not Provided
15
Steam catalytic gasification.

Carrier gas used is N2
Air Gasification
Author
[11]
[11]
[11]
[12]
Table 5
PS
PP
HDPE
Waste
Plastic
2 mm
pellets
2 mm
pellets
2 mm
pellets
2 mm
pellets
5mm
flakes
Two-stage reac.
System
Two-stage reac.
System
Two-stage reac.
System
Two-stage reac.
System
Two-stage
tubular furnace
H2 CH4 CO CO2
C2C4
C conv. Eff
PP
Reactor Type
Char/tars
Material
Particle
size
Gas Yield
Property Studied: Steam to fuel Ratio (Increase)
1.9-14.2
1.9-14.2
1.9-14.2
1.9-14.2
1.9-14.2
Range
(g/h)
Measured variables

(): Not Provided
16

Steam gasification. Carrier gas
used is N2
Author
[9]
[11]
[11]
[11]
[10]
Table 6
Material
Property
Model
Considered
Temperature
(C)
Biomass
ER
Kinetic
Steam to fuel
ratio
Temperature
(C)
Waste
Tyres
ER
Equilibrium
Steam to fuel
ratio
Temperature
(C)
Biomass
ER
Steam to fuel
ratio
Gibbs free
energy min.
Measured Variables
Range
CO CO2
Gas Yield
Simulation: Effects of Parameters
H2
CH4
700-900
0.190.27
0-4
750 1100
0.2-0.8
0.2-0.8
25-825
0.290.45
0-11
kg/h
steam
Const

(): Not Provided
(Const) - No change in value
17
Comments
Reactions
Author
1,3
[8]
[7]
Fuel feed 0.445 kg/h ; air 0.5 Nm3/h;

steam rate 1.2 kg/h.
Fuel feed 0.445 kg/h ; Temp 800 C;
steam rate 1.2 kg/h. Optimum ER =
0.23
Fuel feed 0.445 kg/h ; Temp 800 C;
air 0.5 Nm3/h;
Temp 950 C; Pressure 1 bar.
Temp 950 C; Pressure 1 bar.
1,2,4,5,6,7
[19]
For fixed ER = 0.29 temperature was

varied.
The optimum operating conditions
without air preheating were found to
be: ER 0.34-0.35 and gasifier
temperature 837-874C
5. Methodology and principles.

Process assumptions:
Assumptions made for polyethylene gasification are listed below
1) Polyethylene is represented as non-conventional material. An RYIELD breaks down PE
into its basic constituents; carbon and hydrogen according to the ultimate analysis.
2) Carbon is treated as char (pure carbon solid) in the reactions.
3) Gasifier is operated under steady state conditions
4) Ash is considered inert and hence do not take part in any of the reactions
5) Product gases of PE gasification are hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and
methane.
Process simulation software

There are several simulation packages available that can be used to simulate gasification of
polyethylene. Some of the most common ones are Aspen Plus, Aspen Hysys and ProMax. Aspen
plus is the selected for our study. This simulation package has been used for modeling biomass
and tyre gasification [7-8, 19, 21]. It is a steady state chemical process simulator and was
developed by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) for the US Department of Energy, to
evaluate synthetic fuel technologies.
Several reasons to support our decision are:
Polyethylene can be entered as a non conventional feed in Aspen plus and then based on
its ultimate and proximate analysis; it can be modeled as a fuel.
Aspen plus provides a good selection of different reactors that form building blocks of a
gasifier
Sensitivity analysis provides a good option of studying effects of certain variables on the
outlet gases.
The drawback with ProMax is that polyethylene feed is defined as pseudo oil. This may
be true for HDPE but for LDPE, nitrogen and sulphur content do affect the product yields
of the desire gases. Another disadvantage of using ProMax is its inability to handle
chemical kinetics when a user-defined feed is entered, such as in our case.
The simulation of our model is based on a lab scale tubular reactor. A Plug flow reactor will be
used in Aspen plus with integrated kinetics to give the output yield. To validate the model, its
results will be compared to an Equilibrium model (RGibbs) and parameters such as effect of
temperature, equivalence ratio, steam to fuel ratio on output gases will be studied.
19
Thermodynamic equilibrium models:
Basic thermodynamic equilibrium models have also been developed for our research but they
have a few drawbacks and therefore their use would be limited to providing guidance on the
values obtained as gas outlet yield.
At chemical equilibrium, a reacting system is at its most stable composition, a condition
achieved when the entropy of the system is maximized while its Gibbs free energy is minimized.
Equilibrium models have two general approaches: stoichiometric and non stoichiometric.
The stoichiometric approach basically requires a reaction mechanism that incorporates all
chemical reactions and species involved. In a non-stoichiometric approach, no particular reaction
mechanisms or species are involved in numerical simulation. The only input needed to specify
the feed is its ultimate analysis data. The non-stoichiometric equilibrium model is based on
minimizing Gibbs free energy in the system without specifying the possible reactions taking
place. The stoichiometric chemical equilibrium model is based on selecting those species that are
present in the largest amounts, i.e. those which have the lowest value of free energy of formation.
20
The two approaches are essentially equivalent. There are a few assumptions made when using
this model. These assumptions also act as a drawback to this type of model. They are:
The reactor is implicitly considered to be a zero dimensional.
The gasifier is often regarded as a perfectly insulated apparatus.
The model assumes that gasification rates are fast and residence time is long enough to
reach the equilibrium state.
Perfect mixing and uniform temperature are assumed for the gasifier although different
hydrodynamics are observed in practice.
Tars are not modeled
No information about reaction pathways and formation of intermediates is given in the

model
21
Process Model Development:

My process model would be one based on reaction kinetics i.e. it would be a kinetic model. The
kinetics of carbonaceous fuel gasification has been and still is a subject of intensive investigation
and it is still not as developed as is its thermodynamics [5]
Reaction kinetics:
The kinetic parameters for the gasification reactions are listed in Table 1. First order kinetic
model of reactions have been considered for simplicity and because of availability in literature.
A simple sequence of gasification process would be:
Devolitization:
The first step is the heating up of the polyethylene particles (feed). It is one sense the
simplest part of the process. Nonetheless, the speed at which it takes place has an
influence on the subsequent steps, so it is of great importance in any accurate model.
Devolitization takes place at low temperature and in parallel with heating up of the
polyethylene feed. The rate of heating of the polyethylene particles influences the way in
which devolitization takes place.
Volatiles combustion
Devolitization of any carbon based fuel produces a variety of species such as

hydrocarbon liquids and gases including hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide,
methane, water (gaseous state) and so forth. This material reacts with the oxidant
surrounding the fuel particle. The extent to which the oxidant is completely or only
partially depleted depends on the amount of volatiles produced. There is not much kinetic
data available on volatiles combustion. It is however clearly established that this process,
being a reaction between gases, is much more rapid than char gasification.
22
Char gasification
The slowest reactions in gasification, and therefore those that govern the overall
conversion rate, are the heterogeneous reactions with carbon namely the water gas,
Boudouard and hydrogenation reactions (see Table 1)
The gasification process consists of several competing reactions which are char gasification,
methanation, methane steam reforming, water gas shift and Boudouard. The sequence is actually
picked up from literature and each author uses a set of reactions from the available 8 reactions.
Kinetic Modeling
Modeling work is carried out after careful consideration on reaction scheme that has been done
according to the literature review (see Table1).
Each author reviews a certain number of
reactions and provide data for their kinetic parameters [8, 13-14, 16, 22]. Based on the reactions
and kinetic parameters considered, five gasification models have been prepared on Aspen Plus.
The results from these models are in the appendices. Some of the results from these models are
in conformity with the literature. A selection criterion is used to select the best available model.
Selection criteria
A model has been selected. It selection was based on fulfilling several important criteria such as
1. The model should consider maximum number of possible reactions
2. It should give no errors while executing
3. Its results should be in qualitative agreement with the available literature and
experimental data.
4. Its results are comparable to the Gibbs Minimization model.
Based on the above criteria model has been prepared. Its kinetics were provided by Inayat et
al[13].
23
Preliminary results for the kinetic model:
The figure above is the PFD of the kinetic model in Aspen Plus. The reactor is a plug flow reactor. The
kinetics entered in the reactor are presented in Table 7
Table 7
Reaction
no.
Reactions:
H
(MJ/kmol)
K
(value)
K
(units)
Order
of EA
reaction (n) (value)
EA
Cal/mol [13]
C + H2OCO + +75
H2
2.0105
s-1
C + 2H2CH4
- 74.8
0.12
s-1
+171
4.40
s-1
C + CO2 2 CO
11922
35609
3.24108
References
(units)
Cal/mol [13]
Cal/mol
[13]
CH4+ H2OCO + +206

3H2
-35
CO+H2OCO2 +
H2
3105
s-1
106exp (-6370/T)
Kw=520exp(7230/T)
The preliminary results from the simulation are on the next page:
24
29805
Cal/mol [13]
Cal/mol [13]
Kinetic Model 1-1[13]

Parameter studied : Temperature
ER
S/F
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
Temperature
(C)
650
700
750
800
850
900
CO
HYDROGEN
0.31255447
0.32894737
0.3476928
0.36829424
0.39017919
0.41281618
0.046289
0.063616
0.08477
0.109805
1.39E-01
0.170636
CO2
6.57E-03
0.0087
0.010573
0.011875
0.012344
0.011846
CH4
7.74E-14
2.06E-13
4.94E-13
1.09E-12
2.21E-12
4.20E-12
PE : 0.1 kg/hr, Steam: 0.1333 kg/hr and Air: 0.3266 kg/hr
Mole Fraction
Mole Fraction vs temperature

0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
HYDROGEN
CO
CO2
CH4
WATER
625
675
725
775
825
875
925
Efficiency
Temperature C
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
CO efficiency
H2 efficiency
650
700
750
800
850
900
Temperature C
25
WATER
0.21539304
0.18815271
0.15657184
1.21E-01
0.08311295
4.29E-02
Parameter studied : Steam to fuel ratio

Temperature ER
S/F
(C)
HYDROGEN
0.2
1
455.077307
0.29814965
0.2
2
462.408143
0.24319538
0.2
3
467.729207
0.20547106
0.2
4
471.754933
0.17793783
0.2
5
474.899069
0.15694053
PE : 0.1 kg/hr, Steam: varies and Air: 0.3266 kg/hr
CO
CO2
0.012437
0.00998
0.008267
0.007021
0.006084
CH4
0.00072149
0.00116557
0.00140241
0.0015176
0.00156062
1.02E-15
9.26E-16
8.43E-16
7.73E-16
7.13E-16
WATER
0.21793
0.363306
0.462927
0.535505
0.590759
Mole fraction vs S/F ratio

0.7
Mole fractiom
0.6
0.5
HYDROGEN
0.4
CO
0.3
CO2
0.2
CH4
0.1
WATER
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
Steam to Fuel ratio
100
90
80
Efficiency
70
60
50
CO efficiency
40
H2 efficiency
30
20
10
0
1
3
4
5
Steam to fuel ratio
26
6.5
Parameter studied : Equivalence ratio

Temperature
S/F
ER
(C)
HYDROGEN
1.33
0.1
450.703783
0.35427723
1.33
0.15
454.538357
0.31105198
1.33
0.2
457.80463
0.27725552
1.33
0.25
460.620754
0.25009285
1.33
0.3
463.078722
0.22778824
1.33
0.35
465.241175
0.20914142
PE : 0.1 kg/hr, Steam: 0.1333kg/hr and Air: varies
CO
CO2
0.014131
0.012675
0.011513
0.010563
0.009768
0.009093
0.001108
0.000998
0.000899
0.00081
0.000732
0.000662
CH4
1.14E-15
1.06E-15
9.89E-16
9.31E-16
8.80E-16
8.34E-16
Mole fraction vs Equivalence ratio
0.4
0.35
Mole Fration
0.3
HYDROGEN
0.25
CO
0.2
CO2
0.15
CH4
0.1
WATER
0.05
0
0.05
0.15
0.25
0.35
0.45
Equivalene Ratio
100
90
80
Efficiency
70
60
50
CO efficiency
40
H2 efficiency
30
20
10
0
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Equivalence ratio
0.35
27
WATER
0.350529
0.307098
0.273243
0.246107
0.223875
0.205328
Kinetic Model 1-2 [13]

A slightly varied version of the same model is studied. In this model, an RGIBBS reactor is used
for volatile combustion, in conformity with the assumption that volatile reactions follow the
Gibbs equilibrium. This model gives slightly better results than the original one.

ER
S/F
Temperature
CO
(C)
HYDROGEN
0.2
1.33
650
0.240244
0.04809
0.2
1.33
700
0.260138
0.064855
0.2
1.33
750
0.282377
0.085924
0.2
1.33
800
0.30642
0.111328
0.2
1.33
850
0.331641
1.41E-01
0.2
1.33
900
0.357459
0.174095
CO2
CH4
1.40E-02
0.017336
0.019985
0.021655
0.022085
0.021158
0.04310155
0.04217231
0.04107008
0.03980423
3.84E-02
3.68E-02

0.4
0.35
Mole Fraction
0.3
HYDROGEN
0.25
0.2
CO
0.15
CO2
0.1
CH4
0.05
WATER
0
625
675
725
775
825
875
Temperature C
28
925
WATER
0.22398065
0.19415587
0.16019494
1.23E-01
0.08277782
4.11E-02
Efficiency
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
CO efficiency
H2 efficiency
650
700
750
800
850
900
Temperature C
29

Temperature ER
S/F
(C)
HYDROGEN
0.2
1
390.08944
0.20096372
0.2
2
407.955384
0.16331958
0.2
3
420.857295
0.13805088
0.2
4
430.629532
0.11982651
0.2
5
438.2517
0.10597336
CO
CO2
0.013039
0.010888
0.009099
0.007669
0.006566
CH4
0.000565
0.001212
0.001801
0.002245
0.002521
0.049067
0.039404
0.032926
0.028282
0.024787
WATER
0.246264
0.391598
0.489239
0.559488
0.612564

0.7
Mole fractiom
0.6
0.5
HYDROGEN
0.4
CO
0.3
CO2
0.2
CH4
0.1
WATER
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
Steam to Fuel ratio
100
90
80
Efficiency
70
60
50
CO efficiency
40
H2 efficiency
30
20
10
0
1
3
4
5
Steam to fuel ratio
30

Temperature
S/F
ER
(C)
HYDROGEN
1.33
0.1
430.485268
0.23566584
1.33
0.15
410.022346
0.20357125
1.33
0.2
390.562748
0.17926958
1.33
0.25
372.586808
0.16026669
1.33
0.3
356.225267
0.14499115
1.33
0.35
341.452346
0.13243741
CO
CO2
0.018949
0.014422
0.011432
0.00938
0.007928
0.006864
0.00197
0.001119
0.000656
0.000405
0.000258
0.000171
CH4
0.055891
0.049097
0.043742
0.039422
0.035868
0.032895
WATER
0.366234
0.325162
0.291795
0.26427
0.24127
0.221816
0.4
0.35
Mole Fration
0.3
HYDROGEN
0.25
CO
0.2
CO2
0.15
CH4
0.1
WATER
0.05
0
0.05
0.15
0.25
0.35
0.45
Equivalene Ratio
100
90
80
Efficiency
70
60
50
CO efficiency
40
H2 efficiency
30
20
10
0
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Equivalence ratio
0.35
31
Future work
As the problem has been clearly defined, now the pathway forward is carved. The future work
will involve:
Capturing the variations in kinetic parameters and their effects on the yield of product
gases and their effects on response variables.
Assessing the effect of property methods used on the yield of outlet gases and the effects
on response variable.
Studying further features in Aspen and estimating the initial setup cost of the equipment
been modeled
Possibility of using optimization toolbox feature in Aspen
Providing a table of best known kinetic parameters for maximum number of reactions.
32
6. References:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Farah, N., Fee likely to be imposed on use of plastic bags, in Gulf News. 2011, Al
Nisr Publishing: Abu Dhabi.
Baeyens, J. RECYCLING PLASTICS. 2010 [cited 2010 05/04/11]; Available
from: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/knowledge/engineering/recycling.
Arena, U., L. Zaccariello and M.L. Mastellone, Tar removal during the fluidized
bed gasification of plastic waste. Waste Management, 2009. 29(2): p. 783-791.
Mastral, F.J., E. Esperanza, C. Berrueco, M. Juste and J. Ceamanos, Fluidized bed
thermal degradation products of HDPE in an inert atmosphere and in airnitrogen mixtures. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 2003. 70(1): p.
1-17.
Higman, C. and M. van der Burgt, Gasification (2nd Edition), Elsevier.
Robinson, P.J. and W.L. Luyben, Simple Dynamic Gasifier Model That Runs in
Aspen Dynamics. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2008. 47(20):
p. 7784-7792.
Mitta, N.R., S. Ferrer-Nadal, A.M. Lazovic, J.F. Parales, E. Velo and L. Puigjaner,
Modelling and simulation of a tyre gasification plant for synthesis gas
production, in Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, W. Marquardt and C.
Pantelides, Editors. 2006, Elsevier. p. 1771-1776.
Nikoo, M.B. and N. Mahinpey, Simulation of biomass gasification in fluidized
bed reactor using ASPEN PLUS. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2008. 32(12): p.
1245-1254.
Wu, C. and P.T. Williams, Effects of Gasification Temperature and Catalyst
Ratio on Hydrogen Production from Catalytic Steam Pyrolysis-Gasification of
Polypropylene. Energy & Fuels, 2008. 22(6): p. 4125-4132.
Wu, C. and P.T. Williams, Pyrolysis-gasification of post-consumer municipal
solid plastic waste for hydrogen production. International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy, 2010. 35(3): p. 949-957.
Wu, C. and P.T. Williams, Pyrolysis-gasification of plastics, mixed plastics and
real-world plastic waste with and without Ni-Mg-Al catalyst. Fuel, 2010.
89(10): p. 3022-3032.
Xiao, R., B. Jin, H. Zhou, Z. Zhong and M. Zhang, Air gasification of
polypropylene plastic waste in fluidized bed gasifier. Energy Conversion and
Management, 2007. 48(3): p. 778-786.
Inayat, A., M.M. Ahmad, Abdul Mutalib, M.I. Yunus and M. Khairuddin, Kinetic
Modeling of Biomass Steam Gasification System for Hydrogen Production with
CO2 Adsorption. Proceedings of International Conference for Technical
Postgraduates (TECHPOS 2009), 2009.
Fletcher, D.F., B.S. Haynes, F.C. Christo and S.D. Joseph, A CFD based
combustion model of an entrained flow biomass gasifier. Applied Mathematical
Modelling, 2000. 24(3): p. 165-182.
33
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Ahmad, M.M., A. Inayat, S. Yusup and C.K. Chiew, Simulation of Integrated

Pressurized Steam Gasification of Biomass for Hydrogen Production using iCON.
Journal of Applied Sciences 2011.
Xu, J. and G.F. Froment, Methane steam reforming, methanation and water-gas
shift: I. Intrinsic kinetics. AIChE Journal, 1989. 35(1): p. 88-96.
He, M., B. Xiao, Z. Hu, S. Liu, X. Guo and S. Luo, Syngas production from catalytic
gasification of waste polyethylene: Influence of temperature on gas yield and
composition. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2009. 34(3): p. 13421348.
Lv, P.M., Z.H. Xiong, J. Chang, C.Z. Wu, Y. Chen and J.X. Zhu, An experimental
study on biomass air-steam gasification in a fluidized bed. Bioresource
Technology, 2004. 95(1): p. 95-101.
Doherty, W., A. Reynolds and D. Kennedy, The effect of air preheating in a
biomass CFB gasifier using ASPEN Plus simulation. Biomass and Bioenergy,
2009. 33(9): p. 1158-1167.
Li, X.T., J.R. Grace, C.J. Lim, A.P. Watkinson, H.P. Chen and J.R. Kim, Biomass
gasification in a circulating fluidized bed. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2004. 26(2):
p. 171-193.
Tan, W. and Q. Zhong, Simulation of Hydrogen production in biomass gasifier
by ASPEN PLUS. IEEE, 2010.
L, P., X. Kong, C. Wu, Z. Yuan, L. Ma and J. Chang, Modeling and simulation of
biomass air-steam gasification in a fluidized bed. Frontiers of Chemical
Engineering in China, 2008. 2(2): p. 209-213.
34
7. Appendices
Gibbs Model 1
ER
S/F
Temperature
CO
(C)
HYDROGEN
0.2
1.33
650
0.344631
0.138183
0.2
1.33
700
0.362341
0.159402
0.2
1.33
750
0.36425
0.170161
0.2
1.33
800
0.361003
0.176795
0.2
1.33
850
0.356847
1.82E-01
0.2
1.33
900
0.352867
0.186121
CO2
8.65E-02
0.072346
0.063885
0.057866
0.052958
0.048756

0.4
Mole Fraction
0.35
0.3
HYDROGEN
0.25
0.2
CO
0.15
CO2
0.1
CH4
0.05
WATER
0
625
675
725
775
825
875
925
Efficiency
Temperature C
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
CO efficiency
H2 efficiency
650
700
750
800
850
900
Temperature C
35
CH4
0.01927417
0.00595016
0.00161416
0.00045514
1.41E-04
4.79E-05
WATER
0.10514047
0.10154853
0.10423368
1.09E-01
0.11319859
1.17E-01

Temperature ER
S/F
(C)
HYDROGEN
0.2
1
713.88722
0.3609064
0.2
2
698.082971
0.35573322
0.2
3
685.837626
0.33279634
0.2
4
673.219076
0.30737675
0.2
5
660.934577
0.2833748
CO
CO2
0.192366
0.116868
0.076271
0.052423
0.037522
0.05413
0.090988
0.102927
0.104934
0.1027
CH4
0.007311
0.002612
0.001298
0.000793
0.000545
WATER
0.066649
0.16957
0.260105
0.335929
0.399135

0.5
0.45
Mole fractiom
0.4
0.35
HYDROGEN
0.3
0.25
CO
0.2
CO2
0.15
CH4
0.1
WATER
0.05
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
Steam to Fuel ratio
100
90
80
Efficiency
70
60
50
CO efficiency
40
H2 efficiency
30
20
10
0
1
3
4
5
Steam to fuel ratio
36

Temperature
S/F
ER
(C)
HYDROGEN
1.33
0.1
595.6478
0.34798921
1.33
0.15
635.7595
0.36710205
1.33
0.2
707.0547
0.36325989
1.33
0.25
910.2973
0.30260044
1.33
0.3
1110.933
0.24614212
1.33
0.35
1283.374
0.20039049
CO
CO2
0.121423
0.145593
0.161371
0.162997
0.155472
0.144913
CH4
0.109244
0.088003
0.0709
0.055776
0.049263
0.047469
0.09984269
0.04056058
0.00496286
1.87E-05
2.83E-07
1.43E-08
0.4
0.35
Mole Fration
0.3
HYDROGEN
0.25
CO
0.2
CO2
0.15
CH4
0.1
WATER
0.05
0
0.05
0.15
0.25
0.35
0.45
Equivalene Ratio
100
90
80
Efficiency
70
60
50
CO efficiency
40
H2 efficiency
30
20
10
0
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Equivalence ratio
0.35
37
WATER
0.11389437
0.10054568
0.10167734
0.13530978
0.16366781
0.18469243

ER
S/F
Temperature
CO
(C)
HYDROGEN
0.2
1.33
650
0.245368
1.70E-01
0.2
1.33
700
0.245609
1.70E-01
0.2
1.33
750
0.24623
1.70E-01
0.2
1.33
800
0.247653
1.70E-01
0.2
1.33
850
0.25065
1.69E-01
0.2
1.33
900
0.256561
1.69E-01
CO2
7.13E-05
0.000212
0.000564
0.001373
0.003084
0.006454
CH4
0
0
0
0
0.00E+00
0.00E+00

0.3
Mole Fraction
0.25
0.2
HYDROGEN
CO
0.15
CO2
0.1
CH4
0.05
WATER
0
625
675
725
775
825
875
925
Temperature C
100
90
80
Efficiency
70
60
50
CO efficiency
40
H2 efficiency
30
20
10
0
650
700
750
800
850
900
Temperature C
38
WATER
0.26469312
0.26437099
0.26357446
2.62E-01
0.25786773
2.50E-01

Temperature ER
S/F
(C)
HYDROGEN
0.2
1
984.26517
0.30402666
0.2
2
926.47308
0.23019672
0.2
3
870.34743
0.1892652
0.2
4
824.64413
0.16247006
0.2
5
787.57096
0.14296192
CO
CO2
0.177655
0.148966
0.12738
0.111152
0.098339
CH4
2.38E-02
7.63E-03
0.002738
0.001147
0.000537
0
0
0
0
0

0.7
Mole fractiom
0.6
0.5
HYDROGEN
0.4
CO
0.3
CO2
0.2
CH4
0.1
WATER
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
Steam to Fuel ratio
100
90
80
Efficiency
70
60
50
CO efficiency
40
H2 efficiency
30
20
10
0
1
3
4
5
Steam to fuel ratio
39
WATER
0.160079
0.332821
0.440858
0.516276
0.573066

Temperature
S/F
ER
(C)
HYDROGEN
1.33
0.1
635.8778
0.26050674
1.33
0.15
594.1506
0.2754451
1.33
0.2
572.1078
0.29526403
1.33
0.25
558.4317
0.28633111
1.33
0.3
549.2986
0.2388275
1.33
0.35
542.8972
0.26050674
Mole
fraction
CO
CO2
0.076252
0.086518
0.10617
0.120292
0.120084
0.076252
vs
CH4
0.118641
0.111179
0.095506
0.079727
0.068749
0.118641
0.086126
0.063188
0.024074
0.002097
0.000107
0.086126
Equivalence
0.045
0.04
Mole Fration
0.035
HYDROGEN
0.03
CO
0.025
0.02
CO2
0.015
CH4
WATER
0.01
0.005
0
0.05
0.15
0.25
0.35
0.45
Equivalene Ratio
100
90
80
Efficiency
70
60
50
CO efficiency
40
H2 efficiency
30
20
10
0
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Equivalence ratio
0.35
40
WATER
0.133493
0.123861
0.111472
0.116738
0.141672
0.133493
ratio
Kinetic Model 2-2 [8]

ER
S/F
Temperature
CO
(C)
HYDROGEN
0.2
1.33
650
0.171994
0.163867
0.2
1.33
700
0.172264
0.163834
0.2
1.33
750
0.17294
0.163781
0.2
1.33
800
0.174494
0.163632
0.2
1.33
850
0.177776
1.63E-01
0.2
1.33
900
0.184237
0.162766
CO2
6.85E-03
0.006995
0.007363
0.008206
0.00999
0.013502
CH4
0.04257745
0.04257164
0.04255546
0.04251985
4.24E-02
4.23E-02

0.3
Mole Fraction
0.25
0.2
HYDROGEN
CO
0.15
CO2
0.1
CH4
0.05
WATER
0
625
675
725
775
825
875
925
Efficiency
Temperature C
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
CO efficiency
H2 efficiency
650
700
750
800
850
900
Temperature C
41
WATER
0.27807359
0.2777413
0.27689524
2.75E-01
0.27087487
2.63E-01

Temperature ER
S/F
(C)
HYDROGEN
0.2
1
984.26517
0.23484886
0.2
2
926.47308
0.16723191
0.2
3
870.34743
0.1334193
0.2
4
824.64413
0.11290298
0.2
5
787.57096
0.09858168
CO
CO2
0.171211
0.14261
0.121268
0.105215
0.092859
CH4
0.034723
0.01473
0.008138
0.005628
0.004439
0.04449
0.037057
0.031508
0.027341
0.024128

0.7
Mole fractiom
0.6
0.5
HYDROGEN
0.4
CO
0.3
CO2
0.2
CH4
0.1
WATER
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
Steam to Fuel ratio
100
90
80
Efficiency
70
60
50
CO efficiency
40
H2 efficiency
30
20
10
0
1
3
4
5
Steam to fuel ratio
42
WATER
0.16297
0.345377
0.456544
0.532746
0.589222

Temperature
S/F
ER
(C)
HYDROGEN
1.33
0.1
844.0428
0.22547423
1.33
0.15
987.1529
0.2069093
1.33
0.2
1135.659
0.20763116
1.33
0.25
1077.94
0.16870183
1.33
0.3
1033.048
0.14459737
1.33
0.35
970.5989
0.20633158
CO
0.113241
0.16733
0.12778
0.138146
0.138271
0.160775
CO2
CH4
0.012264
0.029227
0.063941
0.03767
0.024061
0.025504
0.05405
0.039931
0.036423
0.033402
0.03084
0.041778
0.4
0.35
HYDROGEN
0.25
CO
0.2
CO2
0.15
CH4
0.1
WATER
0.05
0
0.05
0.15
0.25
0.35
0.45
Equivalene Ratio
100
90
80
70
Efficiency
Mole Fration
0.3
60
50
CO efficiency
40
H2 efficiency
30
20
10
0
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Equivalence ratio
43
0.35
WATER
0.34586
0.215188
0.177377
0.184374
0.181397
0.235289

ER
S/F
Temperature
CO
(C)
HYDROGEN
0.2
1.33
650
0.171994
0.163867
0.2
1.33
700
0.172264
0.163834
0.2
1.33
750
0.17294
0.163781
0.2
1.33
800
0.174494
0.163632
0.2
1.33
850
0.177776
1.63E-01
0.2
1.33
900
0.184237
0.162766
CO2
6.85E-03
0.006995
0.007363
0.008206
0.00999
0.013502
CH4
0.04257745
0.04257164
0.04255546
0.04251985
4.24E-02
4.23E-02

0.45
0.4
Mole Fraction
0.35
0.3
HYDROGEN
0.25
CO
0.2
CO2
0.15
CH4
0.1
WATER
0.05
0
625
675
725
775
825
875
925
Efficiency
Temperature C
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
CO efficiency
H2 efficiency
650
700
750
800
850
900
Temperature C
44
WATER
0.27807359
0.2777413
0.27689524
2.75E-01
0.27087487
2.63E-01

Temperature ER
S/F
(C)
HYDROGEN
0.2
1
569.7109
0.25074578
0.2
2
542.7941
0.257083
0.2
3
525.9212
0.23435748
0.2
4
514.3282
0.21034359
0.2
5
505.5626
0.189601
CO
CO2
0.098891
0.051882
0.036665
0.030153
0.02681
CH4
0.108998
0.121004
0.110905
0.098583
0.087495
0.097947
0.069907
0.055038
0.045434
0.038518

0.6
Mole fractiom
0.5
0.4
HYDROGEN
CO
0.3
CO2
0.2
CH4
0.1
WATER
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
Steam to Fuel ratio
100
90
80
Efficiency
70
60
50
CO efficiency
40
H2 efficiency
30
20
10
0
1
3
4
5
Steam to fuel ratio
45
WATER
0.089738
0.219347
0.328729
0.41407
0.480844

Temperature (C) S/F
ER
HYDROGEN
832.327 1.33 0.177551 0.26050674

849.983 1.33
0.2
0.2754451
891.6013 1.33
0.25 0.29526403
1.33
969.68
0.3 0.28633111
1.33
1054.369
0.35
0.2388275
CO
CO2
0.076252
0.086518
0.10617
0.120292
0.120084
CH4
0.118641
0.111179
0.095506
0.079727
0.068749
0.086126
0.063188
0.024074
0.002097
0.000107
0.35
Mole Fration
0.3
0.25
HYDROGEN
0.2
CO
0.15
CO2
0.1
CH4
0.05
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Efficiency
Equivalene Ratio
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
CO efficiency
H2 efficiency
Equivalence ratio
46
WATER
0.133493
0.123861
0.111472
0.116738
0.141672

ER
S/F
Temperature
CO
(C)
HYDROGEN
0.2
1.33
650
0.267245
2.05E-10
0.2
1.33
700
0.267245
9.97E-10
0.2
1.33
750
0.267245
4.15E-09
0.2
1.33
800
0.267245
0
0.2
1.33
850
0.267246
0
0.2
1.33
900
0.267246
0
Mole
Fraction
CO2
CH4
2.75E-06
5.28E-06
9.51E-06
1.75E-05
2.77E-05
4.26E-05
3.61E-14
1.69E-13
6.78E-13
2.39E-12
7.56E-12
2.16E-11
vs
0.3
Mole Fraction
0.25
HYDROGEN
CO
0.15
CO2
0.1
CH4
0.05
WATER
0
-0.05
625
675
725
775
825
Temperature C
875
925
100
90
80
Efficiency
70
60
50
CO efficiency
40
H2 efficiency
30
20
10
0
650
700
750
800
850
900
Temperature C
47
0.29020152
0.29020152
0.29020151
0.29019987
0.29019974
0.29019958
temperature
0.35
0.2
WATER

Temperature ER
S/F
(C)
HYDROGEN
0.2
1
499.910712
0.23484886
0.2
2
499.959073
0.16723191
0.2
3
499.991237
0.1334193
0.2
4
500.014155
0.11290298
0.2
5
500.031305
0.09858168
CO
CO2
0.171211
0.14261
0.121268
0.105215
0.092859
0.034723
0.01473
0.008138
0.005628
0.004439
CH4
0.04449
0.037057
0.031508
0.027341
0.024128
WATER
0.16297
0.345377
0.456544
0.532746
0.589222

0.7
Mole fractiom
0.6
0.5
HYDROGEN
0.4
CO
0.3
CO2
0.2
CH4
0.1
WATER
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
Steam to Fuel ratio
100
90
80
Efficiency
70
60
50
CO efficiency
40
H2 efficiency
30
20
10
0
1
3
4
5
Steam to fuel ratio
48

Temperature
S/F
ER
(C)
HYDROGEN
1.33
0.1
499.8733
0.34312856
1.33
0.15
499.9045
0.30046785
1.33
0.2
499.9293
0.26724455
1.33
0.25
499.9495
0.24063306
1.33
0.3
499.9663
0.21884287
1.33
0.35
499.9805
0.20067279
CO
6.82E-13
5.98E-13
5.32E-13
4.80E-13
4.37E-13
4.01E-13
CO2
3.00E-07
2.63E-07
2.34E-07
2.11E-07
1.92E-07
1.76E-07
CH4
1.36E-16
1.20E-16
1.06E-16
9.60E-17
8.73E-17
8.01E-17
0.4
0.35
HYDROGEN
0.25
CO
0.2
CO2
0.15
CH4
0.1
WATER
0.05
0
0.05
0.15
0.25
0.35
0.45
Equivalene Ratio
100
90
80
70
Efficiency
Mole Fration
0.3
60
50
CO efficiency
40
H2 efficiency
30
20
10
0
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Equivalence ratio
49
0.35
WATER
0.372604
0.326279
0.290202
0.261304
0.237642
0.217911

S/F
Temperature
CO
(C)
HYDROGEN
0.2
1.33
650
0.152626
9.97E-09
0.2
1.33
700
0.15267
0
0.2
1.33
750
0.152715
1.01E-08
0.2
1.33
800
0.152658
0
0.2
1.33
850
0.152813
7.42E-09
0.2
1.33
900
0.152779
8.99E-09
CO2
4.96E-04
0.000509
0.000521
0.000507
0.000549
0.000541
CH4
0.06661106
0.06659728
0.06658307
0.06660022
6.66E-02
6.66E-02
WATER
0.30842001
0.30838797
0.30835826
3.08E-01
0.30829184
3.08E-01

0.35
0.3
0.25
HYDROGEN
0.2
CO
0.15
CO2
0.1
CH4
0.05
WATER
0
625
675
725
775
825
875
925
Temperature C
100
90
80
70
Efficiency
Mole Fraction
ER
60
50
CO efficiency
40
H2 efficiency
30
20
10
0
650
700
750
800
Temperature C
50
850
900

Temperature ER
S/F
(C)
HYDROGEN
0.2
1
527.9254
0.16543736
0.2
2
522.5652
0.13239979
0.2
3
519.0782
0.11025542
0.2
4
516.4498
0.09452412
0.2
5
514.2942
0.08286272
CO
CO2
0
1.01E-08
1.01E-08
0
0
0.00056
0.000472
0.00038
0.000336
0.000337
CH4
0.072152
0.057668
0.048059
0.041176
0.035978
WATER
0.250628
0.400664
0.500719
0.572093
0.625491

0.8
0.7
0.5
HYDROGEN
0.4
CO
0.3
CO2
0.2
CH4
WATER
0.1
0
-0.1
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
Steam to Fuel ratio
100
90
80
70
Efficiency
Mole fractiom
0.6
60
50
CO efficiency
40
H2 efficiency
30
20
10
0
1
3
4
5
Steam to fuel ratio
51

Temperature
S/F
ER
(C)
HYDROGEN
1.33
0.1
531.6775
0.19973321
1.33
0.15
528.6473
0.17296194
1.33
0.2
525.9709
0.15264469
1.33
0.25
523.7844
0.1365859
1.33
0.3
521.8459
0.12365828
1.33
0.35
520.4178
0.11280388
CO
0
0
1.55E-08
0
0
0
CO2
CH4
0.000654
0.000548
0.000501
0.00046
0.000443
0.000383
0.087159
0.075534
0.066605
0.059568
0.053855
0.049191
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05 0.05
HYDROGEN
CO
CO2
CH4
WATER
0.15
0.25
0.35
0.45
Equivalene Ratio
100
90
80
70
Efficiency
Mole Fration
60
50
CO efficiency
40
H2 efficiency
30
20
10
0
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Equivalence ratio
52
0.35
WATER
0.403567
0.349682
0.308406
0.275849
0.249464
0.227795

Simulation of Plastic Gasification: Approach and Preliminary Results

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Simulation of Plastic Gasification: Approach and Preliminary Results

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Conversion

Objectives & Goals of Research ........................................................................................................... 8

Literature review ................................................................................................................................. 10

Methodology and principles................................................................................................................ 18

Kinetic Model 1-2 [13] ............................................................................................................................... 28

Parameter studied : Steam to fuel ratio ................................................................................................... 30

Gibbs Model 1............................................................................................................................................. 35

Proximate analysis (wt%, dry basis)

Ultimate analysis (wt%, dry basis)

3. Objectives & Goals of Research

Carbon to gas conversion

Carbon monoxide efficiency

Combined carbon monoxide and hydrogen efficiency

the steam methane reforming and CO2 reforming reactions.

Increasing the ER led to the

(): Increase in property

Property Studied: Temperature

Steam gasification. Carrier gas used

Steam catalytic gasification

Steam catalytic gasification. Carrier

Property Studied: Equivalence Ratio (Increase)

(): Increase in property

Steam catalytic gasification.

Property Studied: Steam to fuel Ratio (Increase)

(): Increase in property

Steam catalytic gasification.

Simulation: Effects of Parameters

(): Increase in property

Fuel feed 0.445 kg/h ; air 0.5 Nm3/h;

For fixed ER = 0.29 temperature was

5. Methodology and principles.

Process simulation software

Thermodynamic equilibrium models:

The reactor is implicitly considered to be a zero dimensional.

The gasifier is often regarded as a perfectly insulated apparatus.

Tars are not modeled

No information about reaction pathways and formation of intermediates is given in the

Process Model Development:

Devolitization of any carbon based fuel produces a variety of species such as

Each author reviews a certain number of

Preliminary results for the kinetic model:

CH4+ H2OCO + +206

Kinetic Model 1-1[13]

PE : 0.1 kg/hr, Steam: 0.1333 kg/hr and Air: 0.3266 kg/hr

Mole Fraction vs temperature

Parameter studied : Steam to fuel ratio

Mole fraction vs S/F ratio

Steam to Fuel ratio

Parameter studied : Equivalence ratio

Mole fraction vs Equivalence ratio

Kinetic Model 1-2 [13]

Parameter studied : Temperature

Mole Fraction vs temperature

Parameter studied : Steam to fuel ratio

Mole fraction vs S/F ratio

Steam to Fuel ratio

Parameter studied : Equivalence ratio

Mole fraction vs Equivalence ratio

Possibility of using optimization toolbox feature in Aspen

Ahmad, M.M., A. Inayat, S. Yusup and C.K. Chiew, Simulation of Integrated

Mole Fraction vs temperature

Parameter studied : Steam to fuel ratio