Waste Management 25 (2005) 171–175

www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Simulation of a waste incineration process with flue-gas cleaning

and heat recovery sections using Aspen Plus
Silvano Cimini *, Marina Prisciandaro, Diego Barba
Dipartimento di Chimica, Ingegneria Chimica e Materiali, Università dellÕAquila, Monteluco di Roio, 67040 LÕAquila, Italy

Accepted 17 December 2004

Abstract

In the present paper, the modeling of a dual-purpose plant for the production of electrical and thermal energy from the heat
treatment of solid wastes is presented. Particularly, the process has been modeled by using the Aspen Plus Shell, with the aim of
performing a study about the applicability of this software in the simulation of a solid waste incineration process, which involves
complex gas–solid reactions where the solids are referred to as ‘‘non-conventional’’. The model is developed to analyze and quantify
the expected benefits associated with refuse derived fuel (RDF) thermal utilization; thus attention is focused on the performance of
the energy recovery section.

2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction – a vast number of thermodynamic models for the

During chemical process design, a chemical engineer
often has to use complex models for the physical–chem-
ical property calculation of stream components and for
the process unit operation design or rating. Today, the
use of specific simulation software, such as Aspen Plus,
ChemCAD, Hysys, etc., offers a powerful tool for the
analysis of existing processes, synthesis of new pro-
cesses, implementation of a control strategy and fast
screening of process alternatives to select the best solu-
tion (economic aspects, environmental aspects, energy
consumption and flexibility of the proposed process).
The current model has been implemented by using As-
pen Plus release 10.2.
Essentially, the Aspen Plus simulator is made up of:
– a rich databank with pure components, binary
parameters, reactions constants, etc. (Khoshnoodi
and Lim, 1997);
* plant for the production of electrical and thermal energy
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: cimini@ing.univaq.it (S. Cimini), maripri@ing.
univaq.it (M. Prisciandaro), barba@ing.univaq.it (D. Barba).
physical and transport properties calculation;
– a unit operation model (U.O.M.).
In particular, in the design/rating of a refuse derived
fuel (RDF) incineration process a simulator is useful for
the following reasons:
– to solve the mass and energy balance around the
flowsheet by iterative methods (recycle streams or
‘‘tear’’ streams);
– to perform sensitivity analysis to choose the best
cogeneration cycle thermodynamic parameters;
– to evaluate the system behavior at different load con-
ditions (RDF flowrates);
– to evaluate the system behavior at different feed com-
positions (RDF low heat value, LHV);
– to verify the cleaning process of hot gas, in particular
the content reduction of ash and acid gases.
In this paper, the modeling of a dual-purpose power
from the heat treatment of solid wastes is presented. The
model has been developed with the aim of performing a

0956-053X/$ - see front matter
2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2004.12.005
172 S. Cimini et al. / Waste Management 25 (2005) 171–175
study about the applicability of Aspen Plus software in
the simulation of a solid waste incineration process,
which involves complex gas–solid reactions, where the
solids are referred to as ‘‘non-conventional’’.
2. Model description
Cogeneration is the thermodynamically sequential
production of two or more useful forms of energy from
the same energy source. Solid waste thermal treatment al-
lows the treatment of refuse and producing energy by
means of a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG). The
incineration plant is made up of three sections: a refuse de-
rived fuel (RDF) combustion section, a flue gas treatment
section and a thermal recovery section, which produces
steam by using the heat content of flue gas. The combus-
tion process is achieved in a fluidized bed reactor with an
internal heat recovery system; the flue gas treatment sec-
tion is made up of a cyclone, a dry reactor for the reduc-
tion of the concentration of acid gas, a baghouse and a
scrubber with a Ca(OH)2 dosing system; the energy pro-
duction section consists of the heat recovery steam gener-
ator and a steam turbine with an air condenser and a
deaeration tower. A simplified process scheme is pre-
sented in Fig. 1. The model flowsheet was obtained from
a real incineration plant in Ravenna, Italy; the model has
been calibrated using available data and the results have
been compared with the actual data from this plant.
The unique characteristics of this model are as follows:
– the use of non-conventional solids that are defined
assigning elementary composition and lower heating
value (LHV, optional);
Fig. 1. Simplified diagram of solid waste treatment plant.
– the dry reactor model that has been developed by
using the ‘‘shrinking core model’’ to describe the
solid–gas reaction between acids gases and solid reac-
tant. The algorithm (system of ordinary differential
equations, ODEs) has been numerically solved by a
four order Runge Kutta integration method and
implemented within an Excel worksheet template
provided by Aspen Plus. The template allows
dynamic data exchange between the user model and
the Aspen Plus shell. At this aim, the USER2 unit
operation model (U.O.M.) was used;
– the absorption tower has been simulated using RAD-
FRAC U.O.M. The complex interactions between
absorption phenomena and chemical reactions which
occur within the scrubber are difficult to model, so in
this first approach the reactions taking place among
Ca(OH)2 and SO2 are hypothesized to occur in a
reactor set in series with the absorption tower (Hat-
akka et al., 1997). A Fortran block calculates
Ca(OH)2 flowrate; the process reactions are:
SO2 þ H2 O ! H2 SO3 ð1Þ
H2 SO3 þ CaðOHÞ2 ! CaSO3
1=2H2 O þ 3=2H2 O ð2Þ
– injection of NH3 into the combustion chamber for
NOx control has been simulated with the following
reaction:
3NO þ 2NH3 ! 5=2N2 þ 3H2 O ð3Þ
where the ammonia flowrate is calculated by means of a
Fortran block.
The Aspen Plus overall model consists of 33 unit
operation blocks, one design specification and five For-
tran Calculator blocks (Aspen Plus User Guide, 1998).
 S. Cimini et al. / Waste Management 25 (2005) 171–175 173

Table 1 describes each unit operation block synthetically
together with its process parameters.
3. Results
The described model simulates the operation of an
actual plant starting from available data. The primary
input parameters are:
– RDF mass flow, composition and LHV;
– U.O.M. parameters (see also Table 1);
– PSD (particle size distribution) at combustion cham-
ber exit (these data are fundamental to simulate the
overall solid reduction system).
Representative model outputs that have been consid-
ered are:
– steam and energy recovery;
– hot gas temperature and composition from the com-
bustion chamber;
– hot gas cleaning system performance (PSD and acid
gas reduction).
The comparison between the actual data and the re-
sults of the model in relation to energy generation are re-
ported in Figs. 2 and 3. The data refer to the steam
produced in the energy recovery section (Fig. 2) and to
the turbine outlet net power (Fig. 3). As can be ob-
served, the agreement between model and actual data
is rather satisfactory. Other comparisons are not re-
ported here.
Following the validation of the model, sensitivity
analyses were carried out in order to study the system re-
sponse to some variations of meaningful plant input
parameters or process parameters.
Fig. 4 shows the behavior of the exhaust steam tem-
perature and turbine power as a function of turbine out-
let pressure; the simulation refers to a RDF flowrate of
6000 kg/h, characterized by a lower heating value (LHV)
of 16,700 kJ/kg. This graph is useful in the planning of a
dual-purpose plant where the exhaust steam tempera-
ture (and pressure) is crucial to define the overall ther-
modynamic conditions of the cogeneration cycle.
Fig. 5 reports the steam recovery flowrate and the
turbine outlet power as function of RDF flowrate, for
two different values of LHV. As it can be noted, plant
performance is affected by the amount of the RDF feed,
as well as by the characteristics of RDF (LHV), which
also notably influences the power generation (e.g., the
addition of coal powder to increase the LHV is often
adopted).
In the graph in Fig. 6, this dependence is depicted and
the figure shows the combustion gas temperature and
the potential heat recovery as a function of the RDF
LHV (at fixed air/fuel ratio a = 0.55). In the feasibility
study of a cogeneration plant these data are very impor-
tant in evaluating the energy production at different load
conditions, and therefore the costs implementation.

Table 1
Aspen Plus unit operation block description
Block name (Aspen block) Block parameters Description
DECOMP (RYIELD) P = 1 bar; T = 25 C Separates the RDF stream in conventional components
BURN (RGIBBS) P = 1 bar RDF combustion processa
NH3 (RSTOIC) P = 1 bar; heat duty = 0 NH3 solution injection in the combustion chamber
SURRISC (HEATX) Cold stream outlet T = 380 C Steam stream superheat
VAPORIZ (HEATX) Cold stream vapor fraction = 1 Water vaporization
ECON2 (HEATX) Cold stream vapor fraction = 0 Water saturation
RISCFUMI (HEATX) Cold stream outlet T = 115 C Clean gases heat
ECON1 (HEATX) Cold stream vapor fraction outlet = 0 Water preheat
TURBAP (COMP) Discharge pressure = 2.4 bar Turbine steam expansion (41–2.4 atm)b
TURBBP (COMP) Discharge pressure = 0.15 bar Turbine steam expansion (2.4–0.5 atm)b
FLASH (FLASH2) T = 54 C; heat duty = 0 Liquid–vapor separation
CONDENS (HEATX) Hot stream vapor fraction = 0 Vapor condensation (air)
P1 (PUMP) Pressure = 2 bar Liquid pumping
P2 (PUMP) Pressure = 2.4 bar Condense pumping
S1 (HEATER) Outlet T = 125 C outlet P = 2.4 bar Steam in desired temperature and pressure
P3 (PUMP) Discharge pressure = 41 bar Water in boiler
CICLONE (CYCLONE) Diameter = 2.6 m; unit = 2 Mechanical solid separation
DRYRCTR (USER2) User model Acid gases dry reactor
BAGHOUSE (FABFI) Bags = 78 · 2 cells; diameter = 0.154 m Mechanical solid separation
SAT2 (HEATER) Pressure = 1 bar; T = 70 C Scrubber inlet stream t setting
SCRB (RADFRAC) Stages number = 5 Acid gases absorption
GESSO1 (RSTOIC) Pressure = 1 bar; T = 25 C H2O–SO2 reaction
GESSO2 (RSTOIC) Pressure = 1 bar; T = 25 C Ca(OH)2–H2SO3 reaction
a
Sotudeh-Gharebaagh et al., 1998.
b
OngÕiro et al., 1996.
174 S. Cimini et al. / Waste Management 25 (2005) 171–175

Real data, kg/h 35000 35000 14

30000

Steam produced (kg/h)

25000 30000 12

Turbine power (MW)

20000
15000 25000 10
steam
10000
5000 20000 8
0
0 10000 20000 30000 15000 6
Model results, kg/h
10000 power 4
Fig. 2. Comparison between real data and model results: steam
production. 5000 2

0 0
7000 4000 5000 6000
6000
Real data, kW

RDF (kg/h)
5000
4000 Fig. 5. Sensitivity analysis: steam produced and turbine power as
3000 function of RDF flowrate; continuous line, LHV = 14,600 kJ/kg;
2000 dotted line, LHV = 16,700 kJ/kg.
1000
0
28 1400
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Model results, kW 26 1300

Heat recovery (MW)

24 1200
Fig. 3. Comparison between real data and model results: turbine
power generation. 22

T ( C)
1100
20

o
1000
18
400 7 900
16
350 14 800
6
temperature 700
12
300
Net power (MW)

5 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

LHV (kcal/kg)
T ( C)

250
4
o

200 Fig. 6. Sensitivity analysis: heat recovery and outlet temperature as

3 function of RDF LHV; continuous line, heat recovery; dotted line,
150 outlet temperature.
2
100 power
1 100
50

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 80
SO2, HCl removal (%)

pressure (atm)

Fig. 4. Sensitivity analysis: exhaust steam temperature and turbine net 60

power as function of turbine discharge pressure.

40
Other fundamental data for an incineration plant (that
has to respect severe norms about the emission values 20
at stack exit) are the pollution reduction level along
the gas treatment line. In this view, Fig. 7 shows the
dry reactor model results, implemented with an USER2 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
model. The plot presents the reactor removal efficiency
Dry reactor residence time (s)
as a function of the reactor residence time (user param-
eter of the model). Generally, this time is chosen to be Fig. 7. Sensitivity analysis: acid gas removal efficiency as function of
between 15 and 20 s to assure the removal of acids gases the reactor residence time; continuous line, SO2; dotted line, HCl.
in the 60–70% range. Fig. 8 illustrates the mass flow of
fly ashes at the outlet of the combustor, cyclone and As can be seen, the first important reduction of trans-
baghouse as a function of the solid particle class ported solids is achieved in the cyclone with greater re-
diameter. moval efficiency for larger particles. The almost
 S. Cimini et al. / Waste Management 25 (2005) 171–175 175

Fig. 8. Model results: fly ashes rate (and PSD) at different plant points.

1200
combustor
model can be a reliable instrument to be used in both
superheater the design and planning of new plants and in the control
1000
and retrofit of existing plants. Future work will be de-
800 voted to improve the potential of the model, in particu-
lar the absorption tower model with simultaneous
T (˚C)

600
vaporizer chemical reaction and the use of the flue gas data pack-
economizer 1
400 age of Aspen Plus to better simulate the combustion
reaction and the chemical species that are formed.
200 dry reactor
economizer 2 baghouse stack
cyclone
scrubber
0

Fig. 9. Model results: temperature values at different plant points. References

Aspen Plus, Aspen Plus User Guide, Aspen Technology, Massachu-

complete reduction of smaller particle takes place in the
baghouse. Finally, Fig. 9 shows the flue gas temperature
at various sections of the plant (Harvey and Kane,
1997). It is important to study the temperature behavior
because of its influence on the equilibrium of the chem-
ical reactions and in the formation of dioxins.
4. Conclusions
In this paper, the modeling of a dual-purpose plant
for the production of electrical and thermal energy from
the heat treatment of solid wastes, developed by using
the Aspen Plus Shell, is presented. Results, compared
with actual plant data, demonstrate how the proposed
setts, 1998.
Harvey, S., Kane, N.D., 1997. Analysis of a reheat gas turbine cycle
with chemical recuperation using Aspen. Energy Conversion and
Management 38, 1671–1679.
Hatakka, H., Oinas, P., Reunanen, J., Palosaari, S., 1997. Induction
time and reaction kinetics in batch precipitation of calcium
sulphate. In: Symposium on Crystallization and Precipitation at
Lappeenranta, Finland, May 1997.
Khoshnoodi, M., Lim, Y.S., 1997. Simulation of partial oxidation of
natural gas to synthesis gas using Aspen Plus. Fuel Processing
Technology 50, 275–289.
OngÕiro, A., Ugursal, V.I., Al Taweel, A.M., Lajeunesse, G., 1996.
Thermodynamic simulation and evaluation of a steam CHP plant
using Aspen Plus. Applied Thermal Energy 16, 271–293.
Sotudeh-Gharebaagh, R., Legros, R., Chaouki, J., Paris, J., 1998.
Simulation of circulating fluidized bed reactor using Aspen Plus.
Fuel 77, 327–337.