The growing global demand for energy and rising greenhouse gas emissions require effective mitigation strategies, including carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. This study reviews 16 widely used simulation tools, including Aspen Plus, MATLAB, Fluent, and gPROMS, for steady-state and dynamic modeling of post-combustion, pre-combustion, and oxy-fuel combustion carbon capture processes. The tools are evaluated using five criteria: chemical process simulation capability, dynamic modeling functionality, thermodynamic property management, heat transfer accuracy, and tool integration features. The results reveal distinct strengths across platforms. Aspen Plus and Aspen Plus Dynamics perform strongly in chemical process simulation and thermodynamic property modeling, reflecting their robustness in reaction modeling and property estimation. gPROMS excels in dynamic modeling, demonstrating strong capability for time-dependent and transient process analysis. MATLAB achieves the highest score in tool integration, highlighting its flexibility in coupling with optimization solvers, control systems, and external programming environments. Fluent shows strong performance in heat transfer modeling, particularly for detailed thermal analysis in oxy-fuel combustion systems. Most existing studies focus on individual carbon capture technologies rather than simulation tool capabilities. Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a systematic search of Scopus yielded 53 peer-reviewed papers on CCS simulation, which were analyzed to identify dominant tools and inform the AHP-based evaluation. This work addresses that gap by clarifying tool-specific advantages, supporting informed model selection to improve the efficiency and sustainability of CCS process design.
Keshvarinia et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: