Word Count: 3 140

CHE 4049 F Project 2

University of Cape Town Department of Chemical Engineering

Contents
List of Figures.............................................................................................................................................. ii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... ii 1 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 3 4 4.1 PFD, Mass balance, Utility table and Equipment list for the benzene extraction process ..... 1 Discussion of the thermodynamic models available in Aspen Plus ........................................... 6 EOS models ................................................................................................................................ 6 Activity Coefficient models ...................................................................................................... 6 Henrys Coefficients .................................................................................................................. 6 Justification of the thermodynamic property methods ................................................................ 7 Discussion of the Aspen model ..................................................................................................... 11 Description of Aspen models used to simulate the important units ................................ 11 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4 4.1.5 4.1.6 4.1.7 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 Stream mixers ................................................................................................................... 11 F-splitter ............................................................................................................................ 11 Thermal and phase state changer (heaters and coolers) ............................................. 11 DSTWU columns ............................................................................................................ 11 RADFRAC columns ....................................................................................................... 11 Pump.................................................................................................................................. 11 Valve (valve 2) .................................................................................................................. 11

Method used to solve the simulation .................................................................................... 12 Solution method for section one ........................................................................................... 12 Solution method for section two ........................................................................................... 12 Solution method for section three ......................................................................................... 13 Assumptions and Improvements of the simulation ............................................................ 13

i|Page

List of Figures
FIGURE 1:VLE DATA FOR BENZENE AND HEPTANE IN THE PRE- DISTILLATION COLUMN. THE GRAPH COMPARES VARIOUS THERMODYNAMIC MODELS TO THE EXPERIMENTAL VLE DATA........................................................................................................................................... 8 FIGURE 2: VLE DATA FOR O-XYLENE AND NONANE IN THE HEAVY COLUMN. THE GRAPH COMPARES VARIOUS THERMODYNAMIC MODELS TO THE EXPERIMENTAL VLE DATA . 8 FIGURE 3:VLE DATA FOR BENZENE AND HEXANE IN THE EXTRACTIVE DISTILLATION COLUMN. THE GRAPH COMPARES VARIOUS THERMODYNAMIC MODELS TO THE EXPERIMENTAL VLE DATA ................................................................................................................................. 9 FIGURE 4: VLE DATA FOR BENZENE AND SOLVENT IN THE SOLVENT EXTRACTION DISTILLATION COLUMN. THE GRAPH COMPARES VARIOUS THERMODYNAMIC MODELS TO THE EXPERIMENTAL VLE DATA .................................................................................................... 9

List of Tables
TABLE 1: ASPEN MASS BALANCE FOR THE BENZENE EXTRACTION PROCESS ..................................... 2 TABLE 2: ASPEN STREAM TABLE FOR BENZENE EXTRACTION (CONTINUED) .................................... 3 TABLE 3: HEAT DUTY AND UTILITY FLOW RATE FOR THE HEATER AND REBOILERS IN THE BENZENE EXTRACTION PROCESS .............................................................................................. 4 TABLE 4: HEAT DUTIES AND UTILITY FLOW RATES FOR THE CONDENSERS AND COOLERS IN THE BENZENE EXTRACTION PROCESS ........................................................................................... 4 TABLE5: EQUIPMENT LIST FOR THE BENZENE EXTRACTION PDF ..................................................... 5

ii | P a g e

PFD, Mass balance, Utility table and Equipment list for the benzene extraction process
CW CW

Solvent
Make up

15

21

Raffinate

100-HX-03 100-HX-07
16

100-VE-02
CW

100-CO-02

100-PP-03

100-HX-08 100-VE-04
CW

100-RB-02 100-CO-04
9 CW 10

100-HX-04 100-HX-02 100-VE-01

CW 7

100-PP-05 100-RB-03

CW

11

22

Benzene

100-HX-09

Naphtha

100-CO-01

6 14

MPS

100-PP-06
13

12

100-VV-01 100-HX-01

23

Purge

100-HX-05

Reformed Gasoline

100-PP-01

CW

CW

100-RB-01
17 24

Gasoline

100-PP-02 100-HX-06 100-VE-03 100-HX-10

18

100-CO-03

19

100-PP-04

CW 25

20

100-RB-04 100-PP-07 100-HX-11

Heavy Aromatics

Title: PFD for benzene recovery unit Name: Wesley Neutt ( Nttwes001) Area: 100 Date: 16/03/2013

1|Page

Table 1: Aspen mass balance for the benzene extraction process

Stream no. Temperature ( C) Pressure ( bar) Vapor Frac Mass Flow (kg/hr) CLYCLOPE 1-PENTEN ISOPENTA HEXANE BENZENE HEXADIEN HEPTANE TOLUENE OCTANE ETHYLB STYRENE NONANE DECANE UNDECANE PENTANE O-XYLENE 1ME2BET N-BUTBEN SOLVENT Mole Flow ( kmol/hr) CLYCLOPE 1-PENTEN ISOPENTA HEXANE BENZENE HEXADIEN HEPTANE TOLUENE OCTANE ETHYLB STYRENE NONANE DECANE UNDECANE PENTANE O-XYLENE 1ME2BET N-BUTBEN SOLVENT
0

1 182 8 0.17 34250 856 1880 411 1920 5000 120 1580 13530 86 6850 17 651 940 411 0 0 0 0 0 375 12.2 26.9 5.7 22.3 64 1.46 15.7 147 0.75 64.5 0.16 5.08 6.61 2.63 0 0 0 0 0

2 39.9 9 0 25000 0 0 0 2550 5880 0 2630 4050 1750 0 0 1550 2330 0 750 2230 900 400 0 261 0 0 0 29.6 75.2 0 26.2 44 15.3 0 0 12.1 16.3 0 10.4 21 7.49 2.98 0

Aspen-Stream table for benzene extraction 3 4 5 6 7 136 8 0 59250 856 1880 411 4470 10880 120 4200 17580 1840 6850 17 2200 3270 411 750 2230 900 400 0 635 12.2 26.9 5.7 51.8 139 1.46 41.9 191 16.1 64.5 0.16 17.2 22.9 2.63 10.4 21 7.49 2.98 0 116 2 0.17 59250 856 1880 411 4470 10880 120 4200 17580 1840 6850 17 2200 3270 411 750 2230 900 400 0 635 12.2 26.9 5.7 51.8 139 1.46 41.9 191 16.1 64.5 0.16 17.2 22.9 2.63 10.4 21 7.49 2.98 0 110 2 0 59250 856 1880 411 4470 10880 120 4200 17580 1840 6850 17 2200 3270 411 750 2230 900 400 0 635 12.2 26.9 5.7 51.8 139 1.46 41.9 191 16.1 64.5 0.16 17.2 22.9 2.63 10.4 21 7.49 2.98 0 82 2 0 19590 856 1880 411 4470 10350 120 734 9.03 0.12 0 0 0 0 0 750 0 0 0 0 248 12.2 26.9 5.7 51.8 133 1.46 7.32 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.4 0 0 0 0 82.3 5 0 19590 856 1880 411 4470 10350 120 734 9.03 0.12 0 0 0 0 0 750 0 0 0 0 248 12.2 26.9 5.7 51.8 133 1.46 7.32 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.4 0 0 0 0

8 111 5 0 10330 856 1880 411 4470 1102 120 734 3.14 0.12 0 0 0 0 0 750 0 0 0 0.07 130 12.2 26.9 5.7 51.8 14.1 1.46 7.32 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.4 0 0 0 0

9 204 5 0 66940 0 0 0 0 10780 0 0 165 0 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56000 626 0 0 0 0 138 0 0 1.79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 486

10 150 0.6 0.21 66940 0 0 0 0 10780 0 0 165 0 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56000 626 0 0 0 0 138 0 0 1.79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 486

11 64 0.6 0 9195 0 0 0 0 9195 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 118 0 0 0 0 118 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 159 0.6 0 57750 0 0 0 0 1584 0 0 165 0 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56000 508 0 0 0 0 20.3 0 0 1.79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 486

2|Page

Table 2: Aspen stream table for benzene extraction (continued)

Stream no. Temperature ( C) Pressure bar Vapor Frac Mass Flow kg/hr 1-PENTEN ISOPENTA HEXANE BENZENE HEXADIEN HEPTANE TOLUENE OCTANE ETHYLB STYRENE NONANE DECANE UNDECANE PENTANE O-XYLENE 1ME2BET N-BUTBEN SOLVENT Mole Flow kmol/hr CLYCLOPE 1-PENTEN ISOPENTA HEXANE BENZENE HEXADIEN HEPTANE TOLUENE OCTANE ETHYLB STYRENE NONANE DECANE UNDECANE PENTANE O-XYLENE 1ME2BET N-BUTBEN SOLVENT
0

13 159 0.6 0 1250 0 0 0 0 1530 0 0 159 0 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54000 490 0 0 0 0 19.6 0 0 1.73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14 170 5 0 1240 0 0 0 0 1530 0 0 159 0 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54000 490 0 0 0 0 19.6 0 0 1.73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Aspen stream table for benzene extraction 15 16 17 18 19 170 5 0 1270 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000 17.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 170 5 0 1240 0 0 0 0 1530 0 0 159 0 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56000 508 0 0 0 0 19.5 0 0 1.73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 142 2 0 697 0 0 0 0.18 522 0 3470 17570 1840 6850 17 2200 3270 411 0 2230 900 400 0 387 0 0 0 0 6.69 0 34.6 191 16.1 64.5 0.16 17.2 22.9 2.63 0 21 7.49 2.98 143 3 0 697 0 0 0 0.18 522 0 3470 17570 1840 6850 17 2200 3270 411 0 2230 900 400 0 387 0 0 0 0 6.69 0 34.6 191 16.1 64.5 0.16 17.2 22.9 2.63 0 21 7.49 2.98 148 2.5 0 700 0 0 0 0.18 522 0 3470 17570 1840 6850 17 1860 0 0 0 2220 0 0 0 348 0 0 0 0 6.69 0 34.6 191 16.1 64.5 0.16 14.5 0 0 0 21 0 0

20 209 2.5 0 593 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 339 3270 411 0 0.41 900 400 0 38.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.64 22.9 2.63 0 0 7.49 2.98

21 45 2 0 653 856 1880 411 4470 1100 120 734 3.14 0.12 0 0 0 0 0 750 0 0 0 0.07 130 12.2 26.9 5.7 51.8 14.1 1.46 7.32 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.4 0 0 0

22 40 2 0 857 0 0 0 0 9200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 118 0 0 0 0 118 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 159 0.6 0 1250 0 0 0 0 56.6 0 0 5.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000 18.2 0 0 0 0 0.72 0 0 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

24 40 10.6 0 808 0 0 0 0.18 522 0 3470 17570 1840 6850 17 1860 0 0 0 2220 0 0 0 348 0 0 0 0 6.69 0 34.6 191 16.1 64.5 0.16 14.5 0 0 0 21 0 0

25 40 11.6 0 744 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 339 3270 411 0 0.41 900 400 0 38.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.64 22.9 2.63 0 0 7.49 2.98

3|Page

Table 3: Heat duty and utility flow rate for the heater and reboilers in the benzene extraction process

Duty (kW) Heaters 100-HX-05 100-RB-01 100-RB-02 100-RB-03 100-RB-04 Total heat duty

Utility

Utility flow (kg/hr) 932 17300 9830 9000 26000 53200

518 MPS Reboilers 9590 5460 5000 14430 MPS MPS MPS MPS Total MPS 35000 Flow

Table 4: Heat duties and utility flow rates for the condensers and coolers in the benzene extraction process

Duty (kW) Coolers 100-HX-01 100-HX-04 100-HX-07 100-HX-09 100-HX-10 100-HX-11 100-HX-02 100-HX-03 100-HX-06 100-HX-08 Total cooling duty -1040 -1320 -470 -110 -2180 -625 -9100 -3220 -14000 -6220 CW CW CW CW CW CW

Utility

Utility flow (kg/hr) 597 758 270 63.2 1250 359 5220 1850 8040 3570 20100

Condensers CW CW CW CW Total CW -38000 Flow

4|Page

Table5: Equipment list for the benzene extraction PDF

Equipment code 100-CO-01 100-CO-02 100-CO-03 100-CO-04 100-HX-01 100-HX-02 100-HX-03 100-HX-04 100-HX-05 100-HX-06 100-HX-07 100-HX-08 100-HX-09 100-HX-10 100-HX-11 100-PP-01 100-PP-02 100-PP-03 100-PP-04 100-PP-05 100-PP-06 100-PP-07 100-RB-01 100-RB-02 100-RB-03 100-RB-04

Equipment details Pre-distillation column Extractive distillation column Heavy-distillation column Solvent extraction distillation column Feed cooler Pre-distillation condenser Extractive distillation condenser Solvent extraction feed cooler Solvent recycle heater Solvent recycle cooler Raffinate cooler solvent extraction condenser Benzene product cooler Gasoline cooler Heavy aromatics cooler Pre-distillation reflux pump Pre-distillation bottoms pump Extractive distillation reflux pump Heavy distillation reflux pump Solvent extraction reflux pump Solvent recycle and purge pump Heavy aromatics pump Pre-distillation reboiler Extractive distillation reboiler Solvent extraction reboiler heavy distillation reboiler

Equipment description 25-stages, vertical,2bar,82-142 oC,SS316 50-stages, vertical,5bar,110-200 oC,SS316 30-stages, vertical,0.6bar,64-160 oC,SS316 83-stages, vertical,2.5bar,150-200 oC,SS316 Counter current, 109 oC, 2 bar, SS316 Counter current, 82 oC, 2 bar, SS316 Counter current, 110 oC, 5 bar, SS316 Counter current, 150 oC, 0.6 bar, SS316 Counter current, 170 oC, 5 bar, SS316 Counter current, 150 oC, 2.5 bar, SS316 Counter current, 45 oC, 2 bar, SS316 Counter current, 64 oC, 0.6 bar, SS316 Counter current, 45 oC, 11.6 bar, SS316 Counter current, 40 oC, 5 bar, SS316 Counter current, 40 oC, 11.6 bar, SS316 Centrifugal pump,2-3 bar, 82 oC, 4.17 KW, high strength alloy Centrifugal pump,2-2.5 bar, 142 oC, 2.45 KW, high strength alloy Centrifugal pump,5-2 bar, 110 oC, high strength alloy Centrifugal pump,5 bar, 150 oC, high strength alloy Centrifugal pump,2 bar, 64 oC, high strength alloy Centrifugal pump,0.6-5 bar, 160 oC, 9.04 KW, high strength alloy Centrifugal pump,2.5-11 bar, 40 oC, high strength alloy Kettle reboiler , 142 oC, 2 bar, SS316 Kettle reboiler , 200 oC, 5 bar, SS316 Kettle reboiler , 160 oC, 0.6 bar, SS316 Kettle reboiler , 200 oC, 2.5 bar, SS316

5|Page

Discussion of the thermodynamic models available in Aspen Plus

Thermodynamic models are a critical part of process simulations. The main two main categories for the thermodynamic models are the equation of state models and the activity coefficient models.

2.1

EOS models

There are five main equation of state models namely, The Ideal gas model, Hougen-Watson, Lee-Kesler, Peng Robinson (PR) and Soave Redlich Kwong (SRK). All the models are used for predicting the pressure, volume and temperature (P-V-T properties), behaviour of a fluid. The Ideal gas law is the simplest and least accurate model of all. The Ideal gas law makes use of the compressibility factor to predict the P-V-T properties of a real gas. This compressibility factor is different for each fluid. The more general EOS models are the Hougen-Watson and the Lee-Kesler models. These models assume that the compressibility factor is a function of the reduced temperature and pressure and a third factor. The Hougen-Watson model, assume that the third parameter is the critical compressibility parameter while the Lee-Kesler model assumes that the third parameter is the acentric factor which is a material property. The PR and SRK models are known as the cubic equation of states. The models predict three real values of the volume in the vapour-liquid region. Several modifications to extend the ranges of the models are available. The PR and SRK models are mainly recommended for predicting hydrocarbon and non-ideal systems accurately.

2.2

Activity Coefficient models

Activity coefficient models are used to predict thermodynamic data for highly non-ideal solutions. For multi-component mixtures we use the Wilson, NRTL and UNIFAC activity coefficient models. The Wilson and NRTL models are known as the local compensation models. The local compensation models assume that the ratio of the species interactions is the same as the mole fractions. The Wilson model uses two parameters ij and ji for each binary pair and the NRTL model makes use of three parameters , 12 and 21. These parameters account for the different weighting of the mole fractions to account for the differences in size and interaction energies. The UNIFAC model uses the idea of group contributions. This idea assumes that the volume and surface area of a molecule can be accounted for by the different functional groups within the model (Mller 2011).

2.3

Henrys Coefficients

The Henrys law constant accounts for the fugacity of a dilute gaseous species in a liquid. The constant depends on the solute-solvent pair, temperature and pressure. The equation fails at higher mole fractions of the mixture. Therefore, the henrys law constants are a hypothetical fugacity of a solute species as a pure liquid extrapolated from its infinite dilution behaviour (Sandler 2006).

6|Page

Justification of the thermodynamic property methods

From the available EOS and activity coefficient thermodynamic models available in Aspen Plus the following models where considered. For the EOS models the Peng-Robinson (PR), and Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK), equations where considered. The PR and SRK models are superior to other EOS models for the following reasons. The models are more accurate in predicting VLE data for multicomponent mixtures. The models are widely accepted for predicting hydrocarbon mixture VLE data.

The system under consideration deals with hydrocarbon multicomponent mixtures. Therefore, PR and SRK where the only two EOS models considered for the system. (Ibrahim Ashour, Nabeel Al-Rawahi, Amin Fatemi and Gholamreza Vakili-Nezhaad 2011) From the available activity coefficient models the UNIFAC and NRTL activity coefficient models where considered. The UNIFAC and NRTL models are superior to the other activity coefficient models for the following reasons. The models are more accurate in predicting VLE data for non-ideal, non-polar or polar mixtures such as hydrocarbon mixture.

Since the system under consideration deals with hydrocarbon mixtures the UNIFAC and NRTL models where considered for this system. (Sandler 2006) Thermodynamic data for binary interactions between key components have been collected and plotted for each column. The data shows plots of the experimental VLE data and the VLE data predicted using the models above. Figure 1 shows the data for the pre-distillation column. In this column the key components are benzene and heptane. From the graph it is seen that all the models do not provide accurate predictions of the experimental data over the whole mole fraction range. The PR model predicts the data the most accurately but fails at the infinite dilution points. However, the other models do predict the infinite dilution data but do not predict for the data well for the middle ranges. Figure 2 shows the data for the heavy column. In this column the key components are o-xylene and nonane. From the graph it is seen that all the models do not provide accurate predictions of the experimental data over the whole mole fraction range. Figure 3 shows the data for the extractive distillation column. In this column the key components are benzene and hexane. From the graph it is seen that all the models, except the SRK model predict the experimental data accurately for the whole mole fraction range. The SRK model fails to predict the experimental data at the infinite dilution points. Figure 4 shows the data for the solvent extraction model. In this column the key components are benzene and 4-formylmorpholine. Form the graph it is seen that all the models predict the data accurately.

7|Page

Experimental(L) PR 332 330 328 326 Temperature (K) 324 322 320 318 316 314 312 310 0 0.2

Experimental(V) UNIFAC

NRTL SRK

0.4 0.6 0.8 Vapour and Liquid mole fractions

Figure 1: VLE data for benzene and heptane in the pre- distillation column. The graph compares various thermodynamic models to the experimental VLE data

425 424 423 Temperature (K) 422 421 420 419 418 417 416 0

Experimental(V) SRK

Experimental(L) PR

Unifac NRLT

0.2

0.4 0.6 Liquid and vapour mole fractions

0.8

Figure 2: VLE data for o-xylene and nonane in the heavy column. The graph compares various thermodynamic models to the experimental VLE data

8|Page

Experimental(V) SRK 336 334 332 Temperatur (K) 330 328 326 324 322 320 0 0.2

Experimental PR

Unifac NRTL

0.4 0.6 0.8 Vapour and Liquid mole fraction

Figure 3: VLE data for benzene and hexane in the extractive distillation column. The graph compares various thermodynamic models to the experimental VLE data Experimental (V) SRK 550 Experimental (L) PR UNIFAC NRLT(V)

500

Temperatur(K)

450

400

350

300 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Vapor and Liquid mole fraction 0.8 1

Figure 4: VLE data for benzene and solvent in the solvent extraction distillation column. The graph compares various thermodynamic models to the experimental VLE data

9|Page

From the observations it is seen that different thermodynamic models work for different systems. The system under investigation deals with very complex liquid mixtures. The extractive distillation is used in this system to deal with benzene extraction from mixtures which form azeotrops with benzene (Julka, Chiplunkar & O'Young 2009). From figures 1, 2 and 3 it is seen that the key components form azeotrops at the infinite dilution points. From the data it can be seen that the UNIFAC model predicts the VLE data accurately for all the columns except the heavy column. The UNIFAC model is recommended in literature as the model of choice for prediction non-ideal aziotropic mixtures. Therefore, the UNIFAC model was used in the Aspen simulation (Pienaar 2012).

10 | P a g e

4
4.1

Discussion of the Aspen model

Description of Aspen models used to simulate the important units

The Aspen simulation for benzene extraction made use of the following Aspen models from the Aspen model library. Stream mixers F-splitter (stream splitter) Thermal and phase state changer (heaters and coolers) DSTWU columns RADFRAC columns Pump Valve (valve 2)

4.1.1 Stream mixers The stream mixer was used to mix the C5+ and Naptha feed streams at different pressures and temperatures and the solvent recycle and make up streams. The mixer mixes the streams adiabatically and isobarically. 4.1.2 F-splitter The F-splitter was used to split the bottoms of the solvent extraction column. The F-splitter is stream splitter based on the mass/mol flow of the stream. The splitter operates adiabatically and isobarically. 4.1.3 Thermal and phase state changer (heaters and coolers) The heaters and coolers are used to change the temperature of the streams. The heaters and coolers operate isothermally and adiabatically. 4.1.4 DSTWU columns The DSTWU columns was used for a first estimation of the number of plates, feed stage, min reflux ratio and the actual reflux ratio for each of the columns at the specified split fractions for the key components using the Winn-Underwood-Gilliland method 4.1.5 RADFRAC columns The RADFRAC column was used to simulate the actual columns in the final simulation. The column provides a more rigorous approach to solving the columns. The column can be used to simulate simple and more complex distillation with multiple feeds and side streams. The column assumes that equilibriums is achieved on each stage but can be used to model more complex systems. 4.1.6 Pump The pumps are used to increase the pressure of liquid streams between units. In the simulation the pumps efficiency was set to 100 %. This means that the pump would operate isothermally. 4.1.7 Valve (valve 2) The valve was used to decrease the pressure of the feed streams. The valves operate isothermally. 11 | P a g e

4.2

Method used to solve the simulation

The system was solved in three sections. Section one was solved first using an iterative approach. Once section one was completely solved section two was added onto section one and solved iteratively while keeping all the specifications of section one constant. Section three was then added onto section one and two and solved iteratively while keeping the specifications in section one and two constant.

4.3

Solution method for section one

Heater Pressure relief valve Pre-distillation column.

Section one consists of following units:

In the pre-distillation column the aim was to separate benzene and heptane. The column achieved 95% split of benzene to the distillate and an 82% split of heptane to the bottoms. The DSTWU column was used to find a first estimation of the design variables for the pre-distillation column. From the DSTWU column the first estimation for the reflux ratio, distillate to feed ratio, number of theoretical stages and the feed stage was used in the RADFRAC column. The column design variables, including the feed temperature and column pressure, were varied independently while the other design variables remained constant until the desired specifications were achieved. The pre-distillation column achieved the split ratios at a pressure of 2 bar using 25 stages. This column is relatively small column. However, the heat duties on the reboiler and condenser are 9500 kW and -9100 kW respectively. Therefore, although the column is small and operates at a low pressure the duties on the column is large.

4.4

Solution method for section two

Heavy column Feed pump.

Section two consisted of the following units:

In the heavies column the aim was to separate o-xylene and nonane while recovering 99 wt% of all C8 aromatics to the aromatic gasoline product stream. The DSTWU column was used to find a first estimation of the design variables for the heavy column. The first estimations for the reflux ratio, distillate to feed ratio, number of theoretical stages and the feed stage were used in the RADFRAC column. The column design variables, including the feed temperature and column pressure, were varied independently while the other design variables remained constant until the desired specifications were achieved. The column achieved the specification on the gasoline product stream at a pressure of 2.5 bar using 83 stages. To achieve the specification on the gasoline product stream, 85% of the nonane had to be recovered in the distillate. This column is a relatively large column and has high heat duties on the reboiler and condenser of 14400 kW and -14000 kW respectively.

12 | P a g e

4.5

Solution method for section three

Extractive distillation column Solvent extraction column with the recycle and purge.

Section three consisted of the following units:

In this system the aim was to remove the benzene form the feed to the extractive distillation column while achieving a benzene product stream containing 99.9 wt%, benzene and a rafanate stream lean in aromatics. The DSTWU column was used to find a first estimation of the design variables for the columns. The first estimations for the reflux ratio, reboiler duty, number of theoretical stages and the feed stage were used in the RADFRAC columns. The deign specification feature in Aspen was used to solve for the solvent recycle rate to the extractive distillation column by varying the split ratio to the purge stream. This design specification was done to minimise the solvent and benzene purge rate. A second design specification was performed to meet the benzene purity specification in the benzene product stream by varying the duty in the extractive distillation column.

4.6

Assumptions and Improvements of the simulation

The specifications on all the product streams were met with the simulation. It was assumed that the columns operated isobarically. This was done to simplify the simulation. However, a more rigorous simulation could be done which optimises the duties of the columns by varying the column pressure, feed stage temperatures and the column size. The sequencing of the column could have also been arranged differently and more recycles with integrated heating systems could have decreased the overall heat duty of the system.

13 | P a g e

List of References
1. Ibrahim Ashour, Nabeel Al-Rawahi, Amin Fatemi and Gholamreza Vakili-Nezhaad 2011, 'Applications of Equations of State', Department of Petroleum and Chemical Engineering, University of Kashan, In Tech. 2. Julka, V, Chiplunkar, M & O'Young, L 2009, 'Selecting Entrainers for Azeotropic Distillation', Chemical Engineering , Univ. of Massachusetts, ClearWaterBay Tec., Manchester. 3. Mller, K 2011, Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics 2, Capetown, Western Cape , South Afica , viewed Monday March 2013, <https://vula.uct.ac.za/access/content/group/2812f570-7f99-4a50-a4414045a31b2cd1/Lecture%20notes/Thermo2.pdf>. 4. Pienaar, C 2012, 'Evalluattiion off Enttraiiners ffor tthe', Masters, CHEMICAL ENGINEERING, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch. 5. Sandler, SI 2006, Chemical, Biochemical, and Engineering Thermodynamics, Fourth Edition edn, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., United States of America.

14 | P a g e

Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment

Department of Chemical Engineering

Chemical Engineering Process design

CHE4049F

Plagiarism Declaration

Name Student No. Nttwes001

Wesley Neutt Project no. Project 2

Date Completed

16/03/13

Date Handed-In

16/03/13

DECLARATION

1. I know that plagiarism is wrong. Plagiarism is to use anothers work and to pretend that it is ones own. 2. I have used the prescribed referencing system for citation and referencing. Each significant contribution to, and quotation in, this report from the work, or works, of other people has been attributed, and has been cited and referenced. 3. This report is my own work. 4. I have not allowed, and will not allow, anyone to copy my work with the intention of passing it off as his or her own work.

Signature

15 | P a g e