Ethyl Acetate Design Project

Ethyl Acetate Design Project
University of California Santa Barbara

Omid Borjian
Executive Summary
The catalytic conversion of ethanol to produce ethyl acetate has shown to be a profitable market. We
designed a plant to optimize the production of ethyl acetate, while minimizing operating and production
costs and undesired side products. We found that the reaction was best suited for a 41m3 plug flow
reactor operated at 285 oC and 1 atm. Feeding 120 MM kg/yr of ethanol into the reactor produced 100
MM kg/yr of ethyl acetate to be sold along with 5 MM kg/yr of hydrogen for a total profit before taxes
of a total of $43.6 MM$/yr. To start the plant a total capitalized investment (TCI) was approximated to
be $28.8 MM with a net present value of the project (NPVproj) to be $102 MM and net present value
percent (NPV%) of 32.7%. The internal rate of return (IRR) was found to be 113.5%. The discussed
numbers are approximations, and flexible approach should be considered when plant production
commences. The plant design accounted for market fluctuations, and the process control was purposely
designed simplistically. They are, however, a good basis to gain an understanding of the plants general
function and expectations.
Goals and Introduction

With an increasing industrial demand for ethyl acetate, many have found successful ways to create a
marketable business for the production and distribution of ethyl acetate. This increasing demand has
also initiated industry to develop commercial processes, such as that by DAVY Process Technology, for
large production of ethyl acetate. The GSI Process Feasibility Group has developed a plant that will be in
direct competition with Davy Process Technology. In this plant, ethyl acetate will be synthesized via the
interaction of ethanol with a catalyst consisting of 94% copper oxide, 5% cobalt oxide, and 1% chromium
oxide. Unfortunately, under these conditions ethanol can react to form ether acetaldehyde or diethyl
ether. Diethyl ether is a side product that is of lesser importance and may not be profitably sold. While
diethyl ether does not need to be disposed of and can be burned, in this initial profitability design and
analysis, heat exchange interactions were not taken into account and any credits able to be obtained
from burning the diethyl ether were not accounted for. In addition to ethyl acetate and diethyl ether,
this system of reactions will also produce hydrogen and water. Through the use of a flash drum, the
hydrogen will be separated from the system and be sold for further profit.
The primary challenge is to create an optimally profitable amount of ethyl acetate, while working
around an azeotropic solution involving the ethyl acetate, ethanol, and water. Since in this system the
selectivity is constant over reactor conversion, a higher conversion was able to be chosen without loss of
selectivity. Once a specific conversion is selected, a separation system is able to be designed and the
equipment and streams of the system are able to be cost and implemented into a cost diagram. To
ensure profitability, an economic analysis will be run on the five most important economic parameters.
Conceptual Design
Various factors were taken into consideration when making design decisions to optimize the plant
profitability. These factors consisted of reactor volume, reactor temperature and pressure, along with
other equipment constrictions. The system was found to be optimized at a reactor conversion of 90%
with a recycle stream to the reactor.
Using Douglass Conceptual Design hierarchy (Douglas, 2011), ideal stoichiometric mole balances were
developed to find the flow rates of the inlet, outlet, and ideal recycle streams. Using the kinetic data
provided from the GSI technical data sheet, a graph of reactor volume versus reactor conversion was
2
constructed for varying temperatures and pressures (Doherty, 2011). Analysis of the chart provided a
minimal reactor volume, which facilitated the selection of optimal operating conditions. It essential that
a minimal reactor volume is shown for cost analysis shows reactor cost grows exponentially as a
function of reactor volume. The reactor optimally operated at 285 oC and 1 atm.
The reaction was run in a heat exchanger with circulating heating fluid because in order to run the
endothermic reaction isothermally. A shell-and-tube heat exchanger was utilized to combine the
costing of the reactor and heat exchanger. Maintaining the heating fluid at the desired temperature
was the primary factor regarding the reactor operating cost. To approximate the heat produced in the
reactor, and thus cost the reactor, the heat capacities were assumed to be constant with respect to
temperature.
The separation consisted of a split block that separated out the diethyl ether, a flash drum that
separated out the hydrogen, two distillation columns that separated out ethyl acetate, and one
distillation column that removed water in the process, purifying the ethanol recycle stream. The flash
drum was optimized at 1 atm and 255 K, allowing for approximately 100% of the hydrogen to exit the
column in the vapor stream. It was particularly challenging to separate the ethanol, ethyl acetate, and
water because they contain azeotropes that prevent separation of individual species. Each distillation
column was designed at specific pressures and temperatures that avoid azeotropes by analysis of
ternary maps as shown in Appendix B. Flash drum calculations were designed in the attached MATLAB
code (Appendix D) and the three distillation columns were designed in ASPEN as shown in Appendix B
To solve the distillation systems multiple trials were run in ASPEN to determine which design was most
effective. Firstly, processes with conversions of 70%, 80%, and 90% were simulated in ASPEN and
compared. Conversions of 80% and 90% showed to be far more profitable than that of 70%. Reactor
size and cost drastically grow exponentially as conversion surpasses 90%. Thus, we set 90% conversion
as a maximum possible conversion for the reactor. Secondly, purge stream and waste disposal analysis
was run. Since the remaining unwanted products were easily burned and did not require an additional
disposal cost, running the process with three distillation columns and a recycle stream or two distillation
columns and disposing the remaining products were both viable options. As depicted in the process
flow diagram (PFD), the former design proved to be more profitable as shown in the economic section.
Azeotrope Conceptual Design

Designing a system that separates an azeotropic mixture is particularly challenging because the
conventional methods, Gilliland, Fenske and Underwood equations, were not adequate to calculate the
number of stages, V/F ratio, and the distillation feed stage for a specified recovery. This interaction
between the components makes complete separation impossible unless the mixture is operated at a
different pressure (pressure-swing distillation) or added another component (entrainer) to break the
azeotrope. In our design, the first method was sufficient.
Using ASPEN PLUS, a ternary map of ethanol, water, and acetyl acetate was acquired for the system as
shown in Figure 1 below. Depending on the location of feed compositions, we adjusted the pressure to
obtain the maximum separation distillation boundary.
In the first and second column, the high
concentration of ethyl acetate was removed by running the distillation at highest possible pressure, 15
atm. We were able to conceptually extract ethyl acetate with 99.99% purity from bottoms of the
columns. In the third column water was separated out the bottom of the column at atmospheric
pressure.
Knowing the behavior of the equilibrium curves and tie lines, we specified reflux ration,
distillate, and bottoms compositions for the column in such way that the rectifying and stripping curves
cross each other simultaneously when the system converges. We used ASPEN PLUS to design and
calculate the total number of stages, feed stage, and V/F ratio to obtain the required separation.
Figure 1 Ternary map of ethanol, water, and ethyl acetate at 12 atm.
Process Control
In the design of the process control we used the standard feedback controllers used in the flash unit and
distillation units to adjust the pressure, temperature, liquid level, reflux ratio, and stream composition.
Our reactor operates isothermally, which required the temperature controller to adjust the temperature
of the feed stream. Fluctuations may occur as the species are reacting.
The recycle stream from the third distillation column enters a recycle surge tank, which is regulated by
signals from the composition controller on the products stream. A valve on the purge stream interacts
with the recycle surge tanks liquid level controller, which opens to prevent an over flow in the surge
tank. The pressure inside the flash unit and the first two distillation units are controlled by adjusting a
valve on the top vapor stream. The liquids are driven inside the units via pumps to ensure a steady drive
of flows in and out of the system. Lastly the ethanol feed flow rate is controlled by another flow
controller based on the production rate. Figure 2 shows the process control diagram with every
controller listed in Table A.4 with the corresponding controlled and manipulated variables. A larger view
of Figure 2 is referenced in Appendix B.
Purge
Stream
Cooling Water
Cooling Water
Top1
LC
17
Condenser1
Cooling water
Cooling water
Top3
LC
7
LC
23
TC
24
AC
18
Condenser3
Top2
Condenser2
AC
8
PC
6
Reflux3
Hydrogen
Recycle Surge Tank
PC
11
Reflux1
LC
12
AC
13
Distillation
Unit3
PC
4
TC
2
Cooling Water
Distillation
Unit1
Steam
Steam
Reflux2
Bot3
Distillation
Unit2
E stream, w1
Reactor
LC
19
TC
3
FC
1
AC
20
Cooling water
Flash
Unit
TC
13
Steam
LC
5
Split Block
Bot1
LC
9
W Stream
Waste water
AC
16
LC
15
Bot2
Steam
AC
10
Wastes Stream
FC
21
AC
22
Mixer
EA Stream, w2
Products
Figure 2 Process Control Flowsheet
Economic Design and Analysis

While the basis of most of the plant design decisions were products of the conceptual design, the
reactor conversion and reactor temperature were decided based on the final economic analysis run on
the conceptual design of the system. This analysis was further justified by the reactor volume, pressure,
and temperature relationship.
The economic analysis run on the conceptual design consisted of graphing the net present value of the
project (NPVproj), the net present value at year zero (NPVzero), the risk associated with the project (NPV%),
the return on investment before taxes (ROIbt) based off of the total investment (TI), and the total
capitalized investment (TCI) against the reactor conversion of 80% and 90% for two different situation as
seen in Figures 3 through 4. Other economic figures are located in Appendix C. (While Figures 3
through 4 only show situations at 80% and 90%, it should be noted that an initial analysis was done for
70%, 80%, and 90% which showed 80% and 90% to be the more profitable reactor conversions). The
two different situations analyzed for the system at each reactor conversion revolved around the recycle
stream. One design analyzed the profitability to have less distillation columns and purge the potential
recycle stream, while the other proved that the design of a distillation column with a recycle stream was
more profitable. (The first situation is indicated on the figures by a 0.05 addition to the conversion). The
trends on these figures were then analyzed to find the most profitable reactor temperature and
conversion. The most profitable combination was based off of the two parameters NPVproj and NPV%.
Economically, the most desirable combination would maximize both of these quantities leading to the
highest net plant worth at the time of project conception with the least amount of risk associated with
the project. For this project a risk of less than 15% was not acceptable since ethyl acetate is a
commodity chemical.
Operating Point:
o
T = 285 C and P = 1
atm
Figure 3. Net present value of the project versus the reactor conversion with the operating point highlighted.
Operating Point:
o
T = 285 C and P = 1
atm
Figure 4. The net present value percent of the project versus reactor conversion with the operating point highlighted.
Since it was found that for all alternatives analyzed the NPV% was much higher than 15%, process design
was chosen by optimizing NPVproj (Mellichamp, 2011). By optimizing NPVproj, this allowed for the plant
worth to be maximized. This optimization was found to be consistent with the temperature of 285 oC,
and the separation system that consisted of three distillation columns and a recycle stream to the
reactor which corresponds to 0.9 on the figures presented previously.
7
Economic Cash Flow Analysis

The conceptual and economic design executed in HYSYS provided a framework to calculate the fixed
capital and the fraction of working capital as well as the predicted profit before taxes utilizing the
conceptual design MATLAB program (Appendix D). Discounted cash flow analysis as well as a sensitivity
and fluctuation analysis was then performed using the previously mentioned results.
The economic model used in this analysis was created on the basis that the finance and construction
interest rates, the fractions of startup capital and salvage value, the amount of fixed capital spent during
the construction years, the fraction of profit before taxes made in the ramp up years, and the operating
and fixed capital costs were all reasonable approximations. The finance interest rate was assigned a
value based on colloquial knowledge that normal finance rates range from three to five percent but can
be as high as ten percent. With this knowledge, an eight percent finance rate was chosen in order for
the calculations of project value to be conservative.
An average construction rate was taken to be approximately 7% based on data and examples from
Evaluating Plant Profitability in a Risk-Return Context (Mellichamp, 2011). Again to keep the plant value
calculations conservative a construction rate of 10% was chosen for the cash flow analyses. This will
reduce the risk of calculating financial data that would indicate an exaggerated profit. The fractions of
startup capital and salvage value were based on the fact that the startup capital would be only a small
portion of the fixed capital and the amount salvaged from sales after decommissioning of the plant
would be even significantly smaller. Fixed capital spending rate in the construction years was chosen
assuming that less of the fixed capital would be spent in the first year, when the final plant designs are
being finalized and plant construction is minimal. In the second year during plant construction, the
majority of the fixed capital is used.
The ramp-up fractions were chosen assuming that in the first few years, profitability will be lower than
expected.
This is believed to be true since ethyl acetate is a commodity chemical and market
competition exists, which is expected to cause low initial profit. Finally, the operating and fixed capital
costs were based on the factors that could not be assumed to be negligible. In both of these
calculations offsite costs, or outside battery limit (OSBL) costs, were assumed to be negligible, while the
onsite costs, or inside battery limit (ISBL) costs, were assumed to greatly affect these two economic
calculations. ISBL costs were considered to be the most important costs but not all of these costs were
consider in the model calculations. Among others, the cost of pumps and mixers were assumed to be
8
negligible. Ultimately, the fixed capital costs included the costs for the separation system (three
distillation columns), the heat exchanger reactor and multiple other pieces of heating equipment. The
reactor cost was assumed to be negligible in comparison to the heat exchanger and only the heat
exchanger portion of the reactor was cost.
The operating costs included the cost for the separation system, the cost for additional heating and
cooling operations, and the cost for heating the Dowtherm used to keep the reactor isothermal. These
were assumed to be the main costs that would affect the calculation for the operating cost, and costs
such as the plant electricity were assumed to be negligible. Once these values were all chosen
(Appendix C), a second economic analysis was performed to find the sensitivity of the base case to
variations in specific parameters, and to determine relative maximum finance rate, minimum selling
price of ethyl acetate, and the maximum cost of ethanol before the NPVzero is equal to zero. The results
of this analysis are summarized below in Table 2 with variations listed in Table 1.
Table 1. The variations performed on the base case.
Variation Number
Alteration Performed
Variation 1.a/b
Increase/decrease the cost of the ethanol
Variation 2.a/b
Increase/decrease the value of ethyl acetate
Variation 3.a/b
Increase/decrease the construction rate.
Variation 4.a/b
Decrease/increase the finance rate.
Abnormal 1
New political leadership drastically lowers tax rate.
Abnormal 2
Competitor enters market in year 5 reducing profits.
Sell Price Drop
How low can the selling price of ethyl acetate go?
Raw Material Raise
How high can the cost of ethanol go?
IRR
At what finance rate does the NPVzero equal zero?
Table 2. A summary of the results of the sensitivity and dependence analysis run on the base case plant
design produced in the HYSYS and ASPEN simulation.
Variation
Change
Variable
Variable
Originally
Base Case
Variation
1.a
Variation
1.b
Variation
2.a
NA
Ethanol
Price
Ethanol
Price
Ethyl
Acetate
Value
Ethyl
Acetate
Value
Constructio
n Rate
Constructio
n Rate
Finance
Rate
Finance
Rate
Tax Rate
Variation
2.b
Variation
3.a
Variation
3.b
Variation
4.a
Variation
4.b
Abnormal
1
Abnormal
2
Sell Price
Drop
Raw
Material
Raise
IRR
NPV(0)
NPVproj
NA
$0.70/kg
Variable
Changed
To
NA
$1.00/kg
118.08
3.85
101.24
3.30
Percent Deviation
From Base Case
NPV(0) NPVproj
NA
NA
96.74
96.74
$0.70/kg
$0.40/kg
232.32
199.18
96.74
96.74
$1.30/kg
$1.50/kg
178.66
153.18
51.31
51.31
$1.30/kg
$1.10/kg
57.50
49.30
51.31
51.31
10%
15%
117.99
101.16
0.08
0.08
10%
5%
118.17
101.32
0.08
0.08
8%
3%
156.30
147.32
32.36
45.53
8%
13%
91.17
71.40
22.79
29.47
50%
35%
155.65
133.45
31.82
31.82
b's (fraction
of P_bt
made)
Ethyl
Acetate
Value
Ethanol
Price
b1 = 0.5,
b2 = 0.8,
b3 = 1
130.5
MM $/yr
Varying
Less
Than 1
91.4
MM $/yr
101.40
86.94
14.12
14.12
0.00
0.00
NA
NA
85.1
MM $/yr
124.2
MM $/yr
0.00
0.00
NA
NA
Finance
Rate
8%
106.8%
0.00
0.00
NA
NA
This analysis showed that the two parameters that have the most effect on the economics of the plant
are the price of ethanol and the value of the ethyl acetate, causing deviations from the base case of 97%
10
and 51% as seen in Variation 1.a through Variations 2.b. Base case changes in the finance rate,
construction rate, and tax rate produced relatively small percent deviations. However, between the
interest rates the one with the largest effect on the plant profitability was found to be the tax and a
large drop in this interest rate was further analyzed.
The final analysis that was done on the economics was a fluctuation analysis which focused on a
potential drop in ethyl acetate worth and rise in ethanol worth to discover how much fluctuation the
project could withstand before the project risk was too great. While the fluctuation analysis does look
slightly at a raise in ethyl acetate worth and drop in ethanol worth, the main focus is on the ethyl
acetate worth dropping and the ethanol worth increasing because it is a primary concern that with the
addition of this plant to the market that price of ethyl acetate will be forced down since it will be in
greater supply. Also, an increase in ethanol worth is analyzed because this process adds additional value
to ethanol and it is likely that the addition of the plant will cause the demand for ethanol to increase.
After the fluctuation analysis was completed, it was obvious that this project is worth further
investigation if it is projected that the value of ethyl acetate will not drop much below $1.00/kg and the
cost of ethanol will not increase much higher than $0.80/kg. This boundary is indicated in the
fluctuation analysis table (Table 3) by the brown coloring between the green and red.
Table 3. Fluctuation analysis of the risk of the project based on the ethanol and ethyl acetate prices.
Table is focused on drop in ethyl acetate since it is a primary concern that the market will not be able to
withstand the current selling price of ethyl acetate once GSI enters the market.
Raw Material
Sell Price
MM $/yr
56.7
61.6
67.0
72.8
79.1
86.0
93.5
101.6
110.5
120.1
130.5
56.1
-4.2%
-0.5%
3.5%
7.8%
12.6%
17.7%
23.3%
29.4%
36.0%
43.2%
51.0%
61.0
-7.9%
-4.2%
-0.2%
4.2%
8.9%
14.0%
19.7%
25.7%
32.3%
39.5%
47.3%
66.3
-11.8%
-8.1%
-4.1%
0.2%
5.0%
10.1%
15.7%
21.8%
28.4%
35.6%
43.4%
72.0
-16.1%
-12.5%
-8.5%
-4.1%
0.6%
5.8%
11.4%
17.5%
24.1%
31.3%
39.1%
78.3
-20.8%
-17.1%
-13.1%
-8.8%
-4.0%
1.1%
6.7%
12.8%
19.4%
26.6%
34.4%
85.1
-25.9%
-22.2%
-18.2%
-13.9%
-9.1%
-4.0%
1.6%
7.7%
14.3%
21.5%
29.3%
91.9
-31.0%
-27.3%
-23.3%
-19.0%
-14.2%
-9.1%
-3.5%
2.6%
9.2%
16.4%
24.2%
99.3
-36.5%
-32.8%
-28.8%
-24.5%
-19.7%
-14.6%
-9.0%
-2.9%
3.7%
10.9%
18.7%
107.2
-42.5%
-38.8%
-34.8%
-30.4%
-25.7%
-20.5%
-14.9%
-8.9%
-2.2%
4.9%
12.8%
115.8
-48.9%
-45.2%
-41.2%
-36.8%
-32.1%
-26.9%
-21.3%
-15.3%
-8.7%
-1.5%
6.3%
11
Recommendations
This design appears to be highly profitable, but further analysis should be performed to discover how
profitable the plant is when certain assumptions are not made. Before this project is fully invested in,
there are multiple experiments and investigations into assumptions that need to be performed to
determine the effect of these assumptions on profitability.
To begin with, one of the main assumptions made in this project is that there is no pressure drop in the
reactor. This is highly unlikely to be true, however. Even when tested in the laboratory reactor there
was a small pressure drop, which while assumed to be negligible, it is possible that with design scale up
the pressure drop is no longer negligible. Experiments on pressure drop across the reactor must be
done before the final decision to invest in this project is made.
Another assumption made in this design that must be further investigated is that the catalyst is fully
active until the moment that it needs to be changed. Catalyst deactivation over time was not taken into
account in this analysis but is likely to be occurring and may affect the rates of reaction. It is possible
that deactivation over time will cause the rates of reaction to slow as it approaches time to replace the
catalyst. This slowing of the reaction rates could potentially not only cause less product to be made, but
also cause the composition into the distillation columns to drastically differ leading to failure of one of
the columns.
The final main assumption made in this initial design was that the heat exchanger system was not
interconnected. This is something that could likely increase the profitability of the plant since the use of
one fluid to heat or cool another fluid would decrease the use of a utility to perform the same job. By
designing a system to handle this, it is likely that the profitability of the plant will increase.
After analysis of these basic assumptions is performed along with other less relevant assumptions,
further discussion of investing and pursuing the proposal may commence.
12
Process Alternative
In our development of a design for ethyl acetate process, basic process decisions included:
Operate at a 90% conversion
To recycle ethanol
Alternatively, changing these factors and others lead to different process designs, which we have
concluded to be not as profitable or marginally more difficult to operate and impractical. Because of the
formation of an azeotrope, we designed several separation systems for various reaction conversions. At
conversions lower than 90% (80% and 70%) we produced less ethyl acetate, which resulted in a drastic
change in the separation system design of the three columns. The first column, with a high pressure of
15atm, separated ethyl acetate with the specified purity (99.96% Ethyl Acetate, 40ppm ethanol and
10ppm water) from the azeotrope mixture. It then entered the second and the third column to have the
water removed in an atmospheric pressure of 1atm. The water from the second and the third columns
would exit from the bottoms to the waste water treatment facility and the top stream, which was rich in
ethanol, would recycle back to the reactor for further conversion. This design was not as profitable as
our high conversion design, according to the NPV percent calculations.
For the 90% conversion, we were able to separate ethyl acetate in the first and second distillation
columns in 15atm form the azeotrope mixture and finally separated most of the water before we
recycled the ethanol rich stream. There were three process alternatives:
1. Break the stream into two streams which would enable us to feed a fraction back to the first
distillation column for further separation and the remaining to the reactor.
2. Burn the mixture as fuel to avoid the operating cost of utilities.
Method (1) showed to be effective and showed a slightly higher NPV% in our calculation. However,
once we adjusted the process control design we realized this would significantly complicate the process
control model. Also, the plant would be very sensitive to disturbances because of the third distillation
column as well as becoming increasingly difficult to operate. Knowing an adequate NPV% was already
obtained, we chose method (1), which is easier to operate and still results in a high profitability. Plan (2)
drastically reduced profitability, clearly eliminating it from our conceptual design.
13
Assuming the catalyst degradation and effective pressure drop to the system were negligible, simplified
calculations. However, if we were to account for the pressure drop and the diffusion of the particles in
the porous catalysts, it likely that other conversions may be advantageous. Likewise, in more complex
designs a system must be established to separate the diethyl ether, rather than using a split block.
Furthermore, the use of a decanter may assist in the separation of liquid species. We did not see a
necessity to include a decanter in our system, however. Also, to conserve energy, interconnected heat
exchangers running countercurrent may be implemented to reduce the amount of energy needed in the
heat exchangers.
Figure 5 Alternative design with a fraction back to the first distillation column for further separation and the remaining to
the reactor
Recommendations
This design appears to be highly profitable, but further analysis should be performed to discover how
profitable the plant is when certain assumptions are not made. Before this project is fully invested in,
there are multiple experiments and investigations into assumptions that need to be performed to
determine the effect of these assumptions on profitability.
14
To begin with, one of the main assumptions made in this project is that there is no pressure drop in the
reactor. This is highly unlikely to be true, however. Even when tested in the laboratory reactor there
was a small pressure drop, which while assumed to be negligible, it is possible that with design scale up
the pressure drop is no longer negligible. Experiments on pressure drop across the reactor must be
done before the final decision to invest in this project is made.
Another assumption made in this design that must be further investigated is that the catalyst is fully
active until the moment that it needs to be changed. Catalyst deactivation over time was not taken into
account in this analysis but is likely to be occurring and may affect the rates of reaction. It is possible
that deactivation over time will cause the rates of reaction to slow as it approaches time to replace the
catalyst. This slowing of the reaction rates could potentially not only cause less product to be made, but
also cause the composition into the distillation columns to drastically differ leading to failure of one of
the columns.
The final main assumption made in this initial design was that the heat exchanger system was not
interconnected. This is something that could likely increase the profitability of the plant since the use of
one fluid to heat or cool another fluid would decrease the use of a utility to perform the same job. By
designing a system to handle this, it is likely that the profitability of the plant will increase.
After analysis of these basic assumptions is performed along with other less relevant assumptions,
further discussion of investing and pursuing the proposal may commence.
Conclusion
Combining the conceptual, economic, ASPEN, and HYSYS designs into a single plant design that
optimizes profitability has shown to be a challenge because of conflicting calculations, numerous
assumptions, and pragmatic judgment decisions. However, the plant designed with these assumptions
and judgment decisions was found to be highly profitable. Though any decision can be scrutinized,
general facts for this plant are that the reactor will be run at 285 oC at a pressure of 1atm and a
conversion of 90%, the separation system will consist of a flash drum and three distillation columns, and
lower reactor temperatures will lead to less profitability. This design could be greatly improved if further
investigation and experiments are performed on the assumptions laid out in the previous section.
15
Appendix A: Tables
Table A.1. Chemical data on all species involved in the chemical plant.
Name
Formula
Ethanol
Acetaldehyde
Hydrogen
Ethyl Acetate
Diethyl Ether
Water
C2H5OH
CH3CHO
H2
C4H8O2
C4H10O
H2O
Weight
(g/mol)
46.07
44.05
2.016
88.105
74.12
18.02
Density
(g/cm3)
0.789
0.788
8.5*10-5
0.897
0.7134
1
Melting Point
(oC)
-114
-123.5
-259
-83.6
-116.3
0
Boiling Point
(oC)
78
20.2
-252.8
77.1
34.6
99.98
Table A.2. This table shows the operating conditions of each piece of equipment involved in the
chemical plant.
Equipment
Reactor/Heat Exchanger
Flash Drum
Distillation Column 1
Temperature
558 K
255 K
Feed: 335
Reboiler: 464
Condenser: 441
Feed: 441
Reboiler: 464
Condenser: 441
Feed: 349
Reboiler: 373
Condenser: 348
Pressure
1 atm
1 atm
15 atm
15 atm
1 atm
16
Table A.3. This table shows the specifications of each piece of equipment involved in the
chemical plant.
Equipment
Diameter
& Length
Volume
& Area
Number
of Trays
Material
Operating
Cost
(MM $/yr)
0.09
Installation
Cost
(MM $)
3.2
Energy
Reactor/
Heat
Exchanger
Process
Furnace
Heat
Exchanger
2 (cooling)
Heat
Exchanger
3 (cooling)
Distillation
Column 1
0.70 m,
109 m
41.5 m3,
8300 m2
NA
Carbon
Steel
NA
NA
NA
Carbon
Steel
Carbon
Steel
1.1
0.02
0.05
0.19
2.4*107
kJ/hr
3.8*106
kJ/hr
NA
63.6 m2
NA
NA
2.7 m2
NA
Carbon
Steel
0.04
0.02
9.2*105
kJ/hr
3.9 m,
23.2 m
NA
35.1
Carbon
Steel
1.4
0.4
3.4 m,
20.6 m
NA
30.8
Carbon
Steel
1.3
0.3
2.9 m,
17.6 m
NA
25.8
Carbon
Steel
1.1
0.5
Reboiler:
1.6*107
kJ/hr
Condenser:
1.8*107
kJ/hr
Reboiler:
1.2*107
kJ/hr
Condenser:
1.8*107
kJ/hr
Reboiler:
1.9*107
kJ/hr
Condenser:
1.8*107
kJ/hr
Distillation
Column 2
Distillation
Column 3
7.6*106
kJ/hr
17
Table A.4 Proposed Control System Structure (Control loops) for the Reactor/flash/Distillation Unit Plant
Loop
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Controller Type
Cascade (Secondary)
Feedback
Feedback
Feedback
Feedback
Feedback
Feedback
Feedback
Feedback
Feedback
Feedback
Feedback
Feedback
Feedback
Feedback
Feedback
Feedback
Feedback
Feedback
Feedback
Cascade(Primary)
Feedback
Feedback
Feedback
Controlled Variable
E stream flowrate,w1
Reactor temperature
Flash unit feed temperature, TF
Flash unit pressure, PF
Flash unit liquid level, HF
Distillation unit1 pressure,PD1
Condesner1 liquid level,HC1
EA composition in top1 stream, xD1
Distillation unit1 liquid level, HD1
EA composition in bot1 stream,XB1
Distillation unit2 pressure,PD2
Distillation3 Feed temperature, TF3
EA composition in top2 stream, xD2
EA composition in bot2 stream,XB2
W composition in top3 stream, xD3
W composition in bot3 stream,XB3
Plant production rate, w2
E composition in the product, xP
Recycle surge tank liquid level, HS
Surge Tank feed temperature, Ts
Manipulated Variable/Valve
A feed stream,V1
Steam supply,V2
Cooling water,V3
Hydrogen stream,V4
Distillation unit 1 feed,V5
Top1 stream,V6
Distillation unit 2 Feed,V7
Reflux1 stream,V8
Bot1 stream,V9
Steam supply,V10
Top2 stream,V11
Distillation unit 3 Feed,V12
Cooling water,V13
Reflux2 stream,V14
Bot2 stream,V15
Steam supply,V16
Recycle stream,V17
Reflux3 stream,V18
Bot3 stream,V19
Steam supply,V20
Set point for w1 (FC1)
Recycle liquid stream,V21
Purge Stream,V22
Cooling water,V23
18
Appendix B: Figures
Figure B.3 Reactor volume increases with increasing temperature and decreases with increasing pressure
Figure B.4 RTI increases as temperature increases and pressure decreases
19
Figure B. 5 NPVproj increases with temperature and decreases with pressure
20
Figure 6 NPV% is optimized at 285K and 1 atm
Figure B. 7 TCI is optimized at 255K and 10 atm
21
Figure B.8 94.6MMKg/yr are produced at 285K and 10 atm
Appendix B.7: ASPEN Plus Distillation system design

Distillation unit 1
22
Distillation unit2
23
Distillation unit 3
24
25
Appendix B.8:
HYSYS Process
Flow Diagram
26
Recycle: 15 MM kg/yr
Distillation
Unit1
Distillation 1:
Installed: 0.4 MM $
Operating: 1.4 MM $/yr
Flash
Unit
Hydrogen Pay: 3.3 MM $/yr
Heat Exchanger 2:
Installed: 0.19 MM $
Reactor:
Installed: 3.2 MM $
Ethanol Cost: 85.1 MM $/yr

Heat Exchanger 1:
Split Block
Diethyl ether out: 9 MM kg/yr
Appendix B.9:
Economic
Process Flow
Diagram
Distillation
Unit2
Distillation 3:
Installed: 0.5 MM $
Purge: 4 MM kg/yr
Distillation
Unit3
Water out: 2 MM kg/yr
Ethyl Acetate Pay: 130.5 MM $/yr
Distillation 2:
Installed: 0.3 MM $
Heat Exchanger 3:
Mixer
27
Reactor
Ethanol Feed: 120 MM kg/yr
Split Block
Diethyl ether out: 9 MM kg/yr
Distillation
Unit1
Recycle: 15 MM kg/yr
Flash
Unit
Hydrogen out: 5 MM kg/yr
Appendix B.10:
Process Flow
Diagram
Mixer
Distillation
Unit2
Purge: 4 MM kg/yr
Distillation
Unit3
Water out: 2 MM kg/yr
Ethyl Acetate out: 100 MM kg/yr
28
E stream, w1
Appendix C: Discounted Cash Flow Statement

FC
1
Table C.1. The discounted cash flow sheet for the base case design based off of the HYSYS and ASPEN
TC
2
analysis.
Reactor
Cooling water
TC
24
Recycle Surge Tank
Steam
Split Block
Wastes Stream
LC
23
Flash
Unit
Hydrogen
Cooling Water
TC
3
PC
4
LC
5
Top1
PC
6
Bot1
Distillation
Unit1
LC
9
Appendix B.11:
Process
Control
Diagram
AC
8
Reflux1
LC
15
Cooling Water
LC
7
Condenser1
AC
10
AC
22
Top2
PC
11
Distillation
Unit2
Bot2
Steam
AC
13
TC
13
LC
17
Cooling water
LC
12
Condenser2
Cooling water
Reflux2
AC
16
Mixer
Top3
AC
18
Reflux3
AC
20
LC
19
Steam
Distillation
Unit3
Bot3
FC
21
EA Stream, w2
Products
Cooling Water
Condenser3
Steam
W Stream
Waste water
Purge
Stream
29
Discounted Cash Flow Table
Based on TI (also TCI ) and the Annual % Increase of NPV (Normalized by TCI )
d Capital and Profit_BT are the two independent variables.

independently. WC and SV are converted from inventory to Profit_BT in Year 10.
All dollar amounts in table represent millions of dollars.

Profit_BT =
Construction Rate
Finance Rate
10.0%
8.0%
Fixed Capital
8.4
alpha_Work ing Capital

alpha_Start-Up Capital
alpha_Salvage Value
2.31
0.10
0.03
Tax Rate
a-2
a-1
a0
N_construction
N_operation
50%
0.00
0.30
0.70
b_1
b_2
b_3
2
10
0.5
0.8
1.0
Yields Tot.Cap.Inv. TI =FC +WC +SU

ROI_BT = 151.2%
152.5%
TI =FC +WC +SU
28.6
TCI =Tot.Cap.Inv.
28.8
Capital In (+)
Discount
Year DesignConstruction Period

or Out (-)
-2
-1
0
0
0
Fixed Capital in Y-2

Fixed Capital in Y0
Work ing Capital
Start-Up Capital
0 Total of Capital Outlays

(=Sum of Constr. DCFs)
0 Total Capital Investment
(=Proceeds of Bond Issue)
Factors
0.0
-2.5
-5.9
-19.3
-0.8
1.210
1.100
1.000
1.000
1.000
Discounted
Cash Flows
0.0
-2.8
-5.9
-19.3
-0.8
-28.8
28.8
Operations Period
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10 Work ing Capital
10 Salvage Value
10 Pay-Off TCI
43.58
using Capitalization =
Profit
Bond
Depreciation
Profit
Cash
Before Taxes
Financing
Allowed
After Taxes
Flows
21.8
34.9
41.4
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
-2.3
-2.3
-2.3
-2.3
-2.3
-2.3
-2.3
-2.3
-2.3
-2.3
19.3
0.3
-28.8
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
9.3
15.8
19.1
20.2
20.2
20.2
20.2
20.2
20.2
20.2
9.7
0.1
10.2
16.7
20.0
21.1
21.1
21.1
21.1
21.1
21.1
21.1
9.7
0.1
-28.8
WC & SV Total Profit Bond Interest

Total
Total Profit Total
All Figures Represent Recovery Before Taxes Payments
Depreciation After Taxes Cash Flow
PV of Operations==>
4.5
263.1
-15.5
6.2
125.2
118.1
Bond
Total Capital
Repayment
Recovery
-13.4
10.7
Net Present
Value of Bonds
0.0
0.926
0.857
0.794
0.735
0.681
0.630
0.583
0.540
0.500
0.463
0.463
0.463
0.463
9.4
14.4
15.9
15.5
14.4
13.3
12.3
11.4
10.6
9.8
4.5
0.1
-13.4
NPV (0)
NPV-proj [NPV (0)

Discounted to EOY(-2)]
118.1
101.2
NPV Increase per Year

normalized/annualized
NPV (0) Avg.
Over 10 Years
41.0%
NPV_proj Avg.
Over 12 Years
29.3%
Table C.2. Discounted cash flow sheet with no numbers but notations to where each variation had a
direct change to the sheet.
30

Establishes the ROI_BT Based on TI (also TCI ) and the Annual % Increase of NPV (Normalized by TCI )
Fixed Capital and Profit_BT are the two independent variables.
CR and FR can be chosen independently. WC and SV are converted from inventory to Profit_BT in Year 10.
Profit_BT =
Construction Rate Variation 3
Variation 4,
IRR
Finance Rate
Fixed Capital
8.4

alpha_Salvage Value
2.31
0.10
0.03
Tax Rate
Abnormal 1
a-2
a-1
a0
0.00
0.30
0.70
Capital In (+)

Fixed Capital in Y0
Work ing Capital
Start-Up Capital
N_operation

or Out (-)
-2
-1
0
0
0
N_construction
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
b_1
b_2
b_3
b_4
b_5
b_6
b_7
b_8
b_9
b_10
10
0.5
0.8
1.0
Yields Tot.Cap.Inv. TI =FC +WC +SU

ROI_BT =
xx
xx
TI =FC +WC +SU
xx
TCI =Tot.Cap.Inv.
xx
Abnormal 2
Abnormal 2
Discount
Abnormal 2
Factors
Discounted
Cash Flows
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
Abnormal 2
Abnormal 2
Abnormal 2
Abnormal 2

0 Total Capital Investmentxx
xx
Operations Period
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10 Work ing Capital
10 Salvage Value
10 Pay-Off TCI
Variation 1 &
2, Sell Price
Drop, Raw
Material Raise
Profit
Bond
Depreciation
Profit
Cash
Before Taxes
Financing
Allowed
After Taxes
Flows
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
WC & SV Total Profit Bond Interest

Total
Total Profit Total
All Figures Represent Recovery Before Taxes Payments
Depreciation After Taxes Cash Flow
PV of Operations==>
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
Bond
Total Capital
Repayment
Recovery
xx
xx
Net Present
Value of Bonds
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
NPV (0)
NPV-proj [NPV (0)

xx
xx

NPV_proj Avg.
NPV (0) Avg.
Over 10 Years
xx
Over 12 Years
xx
Table C.3. The discounted cash flow sheet for Variation 1.a in which the price of ethanol increases. This
change had the largest percent deviation in the NPVzero and NPVproj from the base case design at 96.74%.
31


Profit_BT =
Construction Rate
10.0%
Finance Rate
8.0%
Tax Rate
50%
N_construction
N_operation
10
Yields
ROI_BT =
Fixed Capital
8.4
3.29
0.10
0.03
alpha_Salvage Value
a-2
0.00
b_1
0.5
a-1
0.30
b_2
0.8
a0
0.70
b_3
1.0
7.11
Tot.Cap.Inv. TI =FC +WC +SU
19.1%
19.3%
TI =FC +WC +SU
36.9
TCI =Tot.Cap.Inv.
37.1
Capital In (+)
or Out (-)
Discount
Factors
Discounted
Cash Flows
-2
0.0
1.210
0.0
-1
-2.5
1.100
-2.8
Fixed Capital in Y0
Work ing Capital
Start-Up Capital
-5.9
1.000
-5.9
-27.6
-0.8
1.000
1.000
-27.6
-0.8
0
0

-37.1
37.1
Profit
Before Taxes
Operations Period
Bond
Financing
3.6
-3.0
5.7
-3.0
6.8
-3.0
7.1
-3.0
7.1
-3.0
7.1
-3.0
7.1
-3.0
7.1
-3.0
7.1
-3.0
10
7.1
-3.0
10 Work ing Capital
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
27.6
10 Salvage Value
10 Pay-Off TCI
All Figures Represent

PV of Operations==>
Depreciation
Allowed
0.3
Profit
After Taxes
-0.2
0.9
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
13.8
0.1
-37.1
WC & SV
Total Profit
Bond Interest
Recovery Before Taxes
Payments
6.5
42.9
-19.9
Bond
Repayment
-17.2
Net Present
Value of Bonds
0.0
Total
Depreciation
6.2
Total Capital
Recovery
12.6
Cash
Flows
0.8
1.8
2.4
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
13.8
0.1
-37.1
Total Profit
Total
After Taxes Cash Flow
14.8
3.8
0.7
1.6
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
6.4
0.1
-17.2
0.926
0.857
0.794
0.735
0.681
0.630
0.583
0.540
0.500
0.463
0.463
0.463
0.463
NPV (0)
3.8
NPV-proj [NPV (0)

3.3

NPV_proj Avg.
NPV (0) Avg.
Over 10 Years
Over 12 Years
1.0%
0.7%
Table C.4. The discounted cash flow sheet for Variation 2.b in which the value of the ethyl acetate
decreases. This change had the second largest percent deviation in the NPVzero and NPVproj from the base
case design at 51.31%.
32


Profit_BT =
Construction Rate
10.0%
Finance Rate
8.0%
Tax Rate
50%
N_construction
N_operation
10
Yields
ROI_BT =
Fixed Capital
8.4
2.31
0.10
0.03
alpha_Salvage Value
a-2
0.00
b_1
0.5
a-1
0.30
b_2
0.8
a0
0.70
b_3
1.0
23.51
81.6%
82.3%
TI =FC +WC +SU
28.6
TCI =Tot.Cap.Inv.
28.8
Capital In (+)
or Out (-)
Discount
Factors
Discounted
Cash Flows
-2
0.0
1.210
0.0
-1
-2.5
1.100
-2.8
Fixed Capital in Y0
Work ing Capital
Start-Up Capital
-5.9
1.000
-5.9
-19.3
-0.8
1.000
1.000
-19.3
-0.8
0
0

-28.8
28.8
Profit
Before Taxes
Operations Period
Bond
Financing
11.8
-2.3
18.8
-2.3
22.3
-2.3
23.5
-2.3
23.5
-2.3
23.5
-2.3
23.5
-2.3
23.5
-2.3
23.5
-2.3
10
23.5
-2.3
10 Work ing Capital

10 Salvage Value
10 Pay-Off TCI

PV of Operations==>
Depreciation
Allowed
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
19.3
0.3
Profit
After Taxes
4.3
7.8
9.6
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
9.7
0.1
-28.8
WC & SV
Total Profit
Bond Interest
Payments
4.5
141.9
-15.5
Bond
Repayment
-13.4
Net Present
Value of Bonds
0.0
Total
Depreciation
6.2
Total Capital
Recovery
10.7
Cash
Flows
5.2
8.7
10.5
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
9.7
0.1
-28.8
Total Profit
Total
64.7
57.5
4.8
7.5
8.3
8.1
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.1
4.5
0.1
-13.4
0.926
0.857
0.794
0.735
0.681
0.630
0.583
0.540
0.500
0.463
0.463
0.463
0.463
NPV (0)
57.5
NPV-proj [NPV (0)

49.3

NPV_proj Avg.
NPV (0) Avg.
Over 10 Years
Over 12 Years
19.9%
14.3%
Table C.5. The discounted cash flow sheet for Variation 3.a in which the construction rate increases by
5%. This change had the smallest percent deviation in the NPVzero and NPVproj from the base case design
at 0.08%.
33


Profit_BT =
Construction Rate
15.0%
Finance Rate
8.0%
Tax Rate
50%
N_construction
N_operation
10
Yields
ROI_BT =
Fixed Capital
8.4
2.31
0.10
0.03
alpha_Salvage Value
a-2
0.00
b_1
0.5
a-1
0.30
b_2
0.8
a0
0.70
b_3
1.0
43.58
150.5%
152.5%
TI =FC +WC +SU
28.6
TCI =Tot.Cap.Inv.
29.0
Capital In (+)
or Out (-)
Discount
Factors
Discounted
Cash Flows
-2
0.0
1.323
0.0
-1
-2.5
1.150
-2.9
Fixed Capital in Y0
Work ing Capital
Start-Up Capital
-5.9
1.000
-5.9
-19.3
-0.8
1.000
1.000
-19.3
-0.8
0
0

-29.0
29.0
Profit
Before Taxes
Operations Period
Bond
Financing
21.8
-2.3
34.9
-2.3
41.4
-2.3
43.6
-2.3
43.6
-2.3
43.6
-2.3
43.6
-2.3
43.6
-2.3
43.6
-2.3
10
43.6
-2.3
10 Work ing Capital

10 Salvage Value
10 Pay-Off TCI

PV of Operations==>
Depreciation
Allowed
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
19.3
0.3
Profit
After Taxes
9.3
15.8
19.1
20.2
20.2
20.2
20.2
20.2
20.2
20.2
9.7
0.1
-29.0
WC & SV
Total Profit
Bond Interest
Payments
4.5
263.1
-15.5
Bond
Repayment
-13.4
Net Present
Value of Bonds
0.0
Total
Depreciation
6.2
Total Capital
Recovery
10.7
Cash
Flows
10.2
16.7
20.0
21.1
21.1
21.1
21.1
21.1
21.1
21.1
9.7
0.1
-29.0
Total Profit
Total
125.2
118.0
0.926
0.857
0.794
0.735
0.681
0.630
0.583
0.540
0.500
0.463
0.463
0.463
0.463
9.4
14.3
15.9
15.5
14.4
13.3
12.3
11.4
10.6
9.8
4.5
0.1
-13.4
NPV (0)
118.0
NPV-proj [NPV (0)

101.2

NPV_proj Avg.
NPV (0) Avg.
Over 10 Years
Over 12 Years
40.8%
29.1%
34
Appendix D: MATLAB code
Design2Varying
clear; clc;
%number of plots making
PlotNumber = 1;
%need to know values
%selectivity
s = 10/11;
%flow rates
Pea_kg = 100*10^6;
Pea = Pea_kg*1000*(1/88.105);
Ps = 2*Pea;
Fa = 2*Pea/s;
Pde = Pea*(1/s - 1);
Pw = Pea*(1/s - 1);
%kg/yr
%mol/yr [=] MM kg/yr*1000g/kg*mol/g
%mol/yr
%mol/yr
%mol/yr
%mol/yr
%density in g/L = g/cm^3*(1 cm^3/0.001 L)

da = 0.789*(1/0.001);
CuOdensity = 6.31*(1/0.001);
CoOdensity = 6.44*(1/0.001);
Cr2O3density = 5.22*(1/0.001);
catdensity = 0.94*CuOdensity+0.05*CoOdensity+0.01*Cr2O3density;
%molecular weight in g/mol
MWa = 46.07;
%molar densities = density*(1/MW)
mda = da/MWa;
mol/L
%costs
Cost_pea = 1.30;
$/kg
Cost_a = 0.70;
Cost_s = 0.31;
%g/L*(mol/g) =
%ethyl acetate
%ethanol $/kg
%hydrogen $/lb
%reactor conversion
xa = 0.01:0.01:1;
%equipment temperature and pressure
reactT = 498:20:558;
reactP = 1:3:10;
%K
%atm
35

R = 1.987;
1
R2 = 0.082057;
%cal mol^-1 K^%L atm K^-1 mol^-1
for m = 1:1:PlotNumber
for p = 1:1:length(reactP)
for t = 1:1:length(reactT)
for h = 1:1:length(xa)
%calculating recycle flowrate = mol/yr
Ra(h) = 2*Pea/s*((1-xa(h))/xa(h));
%total molar flow rate leaving reactor = mol/yr
TFLR(h) = Pea + Ps + Pde + Pw + Ra(h);
%mole fractions leaving reactor
za(h) = Ra(h)/TFLR(h);
zea(h) = Pea/TFLR(h);
zs(h) = Ps/TFLR(h);
zde(h) = Pde/TFLR(h);
zw(h) = Pw/TFLR(h);
%total molar flow rate to separation system = mol/yr
%after removing all diether with split block
%after removing all hydrogen
TFTS(h) = Pea + Pw + Ra(h);
%mole fractions
zas(h) = Ra(h)/TFTS(h);
zeas(h) = Pea/TFTS(h);
zws(h) = Pw/TFTS(h);
%solving for reactor volume
%K's
Ka(t) = exp(5890/(R*reactT(t))-6.40); %atm^-1
Ks(t) = exp(6850/(R*reactT(t))-7.18);
%atm^-1
k(t) = exp(-16130/(R*reactT(t))+16.25); %mol hr^-1 g-cat^-1
Pain(p,h) = reactP(p);
%(mol/L)*(K)*(L atm
K^-1 mol^-1) = atm
Paout(p,h) = reactP(p)*za(h);
%atm
step(p,h) = (Pain(p,h) - Paout(p,h))/100;
Pa = Paout(p,h):step(p,h):Pain(p,h);
%mol/L
Psin(p,h) = 0;
Psout(p,h) = reactP(p)*zs(h);
step2(p,h) = (Psin(p,h) - Psout(p,h))/100;
ps = Psout(p,h):step2(p,h):Psin(p,h);
for g = 1:length(Pa)
%concentration of acetaldehyde is zero
funct(h,g) =
20*10*(1+Ka(t)*Pa(g)+Ks(t)*ps(g))^2/(k(t)*Ka(t)*Pa(g));
36
end
AreaUnderCurve(p,t,h) = trapz(Pa,funct(h,:));
tau(p,t,h) = AreaUnderCurve(p,t,h);
%catalyst weight
catW(p,t,h) = Fa*tau(p,t,h)*(1/8765.81277);
%hr g-cat/L
%mol/yr*(hr g-
cat/mol)*conversion = g-cat
%reactor volume [=] m^3
Vreact(p,t,h) = 2*catW(p,t,h)*(1/catdensity)*0.001;
end
end
end
end
for p = 1:1:length(reactP)
for t = 1:1:length(reactT)
vol(h) = Vreact(p,t,h);
end
if p==1 && t==1
plotcolor = 'b';
end
if p==2 && t==1
plotcolor = 'g';
end
if p==3 && t==1
plotcolor = 'r';
end
if p==4 && t==1
plotcolor = 'k';
end
if p==1 && t==2
plotcolor = 'b';
end
if p==2 && t==2
plotcolor = 'g';
end
if p==3 && t==2
plotcolor = 'r';
end
if p==4 && t==2
plotcolor = 'k';
end
if p==1 && t==3
plotcolor = 'b';
end
if p==2 && t==3
plotcolor = 'g';
end
37
if p==3 && t==3

plotcolor = 'r';
end
if p==4 && t==3
plotcolor = 'k';
end
if p==1 && t==4
plotcolor = 'b';
end
if p==2 && t==4
plotcolor = 'g';
end
if p==3 && t==4
plotcolor = 'r';
end
if p==4 && t==4
plotcolor = 'k';
end
hold on;
fig1 = figure(1);
set(fig1,'Color','white')
ylim([0 100])
ylabel('Reactor Volume (m^3)')
xlabel('Reactor Conversion')
plot(xa,vol,plotcolor)
end
end
Design2Conversion
clear;
reply = input('Reactor Temperature in Celsius: ', 's');
if reply == '225'
reactTC = 225;
plotcolor = 'c';
end
if reply == '255'
reactTC = 255;
plotcolor = '--b';
end
if reply == '285'
reactTC = 285;
plotcolor = '--k';
end
%number of plots making
PlotNumber = 1;
38

MWa = 46.07;
MWea = 88.105;
MWw = 18.02;
MWs = 2.016;
MWde = 74.12;
%selectivity
s = 10/11;
%flow rates
Pea_kg = 100*10^6;
Pea = Pea_kg*1000*(1/88.105);
Ps = 2*Pea;
%mol/yr
Fa = 2*Pea/s;
Pde = Pea*(1/s - 1);
Pw = Pea*(1/s - 1);
Fa_kg = Fa*MWa*(1/1000);
Pde_kg = Pde*MWde*(1/1000);
%kg/yr
%mol/yr
%mol/yr
%mol/yr
%kg/yr
%kg/yr
%density in g/L = g/cm^3*(1 cm^3/0.001 L)

da = 0.789*(1/0.001);
dea = 0.897*(1/0.001);
dw = 1*(1/0.001);
ds = 8.5*10^-5*(1/0.001);
%density in g/cm^3
CuOdensity = 6.31;
CoOdensity = 6.44;
Cr2O3density = 5.22;
dagcm = 0.789;
%molar densities = density*(1/MW)
mda = da/MWa;
%g/L*(mol/g) = mol/L
mdea = dea/MWea;
mdw = dw/MWw;
mds = ds/MWs;
%costs
Cost_pea = 1.30;
acetate $/kg
Cost_a = 0.70;
Cost_s = 0.31;
Cost_cat = 4;
%catalyst $/kg
electricity_cost = 0.06;
%mol/L
%mol/L
%mol/L
%ethyl
%ethanol $/kg
%hydrogen $/lb
%$/kWh
39
%operating hours
operating_hours = 8000;
%hours/yr
%reactor conversion
%recycle, no recycle, recycle, no recycle
xa = [0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9];
%equipment temperature and pressure
reactT = reactTC+273;
reactP = 10;
%K
%atm

R1 = 1.987;
mol^-1 K^-1
R2 = 0.082057;
%L atm K^-1 mol^-1
T_in = reactT;
%K
%heat of formation
H_R=-170.7;
%kJ/mol (gas) {liquid=-196.4}
H_EA=-445;
%kJ/mol (gas) {liquid=-480}
H_A=-235.3;
%kJ/mol (gas) {liquid=-277}
H_DE=-252.7;
271.2}
H_W=-241.83;
285.83}
dH0_a= 68.9*1000;
dH0_b= ((H_EA)-(2*H_R))*1000;
dH0_c = ((H_DE+H_W)-(2*H_A))*1000;
%specific heat capacity of ethanol
Cp_a=87.53;
%reference temperature
T_ref=298;
%Heat of Reaction
QrJ = (dH0_a*Fa+dH0_b*Pea+dH0_c*Pde)*10^-6;
Qr = QrJ*(1/315569265);
%cal
%kJ/mol (gas) {liquid=%kJ/mol (gas) {liquid=%J/mol

%J/mol
%J/mol
%J mol^-1 K^-1
%K
%MJ/yr
%MW
%marshal and swift factor for 210Q1

MS=1461.3;
%Reactor
%shell material use carbon steel
Fm_react = 1.00;
%P = 1 atm Fp = 1; P = 5 atm Fp = 1.05; P = 10 atm Fp = 1.15
40
%1 atm = 14.7 psi

Fp_react = 1.00;
Fc_react = Fm_react + Fp_react;
Fm_heat=1.00;
CS/Ti
Fp_heat=0;
to 150psi
Fd_heat=1.0;
head
Fh_heat=(Fd_heat+Fp_heat)*Fm_heat;
Douglas
%material factor for

%pressure factor for up
%type factor Floating
%F factor from gutheric Apendix E.2 of
%Distillation Column 1
dist1P = [14, 14, 15, 14];
%atm
z_D1Bea = [1, 1, 1, 1];
z_D1Ba = [0, 0, 0, 0];
z_D1Bw = [0, 0, 0, 0];
z_D1Tea = [0.1, 0.1, 0.107, 0.150];
z_D1Ta = [0.761, 0.7329, 0.633, 0.5836];
z_D1Tw = [0.139, 0.1671 0.260, 0.2664];
D1Bflowkmols = [0.033, 0.0334, 0.034, 0.0334];
D1Bflow = D1Bflowkmols*1000*31556926;
%kmol/s*(1000mol/kmol)*(31556926s/yr) = mol/yr
D1Tflowkmols = [0.0259, 0.0215, 0.0138, 0.0135];
D1Tflow = D1Tflowkmols*1000*31556926;
%mol/yr
D1stages = [33.9, 34.1, 36.0, 29.3];
D1cond = [-8.6073*10^6, -7.1807*10^6, -4.6221*10^6, -4.4782*10^6]; %J/s
D1reboil = [7.2309*10^6, 6.1347*10^6, 4.1742*10^6, 4.1352*10^6];
%J/s
Tcin1 = [344, 344, 345, 345];
%K
Tcout1 = [438, 438, 441, 438];
%K
Treboil1 = [461, 461, 464, 461];
%K
dist2P = [15, 15, 15, 15];
%atm
z_D2Bea = [1, 1, 1, 1];
z_D2Ba = [0, 0, 0, 0];
z_D2Bw = [0, 0, 0, 0];
z_D2Tea = [0.080, 0.080, 0.105, 0.130];
z_D2Ta = [0.7779, 0.7492, 0.6344, 0.5974];
z_D2Tw = [0.1421, 0.1708, 0.2606, 0.2726];
D2Bflowkmols = [5.6317*10^-4, 4.675*10^-4, 3.0869*10^-5, 3.0983*10^-4];
D2Tflowkmols = [0.0253, 0.021, 0.0138, 0.0132];
%mol/yr
D2stages = [31.3, 29.9, 31.6, 30.6];
D2cond = [-8.3974*10^6, -7.009*10^6, -4.6165*10^6, -4.3697*10^6]; %J/s
D2reboil = [5.9406*10^6, 4.9313*10^6, 3.2247*10^6, 3.0864*10^6];
%J/s
Tcin2 = [438, 438, 441, 438];
%K
Tcout2 = [441, 441, 441, 441];
%K
41
Treboil2 = [464, 464, 464, 464];
%K
dist3P = [1, 1, 1, 1];
%atm
z_D3Bea = [0, 0, 0, 0];
z_D3Ba = [0, 0, 0, 0];
z_D3Bw = [1, 1, 1, 1];
z_D3Tea = [0.083, 0.0859, 0.1264, 0.1591];
z_D3Ta = [0.807, 0.8041, 0.7636, 0.7309];
z_D3Tw = [0.110, 0.110, 0.110, 0.110];
D3Bflowkmols = [9.1453*10^-4, 1.4369*10^-3, 2.3329*10^-3, 2.4065*10^-3];
D3Tflowkmols = [0.0244, 0.0196, 0.0115, 0.0108];
%mol/yr
D3stages = [31.5, 31.3, 27.8, 26.2];
D3cond = [-1.0294*10^7, -8.253*10^6, -4.7675*10^6, -4.4408*10^6]; %J/s
D3reboil = [1.0549*10^7, 8.458*10^6, 4.9243*10^6, 4.6167*10^6];
%J/s
Tcin3 = [349, 349, 349, 348];
%K
Tcout3 = [348, 348, 348, 347];
%K
Treboil3 = [373, 373, 373, 373];
%K
%Compressor 1
gamma1 = 0.23;
%reactP is in atm
%atm*(2116.22 lbf/ft^2)/atm = lbf/ft^2
Pin_comp1 = reactP*2116.22;
%dist1P is in atm
Pout_comp1 = dist1P*2116.22;
Fc_comp1 = 1.00;
%Compressor 2
gamma2 = 0.23;
%dist1P is in atm
Pin_comp2 = dist1P*2116.22;
%dist2P is in atm
Fc_comp2 = 1.00;
%Compressor 3
gamma3 = 0.23;
%dist2P is in atm
Pin_comp3 = dist2P*2116.22;
%dist3P is in atm
Fc_comp3 = 1.00;
pg.154
%lbf/ft^2
%lbf/ft^2
%centrifugal, motor
pg.154
%lbf/ft^2
%lbf/ft^2
pg.154
%lbf/ft^2
%lbf/ft^2
42
%Cooling fluid == water

Tfin = 4.4+273; %Cooling fluid temperature in K
Tfout = 10+273;
%Cooling fluid temperature out in K
%fraction of start up capital = SU/FC = alpha_su
alpha_su = 0.1;
%fraction of fixed capital spent in start up years
a_2 = 0;
a_1 = 0.3;
a0 = 0.7;
%fraction of p_bt obtained in start up years = 3
startupyrs = 3;
b1 = 0.5;
b2 = 0.8;
b3 = 1.0;
%construction rate = CR, finance rate = FR, tax rate = TR, complementary tax rate = TRC
CR = 0.1;
FR = 0.08;
TR = 0.5;
TRC = 1-TR;
%sigma_b = used in NPV0 calculation; note need to change if start up yr > 3
sigma_b = b1*(1+FR)^-1+b2*(1+FR)^-2+b3*(1+FR)^-3+(1+FR)^-3*((1-(1+FR)^-7)/FR);
%sigma = used in NPV0 calculation; not for n = 10 years = lifetime of plant
sigma = (1-(1+FR)^-10)/FR;
% needed values
PS = 2; % project start time
PL = 12; % project lifetime
for m = 1:1:PlotNumber
%calculating recycle flowrate = mol/yr
if h == 1 || h == 3
Ra(h) = 2*Pea/s*((1-xa(h))/xa(h));
end
if h ==2 || h == 4
Ra(h) = Fa*(1-xa(h));
end
%calculating total ethanol flow to reactor = mol/yr
Fain(h) = Fa + Ra(h);
%outlet temperature of reactor
T_out2(h)=T_in-(dH0_a*Fa+dH0_b*Pea+dH0_c*Pde)/(Fain(h)*Cp_a);
%total molar flow rate leaving reactor = mol/yr
TFLR(h) = Pea + Ps + Pde + Pw + Ra(h);
%mole fractions leaving reactor
za(h) = Ra(h)/TFLR(h);
zea(h) = Pea/TFLR(h);
zs(h) = Ps/TFLR(h);
zde(h) = Pde/TFLR(h);
zw(h) = Pw/TFLR(h);
%total molar flow rate to separation system = mol/yr
%after removing all diether with split block
TFTS(h) = Pea + Pw + Ra(h) + Ps;
43
%mole fractions
zas(h) = Ra(h)/TFTS(h);
zeas(h) = Pea/TFTS(h);
zws(h) = Pw/TFTS(h);
zss(h) = Ps/TFTS(h);
%solving for reactor volume
%K's
Ka = exp(5890/(R1*reactT)-6.40);
%atm^-1
Ks = exp(6850/(R1*reactT)-7.18);
%atm^-1
k = exp(-16130/(R1*reactT)+16.25);
%mol hr^-1 g-cat^-1
Pain(h) = reactP;
%(mol/L)*(K)*(L atm K^-1 mol^-1) = atm
Paout(h) = reactP*za(h);
%atm
step(h) = (Pain(h) - Paout(h))/100;
Pa = Paout(h):step(h):Pain(h);
%mol/L
Psin(h) = 0;
Psout(h) = reactP*zs(h);
step2(h) = (Psin(h) - Psout(h))/100;
ps = Psout(h):step2(h):Psin(h);
for g = 1:length(Pa)
%concentration of acetaldehyde is zero
funct(h,g) = 20*10*(1+Ka*Pa(g)+Ks*ps(g))^2/(k*Ka*Pa(g));
end
AreaUnderCurve(h) = trapz(Pa,funct(h,:));
%hr g-cat/L
tau(h) = AreaUnderCurve(h);
%catalyst weight
catW(h) = Fa*tau(h)*(1/8765.81277);
%mol/yr*(hr g-cat/mol)*conversion = gcat
%reactor volume [=] g-cat*(cm^3/g-cat)*(m^3/1000000 cm^3) = m^3
Vcat(h) = catW(h)*(1/catdensity);
%cm^3
Vreact(h) = 2*Vcat(h)*(10^-6);
%m^3
%finding dimensions of reactor
%assume tube diameter is 2 cm, and length of reactor is 10 m
d = 2/100;
r = d/2;
hcyl(h) = Vreact(h)/(pi*r^2);
%m
%number of tubes in heat exchanger
Ntubes(h) = hcyl(h)/10;
%surface area of tubes
A(h) = 2*pi*r*10*Ntubes(h);
%m^2
Aft(h) = A(h)*10.76;
%ft^2
%m
%m
%Reynolds number Calculations

NEED TO CHECK
%mol/yr*g/mol*cm^3/g*1/m^2*m^3/cm^3*yr/s = m/s
velocity(h) = Fain(h)*MWa*(1/dagcm)*(1/(pi*r^2))*(1/100)^3*(1/31556926);
%PROBLEM HERE???
44
visa = 0.001095;
m/s^2 s/m^2 = kg s^-1 m^-1
%g/cm^3*m/s*m*m*s/kg*1kg/1000g*(100cm/m)^3 = unitless
Re(h) = dagcm*velocity(h)*d*(1/visa)*(1/1000)*100^3;
%kg
%Flash Drum Calculations

%We assume there is a split block between the reactor and the reactants that gets rid of
diethyl
%We need to bring the feed's temperature as low as 320K to flash the hydrogen from
the rest of the species
%componenets entering the flash drum
%%% Hydrogen
BP: 20.3K (-253C)
%Antoine Constants in K and Bar
A1=3.54314; B1=99.395; C1=7.726;
% Ethyl Accetate BP: 350K (77.1C)
A2=4.22809; B2=1245.702; C2=-55.189;
% Ethanol
BP: 351K (78C)
A3=5.37229; B3=1670.409; C3=-40.191;
% Water
BP: 373K (100C)
A4=4.65430; B4=1435.264; C4=-64.848;
z_E(h) = zas(h);
z_EA(h) = zeas(h);
z_H(h) = zss(h);
z_W(h) = zws(h);
F_flash(h) = TFTS(h);
%mol/yr
%Operating Pressure
P_drum=1;
%bar
%Operating Temperature Note:we need to adjust this to get maximum separation
T_drum=255;
%K
%Antoine equation
%psat all in bar
psat_H=10^(A1-B1/(T_drum+C1));
%bar
psat_EA=10^(A2-B2/(T_drum+C2));
%bar
psat_E=10^(A3-B3/(T_drum+C3));
%bar
psat_W=10^(A4-B4/(T_drum+C4));
%bar
K1=psat_H/P_drum; K2=psat_EA/P_drum; K3=psat_E/P_drum; K4=psat_W/P_drum;
k1=1/(K1-1); k2=1/(K2-1); k3=1/(K3-1); k4=1/(K4-1);
% Solve Rachford-Rice equation numerically to find a=V/F:
a(h)=fzero(@(a) z_H(h)/(k1+a) + z_EA(h)/(k2+a) + z_E(h)/(k3+a) + z_W(h)/(k4+a) , .5);
%Hydrogen molar composition in the bottoms
xflash_H(h)=z_H(h)/(1+a(h)*(K1-1));
%Ethyl acetate's composition in the bottoms
xflash_EA(h)=z_EA(h)/(1+a(h)*(K2-1));
%Ethanol molar composition in the bottoms
xflash_E(h)=z_E(h)/(1+a(h)*(K3-1));
45
%water molar composition in the bottoms

xflash_W(h)=z_W(h)/(1+a(h)*(K4-1));
%Hydrogen molar composition in the vapor stream
yflash_H(h)=K1*xflash_H(h);
%Ethyl acetate's composition in the vapor stream
yflash_EA(h)=K2*xflash_EA(h);
%Ethanol molar composition in the vapor stream
yflash_E(h)=K3*xflash_E(h);
%water molar composition in the vapor stream
yflash_W(h)=K4*xflash_W(h);
%Bottoms flow rate
L_flash(h)=(1-a(h))*F_flash(h);
%Vapor stream flow rate
V_flash(h)=a(h)*F_flash(h);
%Gamma need to be varying???
%Compressor 1
%molar density of fluid to compressor [=] mol/L
mdcompfluid1(h) = xflash_H(h)*mds + xflash_EA(h)*mdea + xflash_E(h)*mda +
xflash_W(h)*mdw;
%volumetric flow rate = flow rate to compressor/molar density [=] ft^3/min
%mol/yr*L/mol*0.0353146667ft^3/L*(1yr/525948.766min) = ft^3/min
qin1(h) = L_flash(h)*(1/mdcompfluid1(h))*0.0353146667*(1/525948.766);
hp1(h) = ((3.03*10^5)/gamma1)*Pin_comp1*qin1(h)*((Pout_comp1(h)/Pin_comp1)^gamma1-1);
bhp1(h) = hp1(h)/0.8;
%Distillation Columns
Height_1(h) = 3*0.61 + 0.61*D1stages(h);
Diameter_1(h) = 1/6*Height_1(h);
PeaT(h) = D1Bflow(h)*z_D1Bea(h) + D2Bflow(h)*z_D2Bea(h) + D3Bflow(h)*z_D3Bea(h);
PsT(h) = yflash_H(h)*V_flash(h);
PwT(h) = D1Bflow(h)*z_D1Bw(h) + D2Bflow(h)*z_D2Bw(h) + D3Bflow(h)*z_D3Bw(h);
PaBot(h) = D1Bflow(h)*z_D1Ba(h) + D2Bflow(h)*z_D2Ba(h) + D3Bflow(h)*z_D3Ba(h);
PeaT_kg(h) = PeaT(h)*MWea*(1/1000);
%kg/yr
PsT_kg(h) = PsT(h)*MWs*(1/1000);
%kg/yr
PwT_kg(h) = PwT(h)*MWw*(1/1000);
%kg/yr
PaBot_kg(h) = PaBot(h)*MWa*(1/1000);
%need in kg/yr
IN(h) = Fa_kg;
OUT(h) = Pde_kg + PeaT_kg(h) + PsT_kg(h) + PwT_kg(h) + PaBot_kg(h);
%Costing
% Revenue
% R = EA val + H2 val - A cost (Water Sellable???)
% R($/yr) = ($/kg)*(mol/yr)*(g/mol [MW])*(kg/1000g) [=] $/yr
46
Sell(h) = Cost_pea*PeaT(h)*MWea*(1/1000);
Pay(h) = Cost_a*Fa*MWa*(1/1000);
%$/lb*mol/yr*(g/mol [MW])*(0.0022lbs/g)
Extra(h)= Cost_s*PsT(h)*MWs*0.0022;
R(h) = Sell(h)-Pay(h)+Extra(h);
%Operating Cost Calculations
% Operating Costs are the utility cost to run that piece of equipment
% C = React + Sep System
%cm^3*$/kg*g/cm^3*1kg/1000g*2/yr
CatCost(h) = Vcat(h)*Cost_cat*catdensity*(1/1000)*2;
%use Dowtherm over steam
%using a process furnace to circulate the Dowtherm
%operating cost is the cost fuel
%$/kg*MJ/yr*kg/kJ*10^6J/MJ*1kJ/1000J
%Cost_Heat(h) = reactsteamcost*abs(QrJ)*(1/Hsteamreact)*(10^6/1000);
%MJ/yr*(1.62 $/MM Btu)*(10^6 J/MJ)*(1 Btu/1055 J)*(1 MM Btu/10^6 Btu) = $/yr
Cost_Heat(h) = abs(QrJ)*1.62/1055;
React(h) = CatCost(h) + Cost_Heat(h);
%$/yr
%compressor operating cost
utilityreq1(h) = bhp1(h)/0.9;
%hp
hptokW = 0.75; %1 hp = 0.75 kW [=] kW/hp
opcostcomp1(h) = utilityreq1(h)*hptokW*operating_hours*electricity_cost;
%distillation operating cost
%Condenser Costs = coolant
%coolant = refrigerated water
coolant_cost = 5.7; %$/GJ
%$/GJ*J/s*(GJ/10^9 J)*(31556926s/yr)
C_1(h) = coolant_cost*abs(D1cond(h))*(31556926)*10^-9;
%Reboiler = heater
%$/kg
steam_cost1 = 6.74/1000;
steam_cost2 = 2.38/1000;
%kJ/kg
H_steam1 = 1755; H_steam2 = 2213;
%$/kg*kg/kJ*J/s*31556926s/yr*1kJ/1000J
R_1(h) = steam_cost1*abs(D1reboil(h))*(1/H_steam1)*31556926*(1/1000);
dist_op_cost(h) = C_1(h)+C_2(h)+C_3(h)+R_1(h)+R_2(h)+R_3(h);
Sep(h) = opcostcomp1(h) + dist_op_cost(h);
C(h) = React(h)+Sep(h); %$/yr
% Profit Before Tax = Revenue - Operating Costs
P_bt(h) = (R(h) - C(h)); %$/yr
%Equipment Cost Calculations
%installed costs
%Reactor Installed Cost

47
%reactD = reactor diameter in ft, reactH = reactor height in ft

%reactH = 6*reactD --> Vreact = 6*pi*reactD^3/4
reactD(h) = (4*Vreact(h)/(6*pi))^(4/3);
reactH(h) = 6*reactD(h);
%installed_react_cost(h) =
(MS/280)*(101.9*reactD(h)^1.066*reactH(h)^0.802*(2.18+Fc_react));
installed_react_cost(h) = (MS/280)*(101.3*Aft(h)^0.65)*(Fh_heat+2.29);
%Compressor Installed Cost
installed_comp_cost1(h) = (MS/280)*517.5*bhp1(h)^0.82*(2.11+Fc_comp1);
%Distillation Installed Cost
%tray_h is the tray stack height in ft
tray_h1(h) = Height_1(h)*3.2808399;
tray_h2(h) = Height_2(h)*3.2808399;
tray_h3(h) = Height_3(h)*3.2808399;
%d is diameter in ft
d1(h) = Diameter_1(h)*3.2808399;
d2(h) = Diameter_2(h)*3.2808399;
d3(h) = Diameter_3(h)*3.2808399;
%Fs depends on tray spacing 24 in = 1, 18 in = 1.4, 12 in = 2.2
%tray spacing 0.6 meters
Fs_dist1 = 1;
Fs_dist2 = 1;
Fs_dist3 = 1;
%Sieve tray type
Ft_dist = 0;
%Tray material: CS = 0, SS = 1.7, Monel = 8.9
Fm_dist = 0;
Fc_dist1 = Fs_dist1+Ft_dist+Fm_dist;
installed_dist_cost_1(h) = (MS/280)*4.7*d1(h)^1.55*tray_h1(h)*Fc_dist1;
%distillation heat exchangers
%distillation column heat exchangers
Fd_dr = 1.35; Fp_dr = 0; Fm_dr = 1;
Fd_cr = 1; Fp_cr = 0; Fm_cr = 1;
Fh_dr = (Fd_dr+Fp_dr)*Fm_dr;
Fh_dc = (Fd_cr+Fp_cr)*Fm_cr;
TlmC1(h) = ((Tfin-Tcout1(h))-(Tfout-Tcin1(h)))/log((Tfin-Tcout1(h))/(Tfout-Tcin1(h)));
Ts1 = 242+273; Ts2 = 121+273;
TavR1(h) = Ts1 - Treboil1(h);
%steam and organic liquid
Ur = 820;
48
%W/(m^2*K)
%steam and water
Ur3 = 1430;
%cooling water and organic
Uc = 800;
%J/s*(m^2 K s/J)*K^-1 [=] m^2
%m^2*(10.76 ft^2/m^2) [=] ft^2
Ar1(h) = D1reboil(h)/(Ur*TavR1(h))*10.76;
Ar2(h) = D2reboil(h)/(Ur*TavR2(h))*10.76;
Ar3(h) = D3reboil(h)/(Ur3*TavR3(h))*10.76;
Ac1(h) = D1cond(h)/(Uc*TlmC1(h))*10.76;
%area needs to be in feet squared
installed_heat_cost_dr1(h)=(MS/280)*(101.3*Ar1(h)^(0.65))*(Fh_dr+2.29);
installed_heat_cost_dc1(h)=(MS/280)*(101.3*Ac1(h)^(0.65))*(Fh_dc+2.29);
installed_heat_cost_d(h) =
installed_heat_cost_dr1(h)+installed_heat_cost_dr2(h)+installed_heat_cost_dr3(h)+installed_heat_cost
_dc1(h)+installed_heat_cost_dc2(h)+installed_heat_cost_dc3(h);
%MJ/yr*(10^6 J/MJ)*(Btu/1055 J)*(yr/8000 hr)*(10^-6) [=] 10^6 Btu/hr
%QrBtu needs to be in 10^6 Btu/hr {1Btu = 1055 J}
QrBtu = QrJ/(1055*8000);
Fd_furn = 1.00;
%process heater
Fm_furn = 0;
%carbon steel
Fp_furn = 0;
%Up to
500 psi
Fc_furn = Fd_furn + Fm_furn + Fp_furn;
installed_furn_cost(h) = (MS/280)*(5.52*10^3)*QrBtu^0.85*(1.27+Fc_furn);
%Fixed Capital = Direct Costs + Indirect Costs
%the cost of mixer is negligible
sepfix(h) = installed_comp_cost1(h) + installed_dist_cost_1(h) + installed_dist_cost_2(h)
+ installed_dist_cost_3(h) +installed_heat_cost_d(h);
OnsiteCosts(h) = real(installed_react_cost(h) + sepfix(h) + installed_furn_cost(h));
FC(h) = (OnsiteCosts(h))*1.25*1.45;
%Working Capital Calculation
Fa_wc = 2*Pea/1;
%mol/yr
%mol/yr*$/kg*g/mol [MW]*1kg/1000g
wc_Fa_cost = Fa_wc*Cost_a*MWa*(1/1000);
WC = (wc_Fa_cost)/4;
49
%fraction of working capital = WC/FC = alpha_wc

alpha_wc(h) = WC/FC(h);
%sigma_a = used in TCI calculation
sigma_a(h) = a_2*(1+CR)^2+a_1*(1+CR)+a0+alpha_wc(h)+alpha_su;
aprime = TRC*sigma_b;
bprime(h) = (0.1*TR*(1+alpha_su)TRC*FR*sigma_a(h))*sigma+(TRC*(alpha_wc(h)+alpha_su)-sigma_a(h))*(1+FR)^-10;
aa = aprime*(1+FR)^-PS;
b(h) = bprime(h)*(1+FR)^-PS;
c(h) = (aa*(1+alpha_wc(h)+alpha_su))/(sigma_a(h)*PL);
d(h) = b(h)/(sigma_a(h)*PL);
%TCI needed quantity according to packet
TCI(h) = (FC(h)*sigma_a(h));
TI(h) = FC(h)*(1+alpha_wc(h)+alpha_su);
% return on investment before taxes = ROI_bt
ROI_bt(h) = (P_bt(h)/TI(h))*100;
% net present value at year 0 = NPV0 (0 = start of operations period)
NPV0(h) = (TRC*P_bt(h)*sigma_bTRC*FR*TCI(h)*sigma+0.1*TR*(FC(h)*(1+alpha_su))*sigma+(TRC*FC(h)*(alpha_su+alpha_wc(h))TCI(h))*(1+FR)^-10);
NPVproj(h) = (NPV0(h)*(1+FR)^-PS);
NPVpercent(h) = ((c(h)*ROI_bt(h)+d(h)));
end
end
xa1 = [0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95];
hold on;
fig1 = figure(1);
plot(xa1, ROI_bt, plotcolor)
xlabel('Reactor Conversion (0.05 = no recycle stream)')
ylabel('Return on Investment (%/yr)')
legend('T = 225 P = 1','T = 255 P = 1', 'T = 285 P = 1', 'T = 225 P = 5','T = 255 P = 5', 'T = 285 P = 5','T = 225
P = 10','T = 255 P = 10', 'T = 285 P = 10','Location','SouthEast')
hold on;
fig2 = figure(2);
plot(xa1, TCI/10^6, plotcolor)
ylabel('Total Capitalize Investment (MM $)')
hold on;
fig3 = figure(3);
plot(xa1, NPVproj/10^6, plotcolor)
50
ylabel('Net Present Value of Project (MM $)')

hold on;
fig4 = figure(4);
plot(xa1, NPVpercent, plotcolor)
ylabel('Net Present Value Percent (%/yr)')
hold on;
fig5 = figure(5);
plot(xa1, PeaT_kg/10^6, plotcolor)
ylabel('Amount of Product to Spec (MM kg/yr)')
hold on;
fig6 = figure(6);
plot(xa1,Vreact, plotcolor)
ylabel('Reactor Volume (m^3)')
Obtaining Necessary Values

%index desired is 3 which corresponds to a conversion of 90%
r = 3;
fprintf('Feed flow of ethanol: %i mol/hr\n', Fa/operating_hours)
fprintf('Product flow of hydrogen: %i mol/hr\n', PsT(r)/operating_hours)
fprintf('Product flow of ethyl acetate: %i mol/hr\n', PeaT(r)/operating_hours)
fprintf('Product flow of diethyl ether: %i mol/hr\n\n', Pde/operating_hours)
fprintf('Reactor:\n')
fprintf('Energy Removed by Reaction: %i MW\n', Qr)
fprintf('Reactor Diameter: %i m\n', reactD(r))
fprintf('Reactor Height: %i m\n', reactH(r))
fprintf('Reactor Volume: %i m^3\n\n', Vreact(r))
fprintf('Distillation 1:\n')
fprintf('Diameter: %i m\n', Diameter_1(r))
fprintf('Height: %i m\n', Height_1(r))
51
fprintf('Stages: %i \n', D1stages(r))

fprintf('Condenser Energy: %i J/s\n', D1cond(r))
fprintf('Condenser Surface Area: %i units\n', Ac1(r))
fprintf('Reboiler Energy: %i J/s\n', D1reboil(r))
fprintf('Reboiler Surface Area: %i units\n\n', Ar1(r))
fprintf('Reactor Operating Cost: %i MM $/yr\n', React(r)/10^6)
fprintf('Distillation 1 Operating Cost: %i MM $/yr\n', (C_1(r)+R_1(r))/10^6)
fprintf('Distillation 2 Operating Cost: %i MM $/yr\n', (C_2(r)+R_2(r))/10^6)
fprintf('Distillation 3 Operating Cost: %i MM $/yr\n\n', (C_3(r)+R_3(r))/10^6)
fprintf('Reactor Fixed Cost: %i MM $/yr\n', installed_react_cost(r)/10^6)
fprintf('Distillation 1 Fixed Cost: %i MM $/yr\n',
(installed_dist_cost_1(r)+installed_heat_cost_dr1(r)+installed_heat_cost_dc1(r))/10^6)
fprintf('Distillation 2 Fixed Cost: %i MM $/yr\n',
fprintf('Distillation 3 Fixed Cost: %i MM $/yr\n\n',
fprintf('Econ Stuff:\n')
fprintf('Profit Before Taxes: %f MM $/yr\n', P_bt(r)/10^6)
fprintf('Fixed Capital: %f MM $\n', FC(r)/10^6)
fprintf('alpha_wc: %f\n', alpha_wc(r))
fprintf('TCI: %f MM $\n', TCI(r)/10^6)
fprintf('Return on Investment (TI): %f percent/yr\n', ROI_bt(r))
fprintf('NPV(0): %f MM $\n', NPV0(r)/10^6)
fprintf('NPV percent: %f percent/yr\n', NPVpercent(r))
fprintf('NPV project: %f MM $\n', NPVproj(r)/10^6)
fprintf('Operating Cost: %f MM $/yr\n', C(r)/10^6)
fprintf('Cost of ethanol: %i MM $/yr\n', Pay(r)/10^6)
fprintf('Value of ethyl acetate: %i MM $/yr\n', Sell(r)/10^6)
fprintf('Value of hydrogen: %i MM $/yr\n\n', Extra(r)/10^6)
52
Design2EconHYSYS
clear;clc;
MWa = 46.07;
MWea = 88.105;
MWw = 18.02;
MWs = 2.016;
MWde = 74.12;
PeaT = 1.1392*10^9;
PsT = 2.3983*10^9;
%selectivity
s = 10/11;
%flow rates
Pea_kg = 105.7*10^6;
Pea = Pea_kg*1000*(1/88.105);
Fa =2*Pea/s;
Ps = 2*Pea;
Pde = Pea*(1/s - 1);
Pw = Pea*(1/s - 1);
Fa_kg = Fa*MWa*(1/1000);
Pde_kg = Pde*MWde*(1/1000);
%costs
Cost_pea = 1.30;
Cost_a = 0.70;
Cost_s = 0.31;
Cost_cat = 4;
electricity_cost = 0.06;
%%%%%stuff from HYSYS
%Process Furnances
Fd_furn = 1.00;
Fm_furn = 0;
Fp_furn = 0;
Fc_furn = Fd_furn + Fm_furn + Fp_furn;
%process furnace (heater 2) before distillation 1
QBR = 3.76269*10^6*1000*8000;
QBR_Btu = QBR/(1055*8000)*10^-6;
%kg/yr
%mol/yr
%mol/yr
%mol/yr
%kg/yr
%kg/yr
%ethyl acetate $/kg

%ethanol $/kg
%hydrogen $/lb
%catalyst $/kg
%$/kWh
%process heater
%carbon steel
%Up to 500 psi
%J/yr
%10^6 Btu/hr
%cooler (heater 3) in between d2 and d3

53
QBD = 915546*1000*8000;
%if don't have Acbet use the following with QBD
Tfin = 4.4+273;
Tout = 75.65+273;
Tfout = 10+273;
Tin = 163.5+273;
TlmCafter = ((Tfin-Tout)-(Tfout-Tin))/log((Tfin-Tout)/(Tfout-Tin));
Uc = 800;
%J/yr*m^2 K s/J*1/K*1 yr/31556926 s = m^2
%m^2*10.76 ft^2/m^2 = ft^2
Acbet = abs(QBD/(Uc*(TlmCafter))*10.76/31556926);
%Reactor process furnace

QrJ = 7.562*10^6
*1000*8000;
QrBtu =
QrJ/(1055*8000)*10^-6;
Btu/hr
%Reactor
Vol = 41.5;
Vcat = Vol/2;
r = 1/100;
Aft = 2*Vol/r*10.76;
%J/yr
%J/yr
%10^6
%m^3
%m
%ft
%cooler in between reactor and flash drum (heater 1)

QAR = -2.38701*10^7*1000*8000;
%energy removed = J/yr
%coolant = refrigerated water
coolant_cost = 5.7;
%$/GJ
%if don't have Acafter use the following with QAR
Tfin = 4.4+273;
T_drum = -18.15+273;
Tfout = 10+273;
reactT = 285+273;
TlmCafter = ((Tfin-T_drum)-(Tfout-reactT))/log((Tfin-T_drum)/(Tfout-reactT));
Uc = 800;
%J/yr*m^2 K s/J*1/K*1 yr/31556926 s = m^2
%m^2*10.76 ft^2/m^2 = ft^2
Acafter = abs(QAR)/(Uc*(TlmCafter))*10.76/31556926;
%distillation columns
%distillation column heat exchangers
Fd_dr = 1.35; Fp_dr = 0; Fm_dr = 1;
Fd_cr = 1; Fp_cr = 0; Fm_cr = 1;
Fh_dr = (Fd_dr+Fp_dr)*Fm_dr;
Fh_dc = (Fd_cr+Fp_cr)*Fm_cr;
H_steam1 = 1755; H_steam2 = 2213;
steam_cost1 = 6.74/1000;
steam_cost2 = 2.38/1000;
%distillation column
54
%Fs depends on tray spacing 24 in = 1, 18 in = 1.4, 12 in = 2.2

%tray spacing 0.6 meters
Fs_dist = 1;
%Sieve tray type
Ft_dist = 0;
%Tray material: CS = 0, SS = 1.7, Monel = 8.9
Fm_dist = 0;
Fc_dist1 = Fs_dist+Ft_dist+Fm_dist;
D1stages = 35.1;
D2stages = 30.8;
D3stages = 25.8;
%tray_h is the height in ft
tray_h1 = 3*2 + 2*D1stages;
%d is diameter in ft
d1 = 1/6*tray_h1;
d2 = 1/6*tray_h2;
d3 = 1/6*tray_h3;
D1reboil = 4.439*10^6;
%J/s
D2reboil = 3.4165*10^6;
D3reboil = 5.2389*10^6;
D1cond = -4.9115*10^6;
D2cond = -4.8935*10^6;
D3cond = -5.0817*10^6;
%use if don't have surface area
Tfin = 4.4+273;
Tfout = 10+273;
Tcout1 = 441;
Tcin1 = 335;
Tcout2 = 441;
Tcin2 = 441;
Tcout3 = 348;
Tcin3 = 349;
Treboil1 = 464;
Treboil2 = 464; Treboil3 = 373;
TlmC1 = ((Tfin-Tcout1)-(Tfout-Tcin1))/log((Tfin-Tcout1)/(Tfout-Tcin1));
Ts1 = 242+273; Ts2 = 121+273;
TavR1 = Ts1 - Treboil1; TavR2 = Ts1 - Treboil2; TavR3 = Ts2 - Treboil3;
%steam and organic liquid
Ur = 820;
%W/(m^2*K)
%steam and water
Ur3 = 1430;
%cooling water and organic
Uc = 800;
%J/s*(m^2 K s/J)*K^-1 [=] m^2
%m^2*(10.76 ft^2/m^2) [=] ft^2
Ar1 = D1reboil/(Ur*TavR1)*10.76;
Ar2 = D2reboil/(Ur*TavR2)*10.76;
Ar3 = D3reboil/(Ur3*TavR3)*10.76;
Ac1 = D1cond/(Uc*TlmC1)*10.76;
55
CuOdensity = 6.31;
CoOdensity = 6.44;
Cr2O3density = 5.22;
%marshal and swift factor for 210Q1
MS=1461.3;
%Reactor
%shell material use carbon steel
Fm_react = 1.00;
%P = 1 atm Fp = 1; P = 5 atm Fp = 1.05; P = 10 atm Fp = 1.15
%1 atm = 14.7 psi
Fp_react = 1.00;
Fc_react = Fm_react + Fp_react;
Fm_heat=1.00;
%material factor for CS/Ti
Fp_heat=0;
%pressure factor for up to 150psi
Fd_heat=1.0;
factor Floating head
Fh_heat=(Fd_heat+Fp_heat)*Fm_heat;
Douglas
%type
%F factor from gutheric Apendix E.2 of
%fraction of start up capital = SU/FC = alpha_su

alpha_su = 0.1;
%fraction of fixed capital spent in start up years
a_2 = 0;
a_1 = 0.3;
a0 = 0.7;
%fraction of p_bt obtained in start up years = 3
startupyrs = 3;
b1 = 0.5;
b2 = 0.8;
b3 = 1.0;
%construction rate = CR, finance rate = FR, tax rate = TR, complementary tax rate = TRC
CR = 0.1;
FR = 0.08;
TR = 0.5;
TRC = 1-TR;
%sigma_b = used in NPV0 calculation; note need to change if start up yr > 3
sigma_b = b1*(1+FR)^-1+b2*(1+FR)^-2+b3*(1+FR)^-3+(1+FR)^-3*((1-(1+FR)^-7)/FR);
%sigma = used in NPV0 calculation; not for n = 10 years = lifetime of plant
sigma = (1-(1+FR)^-10)/FR;
% needed values
PS = 2; % project start time
PL = 12; % project lifetime
%%%%%Economic Parameters
%Costing
% Revenue
56
% R = EA val + H2 val - A cost (Water Sellable???)

% R($/yr) = ($/kg)*(mol/yr)*(g/mol [MW])*(kg/1000g) [=] $/yr
Sell = Cost_pea*PeaT*MWea*(1/1000);
Pay = Cost_a*Fa*MWa*(1/1000);
%$/lb*mol/yr*(g/mol [MW])*(0.0022lbs/g)
Extra= Cost_s*PsT*MWs*0.0022;
R = Sell-Pay+Extra;
%Operating Cost Calculations
% Operating Costs are the utility cost to run that piece of equipment
% C = React + Sep System
%cm^3*$/kg*g/cm^3*1kg/1000g*2/yr
CatCost = Vcat*Cost_cat*catdensity*(1/1000)*2;
%use Dowtherm over steam
%using a process furnace to circulate the Dowtherm
%operating cost is the cost fuel
%J/yr*(1.62 $/MM Btu)*(1 Btu/1055 J)*(1 MM Btu/10^6 Btu) = $/yr
Cost_Heat = abs(QrJ)*1.62/1055*10^-6;
%Heater before reactor operating cost
%J/yr*$/MM Btu*Btu/J*1 MM Btu/10^6 Btu
Cost_Heat_2 = abs(QBR)*1.62/(1055 *10^6);
%Cooler after reactor operating cost
%J/yr*$/GJ*GJ/10^9J
Cost_Cool = abs(QAR)*coolant_cost*10^-9;
Cost_Cool_2 = QBD*coolant_cost*10^-9;
React = CatCost + Cost_Heat + Cost_Heat_2 + Cost_Cool+Cost_Cool_2; %$/yr
%distillation operating cost
%Condenser Costs = coolant
%$/GJ*J/s*(GJ/10^9 J)*(31556926s/yr)
C_1 = coolant_cost*abs(D1cond)*(31556926)*10^-9;
%Reboiler = heater
%$/kg*kg/kJ*J/s*31556926s/yr*1kJ/1000J
R_1 = steam_cost1*abs(D1reboil)*(1/H_steam1)*31556926*(1/1000);
dist_op_cost = C_1+C_2+C_3+R_1+R_2+R_3;
Sep = dist_op_cost;
C = React+Sep;
% Profit Before Tax = Revenue - Operating Costs
P_bt = (R - C);
%$/yr
%$/yr
%Equipment Cost Calculations

%installed costs
%Reactor Installed Cost
installed_react_cost = (MS/280)*(101.3*Aft^0.65)*(Fh_heat+2.29);
57
%Distillation Installed Cost

%distillation 1
installed_dist_cost_1 = (MS/280)*4.7*d1^1.55*tray_h1*Fc_dist1;
%distillation 2
%distillation 3
%area needs to be in feet squared
%reboiler distillation 1
installed_heat_cost_dr1=(MS/280)*(101.3*Ar1^(0.65))*(Fh_dr+2.29);
%condenser distillation 1
installed_heat_cost_dc1=(MS/280)*(101.3*Ac1^(0.65))*(Fh_dc+2.29);
%total distillation heaters
installed_heat_cost_d = installed_heat_cost_dr1 + installed_heat_cost_dr2 + installed_heat_cost_dr3 +
installed_heat_cost_dc1 + installed_heat_cost_dc2 + installed_heat_cost_dc3;
%reactor process furnance
installed_furn1_cost = (MS/280)*(5.52*10^3)*QrBtu^0.85*(1.27+Fc_furn);
%before reactor heater
installed_furn2_cost = (MS/280)*(5.52*10^3)*QBR_Btu^0.85*(1.27+Fc_furn);
%cooler in between reactor and flash drum
installed_heatafter_cost = (MS/280)*(101.3*Acafter^0.65)*(Fh_dc+2.29);
%total
installed_heatbetween_cost = (MS/280)*(101.3*Acbet^0.65)*(Fh_dc+2.29);
%total
installed_furn_cost = installed_furn1_cost + installed_furn2_cost + installed_heatafter_cost +
installed_heatbetween_cost;
%Fixed Capital = Direct Costs + Indirect Costs
%the cost of mixers and pumps are negligible
sepfix = installed_dist_cost_1 + installed_dist_cost_2 + installed_dist_cost_3 + installed_heat_cost_d;
OnsiteCosts = real(installed_react_cost + sepfix + installed_furn_cost);
FC = (OnsiteCosts)*1.25*1.45;
%Working Capital Calculation
Fa_wc = 2*Pea/1;
%mol/yr*$/kg*g/mol [MW]*1kg/1000g
wc_Fa_cost = Fa_wc*Cost_a*MWa*(1/1000);
WC = (wc_Fa_cost)/4;
%mol/yr
58
%fraction of working capital = WC/FC = alpha_wc

alpha_wc = WC/FC;
%sigma_a = used in TCI calculation
sigma_a = a_2*(1+CR)^2+a_1*(1+CR)+a0+alpha_wc+alpha_su;
aprime = TRC*sigma_b;
bprime = (0.1*TR*(1+alpha_su)-TRC*FR*sigma_a)*sigma+(TRC*(alpha_wc+alpha_su)-sigma_a)*(1+FR)^10;
aa = aprime*(1+FR)^-PS;
b = bprime*(1+FR)^-PS;
c = (aa*(1+alpha_wc+alpha_su))/(sigma_a*PL);
d = b/(sigma_a*PL);
%TCI needed quantity according to packet
TCI = (FC*sigma_a);
TI = FC*(1+alpha_wc+alpha_su);
% return on investment before taxes = ROI_bt
ROI_bt = (P_bt/TI)*100;
% net present value at year 0 = NPV0 (0 = start of operations period)
NPV0 = (TRC*P_bt*sigma_bTRC*FR*TCI*sigma+0.1*TR*(FC*(1+alpha_su))*sigma+(TRC*FC*(alpha_su+alpha_wc)-TCI)*(1+FR)^-10);
NPVproj = (NPV0*(1+FR)^-PS);
NPVpercent = ((c*ROI_bt+d));
fprintf('Econ Stuff:\n')
fprintf('Profit Before Taxes: %f MM $/yr\n', P_bt/10^6)
fprintf('Fixed Capital: %f MM $\n', FC/10^6)
fprintf('alpha_wc: %f\n', alpha_wc)
fprintf('TCI: %f MM $\n', TCI/10^6)
fprintf('Return on Investment (TI): %f percent/yr\n', ROI_bt)
fprintf('NPV(0): %f MM $\n', NPV0/10^6)
fprintf('NPV percent: %f percent/yr\n', NPVpercent)
fprintf('NPV project: %f MM $\n', NPVproj/10^6)
fprintf('Operating Cost: %f MM $/yr\n', C/10^6)
fprintf('Cost of ethanol: %i MM $/yr\n', Pay/10^6)
fprintf('Value of ethyl acetate: %i MM $/yr\n', Sell/10^6)
fprintf('Value of hydrogen: %i MM $/yr\n\n', Extra/10^6)
fprintf('Reactor Operating Cost: %i MM $/yr\n', (CatCost + Cost_Heat)/10^6)
fprintf('Heat Exchanger 1: %i MM $/yr\n', Cost_Cool/10^6)
fprintf('Heat Exchanger 2: %i MM $/yr\n', Cost_Heat_2/10^6)
fprintf('Heat Exchanger 3: %i MM $/yr\n', Cost_Cool_2/10^6)
fprintf('Distillation 1 Operating Cost: %i MM $/yr\n', (C_1+R_1)/10^6)
fprintf('Distillation 2 Operating Cost: %i MM $/yr\n', (C_2+R_2)/10^6)
fprintf('Distillation 3 Operating Cost: %i MM $/yr\n\n', (C_3+R_3)/10^6)
fprintf('Reactor Fixed Cost: %i MM $\n', (installed_react_cost+installed_furn1_cost)/10^6)
fprintf('Heat Exchanger 1: %i MM $\n', installed_heatafter_cost/10^6)
fprintf('Heat Exchanger 2: %i MM $\n', installed_furn2_cost/10^6)
59
fprintf('Heat Exchanger 3: %i MM $\n', installed_heatbetween_cost/10^6)

fprintf('Distillation 1 Fixed Cost: %i MM $\n',
(installed_dist_cost_1+installed_heat_cost_dr1+installed_heat_cost_dc1)/10^6)
fprintf('Distillation 2 Fixed Cost: %i MM $\n',
fprintf('Distillation 3 Fixed Cost: %i MM $\n\n',
Bibliography
Bernard Silberstein, H. B. (1969). Kinetics of Homogeneously Catalyzed Gas-Liquid Reactions.

Chlorination of Benzene with Stannic Chloride Catalyst. Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Fundamentals, 8 (3), 365-374 .
Doherty, M. (2011). Production of Ethyl Acetate Solvent via Green Technology. Santa Barbara.
Douglas, J. M. (2011). Conceptual design of chemical processes. New York: Mcgraw Hill.
M&S. (2010, January ). Economic Indicators. Chemical Engineering, p. 64.
Mellichamp, D. A. (2011). Evaluating Plant Profitability in a Risk-Return Context. Santa Barbara:
University of California.
60

Ethyl Acetate Design Project

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethyl Acetate Design Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethyl Acetate Design Project

University of California Santa Barbara

Goals and Introduction

Azeotrope Conceptual Design

In the first and second column, the high

Figure 1 Ternary map of ethanol, water, and ethyl acetate at 12 atm.

Recycle Surge Tank

Figure 2 Process Control Flowsheet

Economic Design and Analysis

Economic Cash Flow Analysis

Increase/decrease the cost of the ethanol

Increase/decrease the value of ethyl acetate

Increase/decrease the construction rate.

Decrease/increase the finance rate.

New political leadership drastically lowers tax rate.

Competitor enters market in year 5 reducing profits.

Sell Price Drop

How low can the selling price of ethyl acetate go?

Raw Material Raise

How high can the cost of ethanol go?

At what finance rate does the NPVzero equal zero?

Operate at a 90% conversion

Figure B.4 RTI increases as temperature increases and pressure decreases

Figure B. 5 NPVproj increases with temperature and decreases with pressure

Figure 6 NPV% is optimized at 285K and 1 atm

Figure B. 7 TCI is optimized at 255K and 10 atm

Figure B.8 94.6MMKg/yr are produced at 285K and 10 atm

Appendix B.7: ASPEN Plus Distillation system design

Hydrogen Pay: 3.3 MM $/yr

Ethanol Cost: 85.1 MM $/yr

Diethyl ether out: 9 MM kg/yr

Water out: 2 MM kg/yr

Ethyl Acetate Pay: 130.5 MM $/yr

Ethanol Feed: 120 MM kg/yr

Diethyl ether out: 9 MM kg/yr

Hydrogen out: 5 MM kg/yr

Water out: 2 MM kg/yr

Ethyl Acetate out: 100 MM kg/yr

Appendix C: Discounted Cash Flow Statement

Recycle Surge Tank

Discounted Cash Flow Table

d Capital and Profit_BT are the two independent variables.

All dollar amounts in table represent millions of dollars.

alpha_Work ing Capital

Yields Tot.Cap.Inv. TI =FC +WC +SU

Year DesignConstruction Period

Fixed Capital in Y-2

0 Total of Capital Outlays

WC & SV Total Profit Bond Interest

NPV-proj [NPV (0)

NPV Increase per Year

Discounted Cash Flow Table

All dollar amounts in table represent millions of dollars.

alpha_Work ing Capital

Fixed Capital in Y-2

Year DesignConstruction Period

Yields Tot.Cap.Inv. TI =FC +WC +SU

0 Total of Capital Outlays

WC & SV Total Profit Bond Interest

NPV-proj [NPV (0)

NPV Increase per Year

NPV (0) Avg.

Discounted Cash Flow Table

All dollar amounts in table represent millions of dollars.