Facts At Your Fingertips

Distillation: Comparing Experiments and Simulations

Department Editor; Scott Jenkins
Actual equilibrium line
o mputer-generated simula-

C
Stage n

P
Pseudo-equilibrium

Vapor mole fraction water

Vapor mole fraction water
pppop
tions of distillation processes line representing
Murphree efficiency
are often validated experimen­

-■■■
tally. This reference discusses three
concepts that influence comparisons
between experimental results and Operating lines
Murphree efficiency
simulation predictions: vapor-liquid equation:

P
equilibrium (VLE) of the components; Yn-Yg.1
Feed line
relative liquid-to-vapor flowrates (LA/ Em =
Yn'-Yn-I
ratios in the column); and vapor-liquid
0.4
contactor (tray) efficiency. Under­ 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
standing these concepts can help ex­ Liquid mole fraction water Liquid mole fraction water
plain discrepancies between experi­ FIGURE 1. Murphree efficiency represents how close the actual vapor composition comes to reaching
mental data and simulation results. equilibrium with the liquid on an actual distillation tray. Non-attainment of equilibrium is shown as a
pseudo-equilibrium line on a McCabe-Thiele diagram

vapor-liquid equilibrium closer the composition is to a pinch in a distillation column, but in real col-
The relative volatility of an ideal binaryzone or azeotrope, the greater the ef- umns, the vapor leaving a tray is sel­
dom in equilibrium with the liquid from
chemical system is equal to the ratio of feet of errors in the VLE prediction,
the two pure-component vapor pres­ that tray. The difference between the
sures. If the components’ interactions Liquid/vapor ratios actual and equilibrium vapor compo­
are close to ideal and the components The relative vapor-to-liquid flowrates sitions can be expressed as a Mur-
within the column are not only deter- phree vapor efficiency. Values tend to
have sufficient relative volatility (>2),
then small errors in VLE predictionsmined by the feedrate, reflux ratio, range from 50-75% for lab-and pilot-
boilup ratio, and distillate-to-bottoms scale columns, but can lie outside this
may not significantly affect the sepa­
ratio, but also by heat effects. Exces- range. The Murphree vapor efficiency
ration. However, if the relative volatil­
ity is small (<1.5), deviations between sive heat loss from a high-tempera-is an indication of how closely the va­
predicted and actual VLE will lead to ture column with many stages can por composition in an actual distilla­
large differences between the actual significantly increase the internal re-tion tray approaches equilibrium with
and predicted number of stagesflux. re This heat loss reduces both the the liquid leaving that tray (Figure 1).
quired to accomplish the separation. liquid and vapor flowrates as one At 100% efficiency, the number of
Non-ideal systems often have a progresses up the column. The LA/ actual trays required for a separation
pinch at the upper or lower end of ratio will be the lowest at the top of would equal the number of theoretical
the binary VLE curve (vapor and liquid the column, where it can be experi- trays. At efficiencies less than 100%,
compositions of both components are mentally determined from the reflux the required number of actual trays
nearly equal). The pinch is usually at and distillate flowrates, will be greater than this theoretical
the upper (right-hand) end of the VLE However, the LA/ ratio will progres- number. Therefore, if the actual tray
curve. Here, the actual vapor pres- sively increase as one moves down efficiencies are lower than predicted,
sure of the heavy-boiling component the column, due to condensation of more actual trays will be required to
is nearly equal to that of the light-boil- the vapor. This effect can be thought accomplish a desired separation than
ing component, due to the increased of as an increase in the effective re- would be anticipated based on the
liquid-phase activity coefficient of the flux ratio going down the column, required number of theoretical trays
heavy-boiling component at infinite di- This increase in IVV ratios due to heat and the predicted efficiency. Without
lution. With sufficient non-ideality, the loss will cause the column to have a properly accounting for the reduced
activity coefficient of the heavy-boiling better separation than predicted by efficiency, the separation will appear
component will become even greater, a computer simulation, but at the to be more difficult than predicted,
causing the heavy-boiling component's expense of higher energy costs and The efficiency of packed columns is
actual vapor pressure to exceed that of lower capacity than expected. With- routinely expressed as HETP (height
the light-boiling component at infinite out understanding that the actual L/V equivalent to a theoretical plate). If the
dilution of the heavy-boiling compo- ratios are different than expected, actual HETP is greater than predicted,
nent. This is the case for minimum- the VLE curve would appear to be the column will contain less theoreti-
boiling azeotropes, and at the azeo-more open (higher relative volatility or cal stages than predicted, producing
trope composition, the actual mixture less pinched) than is really the case, similar results to a column with trays
vapor pressures (pure-component va­ that have lower efficiencies.
por pressure x activity coefficient at the Efficiencies
Editor's note: This column was adapted from Graham. G.
component’s liquid concentration) of Process simulators generally use Pednekar, R and Burning, 0.. Experimental Validation ol Col­
the two components will be equal. The theoretical stages to represent trays umn Simulations, Ghent. Eng., February 2018. pp. 30-37.

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHEMENGONLINE.COM DECEMBER 2018 31