Cover Story
DISTILLATION:
Revisiting Some
Rules of Thumb
C. M. Lek
Singapore Armed Forces
G. P. Rangaiah and K. Hidajat
National University of Singapore
istillation is the most common
D unit operation for separating
liquid mixtures into valuable
and/or high purity products. It
is also one of the most energy-
intensive operations. Hence, optimiza-
tion of distillation-column design and
operation should get high priority.
Numerous distillation heuristics
(rules of thumb) for quick optimiza-
tion have emerged over the years. For
instance, heuristics on optimal reflux
ratio as a certain multiple of the mini-
mum reflux ratio have been widely
used as quick tools to estimate opti-
mum reflux ratio.
However, changes over time in the
relative cost of equipment and energy
(which affects operating cost) can af-
fect the validity of such rules of
thumb. Meanwhile, it has now become
more feasible to assess their validity,
as today’s availability of commercial
simulators and high-speed computers
allows rigorous and thus more-accu-
rate distillation calculations be car-
ried out with relative ease.
This article assesses the validity of
optimal-reflux-ratio and other heuris-
tics in light of recent cost data, by con-
sidering seven binary and six multi-
component systems. Distillation
columns for each of the 13 have been
designed and optimized by both short-
cut (heuristics-based) calculations
and rigorous simulations. In addition
to the reassessment, a key observa-
50 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM SEPTEMBER 2004
Heuristics regarding optimal reflux ratio and number
of stages, as well as the selection of the feed stage,
get some reassessment here, consistent with
changes in the relative costs of equipment and energy
tion emerges: that the cost of a column
designed by shortcut calculations can
be reduced substantially by optimiz-
ing the location of the feed stage.
Laying the groundwork
The reflux ratio is a key variable, af-
fecting both the capital cost and the
operating cost of a column. As the re-
flux increases, the number of stages
and the column height both decrease
but the flowrates in the column and,
consequently, its diameter increase.
Despite that diameter increase, the
capital cost of the column generally
decreases as the reflux increases, be-
cause the savings in tower height
more than offset the cost of the in-
crease in diameter. However this is
not the case at very high reflux ratios.
And as alternatives having succes-
sively higher reflux ratios are com-
pared with each other, there is a par-
ticular, high ratio at which the capital
cost of the column begins to rise again
[7]. In addition, the capital as well as
the operating costs for the reboiler
and condenser will rise in proportion
to the vapor rate in the column.
Column optimization, therefore, re-
flects a balance between (1) the capi-
tal cost, which decreases (to a certain
point, as just discussed) as reflux in-
creases, and (2) the operating cost,
which increases as the reflux in-
creases. The total cost is minimum at
an intermediate reflux ratio.
Part 1.
Generally speaking, the number of
theoretical stages at the optimal reflux
has been stated as being on the order
of twice the minimum number of theo-
retical plates (corresponding to total
reflux), and the optimal reflux ratio,
Ropt, as being in the range of 1.1 to 1.5
times the minimum reflux ratio, Rmin
[1]. A study described in this magazine
over 30 years ago [19] evaluated a
large number of cases, mainly via
shortcut methods, and stated that Ropt
lies between 1.1 and 1.6 times Rmin,
the lower value being favored by high
relative volatilities. Conversely, rela-
tive volatilities closer to unity and
sharper separations were said to re-
quire higher values of Ropt/Rmin within
the above range. Since then, many ar-
ticles and books have recommended
estimates of Ropt/Rmin for various situ-
ations, as summarized in Table 1. The
range of recommended Ropt/Rmin val-
ues in the open literature is 1.05 to 1.6,
with the lower value for systems in-
volving refrigerants and the higher
value for systems using cooling water.
Despite the diversity in ranges in
Table 1, the use of a rule-of-thumb on
optimal reflux ratio as a certain multi-
ple of the minimum reflux ratio has
been widespread and, indeed, has
proved beneficial over recent decades
as a quick method to estimate opti-
mum reflux ratio. But as mentioned
earlier, the relative costs of equipment
and energy (which affects utilities)
 TABLE 2. DETAILS OF BINARY EXAMPLES
Example Components Feed Mole Feed Column Product Purity
No.* Fraction Conditions Pressure Specifications (mole%)
1 Benzene 0.45 700 lb-mol /h, Pcond : 0.98 atm Top : 92% Benzene
Toluene 0.55 1 atm , sat. liq. Preb : 1 atm Btm : 95% Toluene
2 i-Butane 0.233 30,000 bbl/d, Pcond : 42 psia Top : 91.7% i-Butane
n-Butane 0.767 50 psia, sat. liq. (refrigerant) Btm : 90% n-Butane
Preb : 50 psia
3 Propylene 0.5045 84.2 m3/d, Pcond : 1.798 MPa Top : 96.2% Propylene
Propane 0.4955 1.86 MPa, sat. liq. Preb : 1.86 MPa Btm : 91.1% Propane
4 Acetone 0.5 500 lb-mol /h, Pcond : 0.98 atm Top : 91% Acetone
Water 0.5 1 atm, 55% vap Preb : 1 atm Btm : 97.8% Water
5 n-Hexane 0.55 200 kmol/h, Pcond : 0.98 atm Top : 95% n-Hexane
p-Xylene 0.45 1 atm, 50% vap Preb : 1 atm Btm : 97% p-Xylene
6 Methanol 0.54 10,000 lb/h, Pcond : 0.98 atm Top : 99% Methanol
1,4-Dioxane 0.46 1 atm, sat. liq. Preb : 1 atm Btm : 98% Dioxane
7 Methanol 0.7 12,000 lb/h, Pcond : 0.98 atm Top : 99% Methanol
Water 0.3 1 atm, sat. liq. Preb : 1 atm Btm : 99% Water
*Sources for Examples: 1 and 2 from Peters and Timmerhaus (1991); 3 and 4 from King (1980); 5 to 7 from Doherty and Malone (2000).
Items in italics indicate unavailable specifications, or ones modified to allow column optimization by varying the reflux ratio.
Thermodynamic package used: Peng-Robinson for Eamples 1, 2, 3 and 5; and NRTL for Examples 4, 6 and 7.
Cooling water for cold utility unless stated otherwise.
Pcond = pressure at condenser; Preb = pressure at reboiler

have been changing, particularly dur- TABLE 1. RECOMMENDED VALUES FOR THE
ing the latter years of that time period. OPTIMUM-TO-MINIMUM REFLUX RATIO IN THE LITERATURE
Furthermore, some of the early stud- Reference Ropt/Rmin Remarks
ies on optimal reflux ratio were based Van Winkle and Todd, 1.1 to 1.6 Lower values for high relative
on shortcut calculation methods or 1971 [19] volatilities
graphical correlations, whereas today, Brian,1972 [1] 1.1 to 1.5
rigorous calculations (with more-accu- Frank,1977 [4] 1.05 to 1.1 Low-level refrig. (< -150°F)
rate results) can be made with ease. 1.1 to 1.2 High-level refrig.
Such calculations can assess the 1.2 to 1.3 Water- and air-cooled condensers
suitability of the heuristics on opti-
Zdonik,1977 [21] 1.25 Generally accepted
mum reflux ratio with current cost
1.1 to 1.2 With increased energy costs
data and, if necessary, update those
heuristics. Furthermore, it is possible King,1980 [7]; Walas, 1987 [20] 1.2
to determine whether, and how, the Thompson,1980 [15] 1.2 to 1.3 Common fractionators
capabilities of commercial simulators Perry, others, 1997 [13] 1.1 to 1.5 Petroleum-distillation columns
for rigorous distillation simulation 1.1 to 1.2 Refrig. is involved
can also be used for optimizing reflux 1.2 to 1.4 Cooling-tower water used in con-
ratio. Both of these questions are ad- densers
dressed in what follows, by consider- McCormick and Roche, 1.05 to 1.10 Low-level refrig. (-300 to -150°F)
ing industrially relevant applications 1979 [9] 1.10 to 1.20 High-level refrig. (-150 to 50°F)
that involve both binary and multi- 1.2 to 1.5 Cooling water
component mixtures. Along the way, 1.4 to 1.5 Air cooling
we also scrutinize the validity of some McCormick and Roche, 1.05 to 1.2
other heuristics for distillation-col- 1997 [10]
umn design. Peters, others, 2003 [12] 1.2 to 1.25
Equations and data for sizing and
costing of columns, including reboilers ponents (Table 2); the others involve The selected examples cover a wide
and condensers, are taken from the multiple components (Table 3). Be- range of design and operating condi-
open literature. This study is limited sides showing the components, Tables tions. Some operate at high pressures,
to simple (but not necessarily binary) 2 and 3 specify feed conditions, col- others at atmospheric pressure. A few
columns, each with a single feed umn pressure and product specifica- require a refrigerant as the cold util-
stream and two product streams. tions for each system. In a few cases, ity. The number of stages for the ex-
the specifications were either unavail- amples ranges from 9 (short columns)
Examples and procedures able in the original references or were to more than 100 (tall columns).
The 13 distillation examples also come modified to suit the needs of this study Steady state simulation and design
from the open literature, for the most (for instance, the reflux ratio should of column for each example is done
part. Seven examples have two com- not have a specified value). using HYSYS, the simulation system

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM SEPTEMBER 2004 51

 TABLE 3. DETAILS OF MULTICOMPONENT EXAMPLES
Example Components Feed Feed Column Product Purity
No.* Mole Conditions Pressure Specifications
Fraction (Mole %)
8 Nitrogen 0.0020 140.85 kmol/h, Pcond : 1,378 kPa Top : 0.6% n-Butane
CO2 0.0046 4,000 kPa, (refrigerant) Btm : 2% Propane
Methane 0.2412 sat. liq. partial condenser
Ethane 0.2576 (vapor distillate)
Propane 0.2561 Preb : 1,413 kPa
i-Butane 0.1219
n-Butane 0.1166
9 Propylene Oxide 0.0129 618.5 kmol/h, Pcond : 103 kPa Top : 2 X 10-5 %
Propylene Glycol 0.2296 120 kPa, sat. liq. Preb : 117 kPa Propylene Glycol
Water 0.7575 Btm : 0.5% Water
10 Propene 0.2158 1,000 lb-mol/h, Pcond : 97 psia Top : 4.74% 1-Butene
Propane 0.1817 100 psia, (refrigerant) Btm : 2.54% Propane
1-Butene 0.2010 sat. liq. Preb : 100 psia
n-Butane 0.2312
n-Pentane 0.1703
11 Acetone 0.20 1,000 kmol/h, Pcond : 0.98 atm Top : 2% Ethanol
Methanol 0.20 101.3 kPa, Preb : 1 atm Btm : 2% Methanol
Ethanol 0.20 sat. liq.
Water 0.20
1-Butanol 0.20
12 Propylene 0.0005 538 m.t./d, Pcond : 431.5 kPa Top : 1% n-pentane
Propane 0.0002 6.29 atm, Preb : 470.7 kPa Btm : 1% n-butane
1,3-Butadiene 0.3060 sat. liq.
n-Butane 0.4160
n-Pentane 0.2773
13 Ethane 0.0005 15m.t./h, Pcond : 1,380 kPa Top : 2% Propane
Propylene 0.9500 1,457.4 kPa, Preb : 1,450 kPa Btm : 50% Propene
Propane 0.0450 sat. liq.
Propadiene 0.0030
n-Butane 0.0015
*Sources of Examples: 8 and 9 from HYSYS Documentation; 10 from Van Winkle and Todd (1971);
11 from Ishii and Otto (2001); 12 and 13 from typical petrochemical industries.
Items in italics indicate unavailable specifications, or ones modified to allow column optimization by varying the reflux ratio.
Thermodynamic package used: Peng-Robinson for Examples 8, 10, 12 and 13; UNIQUAC for Example 9; and NRTL for Example 11.
Cooling water for cold utility unless stated otherwise.
Pcond = pressure at condenser; Preb = pressure at reboiler

readily available to the authors. For
predicting the mixture properties, an
appropriate thermodynamic model
(fluid package) is selected for each ex-
ample based on the recommendations
given in the HYSYS documentation,
and then verified by comparing its
predictions with the experimental
vapor-liquid equilibrium (VLE) data
in Reference [5]. Footnotes to Tables 2
and 3 spell out the thermodynamic
models thus selected.
For each example, the shortcut col-
umn in HYSYS is first used to esti-
mate Rmin, and the number of theoret-
ical stages and the feed stage location
for the chosen reflux ratio. These val-
ues then serve as the basis for rigor-
ous simulation of the column with re-
boiler and either total or partial
condenser (the latter is the choice
when the feed contains non-condens-
able components). To satisfy the prod-
uct specifications of each example in
Tables 2 and 3, HYSYS adjusts the re-
flux ratio and other quantities suit-
ably. Thus, the reflux ratio obtained
by rigorous simulation is slightly dif-
ferent from that obtained earlier by
shortcut calculations.
After each rigorous simulation, the
column, condenser and reboiler are
sized, and their combined cost is esti-
mated for optimization. The sizing
pertains to the height and diameter of
the distillation column and the design
of the condenser and reboiler. The col-
umn diameter depends mainly on the
velocity of the vapor stream within
the column: to avoid excessive liquid
entrainment or a high pressure drop,
the maximum gas velocity, Vmax, is
calculated in meters per second by the
following equation [14]:
Vmax = [-0.171S2 + 0.27S - 0.047]
3 [(rliq - rvap)/rvap]1/2
where S is tray spacing in meters and
rliq and rvap are the liquid and vapor
density, respectively.
In our examples, the vapor velocity
used for actual design is typically 80%
of Vmax. Because columns are custom-
arily fabricated in increments of 0.5 ft
in diameter, D, the diameters calcu-
lated are rounded up to the nearest
half foot. This practice results in a
lower vapor velocity and, hence, a
more conservative estimate.
Tray spacing, S depends on the col-
umn diameter, and is at least 0.5 m
for the sake of cleaning the trays [16].
Our designs take into account recom-
mendations [18] that the tray spacing
should be 0.5 m for columns with di-
ameters up to 1 m, and that for wider
columns, spacing should be a function
of column diameter:
S = 0.5D0.3
The column height, H, is deter-
mined by multiplying the number of
real trays by S and adding an extra
space of 1.5 to 3 m (5 to 10 ft) both at
the top of the tower for vapor-liquid
disengagement and at the bottom for a
liquid sump [3]. An overall efficiency
of 70% is used to calculate number of
real trays from the number of ideal
trays in the simulation.
The heat transfer areas of the con-
densers is estimated assuming an
overall heat transfer coefficient of 510
W/(m2)(K) [13]. For the reboilers, a

52 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM SEPTEMBER 2004

 TABLE 4. SELECTED RESULTS FROM RIGOROUS SIMULATION AND OPTIMIZATION OF ALL 13 EXAMPLES
Example Number of Feed Annualized Operating Total Ropt Rmin@ Ropt/Rmin Nmin@
Stages* Stage# Capital Cost, Cost,
Cost, $/yr $/yr $/yr
1 21 10 57,741 364,533 422,274 1.362 1.261 1.08 5.3
2 65 34 316,353 10,752,075 11,068,428 10.36 10.00 1.04 13.3
3 102 72 199,542 197,489 397,031 18.63 15.08 1.24 47.7
4 9 8 31,145 59,013 90,158 0.365 0.348 1.05 1.7
5 9 5 29,018 94,197 123,215 0.540 0.381 1.42 2.2
6 23 21 46,517 110,516 157,034 1.135 0.764 1.49 6.1
7 23 19 57,188 296,692 353,880 0.798 0.484 1.65 6.1
8 25 11 54,695 170,794 225,489 0.491 0.441 1.11 8.7
9 21 18 77,954 795,940 873,900 0.080 0.050 1.60 5.3
10 18 8 55,025 902,703 957,729 0.961 0.778 1.24 3.9
11 48 19 194,885 1,343,503 1,538,388 2.019 1.730 1.17 10.0
12 25 13 75,286 428,830 504,117 0.771 0.727 1.06 8.0
13 105 42 452,312 1,617,538 2,069,850 6.081 5.215 1.17 37.0
* Excluding reboiler and condenser.
# Counted from the top with condenser as zero.
@ Minimum reflux ratio and minimum number of stages (excluding reboiler and condenser) obtained from shortcut calculations.
Cost totals may not agree with cost components due to rounding.

conservative heat flux of 35,490 W/m2,
suggested by Reference [3], is used to
estimate the required areas.
Estimates of the costs
Fixed capital is the capital needed for
the plant to be ready for startup, and
it represents the capital cost of all
equipment, including installation and
auxiliaries, that are needed for the
complete process operation. Bare-
module cost equations, expressed as a
function of characteristic size of
equipment by Reference [17], are
used for estimating the capital cost of
the columns, condensers and reboil-
ers. However, these correlations are
in many cases applicable for certain
size ranges only. In examples where
the size of the equipment exceeds the
upper limit, then the usage of the
minimum number of multiple units of
that upper-limit size within the ap-
plicable range is assumed, for a con-
servative estimate.
As the cost data are historical and
subject to inflation, the Chemical En-
gineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI) is
used to update capital and operating
costs to January 2002 (CEPCI =
390.3). Annualized capital costs are
found using an annualization factor of
15% to account for depreciation, inter-
est and maintenance associated with
the equipment.
The operating cost for distillation
columns consists mainly of utility costs
for heating in the reboiler and cooling
in the condenser. In the examples, util-
ity costs are estimated using cost equa-
tions given in Reference [18], which
contain two separately escalating com-
ponents. One is due to materials and
labor, which inflates at a rate typified
by the CEPCI, and the other is energy
(fuel) cost, which escalates at a differ-
ent rate. In this study, fuel price is
taken to be $2.516/GJ based on a typi-
cal price of $0.40/gal for residual fuel oil
in January 2002 (from http://www.
eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_
publications/petroleum_marketing_
monthly/pmm.html) with a heating
value of 42 GJ/m3 [18]. All other cost
data are also in U.S. dollars, and the
column is assumed to operate for 8,500
hours per year (97% onstream time).
Varying the reflux ratio
We wish to find the reflux ratio that is
optimal while continuing to meet the
given product specifications, but the
only way to do so in the rigorous simu-
lation is by changing number of stages
and feed stage. It was found that these
two quantities could not be used as de-
cision variables in the built-in opti-
mizer of HYSYS. Following a sugges-
tion from Hyprotech’s support group,
Visual Basic programs were devel-
oped for optimizing the column by
varying the number of stages and/or
the location of the feed stage (in larger
steps initially over a wider range, and
then in single steps over a shorter
range). The steps in the Visual Basic
Program are as follows:
1. Select total number of stages, Nt,
and the feed stage, Nf
2. Transfer Nt and Nf to HYSYS, and
instruct HYSYS to perform a rigor-
ous simulation
3. Collect column data (for example,
temperatures, flowrates, exchanger
duties) in Excel
4. Based on those data, find the size
and the cost the column, reboiler
and condenser in Excel
5. Sort the costing results for the user
to identify the optimal point.
What was found
The results of minimizing the total
cost of each column by varying both
the number of stages and feed stage
are summarized in Table 4. In this
table and Table 5, the number of
stages excludes the reboiler and the
condenser; they and the feed stage
refer to theoretical or equilibrium
stages. The feed stage is counted from
the column top, with the condenser
counted as zero.
Values of Ropt/Rmin for many of the
examples fall within the range of 1.05
to 1.6 as suggested in the literature
(Table 1); the exceptions are Exam-
ples 2 and 7 with Ropt/Rmin equaling
1.04 and 1.65 respectively.
Examples 1, 4 to 10, and 12 require
short towers with 9 to 25 theoretical
stages, which results in low capital
cost. Example 2 entails a very high op-
erating cost, as the separation re-
quires a refrigerant and very large ex-
changer duties; also, the tall column
and multiple heat exchangers for the
large feedrate of 30,000 bbl/day mean
a high capital cost.
Example 3 involves the difficult sep-
aration of propylene and propane, thus
requiring a tower of over 100 ideal
stage and hence incurring a large capi-

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM SEPTEMBER 2004 53

 Cover Story

tal cost. As for Example 10, al- TABLE 5. RESULTS BY SHORTCUT CALCULATIONS WITH ROPT/RMIN = 1.2,
though the column is short, a large FOLLOWED BY RIGOROUS SIMULATION AND FEED-STAGE OPTIMIZATION
feed rate of 1,000 mol/h and a sepa- Example Results for Ropt/Rmin = 1.2 Results for Ropt/Rmin = 1.2
ration requiring a refrigerant result after feed stage optimization
in a high operating cost. Examples Number of Feed % Increase Feed % Increase Ropt/Rmin
11 and 13 process large quantities stages stage in total cost Stage in total cost
of feed; accordingly, the bulk of the 1 15 7 3.1 7 3.1 1.19
total cost lies in the operating cost. 2 29 20 11.4 20 11.4 1.18
The optimal number of stages is 3 97 58 3.5 68 1.1 1.29
expected to be close to twice the 4 8 3 71.5 7 1.8 1.10
minimum number of stages [12]. 5 9 4 0.1 5 0 1.42
However, the results in Table 4 6 18 10 19.8 16 1.7 1.70
(Column 2 and last column) show 7 18 8 16.1 14 1.7 1.80
that this heuristic is generally not
8 25 14 3.1 11 0 1.11
valid.
9 25 25 29.0 22 0.2 1.40
To test the validity of the heuris-
tic saying that Ropt/Rmin equals 1.1 10 12 6 4.2 5 3.6 1.34
to 1.6, the column for each example 11 25 13 15.0 11 12.2 1.45
is first designed in accordance with 12 22 10 0.9 11 0.4 1.09
successive shortcut column calcula- 13 78 42 12.1 28 4.1 1.27
tions to estimate the number of Note: % increase in total cost is from the minimum total cost shown in Table 4.
stages and the feed stage assuming
that Ropt/Rmin equals 1.1 to 1.6 in in- that the feed stage from the shortcut feed stage optimization via minimizing
crements of 0.1; these estimates are calculations (for instance, for the reflux ratio. This equivalence is to
followed by a rigorous simulation and Ropt/Rmin equaling 1.2 in Table 5) is be expected, as the total cost is often
cost estimation. For each case, percent very different from the feed stage in dominated by operating cost when the
increase in total cost from the mini- Table 4, even if the total number of total number of stages is fixed.
mum total cost in Table 4 is calculated. stages is comparable. After the feed stage optimization,
Results from this extensive study In fact, Reference [7] points out that the feed-stage location, the Ropt/Rmin
show that the variation in percent in- the guideline for optimal feed stage is value and the percent increase in total
crease in total cost depends on the ex- that the ratio of key-component mole cost for Examples 1, 2, 5, 10 and 12
ample; it is within 11% in five exam- fractions in the liquid on the feed are comparable to those with the feed
ples (1, 5, 8, 10 and 12), but is stage should be close to the corre- stage determined by the shortcut cal-
significantly more in other examples. sponding ratio in the liquid part of the culations. On the other hand, the total
A reasonable value for Ropt/Rmin feed. The key-ratio plot in Figure 1 for cost decreases dramatically in Exam-
within 1.1 to 1.6 is 1.2. Results for this Example 4 indicates that the feed- ples 4, 6, 7, 9 and 13. In the other
particular case (Columns 2 to 4 in stage location should be closer to the three examples (Nos. 3, 8 and 11), too,
Table 5) show that the increase in reboiler. The feed stage in the opti- the total cost decreases, by about 3
total cost is in the range of 0.1% to mized design is consistent with the percentage points.
about 70%, and the average increase heuristic given in Reference [7]. Thus, after the feed stage optimiza-
is about 14% for all 13 examples. A recent reference [8] states that the tion to minimize the reflux ratio, the
Thus, although the heuristic on optimal feed location for a specified increase in total cost (from the mini-
Ropt/Rmin equaling 1.1 to 1.6 seems to total number of stages and separation mum total cost shown in Table 4) is
be valid in five out of the 13 examples minimizes the reflux ratio (and there- less than 4.1% for all examples except
tested, these results nevertheless show fore the reboiler and condenser duties). Nos. 2 and 11. The optimal total num-
the potential for reducing the total col- In accordance with this guideline, the ber of stages and reflux ratio for these
umn cost by further optimization. feed stage for the case of Ropt/Rmin two examples (Table 4) are different
equaling 1.2 in Table 5 is optimized by from those for Ropt/Rmin equaling 1.2
Revelations about the feed stage varying the feed stage in the rigorous (in Table 5).
In addition to the above findings, a simulation and finding the reflux ratio In other words, column design by
closer analysis of the results for vari- to achieve the desired separation. shortcut calculations can be improved
ous Ropt/Rmin values indicated that These optimized results after feed significantly by changing the feed
the feed stage given by shortcut col- stage optimization are shown in the stage to minimize reflux ratio for the
umn calculations can be inappropri- last three columns of Table 5. same total number of stages found for
ate. The most extreme case is Exam- A separate exercise was carried out Ropt/Rmin equaling 1.2. This change
ple 4, for which increase in the total to optimize the feed stage by minimiz- can be carried out easily with the aid
cost ranged from 70 to 260% with ing total cost for the case of Ropt/Rmin of a simulator, because it does not in-
Ropt/Rmin in the range 1.1 to 1.6. One equaling 1.2 for all examples. These re- volve sizing and cost estimation of the
can see from the optimized results sults are identical to those obtained by column, condenser and reboiler.

54 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM SEPTEMBER 2004


FIGURE 1.This plot, relevant to Example 4, relates the column stage number with the
key ratio for the liquid at that stage, for both shortcut and optimized design
Summarizing the conclusions
Column optimization through rigor-
ous simulation, sizing and costing
commonly gives an Ropt/Rmin value in
the range of 1.1 to 1.6. Also, the
heuristic that the optimal number of
stages is twice the minimum number
is generally not valid.
Shortcut (as opposed to rigorous)
calculations using the heuristic,
Ropt/Rmin = 1.1 to 1.6, produce
columns whose total cost is generally
more than the minimum. For the spe-
cific case of Ropt/Rmin equaling 1.2, the
total cost of a column by shortcut cal-
culations (followed by rigorous simu-
lation, sizing and costing) is on aver-
References
1. Brian, P. L. T., “Staged Cascades in Chemi-
cal Processing”, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey,
1972.
2. Doherty, M. F. and Malone, M. F., “Concep-
tual Design of Distillation System”, Mc-
Graw-Hill, New York, 2000.
3. Douglas, J. M., “Conceptual Design of Chem-
ical Process”, McGraw-Hill, Singapore,1988.
4. Frank, O., Shortcuts for Distillation Design,
Chem. Eng., p.111, March 14, 1977.
5. Gmehling, J., Onken, U. and Arlt, W.,
“Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium Data Collection”,
Dechema, Frankfurt, 1977.
6. Ishii, Y. and Otto, F. D., An Efficient Simul-
taneous Correction Procedure for Multicom-
ponent, Multistage Separation Calculations
for Non-Ideal Systems, Computers and
Chemical Eng. 25, 1285–1298, 2001.
7. King, C. J., “Separation Processes”, 2nd Ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.
8. Khoury, F.M., "Predicting the Performance
of Multistage Separation processes", 2nd
Ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla., 1999.
age 14% higher than the minimum at-
tainable by rigorous simulation and
optimization. However, the design in
this case can often be improved sub-
stantially by optimizing the feed stage
(for a specified number of stages and
separation), and the total cost of a col-
umn can be reduced to within 4% of
the minimum.
In a few cases, potential exists for
further cost reduction by varying both
the number of stages and feed stage,
and simulating the column rigorously.
These findings are applicable to sim-
ple columns with a single feed stream
and two product streams only. n (UMIST) and the University of Cambridge, re-
Edited by Nicholas P. Chopey
9. McCormick, J. E. and Roche, E. C., Continu-
ous Distillation: Separation of Multicompo-
nent Mixtures, in Schweitzer, P. A., Ed.,
“Handbook of Separation Techniques for
Chemical Engineers”, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1979.
10. McCormick, J. E. and Roche, E. C., Continuous
Distillation: Separation of Binary Mixtures, in
Schweitzer, P. A., Ed., “Handbook of Separa-
tion Techniques for Chemical Engineers”, 3rd
Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1997.
11. Peters, M. S. and Timmerhaus, K. D., “Plant
Design and Economics for Chemical Engi-
neers”, 4th Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York,
1991.
12. Peters M.S., Timmerhaus K.D. and West
R.E., "Plant Design and Economics for
Chemical Engineers", 5th Ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York, 2003.
13. Perry, R. H., Green, D. W. and Maloney, J.
O., Eds., “Chemical Engineers’ Handbook”,
7th Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1997.
14. Sinnott, R. K., in “Coulson & Richardson's
Chemical Engineering”, Vol. 6, 2nd Ed., But-
terworth-Heinemann, Boston, 1993.
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM SEPTEMBER 2004
Authors
C.M. Lek is currently an En-
gineering Officer in the Sin-
gapore Armed Forces. Mr.
Lek received his bachelor’s
degree in chemical engineer-
ing from the National Univer-
sity of Singapore in 2003 with
second class honors (Upper
Division). The work reflected
in this article began as his se-
nior-year research project,
and continued after comple-
tion of that project. Mr. Lek has a particular in-
terest in software development.
G.P. Rangaiah is an Associ-
ate Professor in the Dept. of
Chemical and Biomolecular
Engineering, National Uni-
versity of Singapore (Singa-
pore 119260; Phone: [65]
6874-2187; email: Ranga-
iahGP@nus.edu.sg). He
worked for Engineers India
Ltd. (New Delhi) for two
years, and has been lecturing
at the National University of
Singapore since 1982. His research interests are
in process control, modeling and optimization.
He has supervised nine research fellows/assis-
tants and more than 20 postgraduate theses, has
published about 70 papers in international jour-
nals, and has presented nearly 50 papers in con-
ferences. He received his baccalaureate, masters
and doctorate degrees in chemical engineering
from India’s Andhra University, IIT Kanpur and
Monash University, respectively.
Kus Hidajat is an Associate
Professor in the Dept. of
Chemical and Biomolecular
Engineering, National Uni-
versity of Singapore (email:
chehidak@nus.edu.sg). He
has been lecturing at the Na-
tional University of Singa-
pore since 1983. His research
interests are in simulated-
moving-bed adsorptive sepa-
ration processes with or with-
out reaction, plus modeling and optimization,
and catalytic membranes. He has supervised
four research fellows/assistants and 26 post-
graduate theses, has published about 65 papers
in international journals, and has presented
about 40 papers in conferences. He received his
baccalaureate and doctorate degrees in chemical
engineering in the U.K., from the University of
Manchester Institute of Science and Technology
spectively.
15. Thompson, R. E., McCabe-Thiele Methods –
Advanced Topics, in “AIChEMI Modular In-
struction. Series B, Stagewise and Mass
Transfer Operations”, American Institute of
Chemical Engineers, New York, 1980.
16. Treybal, R. E., “Mass-Transfer Operations”,
3rd Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.
17. Turton, R., “Analysis, Synthesis and Design
of Chemical Processes”, Prentice Hall PTR,
New Jersey. 1998.
18. Ulrich, G. D., “A Guide to Chemical Engi-
neering Process Design and Economics”,
Wiley, New York, 1984.
19. Van Winkle, M. and Todd, W. G., Optimum
Fractionation Design by Simple Graphical
Methods, Chem. Eng., p. 136, Sept. 20, 1971.
20. Walas, S. M., Rules of Thumb, Chem. Eng.,
p. 75, Mar 16, 1987.
21. Zdonik, S. B., Techniques for Saving Energy
in Processes and Equipment” Chem. Eng., p.
99, July 4, 1977.
55