Scribd
Upload
81 views12 pages

Word Integrated Design y Da Siap

1. Minimum number of stages, minimum reflux ratio, and number of theoretical trays were calculated using common distillation design equations like the Fenske equation, Underwood equations, and Gilliland equation. 2. Actual number of trays was determined by dividing the theoretical number of trays by a typical tray efficiency of 0.6. 3. Valve trays were selected based on their moderate cost, operating range, and efficiency. Tray spacing of 0.6m was chosen based on column diameter and maintenance considerations.

Uploaded by

Cer No Rus
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
81 views12 pages

Word Integrated Design y Da Siap

1. Minimum number of stages, minimum reflux ratio, and number of theoretical trays were calculated using common distillation design equations like the Fenske equation, Underwood equations, and Gilliland equation. 2. Actual number of trays was determined by dividing the theoretical number of trays by a typical tray efficiency of 0.6. 3. Valve trays were selected based on their moderate cost, operating range, and efficiency. Tray spacing of 0.6m was chosen based on column diameter and maintenance considerations.

Uploaded by

Cer No Rus
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 12

Design Calculations and Assumptions Made

1. Minimum number of stages, Nmin

Using Fenske equation:

Where : Nmin = minimum number of stages required


XLK = liquid molar fraction of light key component(water)
XHK = liquid molar fraction of heavy key component(phenol)
α = relative volatility of 2 components

With water being the low key component (LK) and phenol the high key
component(HK).

Distribution Coefficient, K for distillate stream:


𝒚𝒘𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒓,𝑫 𝒚𝒑𝒉𝒆𝒏𝒐𝒍,𝑫
𝑲𝑳𝑲,𝑫 = 𝑲𝑯𝑲,𝑫 =
𝒙𝒘𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒓,𝑫 𝒙𝒑𝒉𝒆𝒏𝒐𝒍,𝑫

Distribution Coefficient, K for bottoms stream :


𝒚𝒘𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒓,𝑩 𝒚𝒑𝒉𝒆𝒏𝒐𝒍,𝑩
𝑲𝑳𝑲,𝑩 = 𝑲𝑯𝑲,𝑫𝑩 =
𝒙𝒘𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒓,𝑩 𝒙𝒑𝒉𝒆𝒏𝒐𝒍,𝑩

Where : x = mole fraction in liquid phase


y = mole fraction in vapor phase

Relative volatility for distillate and bottoms:

𝑲𝑳𝑲,𝑫 𝑲𝑳𝑲,𝑩
𝜶 𝑫 = 𝜶 𝑩 =
𝑳𝑲⁄
𝑯𝑲
𝑲𝑯𝑲,𝑫 𝑳𝑲⁄
𝑯𝑲
𝑲𝑯𝑲,𝑩

Average Relative Volatility :


𝟏⁄
𝟐
𝜶 𝑨𝒗𝒆 = (𝜶 𝑫 𝜶 𝑩 )
𝑳𝑲⁄ 𝑳𝑲⁄ 𝑳𝑲⁄
𝑯𝑲 𝑯𝑲 𝑯𝑲

*Calculation please refer to Excel spreadsheet (Appendix) titled ‘Nmin’.


2. Minimum Reflux Ratio, Rmin

Underwood Equations:

Where : ∅ = Underwood constant (to be determined)


xi = mole fraction of ith component (LK @ HK)
q = feed thermal quality (fraction liquid)
Rmin = minimum reflux ratio

q=1 (feed is at liquid boiling point).

ai = p*i / p*ref ,where the ith component refers to either LK or HK component


and reference component being the HK component which is phenol. Pure
vapour pressures, p*, are calculated using the Antoine equation at the average
temperature between the distillate and bottoms entering temperatures.

After obtaining ∅ from the first Underwood equation, it is substituted into the
second equation to obtain minimum reflux ratio, Rmin.

*Calculation of Rmin please refer to Excel spreadsheet (Appendix) titled


‘Rmin’.
3. Number of theoretical trays

Using Gilliland Equation:

Where:
N=number of theoretical stages
Nmin=minimum no. of stages
R=actual reflux ratio
Rmin=minimum reflux ratio

Since R is between 1.2-1.5 times the Rmin, a value in between, 1.3, is chosen:
R = 1.3xRmin

Number of theoretical trays = no. of theoretical stages, N – 1

*Calculation of N please refer to Excel spreadsheet (Appendix) titled ‘Theo.


trays’.

4. Actual Number of Trays

Since typical value of tray efficiencies range from 0.5-0.7, the average value of
0.6 is chosen:

Tray efficiency = Theoretical no. of trays / Actual no. of trays

*Calculation please refer to Excel spreadsheet (Appendix) titled ‘Theo. trays’.


5. Type of Tray and Tray Spacing
The table below shows the properties of different types of trays in a distillation
tower:

Factor Sieve Tay Valve Tray Bubble Cap Tray


Capacities High High Moderately high
Efficiency High High Moderately high
Turn down ̴50 % ̴ 25-30 % 10 %
Entrainment Moderate Moderate High
Pressure drop Moderate Moderate High
Cost Low ̴ .2 times of sieve
1 ̴ 2-3 times of sieve
tray tray
Maintanence Low Low to moderate Relatively high
Fouling tendency Low Low to moderate High
Effect of corrosion Low Low to moderate High
Main application Often used when turn Required high turn Extremely low liquid
down is not critical down. flow and where
leakage must be
minimized.

In determining the most suitable type of tray to be used in separating phenol


and water, a few principle factors should be taken into consideration:
 Cost
Bubble caps are appreciably more expensive than sieve and valve trays.
On the other hand, sieve trays are the cheapest due to its simple design.
Valve trays cost about 1.2 times that of the sieve trays due to their
greater flexibility (consisting an opening in the trays and lift-valve covers
to provide variable open areas).

 Operating Range
Operating range determines the range of liquid and vapor flow rates
over which the tray will operate satisfactorily; the higher the turndown
ratio, the larger the operating range.

- Bubble caps are more suited for low vapor flow rates due to the
presence of a positive liquid seal.
- Sieve trays cannot operate at low vapor flow rates as they rely on
the kinetic energy of the upflowing vapor to prevent liquid from
flowing down through the holes.
- Valve trays provide a variable open area which is varied by the
vapor flow inhibiting leakage of liquid down the opening at low flow
rates. Hence, valve trays operate over a wider range of flow rates
compared to sieve trays, while being much cheaper than bubble cap
trays.

 Pressure Drop
Sieve trays give the lowest pressure drop, followed by valve trays and
then bubble caps the highest.

 Maintenance
For dirty services, bubble caps are not suitable because they are
susceptible to plugging. Sieve trays are the easiest to clean.

In summary, valve trays are chosen due to their:


-High capacity and efficiency.
-Moderate installation and maintenance costs.
-Moderate pressure drop.
-Good operating range.
-Low fouling tendency.

Tray spacing:
Optimum tray spacing of 0.6m is chosen. Considerations made include:
 Diameter of the column
- Diameter of the tower should be large in order to handle the gas
and liquid flow rates under satisfactory operating range. By
increasing the tray spacing, the diameter of the column can be
reduced to lower the construction costs.

 Maintenance
- Tray spacing should allow sufficient crawl space for maintenance
work.

6. Column Diameter and Height


The flooding velocity, Umax(m/s), needs to be calculated first:

𝜹𝑳 𝟎.𝟐 𝝆𝑳 − 𝝆𝑽
𝑼𝒎𝒂𝒙 = 𝑲𝒗 ( ) √
𝟐𝟎 𝝆𝑽
Where:
Kv= a correction factor which is estimated
𝜹𝑳 = liquid surface tension(dyne/cm)
𝝆𝑳 = density of liquid
𝝆𝑽 = density of vapour

Calculation of density of liquid and vapor water at 373K and 1atm:


𝝆𝑽 :

Assuming that gas stream entering is an ideal gas, thus using the ideal gas
equation,
𝑷 ∗ 𝑴𝒓
𝝆𝑽 =
𝑹𝑻
Where
𝝆𝑽 = density of water vapor(kg/m3)
Mr=molecular weight of water
R=gas constant, 8.314 m3.Pa/(mol.K)
T=temperature(K)

𝝆𝑽 = (1.013x105Pa)*(18.016g/mol)*(1kg/1000g) / (8.314 m3.Pa/(mol.K) *373K)


= 0.5885 kg/m3

𝝆𝑳 :
From Perry’s Chemical Engineer’s Handbook, pg 14-146, Table 2-30 Densities
of Inorganic and Organic Liquids:

Component C1 C2 C3 C4
Water (Light key) 4.9669 0.27788 647.13 0.1874

𝑪𝟒
[𝟏+(𝟏− 𝑻⁄𝑪𝟑) ]
𝝆𝒘𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒓(𝒍) = 𝑪𝟏⁄𝑪𝟐 where 𝝆 is in kmol/m3 & T in Kelvins.

𝝆𝑳 = 4.9669/0.27788^(1+(1-373/647.13)^0.1874)
= 53.2kmol/m3
= (53.2x18.016)kg/m3
= 958.45kg/m3

Estimation of Kv:
𝑳𝒎 𝝆𝑽 𝑳𝒎 𝑹
𝑭𝑳𝑽 = √ 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 =
𝑽𝒎 𝝆𝑳 𝑽𝒎 𝑹+𝟏
FLV= (0.12211/(0.12211+1))* sqrt(0.5885/958.45)
= 2.6965x10-3

Refer to Figure 21.26 from ‘Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering’ Book ,


Seventh Edition:

Using plate spacing of 24in.,


Kv= 0.39ft/s

Finding Umax:

𝜹𝑳 𝟎.𝟐 𝝆𝑳 − 𝝆𝑽
𝑼𝒎𝒂𝒙 = 𝑲𝒗 ( ) √
𝟐𝟎 𝝆𝑽

𝜹𝑳 is between the range of 20-25dyne/cm. Average value of 23 dyne/cm is


chosen.

𝟎. 𝟑𝟗𝒇𝒕 𝟏𝒎 𝟐𝟑 𝟎.𝟐 𝟗𝟓𝟖. 𝟒𝟓 − 𝟎. 𝟓𝟖𝟖𝟓


𝑼𝒎𝒂𝒙 = ( ∗ ) ∗ (𝟎. 𝟗𝟏) ∗ ( ) √
𝒔 𝟑. 𝟐𝟖𝟎𝟖𝒇𝒕 𝟐𝟎 𝟎. 𝟓𝟖𝟖𝟓
Umax=4.4879m/s

*Assumption made: Kv was multiplied by 0.91 to account for a downspout are


of 9% of the tray.
Also, the Umax should be multiplied by 0.80 in order to operate at 20% below
flooding:

Umax = 0.8* (4.4879m/s)


= 3.59m/s

Calculating diameter of column:


for 𝑭𝑳𝑽 ≤ 𝟎. 𝟏
𝟒𝑽 𝑨𝒅
𝑫𝑻 = 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 ∶ for 𝟎. 𝟏 ≤ 𝑭𝑳𝑽 ≤ 𝟏. 𝟎
√ 𝑨 𝑨𝑻
(𝒇𝑼𝒇 )𝝅 (𝟏 − 𝑨𝒅 ) 𝝆𝑽 for 𝑭𝑳𝑽 ≥ 𝟏. 𝟎
𝑻

𝟎. 𝟏 𝑭𝑳𝑽 − 𝟎. 𝟏
= {𝟎. 𝟏 +
𝟗
𝟎. 𝟐

V=D(R+1)

Where V=vapor flow rate


D =distillate flow rate
R=actual reflux ratio

V=(35908.3lbm/hr * 0.453593kg/lbm)(0.12211+1) * (1hr/3600s)


= 5.077kg/s

𝟒 ∗ (𝟓. 𝟎𝟕𝟕)
𝑫𝑻 = √
(𝟎. 𝟖 ∗ 𝟑. 𝟓𝟗)𝝅(𝟏 − 𝟎. 𝟏)(𝟎. 𝟓𝟖𝟖𝟓)

= 2.0614m

Thus, diameter of column DT is 2.0614m.


Using this value to check initial estimate of tray spacing:
Hp=0.5*(D)0.3
=0.5*(2.0614)0.3
=0.6212m ≈ 0.6m

This value is relatively close to our previous estimation and should not affect
the Kv value significantly, thus the values obtained via the above calculations
should be similar.

Height of column:
H=1.2(Nactual-1)*Hp
= 1.2(22-1)*(0.6)
=15.12m
*Assumption made: There is an additional part of the distillation column plus a
reboiler.
Summary of Calculated Parameters:
1. Minimum no. of stages, Nmin = 4 stages

2. Minimum reflux ratio, Rmin = 0.093931

3. No. of theoretical trays = 13 trays

4. Actual no. of trays = 22 trays

6. Column diameter = 2.0614m


Column height = 15.12m
References:
-Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook, 7th Edition

-Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering, 7th Edition

-Elementary Principles of Chemical Processes, 3rd Edition

http://www.separationprocesses.com/Operations/POT_Chp02a.htm

http://books.google.com.my/books?id=Wab6AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA604&lpg=PA604&dq
=comparison+bubble+cap,+sieve+and+valve+trays&source=bl&ots=3OKxhI55xP&si
g=kBKEwmX7wADyVimCaUz8OA-0N_E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wu6jUtCMJIj-rAetpoGAC
w&ved=0CF8Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=comparison%20bubble%20cap%2C%20sie
ve%20and%20valve%20trays&f=false
Appendices:

VLE Diagram for water-phenol system at 1atm


1.2
mole fraction of water vapor, ywater

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
mole fraction of water in liquid, xwater

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy