Name: ORJI, Joseph U Question 1

Process Design and Simulation Coursework 2012

I.D: 7636116

The PSRV fluid package was chosen to set up the process model of the separation process in Hysys because it is a modified version of Peng-Robinson which is better able to cope with slightly polar hydrocarbons like acetone [1]. Air and Acetone were selected as feed components to be separated. The model is as seen in Figure 1. The composition of the Vent Gas consisting of 0.8 and 0.2 mole fractions of air and acetone respectively were set [2]. The temperature, pressure and molar flow rate of the Vent Gas were also specified as well as the acetone condensing temperature. [2] A pressure drop of zero across the evaporator (acetone condenser) was assumed and specified. The material and energy balance of the whole

Figure 1: Hysys Simulation of Separation Process

separation process as seen in Table 1 was automatically computed by Hysys. Material Balance assumes mass in=mass out and can be represented mathematically as where xi is the composition of the streams A,B,C and A, B, C are the molar flows of the vent gas, the vapour and recovered liquid respectively. 0.8*50= (41.23*0.9699) + (8.769*0.013) 40=40 (Air) 0.2*50= (41.23*0.0301) + (8.77*0.9987) 10=10 (Acetone) The cooling duty across the evaporator is the difference between the heat flow in the cooled vent gas and the vent gas which is 403845 kJ/h.

Question 2 Refrigerant Condenser

Compressor

Expander

Evaporator
Figure 2: Simplified Refrigeration Cycle Model

The pressure drop across the evaporator and the refrigerant condenser was assumed to be zero. The target temperature of the vent gas feed is -20, therefore the temperature of the refrigerant (propene) entering the evaporator should be -25C in order to maintain a minimum approach temperature of 5C. The temperature leaving the evaporator remains the same as that entering since the refrigerant only undergoes a phase change from saturated liquid to saturated vapour. Cooling water supply temperature and return temperature of 25C and 30C respectively exchanges heat with the refrigerant at the refrigerant condenser. As such, the temperature leaving the refrigerant condenser should be 30C in order to maintain the minimum approach temperature of 5C as well. The pressure in and out of the compressor (as seen in Table 2) in the refrigeration cycle was calculated using Antoine Equation for propylene provided [2]: where P is in kPa, T is in C. A=13.40; B=1614; C=229.4. Since, we assumed no pressure drop in both heat exchangers, the pressure in and out of the exchangers can thus be deduced as well as seen in Table 2. The temperature of the refrigerant (propylene) leaving the reciprocating compressor was then estimated from
[2]

where T is in K, P is in kPa,

and 1.3. Thus Tout leaving the compressor is 92 C (same as Tin into the Refrigerant condenser in the refrigeration cycle). Compressor: The compression work and hence the operating cost of the compressor can be calculated from the results presented in both tables 1 & 2 using the equations [3]: Wideal= ( ) and Wactual= where QC= cooling duty (112.2 kW see Table 1). TH= absolute temperature at which heat is rejected (303 K). TC= absolute temperature at which heat is taken (248 K). ad=adiabatic efficiency (0.6) (Assumed by rule of thumb). Thus, Ideal work and actual work of the compressor are 24.88 kW and 41.47 kW respectively. The operating cost of the compressor per year was calculated using economic data 41.47kW* * = 29,860
[2]

provided as

Cooling water condenser: The power of the condenser was calculated by adding the evaporator duty (112.2 kW) and the actual work of the compressor (41.47 kW) to give 153.67 kW. The operating cost of the cooling water condenser per year was calculated using the economic data provided [4] as 153.67 kW* Question 3 The size (area) of a heat exchanger can be calculated from Q=UA Tlm where Q is the energy duty, U is the overall heat transfer coefficient, A is the area and Tlm is the log mean temperature difference across the heat exchanger. Tlm =[ ] [4]
Figure 3: Log mean temperature vs. Enthalpy graph [4]

= 18,441

where H and C represents hot and cold streams respectively exchanging heat in counter-current flow. Using the data provided in Table 3 and combining both equations above, we thus obtain the sizes of the refrigerant condenser and evaporator to be 11.32 m2 and 6.85 m2 having calculated the duties previously as 112.2 kW and 153.67 kW respectively. 2

CAPITAL INVESTMENT The cost relation Cequipment =a +b S [5] was used to determine the equipment cost by substituting the parameters found in Table 4 for the corresponding relevant equipment. Cost of heat exchangers Since the size (area) of the refrigerant condenser falls within the bounds in Table 4 [6], its cost was calculated using the cost relation to be 15,504 using the conversion rate of $ 1 = 0.6240[7]. The cost of the evaporator was estimated using the power law since its area falls outside the boundary available which allows a cost of a similar equipment to be obtained if the size and cost of the other is known. The Power law states =( )
[8]

Thus, the cost of the evaporator was

estimated to be 11,531 assuming a power n, of 0.59 [9] (typical for heat exchangers). Cost of Separator The separator was estimated to cost 20,230 using the cost relation at corresponding parameters as seen in Table 4. The mass of the carbon steel separator provided is approximately 2500kg [2]. Cost of Compressor The cost of the compressor (, 2011) was calculated using the provided relation [2] 11,000+35,000W0.45 where 30<W<450 kW. Using the calculated compressor work of 41.47 kW, the cost of the compressor was estimated to be 198,093. Installed costs annualized and updated The 2007 capital cost estimates were updated to 2011 using the Marshall and Swift index below. [1597.7 (Index in 4th quarter 2011) and 1373.3 (Index in 2007)]. *( )
[10]

as seen in Table 5

The cost of installation can be obtained by multiplying the updated capital cost by Hands installation factors [11] typical for each of the equipment. The total capital cost of investment was estimated using the [12] approach by Hand, 1958; C= where factors fi is in the range 2-4. The installed costs annualized and annualized capital costs were estimated to be 109,336 and 155,264 respectively by multiplying their respective costs by the annual capital charge ratio (ACCR). The ACCR was calculated to be 0.163 using the relation ACCR=[ ] [13] where i and n are the interest rate (10%) and project life (10 years) provided [2]. Question 4 The total revenue is the sum of the vapour and liquid product revenue. The vapour and liquid revenue per year were calculated using the economic data plan provided [2] and the molar flows recovered. Vapour Revenue= 41.23 Liquid Revenue =8.77 * *49990 *8000 * *8000 = 57,710/year

= 3,508,000/year 3

where 49990 kJ/kmol is the lower heating value (LHV) of the vapour product available in Hysys. Therefore the total revenue is 3,565,710/year. Similarly the cost of the raw material was evaluated using the economic data plan [2] provided and the molar flow of the vent gas (raw material). Raw Material Cost: 50 *331800 * *8000 = 464,520/year

where 331800 kJ/kmol is the lower heating value (LHV) of the vent gas available in Hysys. The annual profit/economic potential [14] =Total Revenue-Raw material cost-total operating costs-annualized capital cost. The total operating cost (TOC) of the compressor and cooling water condenser (already calculated in Q2) = 48,300/year Therefore the annual profit is 2,897,149/year (taxes are ignored) The Total annualized cost (TAC) [13] = Fixed costs + Variable costs=Raw Material cost+ annualized capital cost + TOC Therefore the TAC is 668,562/year Payback period [15] = = =0.33 years (4 months)

The total capital cost is 952,540/year as calculated in Table 5. Question 5 Table 6: Analysis of the economic performance for four other options Options Minimum Approach Temperature C Acetone condensing temperature C Refrigerant Condenser Q kW LMTD C A(m2) Evaporator Q kW LMTD C A(m2) Actual Compressor Work(kW) Total Operating Cost (/y) Total Capital cost (/y) Total annualised cost (/y) Total Revenue (/y) Profit (/y) Payback Period (years) Discussion of results: In selecting which option was preferable, it is important to consider the economic capital-energy trade-off of one option over the other. 4 A 2 -10 120.13 13.57 14.76 96.2 15.3 9.0 24.0 31,662 811,102 628,185 3,180,057 2,551,871 0.32 B 2 -20 148.71 17.10 14.49 112.2 17.5 9.2 36.5 44,129 919,302 658,261 3,565,710 2,907,449 0.32 C 2 -30 174.5 21.1 13.7 123.9 19.5 9.1 50.6 57,333 1,017,967 685,853 3,781,435 3,093,912 0.33 D 5 -20 153.7 22.6 11.3 112.2 23.4 6.9 41.5 48,300 956,964 668,562 3,565,710 2,897,149 0.33 E 7 0 91.0 18.5 8.2 73.12 21.0 5.0 17.9 23,783 748,879 610,180 2,511,709 1,901,529 0.39

At a constant minimum approach temperature of 2C, The duties of the heat exchangers and compressor increase as the acetone condensing temperature decreases. The areas of the heat exchangers are proportional to their duties; this invariably affects the total annualized cost as it tends to increase. The payback period increases as acetone condensing temperature decreases. At a constant acetone condensing temperature of -20C, The duties of the refrigerant condenser and compressor decrease as the minimum approach temperature decreases. Likewise, the total annualized cost tends to increase. The payback period increases as minimum approach temperature decreases. Economic Evaluation: Option E gives the lowest annualized cost while Options A&B give the lowest payback period. Option C gives the highest annualized cost and economic potential. Options B, C or D(base case) could be chosen if the economic potential and payback period were of major importance with Option C being slightly more profitable. The price of acetone needs to remain high to favour Option C. Option E could be ruled out if a lower payback period is preferred. Option A gives a balance in terms of payback period and total annualized cost and as such is the best option. Question 6

Figure 4: Hysys Simulation of the Refrigeration System

The PSRV fluid package was used to set up the process model of the refrigeration process in Hysys for the same reason as in Question 1. The simulation was done using Option E as the case study as seen in Table 6. Propene (refrigerant) was selected as the only component of the process stream. The model of the process as seen in Figure 4 is a refrigeration cycle thus; Streams 1&5 are equal. The vapour fraction of Streams 1&5 were assumed and specified to be zero while Stream 3 was assumed and set at exactly 1. The temperatures of Stream 1&5 were set at 32C in order to maintain a minimum approach temperature of 7C. The temperature of Stream 3 was specified as -7C for the same reason. The pressure drop was assumed and set to be zero in both the evaporator and condenser. The polytrophic (isentropic) efficiency of the compressor was set at 75% [2]. The molar flow in stream 1 was initially set at 1 kmol/hr. Hysys automatically computed all the remaining stream information. An adjust was added to the model and the specified target value set at 73.12 kW (see table 6). [Adjusted Variable: Object (Stream 1), Variable (Molar flow); Target Variable: Object (Vent Gas), Variable (Heat flow)]. Hysys automatically scaled up the molar flow to match the cooling duty.

The pressure in and out of the compressor and the compressor duty values computed by Hysys and the simple model are fairly the same as can be seen in Table 7. However, the temperature difference could be as a result of the assumption 1.3 made while calculating the temperature out of the compressor as seen in Question 2.

Question 7 Line 5 in Figure 5 is the feed (Vent gas) which is cooled from 40C to -10C and further separated into vapour and liquid products. The liquid product was assumed to be 100% acetone as little traces of air were neglected. Cycle 1-4-1 represents the refrigeration system using propene (C3H8) as the refrigerant. The heat released from the condensation of acetone in the evaporator is absorbed by the refrigerant at its saturation temperature and pressure. Saturated C3H8 vaporizes at 12C to be compressed. The compressor increases the pressure and temperature of C3H8. Hot C3H8 is then cooled using the condenser.

Figure 5: Overall Process flow diagram (PFD) of the refrigeration system and separation process based on Option A

C3H8 is then allowed to expand, thus reducing the pressure as the temperature returns back to -12C. As can be seen in Table 6, Option A is the best condition under the set of conditions. It requires a total annualized cost of 628,185 and operating cost of 31,662 per year. The initial capital is repayable after approximately 4 months. Flow kg/hr Line no Stream component Acetone Air C3H8 kg/hr kg/hr kg/hr Table 8: Stream Table of the refrigeration system and the separation process 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 C3H8 C3H8 C3H8 C3H8 Vent Gas Cooled Vapour Recovered Vent Gas Liquid 1151.53 1151.53 398.00 -12.00 1151.53 1151.53 1216.54 49.70 1151.53 1151.53 1216.54 27.00 1151.53 1151.53 398.00 -12.00 580.80 1158.00 1738.80 100.00 40.00 580.80 1158.00 1738.80 100.00 -10.00 135.08 1157.73 1292.80 100.00 -10.00 445.72 0.27 446.00 100.00 -10.00

Total kg/hr Pressure kPa Temperature C

References
1

Retrieved April 11, 2012, http://www.engineeringresource.com/Files/Selecting%20Chemical%20Property%20method.pptx 2 Coursework Hand-out (2012) by Dr Megan Jobson 3 Smith, R. (2005). Chemical Process Design and Process Integration. John Wiley & Sons Ltd pp 27 4 Smith, R. (2005). Chemical Process Design and Process Integration. John Wiley & Sons Ltd pp 35 5 Gavin Towler, R. S. (2009). Chemical Engineering Design. Elsevier Inc. pp 319 6 Gavin Towler, R. S. (2011). Chemical Engineering Design. Elsevier Inc. pp 313-314 7 th Retrieved April 11, 2012, from Exchange rates for 2011(Average of 4 quarter) from http://www.xrates.com/d/GBP/USD/hist2011.html 8 Gavin Towler, R. S. (2009). Chemical Engineering Design. Elsevier Inc. pp 307 9 Holland, F.A, Watson, F.A. & Wilkinson, J.K, Perrys Handbook 6th edition 1984 10 Retrieved April 11, 2012, from Anonymous Economic indicators http://search.proquest.com/docview/921996196/citation?accountid=12253 11 Gavin Towler, R. S. (2009). Chemical Engineering Design. Elsevier Inc. pp 314 12 Gavin Towler, R. S. (2011). Chemical Engineering Design. Elsevier Inc. pp 315 13 Gavin Towler, R. S. (2009). Chemical Engineering Design. Elsevier Inc. pp 369 14 Smith, R. (2005). Chemical Process Design and Process Integration. John Wiley & Sons Ltd pp 29 15 Gavin Towler, R. S. (2009). Chemical Engineering Design. Elsevier Inc. pp 378