Cumene plant design project final report

Chem Eng 3030: Simulation and Conceptual Design Group 16 Final report
Chem Eng 3025: Pharmaceutical Plant Design and Processing Engineering
University of Adelaide
School of Chemical Engineering
Chem Eng 3030: Simulation and

Conceptual Design
Chem Eng 3025: Pharmaceutical
Plant Design and Processing
Engineering
Cumene production plant design project:

Group 16 Final Report
Sudeep Ajgaonkar 1607310

Brendan Browne 1608187
Alson Ng 1205827
Rusman Toni 1217258
0|P a ge
1. Executive Summary
The production of cumene process was design by Aspen Hysys. As required by Dr. Who Chemicals
Ltd., the design of the grassroots cumene plant is necessary for the growing demand for phenol-
derived plasticisers. The grassroots plant requires propylene and benzene as the raw materials to
produce 100,000 metric ton of cumene per year and the plant life is assumed to be 10 years after
start-up.
The plant is assumed to take 1 year to construct and it will be located in Two Wells, South Australia,
so that it has easily accessible utilities, raw materials, labour and the export of products. The plant is
assumed to operate around 330 24-hour days per year, so production process will operate 8,000
hours per year to meet the product demands.
The means end analysis was used to initially synthesise the cumene plant through the use of
literature values. Differences in composition, temperature and pressure were used to identify
where pumps, heaters, cooler and valves were necessary. The resulting PFD was created in Hysys
from the means end analysis before further optimisation of the unit operations.
It was determined from the Hysys analysis that the cumene product stream had a purity of 99.99
wt% which was achieved with a mass flow rate of 12530kg/hour, which when operating for 8000
hours a year reaches just over the required cumene production of 100,000 metric tonnes/year. This
cumene production was achieved from a benzene feed stream and propylene feed stream of
8273kg/hour and 4787kg/hour respectively. The propane and unreacted propylene fuel gas were
produced at a rate of 274.7kg/hour with the DIPB waste stream being formed at 264.9kg/hour.
An economic analysis was performed to determine the probability of the cumene production
process. For our base case with 99.98% propylene purity, the capital cost for the plant was
determined to be $5,133,775 in 2013. The CEPCI method was employed here to convert the cost
from 2011 to 2013. The OPEX including the utilities, raw materials and all other expenses was
calculated to be $169,727,441. The NPV was determined to be -$194,685,622 with a negative return
on investment and pay-back period. This means out base case was not making profit and losing
money after 10 year of plant operation.
A case study was perform to identify whether it is more economically viable to use a propylene feed
stream with a 5 wt% impurity of propane. It was determined using Hysys that Dr Who Chemicals
should not build the plant as in both cases a negative NPV value was calculated, so the construction
of the process plant will not make a profit.
From another case study, temperature has significant effect on both main and reaction in the plug
flow reactor. It is strongly recommended to apply temperature at 325 oC in the reactor to get
maximum conversion of cumene in the main reaction. As for the side reaction, the conversion of di-
isopropyl benzene was increasing as the temperature in the reactor increased.
Based on the Hysys simulation of the plant and the corresponding economic analysis it was
determined that the high purity propylene feed and low propylene purity feed would be
economically unviable, so Dr Who Chemicals should not build the cumene plant.
1|P a ge
2. Table of contents
1. Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 1
2. Table of contents ........................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 List of figures ........................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ 6
3. Work allocation ............................................................................................................................. 8
4. Background ................................................................................................................................... 9
4.1 Literature Review..................................................................................................................... 9
4.1.1 Background Chemistry .................................................................................................... 10
4.1.2 Alternative processes ...................................................................................................... 10
4.1.3Properties of Chemicals Involved in the Production of Cumene ........................................ 13
4.1.4 Hazardous Materials and Safety ...................................................................................... 16
4.2 Materials of construction rationale ........................................................................................ 17
4.2.1 Mechanical design requirements..................................................................................... 17
4.2.2 Corrosion effects ............................................................................................................. 17
4.2.3 Temperature and pressure .............................................................................................. 18
4.2.4 Overall Recommendation ................................................................................................ 18
Recommendation for reactor ................................................................................................... 18
Recommendation for all other process units and storage vessels ............................................. 18
4.3 Plant location ......................................................................................................................... 19
4.4 General Plant Safety .............................................................................................................. 21
4.4.1 Major Equipment Safety.................................................................................................. 21
4.4.2 Safety Recommendations ................................................................................................ 22
5. Process synthesis and assumptions .............................................................................................. 23
5.1 Means-end analysis ............................................................................................................... 23
5.1.1Design Scope.................................................................................................................... 23
5.1.2 Evaluation of alternative pathways ................................................................................. 25
5.1.3 Distribution of Chemicals ................................................................................................ 28
5.1.4 Elimination of Pressure and Temperature Differences ..................................................... 29
5.1.4.1 Integration of the process ............................................................................................ 32
5.2 Main assumptions .................................................................................................................. 33
5.3 Contingency plan ................................................................................................................... 33
5.4 Fluid Packages ....................................................................................................................... 33
Peng-Robinson......................................................................................................................... 34
2|P a ge
NRTL (non-random two-liquid)................................................................................................. 34

6. Main computational designs and results ...................................................................................... 35
6.1 Heat exchanger design ........................................................................................................... 35
6.2 Reactor design ....................................................................................................................... 37
6.2.1 Pressure drop.................................................................................................................. 39
6.2.2 Gibbs reactor .................................................................................................................. 39
6.2.3 Reactor sizing .................................................................................................................. 41
6.3 Distillation columns design..................................................................................................... 43
6.3.1 Shortcut columns ............................................................................................................ 43
6.3.2 Column sizing .................................................................................................................. 44
6.3.3 Column pressure ............................................................................................................. 45
6.3.4 Column design check ....................................................................................................... 45
7. Hysys results and case studies ..................................................................................................... 47
7.1 Hysys results .......................................................................................................................... 47
Computational Results .................................................................................................................... 47
7.2 Hysys case studies.................................................................................................................. 51
7.2.1 Case study 1 .................................................................................................................... 51
7.2.2 Case study 2, Reactor Performance – Temperature ......................................................... 54
8. Economic analysis ........................................................................................................................ 56
8.1 Total capital investment estimation (CAPEX) .......................................................................... 56
8.2 Chemical engineering plant cost index (CEPCI) ....................................................................... 57
8.3 Operating expenses (OPEX) .................................................................................................... 57
8.3.1 Operating labour ............................................................................................................. 58
8.3.2 Utilities ........................................................................................................................... 59
8.4 Raw materials and profits ...................................................................................................... 60
8.5 Cash flow statement .............................................................................................................. 61
9. Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 63
10. References................................................................................................................................. 64
11. Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 66
Appendix A. Reaction set units conversion ................................................................................... 66
A.1 Main reaction .................................................................................................................... 66
A.2 Side reaction ..................................................................................................................... 66
Appendix B. Heat reactor sizing ................................................................................................... 67
B.1 Assumptions ...................................................................................................................... 67
3|P a ge
Appendix C. Reactor sizing ........................................................................................................... 70

Appendix D. Column sizing calculations ....................................................................................... 72
D.1 Benzene column ................................................................................................................ 72
D.2 Cumene column ................................................................................................................ 80
Appendix E. Case study 2, Reactor Performance – Temperature .................................................. 88
Appendix F. Economic calculations .............................................................................................. 89
F.1 CAPEX ................................................................................................................................ 89
F.2 OPEX .................................................................................................................................. 97
F.3 Profits .............................................................................................................................. 102
F.4 Cash flow statement ........................................................................................................ 102
Appendix G. Meeting minutes ................................................................................................... 104
Appendix H. A full detailed PFD with mass and energy flow information .................................... 109
4|P a ge
2.1 List of figures

Figure 4. 1: Main Reaction ............................................................................................................... 10
Figure 4. 2: Side Reaction ................................................................................................................ 10
Figure 4. 3: Cumene Plant Location (Google Maps 2013) ................................................................. 19
Figure 4. 4: Cumene Plant Location, Lot 10 Middle Beach, Two Wells, South Australia (Google Maps
2013) ............................................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 5. 1: Simplistic overview of the cumene process.................................................................... 23

Figure 5. 2: Chemical Distribution (BFD)........................................................................................... 28
Figure 5. 3: Elimination of chemicals by difference in composition .................................................. 29
Figure 5. 4: Elimination of pressure and temperature differences using literature values ................. 31
Figure 5. 5: Final integrated design of the cumene plant .................................................................. 32
Figure 6. 1: The minimum temperature approach for the heat exchanger used in the cumene
production plant.............................................................................................................................. 35
Figure 6. 2: Heat Exchanger Design Page from Hysys ....................................................................... 36
Figure 6. 3: Kinetic reaction table for the main reaction from Hysys................................................. 38
Figure 6. 4: Kinetic reaction table for the side reaction from Hysys .................................................. 38
Figure 6. 5: Effect of benzene: propylene in-feed ratio to conversion at 300oC ................................ 39
Figure 6. 6: Effect of benzene: propylene in-feed ratio to conversion at 350°C ................................. 40
Figure 6. 7: Effect of benzene: propylene in-feed ratio to conversion at 400°C ................................. 40
Figure 6. 8: Gibbs conversion and actual reactor conversion. ........................................................... 42
Figure 7. 1: Cumene production plant PFD from Hysys ..................................................................... 48

Figure 7. 2: Main reaction actual conversion. ................................................................................... 54
Figure 7. 3: Main and side reaction actual conversion. ..................................................................... 55
Figure B. 1: Heat exchanger design layout print-screened from Hysys. ............................................. 67
Figure D. 1: Benzene column design layout print-screened from Hysys ............................................ 72

Figure D. 2: The FLG and CSB correlation graph with different plate spacing (Zhang 2013) ............... 73
Figure D. 3: Cumene column design layout print-screened from Hysys ............................................ 80
Figure D. 4: The FLG and CSB correlation graph with different plate spacing .................................... 81
Figure H. 1:Print-screened case study 1 cumene production plant from Hysys ................................. 51
Figure H. 2: A detailed PFD with all the unit operations used to help the cumene plant design ...... 109
5|P a ge
2.2 List of Tables

Table 3. 1: Task Allocation ................................................................................................................. 8
Table 4. 1: Physical Properties of Benzene (ChemWatch, 2012) ....................................................... 13

Table 4. 2: Physical Properties for Propylene (ChemWatch, 2012) ................................................... 13
Table 4. 3: Physical properties for Propane (ChemWatch, 2012) ...................................................... 14
Table 4. 4: Physical Properties of Cumene (ChemWatch, 2012)........................................................ 14
Table 4. 5:Physical properties for Di-Isopropyl Benzene (ChemWatch, 2012) ................................... 15
Table 5. 1: Product Requirements .................................................................................................... 23

Table 5. 2: Catalyst Properties ......................................................................................................... 23
Table 5. 3: Properties of chemicals involved in the cumene production process .............................. 24
Table 5. 4: Basic Physical Properties................................................................................................. 28
Table 6. 1: Summary Table for Figure 6.8 ......................................................................................... 42

Table 6. 2: Input values to benzene shortcut column ....................................................................... 43
Table 6. 3: Results from benzene shortcut column ........................................................................... 43
Table 6. 4: Input values to cumene shortcut column ....................................................................... 44
Table 6. 5: Results from cumene shortcut column ........................................................................... 44
Table 6. 6: Summary Table for Column Sizing................................................................................... 46
Table 6. 7: Hydraulic results table from Hysys for benzene column. ................................................. 46
Table 6. 8: Hydraulic results table from Hysys for cumene column. .................................................. 46
Table 7. 1: Design specifications set by Dr Who Chemicals ............................................................... 47

Table 7. 2: Streams operating conditions and molar flow rate for cumene production plant from
Hysys............................................................................................................................................... 49
Table 7. 3: Energy balances for cumene production plant from Hysys .............................................. 50
Table 8. 1: Material factors associated with different materials (Zhang 2013). ................................. 56
Table 8. 2: Pressure factors associated with different pressures (Zhang 2013) ................................. 56
Table 8. 3: The total installation costs for cumene production plant. ............................................... 57
Table 8. 4: OPEX for the cumene production plant (Zhang 2013). .................................................... 58
Table 8. 5: Total operators required for different equipment per shift (Zhang 2013). ....................... 59
Table 8. 6: Total annual utility cost for cumene production plant ..................................................... 60
Table 8. 7: Annual raw materials cost for a cumene production plant .............................................. 61
Table 8. 8: Annual profits for a cumene production plant ................................................................ 61
Table 8. 9: Cash flow statement for cumene production plant ......................................................... 62
Table C. 1: Gibbs reactor results at 300oC ........................................................................................ 70

6|P a ge
Table D. 1: Summary data table for benzene column diameter calculation ...................................... 72
Table D. 2: Summary spread sheet for the benzene column diameter calculation print-screened from
Hysys............................................................................................................................................... 74
Table D. 3: Summary data table for benzene column plate efficiency calculation. ............................ 74
Table D. 4: Summary spread sheet for the benzene column efficiency and actual number of plants
calculation print-screened from Hysys ............................................................................................. 76
Table D. 5: Summary data table for benzene column pressure drop per tray calculation. ................. 76
Table D. 6: Summary spread sheet for the benzene column pressure drop per tray calculation print-
screened from Hysys ....................................................................................................................... 79
Table D. 7: Summary table for cumene column diameter calculation. .............................................. 80
Table D. 8: Summary spread sheet for the cumene column diameter calculation print-screened from
Hysys............................................................................................................................................... 82
Table D. 9: Summary data table for cumene column plate efficiency calculation. ............................. 83
Table D. 10: Summary data table for cumene column plate efficiency calculation. ........................... 84
Table D. 11: Summary table for cumene column pressure drop per tray calculation. ....................... 85
Table D. 12: Summary spread sheet for the cumene column pressure drop per tray calculation print-
screened from Hysys ....................................................................................................................... 87
Table H. 1: Print-screened streams operating conditions and molar flow rate for cumene production
plant from Hysys ............................................................................................................................. 51
Table H. 2: Input values to depropanizer shortcut column. .............................................................. 52
Table H. 3: Output values from depropanizer shortcut column. ....................................................... 52
Table H. 4: The summary table for the cumene production plant material streams........................ 110
7|P a ge
3. Work allocation
Table 3. 1: Task Allocation
Member Allocation
Sudeep Ajgaonkar  Introduction- Literature review
 Material of construction
 Case study 1
 Case study 1 report writing
Brendan Browne  Background research
 Executive Summary
 Main assumptions
 Means End analysis
 Means end report writing
 Plant Safety
 Gross profit
 Hysys base case
 Heat exchanger design and sizing
 Heat exchanger report writing
 Column pressure design
 Column pressure report writing
 Hysys results report writing
 Recommendations
 Combining report
Alson Ng  Background research
 Executive Summary
 Gross profit
 Hysys base case
 Reactor design and sizing
 Reactor report writing
 Columns design and sizing
 Columns reporting writing
 Heat exchanger sizing appendix
 Reactor appendix
 Columns appendix
 Economic analysis
 Economic appendix
 Economic report writing
 Work allocation
 Recommendations
 Combining report
Rusman Toni  Background research
 Introduction- Literature review
 Fluid packages justification
 Plant location
 Case study 2
 Case study 2 report writing
 Meeting minutes
8|P a ge
4. Background
4.1 Literature Review

Cumene, C9H12, is an organic, aromatic compound. At standard temperatures and pressures, it is a
clear colourless liquid. It is also known as 1-methylethylbenzene, 2-phenylpropane, and
isopropylbenzene. Modern production of high purity cumene is achieved by reacting benzene and
propylene in the liquid phase over an acidic catalyst (Hwang and Chen 2010, p.4)
Despite the fact that cumene has a high heating value and a high octane number, it is not an
economically viable fuel (Hwang and Chen 2010, p.1)
The usefulness of cumene lies primarily in its use as a feedstock for the manufacturing of phenol
and acetone; two important petrochemicals which are widely employed in the chemical and polymer
industries. Phenol is especially relevant to our current way of life as it is used in the manufacturing of
polycarbonates which are used extensively in the electronic, healthcare, and automobile industries.
A less prevalent usage for cumene is as a thinner for paints, enamels, and lacquers. It is also used as
a feedstock in the production of acetophenone, dicumylperoxide, and DIPB and is a good solvent for
fats and resins. As such, cumene has been suggested as a replacement for benzene in many of its
industrial applications.
Due to the fact that cumene is used primarily as a feedstock for phenol and acetone, cumene is
strongly tied to the phenol market. Cumene production follows the demand for phenol and its
derivatives.
Even though we have been provided with an expected sale price by Dr. Who Chemicals, a closer
inspection of domestic and global trends might be beneficial.
Cumene sales show positive trends due to the recent rapid growth of demand, particularly in China
where it grew over 20% in the past decade. However, recent data shows a slight fall in the price of
cumene in the US (average 5.3%) and China which are large contributors to the world trend (ICIS,
2012), most likely due to the global economic downturn. Despite these relatively minor recent falls,
cumene remains a valuable chemical and a promising investment.
9|P a ge
4.1.1 Background Chemistry

The following chemical equation is the fundamental chemical reaction in the production of cumene.
It is an alkylation reaction between benzene and propylene
Figure 4. 1: Main Reaction
The reaction of benzene and propylene to produce cumene is highly exothermic and is highly
favoured, thermodynamically (Hwang and Chen 2010, p.6).
There is a common side reaction to consider during cumene production when a cumene molecule
and a propylene molecule react together to form an undesired product. The product formed from
the reaction is called diisopropylbenzene (DIPB), the reaction is called a poly-alkylation reaction and
is shown in the following figure
Figure 4. 2: Side Reaction
4.1.2 Alternative processes

Cumene has a long history in the chemical and process industries; it was first mass-produced as an
aviation fuel during World War II (Hwang and Chen 2010, p.1)
Since then, many processes have been employed to synthesise cumene, each with their own
advantages and disadvantages.
4.1.2.1 Zeolite catalyst-based processes

Since the 1980’s zeolite-based catalysts have become increasingly common in the manufacture of
cumene, for several reasons. First and foremost, there are several economic incentives to use zeolite
based catalysts (Hwang and Chen 2010, p.8).
10 | P a g e
They offer high selectivity and productivity. The chemically mild nature of zeolite catalysts allows for
less expensive materials of construction, such as carbon-steel rather than requiring more corrosion-
resistant materials. The catalyst is also re-generable through thermal treatment in a controlled
oxygen atmosphere, thus allowing continuous use with longer catalyst life cycles and less waste
disposal. When the time comes for disposal, zeolite-based catalysts are environmentally friendly. A
possible disadvantage of is the possible poisoning of the catalyst by feed contaminants (Seider et al.
2003, p.654)
The processes that employ zeolite catalysts and are currently in use and that will be discussed are:
 The Dow-Kellogg process (Badger Process)

 The Q-Max process
4.1.2.2 The Dow-Kellogg (Badger) Process

This process involves the use of an alkylation tower for the initial reaction, followed by a separate
trans-alkylation reactor, the purpose of which is to DIPB made by side reactions. There is also a
separations section consisting of four columns; the first for propane recovery as LPG, the second to
allow the recycle of benzene, the third for cumene product extraction and the last for separation of
polyisopropylbenzenes (Roper et al 2000,p.34) . The central purpose design is to optimize recycle
flows and energy consumption in the distillation processes.
The alkylation reactor consists of a fixed bed of zeolite catalyst. The process consists of two recycle
streams, one of unreacted benzene to the alkylation reactor, and the other containing DIPB and
other polyalkylbenzenes to the trans-alkylation reactor.
The process is highly effective in maximizing product purity and conversion with the reaction running
at values close to stoichiometry and producing a product which is 99.97% pure (Roper et al
2000,p.40).
The high yield is obtained due to the high monoalkylation selectivity of the MCM-22 catalyst used in
the process. The catalyst minimizes propylene oligomerization while retaining a high activity for
benzene alkylation. The catalyst can last for two to five years which reduces maintenance costs.
(Degnan et al 2001, p 290).
4.1.2.3 Q-MAX process

A Q-Max unit consists of an alkylation reactor, a distillation section, and a trans-alkylation reactor.
Both reactors are fixed-bed. Propylene feed and a mixture of fresh and recycle benzene are charged
to the alkylation reactor, where the propylene reacts to completion to form mainly cumene (UOP
2013, p.1).
A separation is employed such that, propane impurity present in the propylene feed is recovered in
the first column, unreacted benzene is recovered as the overhead from the second column and
cumene product is withdrawn from the overhead of the third column, the final column serves to
remove DIPB which is produced in side reactions and recycle this back to the trans-alkylation reactor.
11 | P a g e
The Q-max process employs a QZ-2000 catalyst. The catalyst is a solid, re-generable, zeolite catalyst
used to produce cumene via alkylation of benzene with propylene. QZ-2000 catalyst is based on a
proprietary beta zeolite formulation developed by UOP (UOP 2013, p.4).
There are many benefits to the Q-max process. High acid site density provides exceptional tolerance
to feedstock impurities and common catalyst poisons such as sulphur. Excellent mass transfer
properties minimize formation of heavy by-products.
The Q-max process produces high cumene product yield – 99.7 wt% or higher. There are also long
cycle lengths – up to five years without regeneration (Hwang and Chen 2010, p.7).
4.1.2.4 SPA Process

Liquid propylene, typically a mixture of propylene and propane, is mixed with fresh and recycled
benzene. About 500 ppm of water is also added to maintain the activity of the catalyst. The mixture
is preheated to a temperature in the 180–200°C range and enters a fixed bed reactor at a pressure
of ∼550 psig (Hwang and Chen 2010, p.4). Each reactor is subdivided into three or four beds with
internal structures to support the catalyst. The catalyst used in the SPA model uses a mixture of
orthosilicon-phosphate, pyrosiliconphosphate and polyphosphoric acid supported on kieselguhr
(Degnan et al 2001, 294).
The recovery system consists of a two-staged flash rectifier system to separate unreacted benzene
and remove propane from the system. The bottoms stream of the rectifier is then separated using
two distillation columns; the first acts as a benzene fractionator and the second acts as a cumene
purification column. The product can be removed from the latter column as the overhead.
The main disadvantages to the implementation of the SPA catalyst are the low product purity and
yield. In addition the SPA catalysed process is not environmentally friendly and its usage can lead to
operational difficulties.
4.1.2.5 Aluminium Chloride based processes

This process utilises a mixture of aluminium chloride and hydrogen chloride, completely dissolved in
the liquid hydrocarbon phase as the catalyst. The alkylation of benzene takes place at a maximum
temperature of 135 , pressures are maintained at sufficient levels to ensure that the reactants are
kept in the liquid phase. Reactor effluent is then mixed with recycled DIPB and fed to a trans-
alkylation reactor, where the DIPB produced is converted back to cumene in an equilibrium
conversion (Roper et al 2000, p.30)
Recovery of the product utilises a three-stage wash system to separate the catalyst from the product
stream, which consists of water and caustic soda solution. This is then followed by four distillation
towers, to separate propane, unreacted benzene, cumene product and DIPB. The higher activity of
the catalyst allows for the trans-alkylation of DIPB to cumene resulting in yields of over 99%. The use
of the aluminium chloride catalyst suppresses the formation of the polyalkylbenzenes as it reduces
propylene oligomerization. The aluminum chloride process is capable of trans-alkylating PIPBs back
to cumene, thus giving a higher yield, which can be the decisive consideration to a producer who
12 | P a g e
cannot use the heavy aromatics profitably (Hwang and Chen 2010, p.7). However, the catalyst is
highly corrosive; hence the equipment used during the reaction and separation processes must be
manufactured from highly resistant materials, leading to higher capital costs.
4.1.3Properties of Chemicals Involved in the Production of Cumene
4.1.3.1 Benzene
Table 4. 1: Physical Properties of Benzene (ChemWatch, 2012)
Alternative Names Benzol, Coal Naphtha, Cyclohexatriene

Molecular Formula C 6H6
Physical State Liquid at room temperature
Appearance Clear, water like
Odour Sweet, aromatic
Molecular Weight (g.mol-1) 78
Density (kg.m-3) 870 (liquid)
2.8 (gas)
Boiling Point (°C) 80
Melting Point (°C) 5.5
Flash Point (°C) -11
Vapour Pressure (mm Hg) 74.6 (at 20°C)
Viscosity (cP) 0.652 (at 20°C)
4.1.3.1.1 Benzene Market Information

Benzene is a single ring, aromatic chemical compound widely employed in the chemical and process
industries (Folkins 2000, p.1). Benzene primarily serves as a source for the production of many
petrochemicals and hydrocarbon materials. Plastics, pharmaceuticals, gasolines and resins all use
benzene as a feedstock. Due to the large volume of production of benzene, it is relatively cheap.
However, safety measures for preventing benzene exposure are costly.
4.1.3.2 Propylene
Table 4. 2: Physical Properties for Propylene (ChemWatch, 2012)
Alternative Names Propene, methylethylene

Physical State Gas (at room temperature)
Appearance Colourless
Odour Odourless
Density (kg.m-3) (kg.m-3) 613.9 (liquid)
1.81 (gas)
Boiling Point (°C) -47
Melting Point (°C) -185
Vapour Pressure (mm Hg) 6868 (at 21°C)
Viscosity (cP) 8.34x10-3
13 | P a g e
4.1.3.2.1 Propylene Market Information

Propylene serves as an important raw material and intermediate for the production of a variety of
petrochemicals. Propylene is an extremely versatile product and is used in the production of
consumer and industrial products such as electronic and electrical appliances, housewares and toys.
Industrial propylene is used in the production of polypropylene, cumene and other chemicals for the
manufacturing of chemicals and plastics (ICIS, 2012).
4.1.3.3 Propane
Table 4. 3: Physical properties for Propane (ChemWatch, 2012)
Alternative Names Liquefied Petroleum Gas

Physical State Gas
Odour Odourless
Density (kg.m-3) 581.2 (liquid)
2 (gas)
Boiling Point (°C) -42.1
Vapour Pressure (bar) 8327
4.1.3.3.1 Propane Market Information

Propane is an important fuel, and feedstock for the chemical industry. In domestic usage, it is
frequently used for cooking, even in non-industrialised parts of the world. It is often used as a
heating fuel for industrial use. In the chemical and process industries it is used for the production of
base petrochemicals in steam cracking.
4.1.3.4 Cumene
Table 4. 4: Physical Properties of Cumene (ChemWatch, 2012)
Alternative Names Isopropyl Benzene

Molecular Formula C9H12
Physical State Liquid
Odour Odourless
-3
Density (kg.m ) 862 (liquid)
4.1 (gas)
Flash Point (°C) 44
Vapour Pressure (mm Hg) 8
Viscosity (cP) 0.777 (at 20°C)
14 | P a g e
4.1.3.5 Di-isopropyl Benzene

Table 4. 5:Physical properties for Di-Isopropyl Benzene (ChemWatch, 2012)
Alternative Names DIPB, p-di-isopropyl benzene

Molecular Formula C12H18
Physical State Liquid
Odour Aromatic
Density (kg.m-3) 857 (liquid)
0.854 (gas)
Flash Point (°C) 76
Vapour Pressure (mm Hg) 0.25 (at 25°C)
4.1.3.5.1 p-Diisopropylbenzene Market Information

Diisopropylbenzene is a by-product of alkylation process involving benzene. Distillate fractions
containing diisopropylbenzene can be blended into hydrocarbon fuels to add volume to mixtures
without altering the function of the fuel. Diisopropylbenzene is also used as a chemical feedstock.
15 | P a g e
4.1.4 Hazardous Materials and Safety
4.1.4.1 Benzene
The most significant hazards when operating with benzene in a process plant are the long term
effects. Prolonged or repeated exposure to benzene vapor results in blood dyscrasias including
lympho-, thrombo-, and pancytopenia, a decrease in all types of circulating blood cells (Folkins 2000,
p.12). For long term exposure to benzene it is known that developmental toxicity occurs, which
affects the reproductive system, blood, bone marrow, central nervous system, liver urinary system
and organ damage.
Brief contact with benzene is also highly dangerous, even a spillage has the potential to be extremely
hazardous (Folkins 2000, p.1) . It acts as an irritant to the eyes and skin and is very dangerous if
inhaled or swallowed. Poisoning occurs through inhalation, ingestion, and by rapid absorption
through the skin. If any contact with benzene is made medical attention should be immediately
sought after.
Benzene is a very flammable material and has an auto-ignition temperature of 498oC (Folkins 2000,
p.3) It is highly flammable in the presence of open flames and sparks.
4.1.4.2 Propylene
Exposure to high concentrations of propylene does not cause any long term health issues. However,
propylene is a simple asphyxiant compound (Zimmerman 2013, p.3), where in high concentrations it
will displace oxygen. Therefore, a major risk is the possibility of it being leaked into a confined area.
In the event of contact to the skin or eyes and inhalation or ingestion medical attention should be
sought immediately.
Propylene is very flammable; propylene in the liquid form releases flammable vapors and forms a
flammable mixture with air (Zimmerman 2013, p.6). In the instance of a fire, the fire should only be
extinguished if the flow of gas has been stopped. The propylene should be stored in an approved
container that is grounded and in a well-ventilated area. The container should be kept closed and
clearly labeled. Empty containers may contain explosive vapors and therefore all ignition sources
should be kept away from empty containers.
4.1.4.3 Propane
Propane is also a simple asphyxiant (ICIS, 2012).. High concentrations of propane prevent respiration.
In the instance of exposure to propane medical attention should be sought after immediately.
Propane is extremely flammable and should be kept away from ignition sources such as heat, sparks
and flames (ICIS, 2012).. If a leak of propane occurs it is heavier than air and may travel a
considerable distance to a source of ignition.
16 | P a g e
4.1.4.4 Cumene
Long term exposure to high concentrations to cumene has a number of major health concerns.
These are predominately from contact with skin as it is a permeate substances. The substance is
toxic to the lungs, the nervous system, mucous membranes and organ damage (Hwang and Chen
2010, p.8). Cumene is an irritant when it comes into contact with the skin, eyes; it’s ingested and or
inhaled. Exposure may result in significant narcosis, headache, and nausea. Because the depressant
action has a slow induction period and a long elimination period, possible cumulative effects need to
be considered (Hwang and Chen 2010, p.8).
Cumene is a very flammable material and therefore should be kept away from sources of heat,
flames and sparks (Hwang and Chen 2010, p.7). Cumene should be stored in separate safety storage
room that is well ventilated. The storage container should be grounded and the container tightly
closed
4.2 Materials of construction rationale

There are several factors to be considered when selecting engineering materials, but for this
chemical process plant, the overriding considerations are the ability to withstand high temperatures
and pressures, the ability to resist corrosion, how suitable for the process conditions the material is,
and how economical the material is (Seider et al. 2003, p.887)
We must also consider the mechanical design requirements of the process units. The most
economical material that satisfies both process and mechanical requirements should be selected;
this will be the material that gives the lowest cost over the working life of the plant, allowing for
maintenance and replacement. Other factors, such as product contamination and process safety,
must also be considered (Seider et al. 2003, p.889) .
4.2.1 Mechanical design requirements

As suggested by Towler and Sinott,(2008, p.391), the most important mechanical design
requirements to be considered when selecting a material of construction are
1. Fatigue resistance;
2. Any special properties required, such as thermal conductivity, electrical resistance,
3. Ease of fabrication—forming, welding, casting;
4. Availability in standard sizes

5. Contamination regarding the interactions between the material of construction and process
materials, and the consequences on the process, such as for example catalyst deactivation.
According to Towler and Sinott (2008, p.399), stainless steel is approximately equal or superior to
carbon steel in all of the mechanical requirements we have listed. Both carbon steel and stainless
steel have very low rates of contamination.
4.2.2 Corrosion effects

Corrosion is one the most important factors in selecting a material of construction. We must take
into account the chemicals being processed. This process plant deals primarily with hydrocarbon
17 | P a g e
mixtures, which are usually nonaggressive for carbon and low - alloy steel (Dimian and Bildea 2008,
p.504), which are the two main materials being considered for use in the construction of the
reactors, columns and heat exchangers of this process plant. We therefore assume the corrosion due
to the chemicals being processed to be negligible.
We must take the location of the plant into consideration; due to the plant’s proximity to the
coastline, corrosion from seawater spray must be accounted for. Permissible corrosion rates are an
important factor and differ with equipment. Appreciable corrosion can be permitted for tanks and
lines, if anticipated and allowed for in design thickness; small changes in dimensions aren’t critical to
the exterior of these process units.
According to (Al-Fozan and Malik, 2007 p.480), corrosion from seawater spray one hundred meters
from the coast can be as high as 0.816 milli-inch per year for carbon-steel, but only 0.026 milli-inch
per year for stainless steel.
Economic factors
As the ultimate goal for any process plant is to make a profit, economics are a major factor when
making a material selection. According to Zhang 2013, stainless steel has a material factor of 4.0,
while carbon steel has a 0.0. This makes stainless steel the more expensive of the two materials, by a
considerable amount.
4.2.3 Temperature and pressure

Possibly the most important factors when choosing a material of construction are the temperatures
and pressures that the material can withstand. If we choose a material that is insufficiently strong or
heat resistant we risk severe or possibly catastrophic process unit failure. According to Towler and
Sinott (2008, p.402), the average maximum withstand-able temperature for carbon steel is 350 0C,
but for stainless steel it is 900 0C. The maximum withstand-able pressure for carbon steel is 20 bar,
but for stainless steel it is 40 bar.
4.2.4 Overall Recommendation

While stainless steel is the superior material in terms of mechanical design requirements, corrosion
resistance, and temperature and pressure resistance, we also have to take economic factors into
account. In that regard, carbon steel is clearly superior. Despite stainless steel superiority in the
other factors, carbon steel sufficiently meets the design requirements of the process units and is the
more economically viable option. There is one exception to this; for some of the process units, the
temperatures and pressures are too high for carbon steel to withstand and therefore, stainless steel
is necessary.
Recommendation for reactor

Stainless steel is the chosen material. The temperatures and pressures (see Hysys file) within the
reactor are too high for carbon steel to withstand.
Recommendation for all other process units and storage vessels

Carbon steel is the chosen material, all design requirements are met.
18 | P a g e
4.3 Plant location

The geographic location of the cumene production would have significant influence on the
successful of the company. Regarding to Peter and Timmerhaus (1991), there are 12 key factors that
need to be considered in order to select a plant site for certain chemical processes. But for this
project, there are only 8 main factors that need to be taken into account when deciding the cumene
plant location.
1. Distance
2. Spare land
3. Transport
4. Market
5. Land price
6. Energy supply
7. Labour supply
8. Low population
Lot 10 Middle Beach Road, Two Wells, South Australia is the location chosen for the cumene plant.
The place is only takes about 41 minutes from the central business department of Adelaide which
means around 43.6km from the Adelaide. As the distance of the place is near to the Adelaide, then
the availability of the raw materials will not be a problem. This is supported also when the place of
the cumene plant is close to the Princess Highway which allows smooth and fast transportation of
raw materials and products. Good transportation is also one of the factors that affect the marketing
of the products from the cumene plant.
Figure 4. 3: Cumene Plant Location (Google Maps 2013)
In the design project specification, it mentioned the company has predicted thee demand for
phenol-derived plasticisers will rise (Zhang 2013). Therefore, it is highly possible that the cumene
plant will expand the size in the early further. Therefore, a plant location with an undeveloped land
19 | P a g e
nearby was chosen and reserved the future development. The spare land is also can be used for the
room of phenol plant or on site waste treatment and disposal.
The area is also close to residencies of Two Wells which helps in supplying more local labour. If not
possible, the area still near to the capital city so that more labour can come to the cumene plant for
work by using the Princess Highway. As the area near to the Two Wells suburb, then the company
can get energy supply for the cumene plant from there.
As the population around the location chosen is low, then the company can assume that the land
price to build the cumene plant will cheap and reasonable compared to other places. The low
population will help the company to reduce the bad impacts to human being if any accidents occur
during the process of cumene.
Figure 4. 4: Cumene Plant Location, Lot 10 Middle Beach, Two Wells, South Australia (Google Maps 2013)
20 | P a g e
4.4 General Plant Safety

It is important to implement safety measures to protect primarily all the staff working on site as well
as the plant itself. Whenever any of the chemicals are handled it is important that the hazardous
issues relevant with each of the chemicals are applied by according to the MSDS chemical property
sheets. All on site employees will have to where high visibility vests, and hard hats. Additionally any
protective equipment relevant to the specific task must be used before commencement of the task,
such as safety masks and gloves before handling any of the chemicals to prevent contact with your
skin and to prevent respiratory issues.
All employees will receive appropriate training for the tasks they will complete and will be made
aware of emergency exits and correct safety protocols before being able to work on the site. All
equipment will be regularly checked for any cracks or corrosion preventing the risk of any failure or
breaking of equipment.
4.4.1 Major Equipment Safety
4.4.1.1 Reactor
The reactor will operate at a temperature of 400 at a pressure of 30 bar and hence high
temperature and pressure safety must be considered. High and low pressure and temperature
alarms will be added to the reactor to prevent it from reaching unstable operating conditions and
prevent the risk of it over pressurising and bursting or exploding. Additionally a pressure relief
system will be controlled from the high pressure alarm and a safety interlock system will be installed
to prevent any dangerous or conflicting actions. Back up pumps will be installed onto the streams
entering the reactor so if a failure occurs the reactants and or products can be moved through the
reactor to prevent the build-up of the flammable substances. The reactor should be monitored
regularly to prevent leaks, as the highly flammable high temperature vapours will readily ignite.
4.4.1.2 Heat exchanger/pre-heater

The temperature of the streams and equipment will be monitored to avoid the streams from
overheating and potentially causing damage plant or a burst that could create an explosion. The
pressure of the streams entering the pre heater and heat exchange will also be monitored to avoid
the equipment over pressurising which could easier cause a burst. The heat exchanger will be well
insulated to prevent any harm to employees working around the equipment. Emergency safety
interlock systems with overhead sprinklers will be installed to help prevent against failure and
overheating of the equipment.
4.4.1.3 Distillation columns and component splitter

Low and high level alarms will be added to the distillation columns and component splitter to
prevent the column from overflowing. Regular inspection and continuous monitoring of the product
streams will be conducted so that any deterioration or failure of the stages can be identified. High
pressure relief valves will be installed so protect the columns against any unforeseen causes of
pressure build up in the columns, such as blockage of a pipe. Safety interlock systems will also be
installed to shut down the system in the case of an emergency.
21 | P a g e
4.4.1.4 Pumps and pressure relief valves

Each pump and pressure relief valve will have a backup in case one fails, as this would cause a
blockage of materials in the plant and potential damage and failure of the main unit operations in
the plant. The flow rate at the valves will also be measured which would allow any sudden failures
causing a flow rate change to be monitored and to enable complete control over the plant, allowing
an immediate change in flow rate as a response to any emergency situations. Backup of pumps is
also important in the case of failure of a different piece of equipment, as the equipment won’t be
accessible until the pumps have removed all the reactants and products from the system.
4.4.1.5 Coolers
The operational temperature of all the coolers will be monitored to ensure the streams are being
heated to the correct temperature, otherwise there is the potential for undesired phase changes to
occur, potentially causing failure of equipment. The pressure will also be monitored with pressure
relief systems implemented to prevent any sudden pressure changes while cooling, causing failure of
the coolers. A safety interlock system will also be installed to prevent any dangerous or conflicting
actions.
4.4.2 Safety Recommendations

Only a basic safety analysis of the cumene process plant has been considered and if the deign
proposal is successful further HAZOP and HAZAN will be required to identify and reduce the effect of
any potential hazards in the plant. A risk matrix and analysis should also be included as part of the
safety report.
22 | P a g e
5. Process synthesis and assumptions
5.1 Means-end analysis

5.1.1Design Scope
The design of a grassroots 100,000 metric ton per year cumene process plant is required for Dr Who
Chemicals Ltd. The cumene will be synthesised through the alkylation reaction between benzene
and propylene according to:
The reaction is exothermic with an enthalpy in standard conditions of -113kJ/mol. A side reaction
also occurs between benzene and propylene to form p-diisopropylbenzene. Dr Who Chemicals Ltd
have created a catalyst which will reduce the side reaction and accurate the main reaction. From
laboratory experiments it was determined that the process should operate at a temperature
between 200°C and 400°C and a pressure between 20 bar and 30 bar and the use of a packed bed
reactor has been recommended.
Figure 5. 1: Simplistic overview of the cumene process
The specifications set by Dr. Who Chemicals are:
Table 5. 1: Product Requirements
Cumene Purity 99.94 wt% min.

Benzene 100ppm
p-diisopropylbenzene 100ppm
Assumed data on the catalyst provided by Dr Who Chemicals:
Table 5. 2: Catalyst Properties
Catalyst particle diameter ( ) 1.5

Catalyst particle density ( ) 1600
Void fraction ( ) 0.50
Heat transfer coefficient from packed bed to tube wall( ) 75 °C
23 | P a g e
Table 5. 3: Properties of chemicals involved in the cumene production process
Chemical Molecular Weight Chemical formula Chemical structure

Propane 44.1
Cumene 120.19
Propylene 42
Benzene 78.11
p- diisopropylbenzene 162.27
(DIPB)
Selection of Pathway to Cumene
1. High Purity Propylene (>99.9%)
Main Reaction:
Side Reaction:
The main advantage of using a high purity propylene feed is that the process plant would not require
a depropaniser, saving up front money from not needing to construct the component splitter and
ongoing costs with running and maintain the depropaniser. However the high purity propylene feed
would come at a higher cost.
2. Propylene feed with 5% propane impurity
Main Reaction:
Side Reaction:
24 | P a g e
Using a propylene feed with a 5% propane impurity significantly reduces the cost of the raw
materials. However this means that the use of a depropaniser will be essential to prevent the build-
up of propane in the system.
5.1.2 Evaluation of alternative pathways
5.1.2.1 Gross Profit Calculations

The gross profit for each of the pathways will be calculated assuming that the conversion in the
reactor is 100%.
Gross Profit for Case 1: High Purity Propylene (>99.9%)
Assuming that the propylene purity is 100% then:
From the stoichiometry it can be seen that every mole of cumene produced one mole of benzene
and propylene are consumed. Therefore:
25 | P a g e
Gross Profit for Case 2 : Propylene feed with 5% propane impurity
From the stoichiometry it can be seen that every mole of cumene produced one mole of benzene
and propylene are consumed. Therefore:
As the propylene feed has a 5% impurity:
26 | P a g e
From calculating gross profit margins it can be seen that based purely on the income made from the
cumene and the raw materials cost that case 2 with the impure propylene feed will produce a far
greater annual gross profit. Although as case 2 will require a depropaniser, where as potentially
case 1 will not require a depropaniser the final decision on whether case 1 or case 2 is better will be
investigated through case studies and economic evaluations of the results. However as a purity of
near 100% is impossible it is likely that both cases will require a depropaniser, which would indicate
that case 2 is a far better option.
27 | P a g e
5.1.3 Distribution of Chemicals

The cumene will be produced from the raw materials of benzene and propylene with a 5% propane
impurity. Propane (inert), propylene, cumene and di-isopropylbenzene and benzene will be in the
reactor exit stream. The benzene will be in excess and will therefore need to be removed and
recycled to improve the efficiently of the process. The propane and propylene will then need to be
removed as the fuel gas, leaving cumene and di-isopropylbenzene. The cumene will then be
extracted as the product, leaving the di-isopropylbenzene and any other traces of other components
as the raffinate.
Figure 5. 2: Chemical Distribution (BFD)
Elimination of Differences in Composition

Propane (inert), propylene, cumene and di-isopropylbenzene and benzene will be in the reactor exit
stream are all required to be separated based on their composition. The key properties of
components involved are given in Table 5.4 below:
Table 5. 4: Basic Physical Properties
Components
Propylene -186.3 -47.6 91.75 40.6
Propane -181.7 -42.17 96.67 42.5
Benzene 6.6 80.1 289.0 48.8
Cumene -96.9 152.5 357.85 32.1
Di-isopropylbenzene - 210.5 - -
It can be seen that propane and propylene have similar boiling points and therefore the separation
of propane and propylene from the mixture of components will be using with boiling points through
a component splitter. A component splitter will be used for the separation as the most effective
method, as suggest by N, Mahapatra (2010) and W, Luyben (2010). As only propane and propylene
28 | P a g e
will be extracted as vapours the temperature of the component splitter should be less than 80.1 if
the component splitter is at a pressure of 1 bar so that benzene is still in liquid form and remains in
the bottom product. The propane and propylene will come out the separator in the overhead
stream, leaving cumene, benzene and di-isopropylbenzene in the bottom stream.
The benzene can then be removed using its boiling point and a distillation column, where the
benzene will be removed from the top of the column and recycled back to mix with the benzene
feed stream, leaving cumene and di-isopropylbenzene in the bottom stream. Using table ** above
at a pressure of 1 bar the temperature of the distillation column must therefore be between 80.1
and 152.5 as the benzene will leave the top column as a vapour, however the cumene and DIPB
will remain as a liquid bottom product.
The cumene will be separated from the di-isopropylbenzene again using boiling temperature in a
distillation column, with cumene being produced at the top of the column as the product and the di-
isopropylbenzene being removed as the raffinate from the bottom of the distillation column. The
operational temperature of the distillation column at a pressure of 1 bar will need to be between
152.2 and 210.5 so that the cumene can be extracted as the top vapour product leaving the
DIPB as the bottom liquid product.
Figure 5. 3: Elimination of chemicals by difference in composition
5.1.4 Elimination of Pressure and Temperature Differences

A literature review of relevant cumene processes was undertaken to provide information of
temperature and pressure changes in the process. The literature sources which were used to
determine temperature and pressure values are N, Mahapatra (2010), V, Gera et.al. (2011) and W,
Luyben (2010).
29 | P a g e
The benzene feed was assumed to be stored at a liquid and therefore will enter the process at
atmospheric pressure with an assumed ambient temperature of 25 . The propylene feed was also
assumed to be stored as a liquid at an ambient temperature of 25 and hence using a temperature
against vapour pressure graph the pressure of the propylene feed was determined to be 15bar (Air
Liquide, 2013).
The reactor temperature was found to be 360 with a pressure of 25bar. The literature reviewed
temperature and pressure also complied with the temperature and pressure limits experimentally
determined by Dr Who Chemicals. This meant that the benzene and propylene mixture required an
increase in both temperature and pressure to be able to reach the required reactor conditions. The
increase in temperature could be achieved with a reactor pre-heater and the pressure increase could
be achieved with the use of pumps. The literature values for the reactor conditions have been used
to design the cumene process, however the actual values for the reactor conditions were calculated
using a Gibbs reactor to optimise the conversion using Hysys.
The conditions for the component splitter were determined from N, Mahapatra (2010) and W,
Luyben (2010). The literature suggested a temperature of 90 and a pressure of 1.75bar indicating
that a decrease in temperature and pressure was required after the reactor. The decrease in
temperature would be achieved with the use of a cooler and the pressure change could be achieved
using a valve. The top product of propene and propylene from the component splitter was assumed
to be at an inadequate temperature for storage and hence a temperature change was indicated.
The literature values have been used for the process design, however the conditions and outlet
streams will change due to optimisation using Hysys.
The conditions for the benzene column were determined from literature to be a pressure of 1.75bar
and a temperature of 90 . The required temperatures in the column will be achieved with the total
condenser and partial reboiler. The literature suggests that no changes in temperature or pressure
are required between the component splitter and the benzene distillation column. As literature
specifies that the top product temperature of the benzene column will be at a temperature greater
than room temperature a decrease in the benzene recycle using a cooler is required so that the
benzene streams will be mixed at an equal temperature. Mixing the benzene feed and benzene
recycle streams at the same temperature of 25 will reduce the stress on the mixer and minimise
the chance of failure. The benzene distillation column will have a total condenser, so that the
benzene is condensed to a liquid for the recycle stream so that it can be cooled and mixture in the
same phase as the benzene feed stream. The column will have a partial reboiler so that the liquid
product continues onto the cumene distillation column and part of the stream is reboiled back into
the column.
From literature, the pressure and temperature of the cumene distillation column was determined to
be 1 bar and 164 respectively. The total condenser and partial reboiler will control the
temperature of the product streams and will be optimised using Hysys. The literature indicates that
the partial reboiler in the benzene distillation column will adequately heat the DIPB and cumene
product stream to the required temperature for the cumene distillation column and hence no
temperature or pressure change between the columns is required. At the end of the process it is
assumed that the temperatures of the products of the cumene distillation column will be at
30 | P a g e
inadequate temperatures for storage and therefore will require a temperature change. As literature
suggests the cumene distillation column should operate at a temperature of 164 both products of
the column will need to be cooled before storage for collection (N, Mahapatra 2010). The column
will operate with a partial reboiler so that the DIPB is a liquid product with some being reboiled back
into the column, as supported by the literature (N, Mahapatra 2010, V, Gera et.al. (2011) and W,
Luyben (2010)). The cumene column will also have a total condenser so that the cumene product
stream will be completely condensed back to a liquid for storage, also supported by the literature
findings.
A summary of the changes in pressure and temperature required for each unit operation are
indicated in figure 5.4 below
Figure 5. 4: Elimination of pressure and temperature differences using literature values
31 | P a g e
5.1.4.1 Integration of the process

As the cumene process plant is required to make over 5,000 tonnes of product per year a continuous
reactor is required. To enable good surface area in the reactor between the catalyst and reactants
the recommendation by Dr Who Chemicals of a packed bed reactor will be used.
The elimination of temperature and pressure differences indicated that an increase in temperature
before the reactor and a decrease in temperature after the reactor were required. Hence the
system could be integrated using a heat exchanger so that the reactor products would help heat the
reactants before the reactor. This would save money through greatly reducing the amount of
utilities that were required for the process. The final integrated process flow diagram (PFD) can be
seen in figure 5.5 below.
Figure 5. 5: Final integrated design of the cumene plant
The cumene process was designed in figure 5.5 using the means end analysis based on the literature
values that were obtained from are N, Mahapatra (2010), V, Gera et.al. (2011) and W, Luyben (2010).
However the actual values are likely to change slightly when designing the plant in Hysys due to
various methods used in Hysys to further optimise the plant and due to changes in the overall design
on the plant from specific literature sources.
32 | P a g e
5.2 Main assumptions

Numerous assumptions were necessary for the design of the whole process. Although there are
other specific assumptions noted in the relevant sections of the report.
 The high purity propylene feed will not be 100% and will hence still contain a small amount
of propane impurity.
 The ambient conditions of the area the plant is located are a temperature of 25 and
atmospheric pressure.
 The chemical streams compositions and reactions are exactly as specified, with no trace
chemicals or other reactions occurring.
 The cumene process plant will be operational for a total of about 330 days per year and
operate 8000 hours per year.
 The cumene production process is operating in a steady state.
5.3 Contingency plan

It is important to consider and plan for situations where an improbable risk could have a
catastrophic effect on the cumene plant. Failure of any of the pumps, coolers, heaters, heat
exchanger, distillation columns, component splitter or pressure relief valve could have a disastrous
effect on the safety of the employees and the plant itself. In the case of a reactor failure it is
economically unviable to have a backup reactor and therefore it is important that all the pumps are
working to remove any reactants and products from the system so the reactor can be quickly
assessed and fixed. Hence all the main pumps and pressure relief valves will be backed up, so that in
the case of failure the system can be properly controlled and the production of cumene from the
plant can resume.
Similarly in the case of a failure of a distillation column and component splitter it would be
economically unviable to have a backup distillation column or component splitter lying around the
plant. Therefore with the pumps and valves having will be backed up, so that the distillation
columns and component splitters can be quickly emptied of product, allowing for identification of
the cause of failure and for a quick resolution.
In the case of a power outage a generator will be located on site to temporarily keep the process
from shutting down until the main power supply is back online.
5.4 Fluid Packages

In order to describe the physical properties that have been used in Hysys simulation, it is important
to select appropriate physical property model or choosing the right fluid packages for the simulation.
There are many types of the physical property model that made from the combinations of rigorous
material and energy balances (Timmerhaus, Peters & West 2003, p. 201).
There are four important factors that need to be considered before choosing the physical property
model (Carlson 1996). The factors are;
1) Composition of the mixture

2) Pressure and temperature range
33 | P a g e
3) Nature of the properties of interest

4) Parameters availability
In this cumene plant’s simulation, the physical property model that has been used was Peng-
Robinson and NRTL (non-random two-liquid).
Peng-Robinson
This model is recommended for vapour-liquid equilibrium calculations and it is mostly used in
refinery, petrochemical and gas processing ((Timmerhaus, Peters & West 2003, p. 200). It is also
appropriate for single, two-phase or three-phase system (Zhang 2013).
The model was chosen in cumene plant’s simulation because it can be used in large range of
temperature and pressure. The model was used in the main base case study and some of the column.
As the result, the model gives the largest BIP database.
NRTL (non-random two-liquid)

This model is an extension of Wilson equation which represents the liquid structure by using the
liquid cell theory and statistical mechanics (Timmerhaus, Peters & West 2003, p. 200). The liquid
structure should be VLE, LLE and VLLE (Zhang 2013).
The model was chosen for the simulation because it can be used for the non-ideal VLE in some of the
column in the cumene plant.
34 | P a g e
6. Main computational designs and results
6.1 Heat exchanger design
The purpose of the heat exchanger was to heat the reactants to a temperature of 400 at a
pressure of 30 bar before the reactor. The design of the heat exchanger was to reduce the use of
utilities through using the reactor products to partially heat the reactants before the reactor. The
heat exchanger is however unable to completely heat the reactants to the reactor conditions,
indicating the required use of a pre-reactor heater prior to heat exchanger (Appendix B). By adding
the pre-heater before the heat exchanger it meant that the pre-heater would have to heat the
reactants to a lower temperature than if it was after the heat exchanger. This meant that cheaper
utilities were able to be used, as the pre-heater had to raise the temperature by a smaller amount,
allowing the heat exchanger to increase the temperature to the final reactor temperature of 400 .
For the design of the heat exchanger the minimum temperature approach was used as the change in
log mean temperature directly affects the area of the heat exchanger. The minimum temperature
was used in the heat exchanger, which was the smallest of the difference between the temperatures
of the hot reactor products entering the heat exchanger and the pre-reactor stream leaving the heat
exchanger and the difference between the temperature of the reactor product stream leaving the
heat exchanger and reactants entering the heat exchanger. The smallest temperature difference of
73.8oC was then used to calculate the required area of the heat exchanger.
Figure 6. 1: The minimum temperature approach for the heat exchanger used in the cumene production plant
Numerous assumptions were required to be made when calculating the heat exchanger sizing
available in Appendix B. The sizing was calculated with the use of the log mean temperature and
reasonable assumptions along with relevant heat transfer equations to give a good estimate of
required sizing. The only temperature and pressure specified around the heat exchanger was the
tube side outlet stream, after setting the temperature and pressure for one outlet stream, Hysys
calculated the conditions for all the other streams around the heat exchanger. By assuming the heat
35 | P a g e
exchanger model was steady state rating. Hysys calculated the tube shell pressure drop of the heat
exchanger as 13.35 kPa, which is well within the expected pressure drop as presented by Heuristics
for a gas heat exchanger.
Figure 6. 2: Heat Exchanger Design Page from Hysys
The shell side pressure drop of heat exchanger, however, was higher than the range specified by
Heuristics for a gas heat exchanger.
36 | P a g e
6.2 Reactor design

A plug flow reactor (PFR) was used in the cumene production plant as an alkylation reactor. There
were two main reactions occurring in the PFR. The main reaction was:
According to Zhang 2013, the rate of this main reaction was
Where
Since the activation energy and reaction rate constants in Hysys were expressed as kJ/kmol and
kmol/m3, and the values given by Zhang 2013 were in different units. Therefore, a series of unit
conversions were done before put in Hysys reaction set. Detailed unit conversions will be shown in
Appendix A.
The side reaction which produced the un-desired product DIPB was
Where
The same units conversion method was employed to the side reaction and get activation energy,
1.5×105 kJ/mol and constant A 2.2×109m3/(kmol sec). Units conversion will be shown in Appendix A.
After all the unit conversions were done, the activation energy and constant A were put in the
reaction set page in Hysys. And the forward order for propane and benzene in the main reaction
were set to 1 and left cumene to 0 (see Figure 6.3 on the next page).
37 | P a g e
Figure 6. 3: Kinetic reaction table for the main reaction from Hysys
For the side reaction, the forward order for propene and cumene were set to 1 and left DIPB to 0
(See Figure 6.4). These settings were based on the rate laws given by Zhang 2013, both propylene
and benzene in main reaction were first order and so as propylene and cumene in side reaction. This
is the reason why the forward order coefficients were set to that way.
Figure 6. 4: Kinetic reaction table for the side reaction from Hysys
The data for the zeolite catalyst stated in Zhang 2013, such as catalyst particle diameter, density and
voidage, were input into the reactor design page. After putting in all these data into Hysys, the PFR
was still shown as un-solved. Then, the length and diameter from the literature review was entered,
since they were not value that calculated by case studies and they were not the best for the reaction
conversion. Therefore, they were being replacing by other values later and it will be discussed
further in the reactor sizing section.
38 | P a g e
6.2.1 Pressure drop

The pressure drop around the reactor was calculated by Hysys itself, the in-feed pressure to the
reactor was set to 30bar and this pressure was obtained by performing the Gibbs reactor analysis
and it will discuss further in the Gibbs reactor part. In the design parameters page of the PFR, the
pressure drop calculation was set to be calculated by Ergun equation. Therefore the pressure drop
calculated by Ergun equation was 133.8kPa.
6.2.2 Gibbs reactor

The Gibbs reactor was used to determine the theoretical conversion of the reactor. First, the stream
feed to the Gibbs reactor has the same components as the feed to the reactor stream. The pressure,
temperature and the feed ratio was keeping changing to find an optimal condition that can meet the
desire conversion. Full detailed results for Gibbs reactor will be shown in Appendix C.1.
From the Gibbs reactor results, by operating the reactor at 300OC, 35 bar and with the propylene
and benzene in-feed ratio 1 to 6, gave the highest reaction conversion. However, reactor pressure is
limited in the range from 20 to 30 bar according to Zhang 2013. The second best conversion 300oC,
30 bar and 1 to 6 feed ratio was chosen, these conditions did not apply to the final Hysys design
because a series of case studies have shown that these operating conditions did not fit to the
cumene plant design. More detail will be shown in reactor sizing part.
Effect of benzene : propylene infeed

ratio to conversion at 300oC
0.97
Conversion
0.92
300C 25bar
300C 30 bar
0.87
300C 35 bar
0.82
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Benzene to propylene infeed ratio
Figure 6. 5: Effect of benzene: propylene in-feed ratio to conversion at 300oC
39 | P a g e

1
0.95
Conversion
0.9
350C 25 bar
0.85
350C 30 bar
0.8 350C 35 bar
0.75
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 6. 6: Effect of benzene: propylene in-feed ratio to conversion at 350°C
Finally, the reactor temperature at 400oC, 30 bar and 1 to 6 feed ratio was chosen. And these
conditions gave the theoretical conversion, which is the maximum conversion that can be achieved,
as 94.48%. So, the sized reactor should give a conversion which is lower that the Gibbs conversion
and it will be examined in the next section.

1
0.95
Conversion
0.9
0.85 400C 25bar
0.8 400C 30bar
0.75 400C 35 bar
0.7
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 6. 7: Effect of benzene: propylene in-feed ratio to conversion at 400°C
40 | P a g e
6.2.3 Reactor sizing

The size of reactor was determined by performing a series of case studies in Hysys. Case studies
were done by setting reactor length and diameter as independent variables and propylene
conversion as the dependent variable. Case studies with different temperature were done and
compared to each other in order to obtain a size that can match the conditions from Gibbs reactor.
Microsoft Excel was used to compare the transpose result tables from case studies to the Gibbs
conversion. In Hysys case studies, the diameters were set with the range from 1 to 4m and the step
size was equal to 0.1m. The other independent variable tube length was set with the range from 3 to
15m and the step size was equal to 0.2m. By running the case studies with the above settings, 1891
combinations of different diameters, lengths and conversions were obtained. However, not all of
them were being considered, since case studies were aimed to determine the diameter and length
set which matches the Gibbs conversion limit.
At 300oC, 30 bar, the Gibbs conversion limit was obtained to be 0.9915 and from the case study
transpose result table, none of the combinations were matched with the Gibbs result. Therefore,
these operating conditions were not applied to the reactor design in Hysys even though the Gibbs
gave the highest conversion value.
At 350oC, 30 bar, the Gibbs conversion limit was 0.9762. The only diameter and length combination
that matched the conversion limit was 3m diameter and 13.4m length. There were two reasons why
this diameter and length combination was not employed to the reactor design. First, length to
diameter ratio was 4.47, which is much lower than the ratio limit 10. Therefore, if this combination
was chosen, the reactor was more likely to be a tank reactor instead of a plug flow reactor. Secondly,
the purchase cost of the reactor with that size was very high. By using the equipment cost
estimation equation provided by Zhang 2013, the purchase cost of a reactor with 3m diameter and
13.4m length was $233,568. Therefore, not only the conversion was considered for reactor sizing but
also the reactor shape and the economically point of view.
At 400oC, 30 bar, the Gibbs conversion limit was 0.9448. Couples of diameter and length
combinations were matched with the conversion limit such as 1.8m diameter with 9.4m length and
1.9m diameter and 8.4m length etc. The final diameter and length combination chosen was 1.5m
diameter and 14m length. First, the length to diameter ratio was 9.33 which was close to
requirement given by Zhang 2013. The length to diameter ratio indicated shape of the reactor, and a
higher ratio shows the reactor is more likely to be a plug flow reactor. Secondly, although the
purchase cost of a reactor with 1.5m diameter and 14m length was not the lowest compare to the
possible reactor sizes, the reactor conversion with that reactor size and operating conditions was
lower than the theoretical conversion from Gibbs reactor. And this is important because the aim of
using Gibbs reactor was to determine the highest conversion limit of the reactor and make sure that
the reactor conversion was not over the limit. Therefore, the reactor was operated at 400oC and 30
bar with the 1.5m diameter and 14m length.
41 | P a g e
Figure 6. 8: Gibbs conversion and actual reactor conversion.
Table 6. 1: Summary Table for Figure 6.8
Cell Meaning
A1 Propylene molar flow rate in reactor outlet
A2 Propylene molar flow rate in reactor inlet
A3 Conversion for reactor
C1 Propylene molar flow rate in Gibbs reactor outlet
C2 Propylene molar flow rate in Gibbs reactor inlet
C3 Gibbs reactor conversion limit
The Gibbs reactor conversion and reactor conversion were calculated by (propylene molar flow feed
to reactor – propylene molar flow out of reactor) divided by the propylene molar flow feed to
reactor.
42 | P a g e
6.3 Distillation columns design

Two distillation columns were used in the cumene production plant design. The first one was called
benzene column and it was designed to separate benzene and other products such as cumene and
DIPB. The top stream of the column was recycled back to mix with benzene in-feed and bottom
stream was fed to the second column. The second column was called cumene column and it was
designed to separate the desired product cumene and DIPB. The distillate of the second column was
cumene and the bottom product was DIPB with a small amount of cumene.
6.3.1 Shortcut columns

The distillation columns design was first using the shortcut method to determine the theoretical
number of stages, optimal feed stage and the minimum reflux ratio. In the shortcut column
associated with the benzene column, the top product stream was set to liquid phase because the
top stream of benzene column, which was the recycle stream, was required to mix with the liquid
phase fresh benzene feed. The benzene and cumene mole fractions in the shortcut column were set
to 0.005 in the bottom and distillate streams respectively, since most of the unreacted benzene
were required to recycle back to the system instead of cumene. The condenser and reboiler
pressures were set to 1.785 and 1.964 bar from literature reviews. After input all the data required,
the minimum reflux ratio (Rmin) was calculated by Hysys and it was equal to 0.202. According to
Zhang 2013, the external reflux ratio was equal to 1.5 × Rmin = 0.303.
Table 6. 2: Input values to benzene shortcut column
Input values to Hysys

Benzene mole fraction in bottoms 0.005
Cumene mole fraction in distillate 0.005
Condenser pressure 175kPa
Reboiler pressure 195kPa
After input all the required data, shortcut column calculated the theoretical number of trays and the
optimal feed stage automatically. The theoretical number of trays and optimal feed stage were
calculated to be 15.5 and 5.123, these values were rounded up and put into the actual distillation
column design page in Hysys.
Table 6. 3: Results from benzene shortcut column
Output values from Hysys

Minimum reflux ratio 0.201
Theoretical number of trays 15.5 ≈ 16
Optimal feed stage 5.123 ≈ 6
In the actual distillation column design page, after specifying all the data from shortcut column, the
distillation column was shown as un-converged. Therefore, the benzene mole fraction in the bottom
stream was specified to 0.0001 to get the column converged.
The same kind of method was applied to the cumene column. And the external reflux ratio was
found to be 0.553. The theoretical number of trays was rounded up to be 34 and optimal feed stage
was rounded up to be 6.
43 | P a g e
TableXX. Input values to cumene shortcut column.
Table 6. 4: Input values to cumene shortcut column

Cumene mole fraction in bottoms 0.0001
DIPB mole fraction in distillate 0.0001
Condenser pressure 101.3kPa
Reboiler pressure 120.0kPa
Table 6. 5: Results from cumene shortcut column

Optimal feed stage 5.185 ≈ 6
6.3.2 Column sizing

The size of column was determined by the diameter and numbers of trays, the number of trays were
related to the height of the column. In the column sizing part, not only the diameter and the number
of trays were calculated but also the plate efficiency and the tray pressure drop.
6.3.2.1 Diameter
The determination of column diameter was following the example given by Zhang 2013. The data
from Hysys design were imported to the spreadsheet in Hysys, such as liquid and gas densities and
flow rates. The imported data were used to find the parameters related to the system such as
flooding velocity (Uf) and surface tension factor (Fst). These calculated parameters were calculated in
order to find the column diameter (Dt) and it was 2.09m for the benzene column and 1.315m for
cumene column. A full detailed calculation will be shown in Appendix D.1.1.
6.3.2.2 Plate efficiency and height

The plate efficiencies were determined by using separators. The feed to this separator has the same
compositions and flow conditions as the feed to column except for the temperature. The feed
temperature was using the average temperature inside the column, which was the average of the
reboiler and condenser temperatures. After that, other parameters like the viscosities, molar
fractions and volatilities were imported to Hysys spreadsheet. By using these parameters, the
average viscosity, volatility for components and more importantly relative volatility were calculated
to find the O’Connell correlation, which is equal to plate efficiency. The plate efficiency for benzene
column was 45.82% and cumene column was 58.95%. These plate efficiencies were then used to
calculate the actual number of plates in the column by using the theoretical number of plates from
shortcut columns. Therefore, the actual numbers of trays for benzene column were calculated to be
34 and 58 for cumene column.
The height of column is a function of the number of trays in the column and the tray spacing. Since
the tray spacing was assumed to be 0.6096m and by using the relationship between the tray spacing
and the actual number of trays. The height for benzene column was 24.99m and cumene column
was 39.624m. A full detailed calculation for plate efficiencies and heights will be shown in Appendix
D.1.3.
44 | P a g e
6.3.2.3 Tray pressure drop

The calculation of tray pressure drop was following the example given by Zhang 2013. The gas and
liquid flow rates and properties were imported to Hysys spreadsheet. These data were used to find
the dry tray pressure drop (hd), equivalent head on tray (hl) and pressure drop due to surface tension
(hσ). The sum of these three parameters was the total pressure drop (Ht), and tray pressure drop was
depending on the value of Ht. And so, the pressure drop for benzene column calculated to be 0.0882
psi/tray and 0.0805 psi/tray for cumene column. A detailed calculation will be shown in Appendix
D.1.4.
6.3.3 Column pressure

The pressure of the distillation columns was determined using component splitters with an adjust
loop on the outflow streams of the component splitter that would calculate the pressure of the
column for a required temperature. The temperature was calculated from the outlet stream of the
distillation columns in the base case and was then used to find the corresponding pressure.
For the benzene distillation column the component splitters using adjust loops on Hysys gave a
pressure value of 1.785 bar which was support by literature value of 1.75bar as reported by N,
Mahapatra (2010) and W, Luyben (2010). The slight difference in the literature and theoretically
determined pressure drop from Hysys is possibly caused due to being unable to exactly match the
component splitter temperature and pressure with the distillation column temperature and pressure.
The cumene column pressure was calculated in a similar way, although it was noticed that Hysys
calculated the pressure of the column as 1 atm. This was not calculated directly due to the
temperature, but because the temperature indicated that the distillation column must be at its
minimum pressure. Therefore Hysys gave the value for the distillation column pressure as 1 atm as
the column would not be able to operate in a vacuum situation. This column pressure was also
supported by N, Mahapatra (2010) and W, Luyben (2010) who documented the cumene distillation
column pressure as 1bar.
6.3.4 Column design check

According to Zhang 2013, the tray pressure drop for flow of vapour in a tower should be between
0.05-0.15 psi/tray. The tray pressure drops for both columns were around 0.08psi/tray and therefore,
the tray pressure drops for both columns were fine.
Another constriction from Zhang 2013, the maximum column height to diameter ration is 33. For the
benzene column, the height to diameter was 11.96 and it was under the maximum allowed value.
The second distillation column, cumene column, has a height to diameter ratio equal to 30.1.
Although the ratio is a bit high compare to the first column, it is still under the maximum specified
value 33, so the column design is fine.
45 | P a g e
Table 6. 6: Summary Table for Column Sizing
Benzene Column Cumene Column

Column Diameter (m) 2.09 1.315
O’Connell correlation 45.82% 58.95%
Theoretical number of plate 16 34
Actual number of plate 34 58
Column spacing (m) 0.6096 0.6096
Column Height (m) 24.99 39.624
Pressure drop (psi/tray) 0.0882 0.0805
Other than the column L/D ratio and the pressure drop checking, the other things that need to check
is the maximum flooding % and the maximum downcomer backup. While calculating the pressure
drop per tray for both columns, the flooding % were assumed to be 80%, therefore the maximum
flooding % calculated by Hysys for both columns should be lower than 80%. Also, according to Zhang
2013, the maximum downcomer backup should be lower than 50% of the tray spacing. The
maximum flooding % for benzene column was 77.74% and the maximum downcomer backup% was
37.3%, both of the results obtained from Hysys were lower than the limits (See Figure 6.7).
Table 6. 7: Hydraulic results table from Hysys for benzene column.
Also, the maximum flooding % for cumene column was 63.39% and the maximum downcomer
backup was 25.31%. Both of the results obtained from Hysys design were under the limits (See
Figure 6.8).
Table 6. 8: Hydraulic results table from Hysys for cumene column.
46 | P a g e
7. Hysys results and case studies

7.1 Hysys results
Computational Results
The cumene process plant was successfully simulated using Aspen Hysys software and achieved the required design specifications as set by Dr Who
Chemicals Ltd as seen in table ** below.
Table 7. 1: Design specifications set by Dr Who Chemicals
Cumene Purity 99.94 wt% min.

Benzene 100ppm
p-diisopropyl benzene 100ppm
The cumene product stream had a purity of 99.99 wt% which was achieved with a mass flow rate of 12530kg/hour, which when operating for 8000 hours a
year reaches just over the required cumene production of 100,000 metric tonnes/year. This cumene production was achieved from a benzene stream and
propylene stream feed of 8273kg/hour and 4787kg/hour respectively. The propane and unreacted propylene flue gas were produced at a rate of
274.7kg/hour with the DIPB waste stream being formed at 264.9kg/hour.
From the Gibbs analysis it was discovered that the benzene to propylene feed ratio should be 1:6 on a molar basis, which was then implemented on the
Hysys design using a set loop function. The final cumene production was calculated using the set loop function along with the adjust loop which set the
propylene feed stream so that the overall cumene production will be 100,000 metric tonnes/year.
All parameters that were used in the calculations were justified by the Heuristics where possible. In all other cases they were the same or very close to the
discovered literature values given by N, Mahapatra (2010), V, Gera et.al. (2011) and W, Luyben (2010). A further economic analysis will be complete to
assess the viably of the created process plant.
47 | P a g e
Figure 7. 1: Cumene production plant PFD from Hysys
48 | P a g e
Table 7. 2: Streams operating conditions and molar flow rate for cumene production plant from Hysys
49 | P a g e
Table 7. 3: Energy balances for cumene production plant from Hysys
50 | P a g e
7.2 Hysys case studies

7.2.1 Case study 1
Figure H. 1:Print-screened case study 1 cumene production plant from Hysys
Table H. 1: Print-screened streams operating conditions and molar flow rate for cumene production plant from Hysys
The aim of this case study was to investigate the effect that a five percent propane impurity in the
propylene feed stream would have on the economic viability of this process plant.
The mole fraction of propylene in the propylene feed stream was set to 0.95 and the mole fraction
of propane was set to 0.05.
51 | P a g e
The component splitter ‘Depropaniser” was replaced with a distillation column. The method of this
distillation columns design was the same as the method described in part 6.3.1 of this report.
The external reflux ratio was found to be 0.827. The theoretical number of trays was rounded down
to be 10 and optimal feed stage was rounded down to be 8.
Table H. 2: Input values to depropanizer shortcut column.

Propane mole fraction in bottoms 0.0001
Benzene mole fraction in distillate 0.0001
Condenser pressure 480.0 kPa
Reboiler pressure 495.0kPa
Table H. 3: Output values from depropanizer shortcut column.

Optimal feed stage 8.233≈ 8
In regards to economic analysis, this case study will have an effect on three of the factors affecting
the economic viability of this process:
-How expensive the propylene/ propane feed stream is

-The installation and usage of a distillation column rather than a component splitter
-The amount of cumene and DIPB produced
These were factored into the base case economic analysis
Ye Pre-tax Depreci Taxable Tax After-tax Cumulative

ar Capital Savings cashflow ation savings paid cashflow cashflow
- -
$12,764 $12,764,6 $ $12,764,61
0 ,617 0 17 0 $0 - 7 -$12,764,617
- - - -
$40,609 $40,609,4 $1,276, $41,885,8 $ $40,609,43
1 ,434 34 462 96 - 4 -$53,374,051
52 | P a g e
- - - -
$40,609 $40,609,4 $1,276, $41,885,8 $ $40,609,43
2 ,434 34 462 96 - 4 -$93,983,485
- - - - -
$40,609 $40,609,4 $1,276, $41,885,8 $ $40,609,43 $134,592,91
3 ,434 34 462 96 - 4 9
- - - - -
$40,609 $40,609,4 $1,276, $41,885,8 $ $40,609,43 $175,202,35
4 ,434 34 462 96 - 4 3
- - - - -
$40,609 $40,609,4 $1,276, $41,885,8 $ $40,609,43 $215,811,78
5 ,434 34 462 96 - 4 7
- - - - -
$40,609 $40,609,4 $1,276, $41,885,8 $ $40,609,43 $256,421,22
6 ,434 34 462 96 - 4 1
- - - - -
$40,609 $40,609,4 $1,276, $41,885,8 $ $40,609,43 $297,030,65
7 ,434 34 462 96 - 4 5
- - - - -
$40,609 $40,609,4 $1,276, $41,885,8 $ $40,609,43 $337,640,08
8 ,434 34 462 96 - 4 9
- - - - -
$40,609 $40,609,4 $1,276, $41,885,8 $ $40,609,43 $378,249,52
9 ,434 34 462 96 - 4 2
- - - - -
$40,609 $40,609,4 $1,276, $41,885,8 $ $40,609,43 $418,858,95
10 ,434 34 462 96 - 4 6
The NPV was determined to be = -$273, 382, 063
53 | P a g e
7.2.2 Case study 2, Reactor Performance – Temperature
The effect of temperature on the reaction in the alkylation reactor was investigated to determine
the ideal condition for the alkylation reactor. The main objective for the investigation was to find the
temperature that gives the highest product of cumene which means the highest conversion of the
reaction in the reactor.
The volume of the reactor in this case study was set to 10 times of the volume of the reactor in the
base case. Then, the ratio of L/D was calculated to find the diameter and length needed by the
reactor. This calculation can be found in Appendix E. The pressure was fixed as the pressure chosen
in the base case.
In this case study, the relationship of both main and side reaction with the temperature in the
reactor will be investigated. The red and blue line in the figure 2 as shown below indicates the main
and side reaction actual conversion respectively. The temperature was profiled from 250 oC to 450 oC.
Figure 7. 2: Main reaction actual conversion.
Based on the figure 7.2, the actual conversion of the main reaction of the cumene plant was
increasing exponentially until temperature at 325 oC. At this temperature, maximum conversion of
100.0% was achieved and the conversion remains at the range of 90.00%-100.0% as the temperature
was increased. Therefore, temperature at 325 oC was ideally recommended for the reactor to reduce
the costs of using the zeolite catalyst and will help to reduce the duty of the heat exchanger.
54 | P a g e
Figure 7. 3: Main and side reaction actual conversion.
Based on figure 7.3, it was proven that the temperature of the reactor strongly influence the actual
conversion of both main and side reaction for the cumene plant. For the side reaction, the actual
conversion of di-isopropyl benzene was started to increase from temperature at 305 oC. The
conversion of cumene in the main reaction was getting decline from temperature at 350 oC. From
this temperature, the conversion of the di-isopropyl benzene was increasing as well as the
temperature increased. Thus, the ideal temperature that the reactor should have is between 325 oC
and 350 oC so that maximum conversion of cumene can be achieved.
55 | P a g e
8. Economic analysis
8.1 Total capital investment estimation (CAPEX)

Aspen Hysys was used to design a cumene production process which can produce 100,000 metric
ton of cumene per year and using benzene and propylene as raw materials. In order to estimate a
fully developed capital costs, the purchase costs for each unit operation was first calculated. The
equipment costs for different operations were given in design project specification (Zhang 2013) and
they were calculated based on the unit size and the operating conditions such as power and
pressure. Next, the purchased equipment costs were used to determine the total installed costs by
the equation (Zhang 2013):
Table 8. 1: Material factors associated with different materials (Zhang 2013).
Material Material factor

Carbon steel 0.0
Stainless steel 4.0
Table 8. 2: Pressure factors associated with different pressures (Zhang 2013)
Pressure(Absolute) Pressure factor

<10atm 0.0
10-20atm 0.6
20-40atm 3.0
40-50atm 5.0
50-100atm 10
According to Zhang 2013, the costs of pipes and valves have already been included in the equipment
cost factor, therefore no costing for pipes and valves were included. And since the cost equations for
vessels, tray and catalyst have included the pressure effects, so the pressure factors did not apply to
those unit operations. Also, the costs of reboilers and condensers in distillation columns were
assumed to be part of the cost of distillation columns and they were already included in the
equipment purchase cost. Although 2 mixers were used in the design of the cumene production
plant, the costs of them were not included in the FCI because the costs of mixers were very small
compare to other unit operations like reactor and distillation columns. A full detailed calculation of
installation costs and working capital will be shown in Appendix F.1.1
The sum of all installed equipment costs was classified as FCI and it was determined to be
$5,308,708 in 2011 and $5,133,775 in 2013. The purpose of finding the FCI was to estimate the initial
costs of the plant. Working capital, according to the text book Peter and Timmerhaus, was assumed
to be 15% of the FCI and so, the working capital was $796,306 in 2011 and $770,066 in 2013. The
total capital investment (TCI) was equal to the sum of FCI and working capital, and it was equal to
$6,105,014 in 2011 and $5,903,841 in 2013. TCI was found to calculate the net present value and the
payback period in the cash flow statement.
56 | P a g e
Table 8. 3: The total installation costs for cumene production plant.
Name Purchase Cost Installation cost Installation cost

in 2011 in 2013
Pumps Pump 1 $ 3,328.07 $ 23,296.49 $ 22,528.82
Pump 2 $ 1,222.62 $ 8,558.37 $ 8,276.36
HEX Heat Exchanger $ 12,614.78 $ 138,762.62 $ 134,190.11
Heaters Heater 1 $ 14,682.41 $ 102,776.89 $ 99,390.19
Heater 2 $ 1,288.79 $ 5,155.15 $ 4,985.27
Coolers Cooler 1 $ 15,146.09 $ 60,584.35 $ 58,587.97
Cooler 2 $ 8,972.22 $ 35,888.88 $ 34,706.27
Cooler 3 $ 4,399.10 $ 17,596.39 $ 17,016.55
Reactor Reactor Vessel $ 121,875.23 $ 975,001.85 $ 942,873.57
Benzene B. column vessel $ 135,163.27 $ 540,653.10 $ 522,837.48

column
B. column trays $ 16,912.90 $ 67,651.59 $ 65,422.33

Cumene C. column vessel $ 138,886.25 $ 555,545.02 $ 537,238.69
column
C. column trays $ 18,539.55 $ 74,158.18 $ 71,714.52

Depropaniser Splitter vessel $ 146,061.91 $ 584,247.65 $ 564,995.51
Storage Propylene and $ 83,229.86 $ 382,857.35 $ 370,241.42

tanks (per propane
week) Benzene $ 83,446.47 $ 333,785.88 $ 322,786.96
Fuel gas $ 230,314.09 $ 921,256.34 $ 890,899.08
Cumene $ 108,092.93 $ 432,371.71 $ 418,124.19
DIPB $ 12,140.00 $ 48,560.02 $ 46,959.87
Total $ 1,156,316.54 $ 5,308,707.82 $ 5,133,775.16
8.2 Chemical engineering plant cost index (CEPCI)

Since the given cost data were estimated in year 2011, in order to convert the equipment costs in
year 2011 to 2013, the CEPCI was applied. CEPCI is an inflation rate index for chemical plant and the
indexes for 2011 and 2013 are 585.7 and 566.4 respectively (Chemical engineering plant cost index
(CEPCI) 2013). By taking CEPCI into consideration, a better and more accurate costs estimation can
be obtained.
8.3 Operating expenses (OPEX)

OPEX is an estimation of an annual cost to run a process plant. The estimation was calculated based
on the economic data written in Zhang 2013 and Peter and Timmerhaus textbook. OPEX calculation
can be divided into few categories and they are variable production costs, fixed charges, plant
57 | P a g e
overhead costs and general expenses, there were calculated to be $137,159,950, $102,676,
$728,362 and $31,736,454 in 2013 respectively.
Table 8. 4: OPEX for the cumene production plant (Zhang 2013).
Product cost Estimated cost Range/Description

2013($AUD/year)
Raw materials $ 129,951,387.97
Operating Labour $ 510,400.00
Employee oncost $ 102,080.00 20% of operating labour
Operating Supervision $ 586,960.00 115% operating labour
Utilities $ 5,014,565.01
Maintenance and repairs $ 359,364.26 7% fixed capital cost
Laboratory labour $ 586,960.00 115% of operating labour
Catalyst $ 48,232.33 Size of reactor × Voidage×
density of catalyst ×price
Variable production costs $ 137,159,949.57
Taxes (property) $ 51,337.75 1-2% of fixed capital

investment
Financing (interest) $ - 5-10% of the borrowed
capital
Insurance $ 51,337.75 1% fixed capital investment
Rent $ - not considered
Fixed charges $ 102,675.50
Plant overhead costs $ 728,362.13 50-70% total operating

labour, supervision and
maintenance
Administrative costs $ 76,560.00 15-25% operating labour

Contingencies $ 25,459,116.17 15% Total product cost
Distribution and marketing costs $ 3,394,548.82 2-20% Total product cost
Research and development costs $ 2,806,228.94 2-5% every sales dollar
General Expenses $ 31,736,453.94
Total Product cost $ 169,727,441
8.3.1 Operating labour

Operating labour was calculated based on the spreadsheet provided by Zhang 2013. Since there
were 6 heat exchangers, 2 towers, a vessel, 2 pumps and a reactor in Hysys simulation PFD, total
number of operators needed per shift was calculated to be 1.8. Several assumptions were made to
calculate the operating labour cost, first it was assumed that an operator works on average 49 weeks
per year, 3 weeks were off for vacation and sick leave. Also, there were five 8-hour shifts per week
and total shift per year were therefore be 245. For a chemical process plant, there were normally 3
shifts per day and 330 operating days per year. Therefore, the number of total operators required
for the operation was calculated to be 4.04. Base on the number of total operators required for the
operation, the total number of operators needed was 7.27 and it was rounded up to 8. The
expected annual salaries of operators in the plant were assumed to be $63,800 and so, the operating
labour cost was equal to $510,400. No CEPCI was applied in the calculation of operation labour
58 | P a g e
because the annual salaries assumed were in 2013 Australian dollar. A detailed calculation of
operating labour will be shown in Appendix F.2.
Table 8. 5: Total operators required for different equipment per shift (Zhang 2013).
Equipment Number of Operators Total operators

equipment per Shift per shift
Auxiliary Facilities
Air Plants 0 1.0 0
Boilers 0 1.0 0
Chimneys and Stacks 0 0.0 0
Cooling Towers 0 1.0 0
Water Demineralisers 0 0.5 0
Electric Generation Plants 0 0.5 0
Portable Generation Plants 0 3.0 0
Electric Substations 0 0.0 0
Incinerators 0 2.0 0
Mechanical Refrigeration Units 0 0.5 0
Waste Water Treatment Plants 0 2.0 0
Water Treatment Plants 0 2.0 0
Process Equipment
Evaporators 0 0.30 0
Vaporizers 0 0.05 0
Furnaces 0 0.50 0
Fans 0 0.05 0
Blowers and Compressors 0 0.15 0
Heat Exchangers 6 0.10 0.6
Towers 2 0.35 0.7
Vessels 1 0.00 0
Pumps 2 0.00 0
Reactors 1 0.50 0.5
8.3.2 Utilities
Several utilities were used in the cumene production plant simulation and they were electricity,
organic waste disposal, cooling water and pressurised steam with different conditions. Each utility
was selected based on the operating requirements and all the utilities cost were given in Zhang 2013
and they were listed in Australian dollar in 2011, therefore CEPCI 2013 was applied. The total utilities
cost was calculated to be $5,185,436 in 2011 and $5,014,565 in 2013 and it was counted as part of
the operating expenses. A detailed calculation for all the utilities used will be shown in F.2.11.
8.3.2.1 Electricity
Electricity was mainly consumed by two pumps in the plant. Both of the pump duties were
calculated by Aspen Hysys and since the plant was assumed to operate 8000hours per year,
therefore the pump duty was multiplied by 8000 to find the total energy consumption per year.
Both pumps consumed more than 555,000kW per year and the electricity cost was assumed to $0.06,
therefore the electricity costs $33,861 per year in 2011.
8.3.2.2 Organic waste disposal

There was a product stream which mainly consists of DIPB and it was classified as a hazardous waste.
In total, there was 2119 metric ton of DIPB produced each year and the disposal of it cost the plant
$2,119,370 in 2011.
59 | P a g e
8.3.2.3 Cooling water

Cooling water was used to take heat away from the streams, the cooling water was available at
516kPa and 30oC and the return temperature is no more than 15 oC and at least 305kPa. All the
coolers and condensers in columns were using cooling water as utilities. The total amount of cooling
water used was almost 1.5×106kg/hr, so the total cost for cooling water was $236,584 in 2011.
8.3.2.4 Pressurised steams

Pressurised steams with different pressure were used to provide heat to heaters and reboilers in the
process. 446 kPa low pressure steam was used the fuel gas to room temperature for storage.
1,135kPa medium pressure steam was used in the distillation column reboilers to reflux the
reactants back to the column. 4,237 kPa high pressure steam was used in heat exchanger to heat up
the reactants up to more than 200oC. The total amount of steams used in the production process
were calculated by Aspen Hysys and a large amount of pressurised steams were used to heat up the
reactants and products, so the total cost for steams was $2,959,188 per year in 2011.
Table 8. 6: Total annual utility cost for cumene production plant
Equipment
Name Utility Annual Utility Annual Utility
Type Cost in 2011 cost in 2013
Pump 1 Electricity $31,300.37 $30,268.96
Pump 2 Electricity $2,560.36 $2,475.99
Heater 1 High pressure $1,895,680.00 $1,833,213.51
steam
Heater 2 Low pressure $1,429.20 $1,382.10
steam
Cooler 1 Cooling water $141,264.00 $136,609.07
B. column reboiler Medium $699,920.00 $676,856.22
pressure
steam
B. column condenser Cooling water $57,568.00 $55,671.02
C. column reboiler High pressure $198,592.00 $192,047.99
steam
C. column condenser Cooling water $15,449.60 $14,940.50
Utility Cost Not Associated

with Equipment
Description Utility Cost
DIPB disposal Hazardous $2,119,369.68 $2,049,532.16
Total utility cost= $5,185,435.61 $5,014,565.01
8.4 Raw materials and profits

The raw materials used to produce cumene were benzene and propylene and since they were not
100% pure, therefore the propylene purity was assumed to be 99.98% with 0.02% propane. The
costs for the raw materials were given by Zhang 2013. The raw material in-feed flow rates in Hysys
design were used to calculate the annual raw material costs. The purchasing price for propylene with
more than 99.9wt% purity was $1,570 per metric ton and for benzene more than 99.9wt% purity
60 | P a g e
was $1,120 per metric ton, therefore the total annual raw material cost was $134,379,463 in 2011.
The profit of the cumene plant came from selling the product cumene and the side product fuel gas.
The flow rates of the cumene and fuel gas were obtained from Hysys design, the selling price for
cumene with more than 99wt% purity was $1,434 per metric ton and for fuel gas was $630 per
metric ton. So, the annual profit was calculated to be $145,092,540 in 2011. CEPCI was applied here
to convert the calculated costs and profits to 2013 value. A full detailed calculation of raw materials
and profit will be shown in Appendix F.2.12.
Table 8. 7: Annual raw materials cost for a cumene production plant
Raw Material Annual Cost in 2011 Annual cost in 2013

Benzene $74,126,425.68 $71,683,809.98
Propylene $60,253,037.48 $58,267,577.99
Total= $134,379,463.16 $129,951,387.97
Table 8. 8: Annual profits for a cumene production plant
Profit Material Annual Profit in 2011 Annual Profit in 2013

Propane & Propylene $1,379,439.94 $1,333,984.60
Cumene $143,713,099.90 $138,977,462.50
Total= $145,092,539.84 $140,311,447.10
8.5 Cash flow statement

Couples of assumptions were made according to Zhang 2013, the after-tax internal hurdle rate was
equal to 9% p.a., the linear depreciation rate 10% was employed, marginal taxation rate was 35%,
the construction period of the plant was one year and the project plant life was 10 year after start-
up. By using the above assumptions, a cash flow statement was prepared to calculate the net
present value, return on investment, internal rate of return and payback period.
As stated above, the construction period of the plant was 1 year, so the total capital investment cost
was put in year 0 of the cash flow statement. The pre-tax cash flow was the negative value of the
capital because no costs and profits were included in year 0. Therefore, the cumulative cash flow
was $-5,903,841 for the construction year.
In year 1, when the plant was starting operating and making expenses and profits, the saving was
the profit from products minus the OPEX. And since the OPEX was larger than the profit, therefore it
had a negative saving value $-29,415,994. After year 0, the depreciation rate have started counting it
was 10% of TCI, which was $590,384. Taxable saving was equal to pre-tax cash flow minus
depreciation, and it was equal to $-30,006,378 for year 1. Since no marginal tax was needed to pay if
the plant is not making any profits, therefore after tax cash flow was equal to pretax cash flow. The
cumulative cash flow for year 1 was equal to $-35,319,835, and the same calculation method was
applied from year 2 to year 10 in cash flow statement.
The cumulative cash flow in year 10 was $-300,063,782 and therefore the net present value (NPV)
was calculated to be $-194,685,622 by using Microsoft Excel NPV function with discount rate equal
to 9%. Because of the negative saving values from year 1 to year 10, the return of investment and
61 | P a g e
the payback period were both negative, which means the plant is not getting back any investment
costs and it will never recover the investment costs.
Table 8. 9: Cash flow statement for cumene production plant
Year Capital Savings Pre-tax Depreciation Taxable Tax After-tax Cumulative

cash flow savings paid cash flow cash flow
0 $5,903,841 0 -$5,903,841 0 $0 $ - -$5,903,841 -$5,903,841
1 -$29,415,994 -$29,415,994 $590,384 -$30,006,378 $ - -$29,415,994 -$35,319,835
2 -$29,415,994 -$29,415,994 $590,384 -$30,006,378 $ - -$29,415,994 -$64,735,830
3 -$29,415,994 -$29,415,994 $590,384 -$30,006,378 $ - -$29,415,994 -$94,151,824
4 -$29,415,994 -$29,415,994 $590,384 -$30,006,378 $ - -$29,415,994 -$123,567,818
5 -$29,415,994 -$29,415,994 $590,384 -$30,006,378 $ - -$29,415,994 -$152,983,812
6 -$29,415,994 -$29,415,994 $590,384 -$30,006,378 $ - -$29,415,994 -$182,399,806
7 -$29,415,994 -$29,415,994 $590,384 -$30,006,378 $ - -$29,415,994 -$211,815,800
8 -$29,415,994 -$29,415,994 $590,384 -$30,006,378 $ - -$29,415,994 -$241,231,794
9 -$29,415,994 -$29,415,994 $590,384 -$30,006,378 $ - -$29,415,994 -$270,647,788
10 -$29,415,994 -$29,415,994 $590,384 -$30,006,378 $ - -$29,415,994 -$300,063,782
62 | P a g e
9. Recommendations
A mean end analysis was used to synthesise the cumene process based on values taken from
literature. The analysis identified all the necessary equipment and major unit operations for the
cumene production plant.
The cumene process plant was completely simulated using Hysys and it was determined that a
cumene product stream with a purity of 99.99 wt% could be achieved using benzene feed stream
and propylene feed stream of 8273kg/hour and 4787kg/hour respectively. The side products of DIPB
and the fuel gas were produced at rates of 264.9kg/hour and 247.7kg/hour respectively. The overall
cumene production specifications set by Dr Who Chemicals was achieved with a mass flow rate of
12,530kg/hour.
The economic analysis indicated that the base case with a high purity propylene feed would be
unviable as the NPV determined that the process plant would have a negative return on investment
and pay-back period of -$194,685,622. It was also determined that when using a propylene feed
with a 5 wt% propane impurity it will also be an economically unviable operation over the 10 year
life span of the production plant.
It is recommended that Dr Who Chemicals Ltd should not build the cumene plant as it was
determined that the plant will not make a profit.
63 | P a g e
10. References
Air Liquide 2013, ‘Gas Encyclopedia: Propylene’ [Accessed 20 August 2013] Available at:
http://encyclopedia.airliquide.com/Encyclopedia.asp?GasID=54
Al-Fozan, Saleh A, Malik, Anees U 2007, ‘Effect of seawater level on corrosion behaviour of different
alloys’, SWCC Journal, vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 477-484
Aspen Technology, Inc 2012, Aspen Icarus Reference Guide, 8th edn, Aspentech, viewed 18 October
2013, <www.aspentech.com/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx id 1503238 518>
Chemical engineering plant cost index (CEPCI) 2013, Chemical Engineering Aug. 2013: 56. Academic
Onefile, viewed 10 October 2013,
http://go.galegroup.com.proxy.library.adelaide.edu.au/ps/i.do?action=interpret&id=GALE|A339746
176&v=2.1&u=adelaide&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&authCount=1
Degnan, TF, Smith, CM, Venkat, CR 2001, „Alkylation of aromatics with ethylene and propylene:
recent developments in commercial processes‟, Applied Catalysis, vol. 221, pp.283-294, viewed
October 5th 2013, (Elsevier Science)
Dimian, Alexandre C, Bildea, Costin Sorin 2008, Chemical Process Design: Computer Aided Case
studies, John Wiley and Sons, Morlenbach, Germany
Folkins, H. O. 2000. Benzene. Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry.
Gera, V, Kaistha, N, Panahi, M and Skogestad, S (2011) ‘Plantwide Control of a Cumene Manufacture
Process’, Indian Institute of Technology Kampur, Chemical Engineering Department [Accessed 10
August 2013] Available at:
http://www.nt.ntnu.no/users/skoge/publications/2011/gera_escape21/escape21_vivekgera.pdf
Google Maps 2013, Lot 10 Middle Beach, Two Wells, South Australia, Google.
Luyben, W (2010) ‘Design and Control of the Cumene Process’, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., vol 49, no. 2, pp.
719-734
Mahapatra, N (2010) ’Design and Simulation of Cumene Plant using Aspen Plus’ , National institute of
Technology Rourkela [Accessed 10 August 2013] Available at:
http://ethesis.nitrkl.ac.in/1746/1/nirlipt_ethesis.pdf
Peter, M. Timmerhaus, K. & West, R. 2003, Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers,
University of Colorado, Mcgraw Hill.
Towler, Gavin, Sinnott, Ray 2008, Chemical Engineering Design: Principles, Practice and Economics of
Plant and Process design, Elsevier, Burlington, Massachusetts.
Röper, M., Gehrer, E., Narbeshuber, T. and Siegel, W. 2000. Acylation and Alkylation. Ullmann's
Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry.
64 | P a g e
Reed Business Information Ltd. (2012). Benzene. Viewed 1 November 2013,

<http://www.icis.com/v2/chemicals/9075157/benzene.html>.
Reed Business Information Ltd. (2012). Cumene. Viewed 1 November 2013.

2011.<http://www.icis.com/v2/chemicals/9075197/cumene.html>.
Reed Business Information Ltd. (2012). Propylene. , Viewed 1 November 2013.<

http://www.icis.com/v2/chemicals/9076453/propylene.html>.
Hwang, S. Y. and Chen, S. S. 2010. Cumene. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. 1–10.
Seider, Warren D, Seader, J.D, Lewin, Daniel R 2003, Product and Process Design Principles, 2nd edn,
John Wiley and Sons, United States of America
Suppes. G.J. 2002, Heuristics in Chemical Engineering, Chemical process equipment selection and
Design.
UOP 2013, Q-Max Process – USP, viewed October 20th 2013,

<www.dequi.eel.usp.br/~barcza/CumenoUOP.pdf>
Zhang.H 2013, Conceptual design Separation tower, Chem Eng 3030: Simulation and conceptual
design, School of chemical engineering, University of Adelaide, Australia
Zhang. H 2013, Design Project Specification -2013, Chem Eng 3030: Simulation and conceptual design,
School of Chemical Engineering, University of Adelaide, Australia.
Zhang. H 2013, Process simulation VI- Process property method, Chem Eng 3030: Simulation and
conceptual design, School of Chemical Engineering, University of Adelaide, Australia.
Zhang.H 2013, Reactor, Chem Eng 3030: Simulation and conceptual design, School of chemical
engineering, University of Adelaide, Australia
Zhang.H 2013, Heat Exchanger, Chem Eng 3030: Simulation and conceptual design, School of
chemical engineering, University of Adelaide, Australia
Zimmermann, H. 2013. Propene. Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry.
65 | P a g e
11. Appendices
Appendix A. Reaction set units conversion

A.1 Main reaction
Constant A in the main reaction rate law:
Since the void fraction of catalyst is 0.5
Therefore,
Constant A is
Activation energy for the main reaction:
A.2 Side reaction

Constant A in the side reaction rate law:
Since the void fraction of catalyst is 0.5
Therefore,
Constant A is
Activation energy for the side reaction:
66 | P a g e
Appendix B. Heat reactor sizing
Figure B. 1: Heat exchanger design layout print-screened from Hysys.
B.1 Assumptions
Tube outside diameter do= 1inch = 0.0254m
Tube length L= 20 foot = 6.096m
Tube pitch Pt/do= 1.375
One tube pass
30 degree equilateral tri pitch
CL = 0.87 since assumed 30 degree equilateral tri pitch
CTP = 0.93 since assumed one tube pass
Log mean temperature
( )
= 405.9oC
= 329.2 oC
= 473.8 oC
= 400 oC
67 | P a g e
Heat transfer equation
= 1624 kJ/kg
= 1462 kJ/kg
m = 5.834× 104 kg/hr
U= (Zhang 2013)
⁄
=
Estimate heat transfer area A
No. of tubes Nt
= 135.33 tubes
≈136 tubes
68 | P a g e
Diameter of shell DS
⁄
√ [ ]
√ [ ]
69 | P a g e
Appendix C. Reactor sizing

C.1 Gibbs reactor
Table C. 1: Gibbs reactor results at 300oC
Pressure 25 Bar
Ratio(P:B) 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6
Propene In 124.975 124.975 124.975 124.975 124.975 124.975
Propene out 21.02466 8.232634 4.2118 2.578286 1.782182 1.33897
Conversion 0.831769 0.934126 0.966299 0.97937 0.98574 0.989286
Pressure 30 Bar
Ratio(P:B) 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6
Propene In 124.975 124.975 124.975 124.975 124.975 124.975
Propene out 18.41527 6.866583 3.43468 2.078286 1.426403 1.067014
Conversion 0.852648 0.945056 0.972517 0.98337 0.988586 0.991462
Pressure 35 Bar
Ratio(P:B) 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6
Propene In 124.975 124.975 124.975 124.975 124.975 124.975
Propene out 16.31041 5.828896 2.85812 1.710316 1.166357 0.868606
Conversion 0.869491 0.95336 0.97713 0.986315 0.990667 0.99305
Pressure 25 Bar
Ratio(P:B) 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6
Propene Out 27.97808 13.74843 8.391586 5.861476 4.48017 3.641624
Propene In 124.975 124.975 124.975 124.975 124.975 124.975
Conversion 0.776131 0.889991 0.932854 0.953099 0.964151 0.970861
Pressure 30 Bar
Ratio(P:B) 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6
Propene Out 24.87391 11.71885 7.004968 4.838713 3.673593 2.973265
Propene In 124.975 124.975 124.975 124.975 124.975 124.975
Conversion 0.800969 0.90623 0.943949 0.961283 0.970605 0.976209
Pressure 35 Bar
Ratio(P:B) 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6
Propene Out 22.34383 10.15307 5.965533 4.081714 3.081485 2.485049
Propene In 124.975 124.975 124.975 124.975 124.975 124.975
Conversion 0.821214 0.918759 0.952266 0.96734 0.975343 0.980116
70 | P a g e
Pressure 25 Bar
Ratio(P:B) 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6
Propene Out 35.90434 21.12354 14.82948 11.51955 9.553613 8.279818
Propene In 124.975 124.975 124.975 124.975 124.975 124.975
Conversion 0.712708 0.830978 0.88134 0.907825 0.923556 0.933748
Pressure 30 Bar
Ratio(P:B) 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6
Propene Out 32.31546 18.33128 12.62734 9.700183 7.98794 6.890188
Propene In 124.975 124.975 124.975 124.975 124.975 124.975
Conversion 0.741425 0.85332 0.898961 0.922383 0.936084 0.944867
Pressure 35 Bar
Ratio(P:B) 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6
Propene Out 29.35471 16.13869 10.9435 8.330656 6.821118 5.861451
Propene In 124.975 124.975 124.975 124.975 124.975 124.975
Conversion 0.765115 0.870865 0.912434 0.933341 0.94542 0.953099
71 | P a g e
Appendix D. Column sizing calculations

D.1 Benzene column
Figure D. 1: Benzene column design layout print-screened from Hysys
D.1.1 Diameter
Assumptions (Zhang 2013)

24 inch plate spacing
Ff = 1.0 (no foaming); FHA=1
80% flooding
Ad/At =0.1 since FLG ≤ 0.1

Table D. 1: Summary data table for benzene column diameter calculation
Liquid flow rate (Reflux) L 1.358×104 kg/hr

Vapour flow rate (To condenser) G 5.885×104 kg/hr
Liquid surface tension (Reflux) 18.53 dyne/cm
Liquid density (Reflux) 789.4 kg/m3
Liquid MW (Reflux) 78.31 kg/mol
Vapour density (To condenser) 4.515 kg/m3
Vapour MW (Boilup) 120.3 kg/mol
Boilerup vapour flow rate (Boilup) 8.886 ×104 kg/hr
⁄ √ ⁄
⁄ √ ⁄
72 | P a g e
Figure D. 2: The FLG and CSB correlation graph with different plate spacing (Zhang 2013)
CSB obtained from graph is equal to 0.37 ft/s
Surface tension factor Fst
73 | P a g e
[ ]
⁄
[ ]
Table D. 2: Summary spread sheet for the benzene column diameter calculation print-screened from Hysys
D.1.2 Plate efficiency

Table D. 3: Summary data table for benzene column plate efficiency calculation.
Top temperature (Reflux) 98.52oC

Bottom temperature (To condenser) 180.4 oC
Viscosity (Reflux) 0.2572cP
Viscosity (Boiler up) 0.1670cP
Molar fraction of benzene in the vapour phase 0.9806
Molar fraction of benzene in the liquid phase 0.8445
Molar fraction of cumene in vapour phase 0.0193
Molar fraction of cumene in liquid phase 0.1532
74 | P a g e
[ ]
[ ]
Actual number of trays = Theoretical number of trays from short cut column/ Eo
75 | P a g e
Table D. 4: Summary spread sheet for the benzene column efficiency and actual number of plants calculation print-
screened from Hysys
D.1.3 Height of column
L/D ratio
D.1.4 Pressure drop per tray

Height of weir hw= 2 inch
Constant C= 0.362 + 0.317 e (-3.5hw) = 0.3630
10% hole area
co = 0.73
0.25 inch diameter hole area (Suppes 2002)
Table D. 5: Summary data table for benzene column pressure drop per tray calculation.
Vapour flow rate G 5.885×104 kg/hr

Liquid flow rate L 1.358×104 kg/hr
Liquid surface tension 18.52 dyne/cm
Liquid density 789.4 kg/m3
Vapour density 4.521 kg/m3
Column diameter Dt 2.09 m
76 | P a g e
[ ]
77 | P a g e
[ ]
[ ]
78 | P a g e
Table D. 6: Summary spread sheet for the benzene column pressure drop per tray calculation print-screened from Hysys
79 | P a g e
D.2 Cumene column
Figure D. 3: Cumene column design layout print-screened from Hysys
D.2.1 Diameter

24 inch plate spacing
Ff = 1.0 (no foaming); FHA=1
80% flooding
Ad/At =0.1 since FLG ≤ 0.1
Table D. 7: Summary table for cumene column diameter calculation.
Liquid flow rate (Reflux) L 6.927×103 kg/hr

Vapour flow rate (To condenser) G 1.945×104 kg/hr
Liquid surface tension (Reflux) 15.22 dyne/cm
Liquid density (Reflux) 741.7 kg/m3
Liquid MW (Reflux) 120.2 kg/mol
Vapour density (To condenser) 3.441 kg/m3
Vapour MW (Boilup) 162.3 kg/mol
Boilerup vapour flow rate (Boilup) 1.977 ×104 kg/hr
80 | P a g e
⁄ √ ⁄
⁄ √ ⁄
Figure D. 4: The FLG and CSB correlation graph with different plate spacing
CSB obtained from graph is equal to 0.38 ft/s
Surface tension factor Fst
81 | P a g e
[ ]
⁄
[ ]
Table D. 8: Summary spread sheet for the cumene column diameter calculation print-screened from Hysys
82 | P a g e
D.2.2 Plate efficiency

Table D. 9: Summary data table for cumene column plate efficiency calculation.
Top temperature (Reflux) 153.6oC

Bottom temperature (To condenser) 218.6 oC
Viscosity (Reflux) 0.2050cP
Viscosity (Boiler up) 0.1468cP
Molar fraction of cumene in the vapour phase 0.9844
Molar fraction of cumene in the liquid phase 0.9322
Molar fraction of DIPB in vapour phase 0.0155
Molar fraction of DIPB in liquid phase 0.0508
[ ]
83 | P a g e
[ ]
Actual number of trays = Theoretical number of trays from short cut column/ Eo
Table D. 10: Summary data table for cumene column plate efficiency calculation.
D.2.3 Height of column
L/D ratio
D.2.4 Pressure drop per tray

Height of weir hw= 2 inch
Constant C= 0.362 + 0.317 e (-3.5hw) = 0.3630
10% hole area
co = 0.73
0.25 inch diameter hole area (Suppes 2002)
84 | P a g e
Table D. 11: Summary table for cumene column pressure drop per tray calculation.
Vapour flow rate G 1.945×104 kg/hr

Liquid flow rate L 6928 kg/hr
Liquid surface tension 15.22 dyne/cm
Liquid density 741.7 kg/m3
Vapour density 3.441 kg/m3
Column diameter Dt 1.315 m
[ ]
85 | P a g e
[ ]
[ ]
86 | P a g e
Table D. 12: Summary spread sheet for the cumene column pressure drop per tray calculation print-screened from Hysys
87 | P a g e
Appendix E. Case study 2, Reactor Performance – Temperature

The case study to determine the effect of temperature on the reactor towards the conversion of the
propylene was undertaken using databook. The reactor size was specified by multiplying 10 times of
the volume of the reactor in the base case. The calculation method is shown below;
As ,
then by re-arranging the formula of volume above, ratio of L/D can be found
Then, value of L in the formula of volume can be substituted by using the ratio of L/D.
As the result,
The values were applied for sizing the tube dimensions of the plug flow reactor.
88 | P a g e
Appendix F. Economic calculations

F.1 CAPEX
F.1.1 Installation costs
F.1.1.1 Pumps
Material used was carbon steel, so material factor = 0
Operating pressure was 29.6 atm, so pressure factor =3.0
Therefore,
Therefore,
89 | P a g e
F.1.1.2 Heat exchanger
Material used was stainless steel, so material factor = 4.0
Therefore,
F.1.1.3 Heaters
Therefore,
90 | P a g e
Therefore,
F.1.1.4Coolers
Operating pressure was 4.9 atm, so pressure factor =0
Therefore,
Therefore,
34,719
91 | P a g e
Operating pressure was 1.0 atm, so pressure factor =0
Therefore,
F.1.1.5 Reactor
[ ]
D=diameter
L=Length
P=absolute pressure, bar
[ ]
Z=4.9
D=1.4m
L=14m
P=30bar
Material used was stainless steel, so material factor = 4.0
Therefore,
92 | P a g e
F.1.1.6 Distillation columns
{[ ] } [ ]
D=diameter
L=Height
{[ ] } [
]
Z=4.88
D=2.1m
L=25m
P=3bar
Therefore,
{[ ] } [
]
Z=3.43
D=1.3m
L=39.6m
P=2.0bar
93 | P a g e
Therefore,
F.1.1.7 Depropaniser
[ ]
D=diameter
L=Length
[ ]
Z=4.9
D=1.4m
L=14m
P=5bar
Therefore,
94 | P a g e
F.1.1.8 Storage tank
Operating pressure was 14.8atm, so pressure factor =0.6
Therefore,
Operating pressure was 1.8atm, so pressure factor =0
Therefore,
Therefore,
95 | P a g e
Therefore,
Therefore,
96 | P a g e
F.2 OPEX
F.2.1 Operating labour
F.2.2 The operator required per shift
F.2.2.1 Heat exchangers

0.1 Operator required to control a heat exchanger per shift
6 heater exchangers were used in the cumene production design plant
So, 0.1×6= 0.6 operators were needed to operate 6 heat exchangers per shift
F.2.2.2 Towers
0.35 Operator required to control one tower per shift
2 distillation towers were used in the cumene production design plant
So, 0.35×2= 0.7 operators were needed to operate 2 towers per shift.
F.2.2.3 Reactor
0.5 Operator required to control a reactor per shift
1 reactor was used in the cumene production design plant
So, 0.5×1= 0.5 operators were needed to operate a reactor per shift.
F.2.2.4 Other unit operations

Other unit operations like pumps and vessels were not included in the calculation of the operators
required per shift, this assumption was based on the spreadsheet given by Zhang 2013.
Total operators per shift is 0.6+0.7+0.5=1.8
F.2.3 Total number of operators needed

A single operator works on average 49 week per year
8-hour shift per week
So, the total shift per year is equal to 49×8=245 shifts per year.
The plant operates 3 shifts per day and 330 days per year.
So the total operators required for the operation in a given shift is 3×330/245 = 4.04
Total number of operators needed is equal to 4.04×1.8=7.27 and this value is rounded up to 8.
97 | P a g e
F.2.4Annual cost of operating labour

The expected annual salaries of operators in the plant is $63,800 in 2013
So, the annual cost of operating labour is $63,800×8 = $510,400.
F.2.5 Employee on-cost

Employee is 20% of the operating labour
Employee on-cost= 0.2×510,400 = $102,080
F.2.6 Operating supervision

Operating supervision is 115% of operating labour
Operating supervision= 1.15×510,400 = $586,960
F.2.7 Laboratory labour

Laboratory labour is 115% of operating labour
Laboratory labour= 1.15×510,400= $586,960
F.2.8 Administrative cost

Administrative cost is 15% of operating labour
Administrative cost = 0.15×510,400= $76,560.
F.2.9 Maintenance and repairs

Maintenance and repairs is 7% of fixed capital cost
Maintenance and repairs= 0.07× 5,113,775 = $357,964.
F.2.10 Catalyst
Catalyst cost= Size of reactor × Voidage × Density of catalyst × Price
Price for catalyst: $2.52 per kg
Size of reactor: 24.74m3
Voidage: 0.5
Density of catalyst: 1600kg/m3
Catalyst cost = 24.75 × 0.5 × 1600 × 2.52
= $49,896 in 2011
98 | P a g e
F.2. 11Utilities
F.2.11.1 Electricity
Cost: $0.06 per kWh
8000 operating hours per year
Pump 1
Energy required: 64.1kW per hour
Energy required for pump 1 annually: 64.1×8000= 512,800kWh
Cost of electricity annually = 512,800×$0.06
= $31,300
Pump 2
Energy required: 5.25kW per hour
Energy required for pump 2 annually: 5.25×8000= 42,000kWh
Cost of electricity annually = 42,000×$0.06
= $2,560
Total energy cost for cumene production plant annually= $31,300+$2,560 =$33,861
F.2.11.2 Pressurised steams

Low pressure steam: $3.00 per ton
Medium pressure steam: $6.50 per ton
High pressure steam: $8.00 per ton
Heater 1 (H.P. steam)

H.P. steam required: 29.62 ton/hour
H.P. steam required for heater 1 annually: 29.62×8000= 236,960 ton per year
Cost of H.P. steam annually =236,960×8= $1,895,680
Heater 2 (L.P. steam)

L.P. steam required: 0.06 ton/hour
L.P. steam required for heater 2 annually: 0.06×8000= 480 ton per year
Cost of L.P. steam annually =480×3= $1,440
99 | P a g e
Benzene column reboiler (M.P steam)

M.P. steam required: 13.46 ton/hour
M.P. steam required for benzene column reboiler annually: 13.46×8000= 107,680 ton per year
Cost of M.P. steam annually =107,680×6.5= $699,920
Cumene column reboiler (H.P. steam)

High pressure steam: 3.103 ton/hour
H.P. steam required for cumene column reboiler annually: 3.103×8000= 24,824 ton per year
Cost of H.P. steam annually= 24,824×8 = $198,592
Total pressurised steam cost for cumene plant annually:

1,895,680+ 1,429+ 699,920+ 198,592 = $2,936,885
F.2.11.3 Cooling water

Cooling water: $20 per 1000m3
Cooler 1
Cooling water required: 882.9 m3/hour
Cooling water required for cooler 1 annually: 882.9×8000= 7,096,200 m 3 per year
Cost of cooling water annually= 7,096,200×20/1000= $141,924
Cooler 2
Cooling water required for cooler 2 annually: 89.62×8000= 716,960 m 3 per year
Cost of cooling water annually= 716,960×20/1000= $14,339
Cooler 3
Cooling water required for cooler 3 annually: 49.77×8000= 398,160 m3 per year
Benzene column condenser

Cooling water required for benzene column condenser annually: 359.8×8000= 2,989,400 m 3 per year
Cost of cooling water annually= 2,989,400×20/1000= $59,788
Cumene column condenser

100 | P a g e
Cooling water required for cumene column condenser annually: 96.56×8000= 764,480 m 3 per year
Total cooling water cost for cumene production plant annually:
141,924+ 14,339+ 7,963+ 57,588+ 15,290= $236,854
DIPB disposal
Hazardous waste disposal: $1 per kg organic waste
DIPB produced: 264.9kg /hour
DIPB produced annually: 264.9×8000=2,119,200 kg per year
Cost for DIPB disposal annually: 2,119,200×1=$ 2,119,200
Total utilities costs for cumene production plant annually:
33,861+ 2,936,885+ 236,854+ 2,119,200= $5,185,436 in 2011
F.2.12 Raw materials
Benzene feed
Cost for benzene with more than 99.9wt%purity: $1,120 per ton
Benzene feed to cumene production plant: 8,273kg/hr
Benzene feed required to produce 100,000 ton per year: 8,273×8,000= 66,184ton
Cost for benzene feed annually: 66,184×1,120= $74,126,080
Propylene feed
Cost for propylene with more than 99.9wt%purity: $1,570 per ton
Propylene feed to cumene production plant: 4,797kg/hr
Propylene feed required to produce 100,000 ton per year: 4,797×8,000= 38,376
Cost for propylene feed annually: 38,376×1,570= $60,250,320
Total raw materials cost annually = 74,123,080+ 60,250,320 =$ 134,373,400
101 | P a g e
F.3 Profits
Fuel gas
Selling price for propane and propylene (fuel gas): $630 per ton
Fuel gas produced from cumene production plant: 274kg/hr
Fuel gas produced annually: 274×8,000= 2,192 ton
Profit of fuel gas annually: 2,192×630= $1,380,960
Cumene
Selling price for cumene with more than 99wt% purity: $1,434 per ton
Cumene produced from cumene production plant: $12,527kg/hr
Cumene produced annually: 12,572×8,000= 100,576 ton
Profit of cumene annually: 100,576 × 1,434= $144,225,984
Total profit annually = 1,380,960 + 144,225,984 =$ 145,606,944
F.4 Cash flow statement
Depreciation
Depreciation rate: 10%
TCI: $5,903,841
Depreciation= $5,903,841 × 0.1= $590,384.1
Since a straight line depreciation method was used, therefore, depreciation values are the same
from year 1 to year 10.
Savings
OPEX: $169,727,441
Profits: $140,311,447
Savings: $140,311,447 - $169,727,441= $-29,415,994
Taxable savings
Taxable savings= Savings – Depreciation
= -29,415,994 – 590.384
= $ -30,006,378
102 | P a g e
Pre-tax cash flow
Year 0
Pre-tax cash flow: Savings-Capital
Pre-tax cash flow in year 0: 0-5,903,841 = $-5,903,841
Year 1 – 10
Pre-tax cash flow in year 1- 1: -29,415,994-0 = $-29,415,994
After tax cash flow

After tax cash flow is same as pre-tax cash flow since no taxes were paid because of the negative
taxable saving values.
ROI
ROI= After tax cash flow/ Capital
= $-29,415,994/$-5,903,841
=-4.98
Payback period
Payback period= Capital/After tax cash flow
= $-5,903,841/$-29,415,994
= -0.2
103 | P a g e
Appendix G. Meeting minutes

1st Meeting
Date and Day 31/07/2013, Wednesday

Type of meeting Discussion
Note taker Rusman
Attendees Brendan, Alson, Rusman, Sudeep
Topic of Discussion Conclusion

What is the project all about? For getting better understanding about the project, we
as a team need to read the project specification given
by the client, Dr Who.
Delegation of work. Each of members in the team will be given a specific
task on next meeting
Rough idea of PFD The team were discussing and brainstorming about the
PFD that could be implemented in the process plant.
Regular/Urgent meeting Regular meeting will be done on every Wednesday.
Urgent meeting will be done before each assessment
and final submission of the project.
2nd Meeting

Type of meeting Discussion and Planning
Note taker Rusman

Delegation of work Basically the delegation of work is as follows;
1) Base Case simulation: Brendan and Alson
2) Case Study 1 simulation: Sudeep
3) Case Study 2 simulation: Rusman
4) Economic Analysis: Alson
For writing the full report, all team members are
accountable to do that.
Literature survey Each of the team members will do some literature
survey for a week. The literature review is anything
that related to the cumene process plant
3rd Meeting

Note taker Rusman
Attendees Brendan, Alson, Rusman

BFD/PFD The team was working on the first draft of BFD and
PFD of the process plant.
Means-end-analysis The team was working on doing the means-end-
analysis that will be used to create final PFD of the
process plant.
104 | P a g e
4th Meeting
Date and Day 20/08/2013, Tuesday

Note taker Rusman

4th week assessment The team was discussing and preparing for the project
progress assessment on 21/09/2013, Wednesday.
Basically, the team need to prepare for;
1) Project outline and task allocation
2) Key properties of all chemicals
3) Means-end-analysis step by step
4) BFD and draft PFD with detailed process
condition
5th Meeting

Note taker Rusman

PFD creation The team was working on doing the PFD using Hysys.
Detailed process condition was assumed by using the
literature review as the references.
6th Meeting

Note taker Rusman

PFD creation The team was checking the PFD again if there was
anything that should be improved or changed.
Basically checking on;
1) Reactor
2) Process condition in each stream
3) Column
4) Heat exchanger
105 | P a g e
7th Meeting

Note taker Rusman

7th week assessment The team was discussing and preparing for the project progress assessment on
11/09/2013, Wednesday.
Basically, the team needs to prepare for the PFD creation using the hysys.
8th Meeting

Note taker Rusman

Base Case Alson and Brendan were completing the base case of
the process plant using hysys.
Basically, they were doing reactor design.
9th Meeting

Note taker Rusman

Heat exchanger Alson and Brendan were doing the heat exchanger
design on the PFD of the process plant.
10th Meeting

Note taker Rusman

Column design Alson was doing the column design on the PFD of the
process plant.
106 | P a g e
11th Meeting
Date and Day 14/10/2013, Monday

Note taker Rusman

10th week assessment The team was discussing and preparing for the project
progress assessment on 15/10/2013, Tuesday.
Basically, the team need to prepare for;
1) Hysys PFD
2) Reactor design
3) Column design
4) Heat exchanger design
12th Meeting

Note taker Rusman

Case studies Sudeep was doing the 1st case study and Rusman was
doing the 2nd case study about the reactor performance
on temperature.
Economic Analysis Alson was doing the economic analysis for the
cumene production.
13th Meeting

Note taker Rusman

Full report The team was working and compiling on the full
report about the cumene production.
107 | P a g e
14th Meeting
Date and Day 31/10/2013, Thursday

Note taker Alson
Attendees Alson, Brendan

Full report Finalising the report
Look through the Hysys base case design
Combining the whole report together
108 | P a g e
Appendix H. A full detailed PFD with mass and energy flow information
Figure H. 2: A detailed PFD with all the unit operations used to help the cumene plant design
109 | P a g e
Table H. 4: The summary table for the cumene production plant material streams
110 | P a g e

Cumene plant design project final report

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Cumene plant design project final report

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Chem Eng 3030: Simulation and Conceptual Design Group 16 Final report

Chem Eng 3025: Pharmaceutical Plant Design and Processing Engineering

Chem Eng 3030: Simulation and

Cumene production plant design project:

Sudeep Ajgaonkar 1607310

NRTL (non-random two-liquid)................................................................................................. 34

Appendix C. Reactor sizing ........................................................................................................... 70

2.1 List of figures

Figure 5. 1: Simplistic overview of the cumene process.................................................................... 23

Figure 7. 1: Cumene production plant PFD from Hysys ..................................................................... 48

Figure B. 1: Heat exchanger design layout print-screened from Hysys. ............................................. 67

Figure D. 1: Benzene column design layout print-screened from Hysys ............................................ 72

2.2 List of Tables

Table 4. 1: Physical Properties of Benzene (ChemWatch, 2012) ....................................................... 13

Table 5. 1: Product Requirements .................................................................................................... 23

Table 6. 1: Summary Table for Figure 6.8 ......................................................................................... 42

Table 7. 1: Design specifications set by Dr Who Chemicals ............................................................... 47

Table C. 1: Gibbs reactor results at 300oC ........................................................................................ 70

4.1 Literature Review

4.1.1 Background Chemistry

Figure 4. 1: Main Reaction

Figure 4. 2: Side Reaction

4.1.2 Alternative processes

4.1.2.1 Zeolite catalyst-based processes

 The Dow-Kellogg process (Badger Process)

4.1.2.2 The Dow-Kellogg (Badger) Process

4.1.2.3 Q-MAX process

4.1.2.4 SPA Process

4.1.2.5 Aluminium Chloride based processes

4.1.3Properties of Chemicals Involved in the Production of Cumene

Alternative Names Benzol, Coal Naphtha, Cyclohexatriene

4.1.3.1.1 Benzene Market Information

Table 4. 2: Physical Properties for Propylene (ChemWatch, 2012)

Alternative Names Propene, methylethylene

4.1.3.2.1 Propylene Market Information

Alternative Names Liquefied Petroleum Gas

4.1.3.3.1 Propane Market Information

Alternative Names Isopropyl Benzene

4.1.3.5 Di-isopropyl Benzene

Alternative Names DIPB, p-di-isopropyl benzene

4.1.3.5.1 p-Diisopropylbenzene Market Information

4.1.4 Hazardous Materials and Safety

4.2 Materials of construction rationale

4.2.1 Mechanical design requirements

3. Ease of fabrication—forming, welding, casting;

4. Availability in standard sizes

4.2.2 Corrosion effects

4.2.3 Temperature and pressure

4.2.4 Overall Recommendation

Recommendation for reactor

Recommendation for all other process units and storage vessels

4.3 Plant location

Figure 4. 3: Cumene Plant Location (Google Maps 2013)

4.4 General Plant Safety

4.4.1 Major Equipment Safety

4.4.1.2 Heat exchanger/pre-heater

4.4.1.3 Distillation columns and component splitter

4.4.1.4 Pumps and pressure relief valves

4.4.2 Safety Recommendations

5. Process synthesis and assumptions

5.1 Means-end analysis

Figure 5. 1: Simplistic overview of the cumene process

The specifications set by Dr. Who Chemicals are: