Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
) (1)
Equation (1) is the general model equation that
predicts the flow of mass of component i in and out of
a given tray j. Rearranging equation (1) gives:
) (2)
EQUILIBRIUM (PHASE) RELATIONSHIPS (E
equation)
( ) (3)
SUMMATIONS OF MOLE FRACTIONS (S
equation)
( ) (4)
HEAT BALANCE (H equation)
(5)
The following assumptions were imposed on the
model
i. The residence time on each plate is such that
equilibrium is attained between the liquid and
the vapor. Hence
(6)
ii. Constant relative volatility on each tray,
Hence
(7)
(8)
iii. Since equilibrium is attained between liquid
and vapor, then the temperature of the liquid
and vapor streams are the same
(9)
iv. The liquid and vapor flow rates are constant
for all trays
(10)
(11)
v. Since the liquid and vapor flow rates in and
out of each tray are constant then, the liquid
and vapor holdup in each tray will also be
constant.
(12)
(13)
vi. Column is well lagged hence heat losses are
negligible and for an ideal system heat of
mixing is zero
vii. For ideal systems the molar heat of
vaporization may be taken as constant and
independent of the composition, the
temperature change from one tray to the next
will be small, hence
similarly
and
(14)
Introducing these assumptions and equation (3), the
model equation simplifies to:
(15)
Tray j
Q
j
U
j
F
j
V
j+
1
Mj
V
j
L
j-1
L
j
Am. J. Sci. Ind. Res., 2013, 4(4): 366-377
369
Equation (15) contains Lj-1, the liquid flow rate from
tray j-1.This can be eliminated from the model
equation by taking a balance on tray j-1 shown in
Figure 3.
A material balance on stage j-1 gives:
(16)
Making
1 j
L
the subject
(17)
Equation (17) can be written in the general form as:
V
1
M
j
U
j-1
F
j-1
U
j
U
j+1
U
1
F
1
U
2
F
2
F
3
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage j-1
Stage j
M
1
M
2
Mj-
1
V
2
V
j-1
V
j
V
j+1
L
j
L
j-1
L
2
L
1
Fig 3: Tray by tray column showing its boundary
Am. J. Sci. Ind. Res., 2013, 4(4): 366-377
370
(18)
Similarly, equation (18) can be extended to obtain the
expression for
j
L
as:
(19)
Substituting equations (18) and (19) into equation
(15) gives:
[
(20)
Equation (20) can be written in a compact form as
(21)
Where:
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Similarly the Heat balance equation was simplified
using the assumptions to obtain:
(26)
Equation (26) is the general model that predicts the
temperature of each tray hence the temperature
progression along the column.
Substituting equations (18) and (19) into equation
(26) and ignoring the superscript i gives:
[
(27)
Equation (27) can also be written in a compact form
as:
(28)
Where:
(29)
(30)
(31)
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Determination of parameters: The feed properties
and operational conditions of the crude distillation
column in the Port-Harcourt Refinery Company (Area
1) are given in Table 1.
Table 1: Operating data of the Crude Distillation Unit.
TRAY Flow Rate
(m
3
/hr)
Component
mole Fraction in
Feed
Vapor liquid
ratio K
ij
Feed 43 993.7
Naphtha 1 300.1 0.260 1.40
Straight run Kerosene (side stream U12) 12 168.1 0.139 0.44
Low Density Oil LDO (side stream U25) 25 295.5 0.242 0.39
High Density Oil HDO (side stream U35) 35 52.4 0.047 0.39
Bottom Product (Aromatic Residue) 48 276.3 0.312 0.13
Am. J. Sci. Ind. Res., 2013, 4(4): 366-377
371
Process variables:
FLOW RATES
Feed Flow Rate
F
43
= 993.7 m3/hr
F
j
= 0 j = 1,2,3,.42,44,4548
Overhead Flow rate
V
j
= 300.1 j = 1,2,3,.42,44,4548
Bottom Flow Rate
L
j
= 276.3 j = 1,2,3,.42,44,4548
Vapor Side Stream
U
j
= 0 j = 1,2,3,11,13,24,26,.34,36..48
Liquid Side Stream
M
j
= 0 j = 1,2,3,48
FEED COMPOSITION
Z
i,j
= 0 i = 1,2,5; j = 1,42,44,.48
LIQUID HOLD UP
W
j
= 300 j = 1,2,3,.42,44,4548
Solution technique of model equations: The
model equations developed (equations 21 and 28)
written for any component/fraction of interest gives a
system of 48 algebraic equations (for the 48 trays of
the crude distillation unit in the Port-Harcourt
refinery). Plant operating data from the crude
distillation unit (Area 1) of the Port-Harcourt refinery
given in Table 1 and the flow rates of the various
streams as stated above were substituted into the
model equations to obtain the unknown parameters
in the model equations. A matrix representation of
either equation for any component/fraction written in
the form: [A] [G] = [D], where [A] is the coefficient
matrix, [G] is the tray component/fraction mole
fraction or tray Temperature matrix, and [D] is the
constant matrix was developed in the form shown in
Figure 4.
iN iN iN
iN iN iN
i i i
i i i
i i i
i i i
C B A
C B A
C B A
C B A
C B A
C B A
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1
5 5 5
4 4 4
3 3 1
2 2 2
1
1
3
2
1
.
.
.
.
iN
iN
iN
i
i
i
X
X
X
X
X
X
iN
iN
i
i
i
D
D
D
D
D
1
4
3
2
.
.
.
.
.
Fig 4: Matrix representation of model equations
The resulting matrix from equation (21) was solved
by the method of matrix inversion using the MathLab
software to obtain the mole fraction of any
component/fraction on the forty eight (48) trays of the
crude distillation column. Similarly the resultant
matrix from equation (28) was solved using the same
method to obtain the temperature of any
component/fraction on the forty eight (48) trays of the
crude distillation column.
Am. J. Sci. Ind. Res., 2013, 4(4): 366-377
372
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
A. COMPONENT/FRACTION
CONCENTRATION (MOLE FRACTION)
The model developed (equation 21) was used to
predict the concentrations (mole fractions) of five
components/fractions of a crude oil mixture
separated in the distillation column. The mole
fractions of the five components/fractions; naphtha,
straight run kerosene (SRK), light diesel oil (LDO),
heavy diesel oil (HDO) and atmospheric residue (AR)
as predicted by the model equation on the forty eight
trays of the crude distillation unit (CDU) of the Port-
Harcourt Refining Company are shown in Figures 5,
6, 7, 8 and 9 respectively.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
M
o
l
e
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
Tray Number
Fig. 5: Composition of Naphta on each Tray.
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
M
o
l
e
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
Tray Number
Fig. 6: Composition of SRK on each Tray
Am. J. Sci. Ind. Res., 2013, 4(4): 366-377
373
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
M
o
l
e
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
Tray Number
Fig. 7: Composition of LDO on each Tray
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
M
o
l
e
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
Tray Number
Fig. 8: Composition of HDO on each Tray
Am. J. Sci. Ind. Res., 2013, 4(4): 366-377
374
Any component/fraction of interest is expected to be
withdrawn at the tray where its concentration is
highest. Therefore from the model results, the five
components of interest; naphtha, straight run
kerosene (SRK), light diesel oil (LDO), heavy diesel
oil (HDO) and atmospheric residue (AR) should be
withdrawn on trays 1, 12, 25, 35 and 48.These trays
of withdrawal correspond to the trays where these
components/fractions are withdrawn in the CDU of
the Port-Harcourt Refining Company. Hence the
model developed accurately predicted the tray of
withdrawal of the five components/fraction.
Tray component temperature: Similarly, the model
equation developed (equation 28) was used to
predict the temperatures of any component/fraction
on the trays of the distillation column (the
temperature progression of each component of the
trays). The temperatures of the five components of
interest at the trays of withdrawal (tray temperature)
as predicted by the model are presented in Table 2
Table 2: Tray Temperature as Predicted by Model.
S/N Component Tray of Withdrawal Temperature
1. Whole Naphtha 1 156.5
2. Straight Run Kerosene 12 223.91
3. Light Diesel Oil (LDO) 25 268.80
4. Heavy Diesel Oil (HDO) 35 320
5. Atmospheric Residue (AR) 48 329
MODEL VALIDATION
The accuracy of the model equations were validated
by comparing the concentration of these components
and their respective tray temperatures as predicted
by the model with those obtained from the industrial
plant (Crude Distillation Column of Area 1 of the Port
Harcourt Refining Company). This comparison is
shown in Table 3.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
M
o
l
e
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
Tray Number
Fig. 9: Composition of Atmospheric Residue on each Tray
Am. J. Sci. Ind. Res., 2013, 4(4): 366-377
375
Table 3: Comparison of Plant data and Model predictions
S/N Component Model Prediction Plant Data % Deviation
Composition Temperature Composition Temperature Composition Temperature
1. Whole
Naphtha
0.2650 156.5 0.2710 150 2.21 -4.33
2. Straight Run
Kerosene
0.1690 223.91 0.1560 210 -8.33 -6.62
3. Light Diesel
Oil (LDO)
0.2560 268.80 0.2650 280 3.40 4.00
4. Heavy Diesel
Oil (HDO)
0.0570 320 0.0530 310 -7.55 -3.2
5. Atmospheric
Residue (AR)
0.2530 329 0.2550 320 7.84 -2.81
Table 3 shows that the maximum deviation between
the model prediction of the mole fraction of
components/fractions on each tray and plant data
using the value at the tray of withdrawal is 8.33% for
straight run kerosene, while the maximum deviation
between model prediction of the tray temperatures
and plant data at the tray of withdrawal is 6.62% for
the temperature predictions on tray 12. The model
equations were also able to predict the point (tray
number) of withdrawal of each component/fraction of
interest. These show the accuracy of the models
developed and that to a very large extent they can be
used to predict the composition and temperature on
each tray of the crude distillation column; hence can
be used for simulation studies of the column.
Process Simulation: The model equations were
used to study the effects of process variables such as
the Feed Flow rate and Feed entry point (feed tray)
on the performance of the column.
Effect of feed flow rate on column: The feed flow
rate is the rate at which feed mixture (liquid, vapor or
mixture of both) is pumped into the column. The flow
of feed into a column can affect the quantity
(moles/hr) and quality (concentration - mole fraction
of the components/fractions).The effects of variation
of the feed rate on the performance of the distillation
column are shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Effect of Feed Rate on Column
Feed Flow Rate Component1
(Naphtha)
Component2
(S.R.K)
Component3
(L.D.O)
Component4
(H.D.O)
Component5
(AR)
1200 0.1246 0.1900 0.3500 0.1800 0.1554
993 0.2650 0.1690 0.2560 0.0570 0.2530
750 0.2685 0.1020 0.1830 0.1560 0.3205
500 0.3072 0.0885 0.1230 0.1945 0.3468
Table 4 shows that the higher the feed flow rate
(increase in the feed rate) the greater the
composition of the lighter ends in the bottom plate
and the heavy components in the upper plate; the
lower the feed rate (decrease in the feed rate) there
is a reduction of the lighter ends in the bottom region
and the heavier ends in the upper region. When the
feed rate is increased, its velocity increases, its
residence time (contact time of the vapor-liquid
phases on each tray) in the column reduces, causing
inefficient separation and a reduction in the
percentage purity of each component. This inefficient
separation could also be as a result of increased
liquid or vapor flow rate as feed rates are increased.
Increasing liquid level on the trays causes
overloading due to increased liquid hydrostatic
Am. J. Sci. Ind. Res., 2013, 4(4): 366-377
376
pressure, restriction of vapor rising through liquid and
eventual flooding of the column. Similarly, excessive
vapor could lead to over-loading of trays, too much
vaporization of the bottom liquid, higher vapor flow
and the flooding of trays in an upward progression.
When the feed rate is decreased, its velocity
decreases, its residence time in the column is
increased, there is efficient separation and the
percentage purity of each component is increased.
However, decreases in the feed flow rates result in
decreased vapor and liquid flow rates. At low liquid
rates, the vapor forces the liquid back from the slots,
while low vapor rates results in pulsating flow, both
condition causes weeping on the trays and reduced
efficiency of the column (Richardson et al.,
2002).These extreme flow rates result in inefficient
separation which the model predicts as shown in
Table 4. In practice, an optimum feed rate is often
determined (Bennett and Kovak, 2010) when the
system is being designed with a range of acceptable
variation specified; this can also be established from
the model predictions as shown in Table 4.
Effect of feed tray position on the performance of
column: The effects of feed tray position on the
performance of the column are shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Effect of Feed Tray Position on Column Performance
Composition (Mole Fraction)
Feed Entry Point Naphtha S.R.K L.D.O H.D.O AR
10 0.6124 0.0963 0.0850 0.1003 0.1060
20 0.5433 0.1001 0.1005 0.0811 0.1750
30 0.3110 0.2032 0.2008 0.0836 0.2014
43 0.2650 0.1690 0.2560 0.0570 0.2530
45 0.1569 0.1705 0.1860 0.0340 0.4526
Table 5 shows there is an increase in the purity of the
more volatile component hence an improvement in
separation as the feed tray is lowered down the
column.
As the feed tray is lowered down the column, there
are more trays up, that is more points of contact
where separation can occur. Therefore as the mixture
rise up the column, the less volatile compounds
condenses from the rising vapor into the liquid, are
withdrawn from their various trays of withdrawal, thus
decreasing the concentration and increasing the
purity of the more volatile compound (MVC) in the
vapor. At the same time, the more volatile compound
is vaporized from the liquid on the tray and increasing
the concentration of the MVC in the liquid. The higher
the feed tray, there are less trays up, hence less
points of contact where separation can occur. Also
the temperatures at such high trays are not high
enough to vaporize and condense the heavier
components, thus increasing the concentration and
decreasing the purity of the more volatile component
in the vapor. These trends the model accurately
predicts as shown in Table 5. Similar trends had also
been reported in the works of Bandyopadhyay,
(2002).
CONCLUSION
Steady state models have been developed from the
principles of conservation of mass and energy for a
multi-component distillation column. The models
developed were algebraic equations. The models
were tested for the distillation of a multi-component
mixture (crude oil) in a distillation column of the Port-
Harcourt Refinery. The model equations developed
were written for any component/fraction of interest
and yielded a system of 48 algebraic equations each
(for the 48 trays of the crude distillation unit in the
Port-Harcourt refinery). The equations were
transformed into a diagonal matrix which was solved
by matrix inversion using the MathLab solver to
obtain the mole fraction and temperature of the
component on the respective trays of the distillation
column. Specifically in this work, the mole fraction
and temperature of five components (whole Naphtha,
Straight Run Gasoline, Light Diesel Oil, Heavy Diesel
oil and Atmospheric residue) were predicted by the
model. The model also accurately predicted the tray
of withdrawal of these components. The simulation
Am. J. Sci. Ind. Res., 2013, 4(4): 366-377
377
result shows the effects of the feed flow rate and feed
tray location on the performance of the column.
REFERENCES
Abdullah, Z., Aziz, N. and Ahmad, Z. (2007), Nonlinear
Modeling Application in Distillation Column, Chemical
Product and Process modeling, 2,3, 12, 1-15.
Bandyopadhyay, S. (2002), Effect of feed on optimal
thermodynamic performance of a distillation column,
Chem. Eng. J.88, 175-186.
Bennett, D. L. and Kovak, K. W. (2010), Optimize
Distillation Columns, American Institute of Chemical
Engineers Web. 6 Oct. 2010.
<http://userpages.umbc.edu/~dfrey1/ench445/0005ben
n.pdf>.
Boston, J. F. and Sullivan, S. L. (1974), A New Class of
Solution Methods for Multi-component, Multistage
Separation Processes, The Canadian Journal of
Chemical Engineering, 52, 52.
Douani, M., Ouadjenia F. and Terkhi, S. (2007a),
Distillation of a Complex Mixture. Part I: High Pressure
Distillation Column Analysis: Modeling and Simulation,
Entropy, 9, (2), 58-72.
Douani, M., Terkhi, S. and Ouadjenia F., (2007b),
Distillation of a Complex Mixture. Part II: Performance
Analysis of a Distillation Column Using Exergy,
Entropy, 9, 137-151.
Gani, R., Ruiz, C.A. and Cameron, I.T. (1986), A
Generalized Model for Distillation Columns, Model
Description and Application, Computers and Chemical
Engineering, 10, (3), 181-198.
Ivakpour, J. and Kasiri, N. (2008), Improve speed and
convergence of distillation column simulation,
Hydrocarbon Process, October, 75.
Jaroslav, J., Hlavacek, V. and Kubicek, M. (1973),
Calculation of Multistage Countercurrent Separation
Processes-I. Multi-component Multi-stage Rectification
by Differentiation with Respect to an Actual Parameter
(J), Chem. Eng. Sci., 28 (10), 1555-1563.
Jelinet J. and Hlavecek V. (1975), Mathematical Modeling
of the Rectification Process, International Chemical
Engineering, 15 (3) 487-494.
LI, C., Zhang, X., Zhang, S., Tan, X. and Xiang, S. (2006),
Simulation of Multi-component Multi-stage Separation
Process- An Improved Algorithm and application, The
Chinese Journal of Process Engineering, 6, (2), 247-
254.
Ramesh, K., Aizz, Z., AbdShukor, S. R. and Ramasamy, M.
(2007), Dynamic Rate-Based and Equilibrium Model
Approaches for Continuous tray Distillation Column,
Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 3(12), 2030-
2041.
Richardson, J. F., Harker, J. H. and Backhurst, J. R.,
(2002), Coulson & Richardsons Chemical Engineering
Vol. 2, 5
th
Edition, Elsevier Ltd, Oxford, 625 630.
Rosendo, M. L., (2003) Simulation of Multi-component
Multistage Vapor-Liquid Separations, An Improved
Algorithm using the Wang-Henke Tridiagonal Matrix
Method, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 42, (1), 175-182.
Russell, R. A. (1983), A Flexible and Reliable Method
Solves Single-tower and Crude-distillation column
Problems, Chemical Engineering, October, 53.
Sridhar, L. N. and Lucia, A. (1990), Tearing Algorithms for
Separation Process Simulation (J), Comput. Chem.
Eng., 14, (8), 901-905.