Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
pubs.acs.org/IECR
Faculty of Chemical Engineering and Technology, University of Zagreb, Savska cesta 16, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia
Julius Montz GmbH, Postbox 530, 40705 Hilden, Germany
Process and Energy Laboratory, Delft University of Technology, Leegwaterstraat 44, 2628 CA Delft, The Netherlands
ABSTRACT: This paper introduces a comprehensive design method assembled using facilities of a commercial software package
that complemented by Excel programs, which contain own column dimensioning and well established cost estimation procedures,
enables proper assessment of the industrial viability of a dividing wall column (DWC) equipped with corrugated sheet structured
packings. The heart of the performance simulation tool is a detailed four-column model that in conjunction with a simple,
theoretically founded short-cut method providing reliable initial values for liquid and vapor splits and a simple but eective objective
function for design optimality indication allows determination of the adequate stage and reux requirement of a DWC. The
proposed dimensioning method enables a close approach in accuracy to that required at the stage of conceptual design for purposes
of making a bid by an equipment manufacturer. Compared to a two-columns-in-series conguration, as employed in an aromatics
processing complex within a renery, a DWC equipped with state-of-the-art structured packing and auxiliary internals requires
approximately 43% less energy to deliver three fractions at required product specications. This, accompanied by savings of nearly
51% based on total annualized costs, indicates that implementing a DWC could lead to a signicant increase in protability of
aromatics processing plants.
1. INTRODUCTION
Being the most widely used and most energy intensive among
large scale separation techniques, distillation became the main
target of eorts oriented toward increasing the sustainability of
process industries.1 However, the implementation of energysaving solutions is often capital intensive and process industries
are generally reluctant to implement them if this is not associated
with signicant improvement in the protability of a plant. This is
particularly the case in the petroleum rening world. As elaborated in greater detail by Hartman et al.,2 catalytic reforming to
process aromatics is an important economic factor for modern
reneries. Reactor euent stream is rich in benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, xylenes, and heavier aromatics, and an aromatics
complex usually contains several distillation columns arranged in
trains (sequences) to recover and separate the aromatic components into individual products and/or certain component-rich
fractions. A comprehensive review of the dividing wall column
(DWC) state of the art, including a survey of application-related
patents, indicated that aromatics complexes oer various opportunities for implementation of a DWC.3 The present paper is
concerned with design of a conventional, three-product DWC
suitable for a specic aromatics complex situation as encountered
in a Croatian renery.
The energy-saving potential in this type as well as in many
other applications is signicant and can be estimated with
condence using dierent simulation methods. The papers by
Tiantafyllou and Smith4 and Segovia-Hernandez et al.5 provide
some quantication in this respect, and the obtained results agree
well with the numbers reported for some real industrial applications in a paper by Kaibel et al.6
However, as indicated by Dejanovic et al.,3 and in a recent
state-of-the-art paper by Asprion and Kaibel,7 the columns
r 2011 American Chemical Society
ARTICLE
C5C6
BRC
heavies
31.74
6.94
3.70
21.10
n-butane
0.019
0.088
0.000
0.000
isopentane
0.064
0.291
0.000
0.000
n-pentane
0.045
0.206
0.000
0.000
1
total ow [t h ]
component mass fractions
With proper column shell dimensions and internal conguration, it is possible to obtain reliable installed equipment cost
estimates and consequently arrive at total annualized costs
(TACs) with enough condence to allow a realistic comparison
with established, two-columns-in-series congurations, i.e., a
proper assessment of potential benets of implementing a
DWC. As shown in what follows, the results of this study clearly
indicate that adopting a DWC as the standard design for
aromatics plant applications could lead to increased protability
of complex reneries.
2. DESIGN CASE
Upon a recent decision to concentrate mainly on fuel production, the aromatics complex at the INA (presently MOL Group)
renery in Sisak, Croatia, has been reduced to a minimum, i.e., to
a direct separation sequence containing two columnsthe
so-called platformate splitter and the benzene recovery
columnconnected in series (see Figure 1) to separate the
platformer reactor euent stream which contains some 40
components into three fractions: (1) C5C6 gasoline containing no more than 1.5 mass % benzene, (2) a benzene-rich cut
(BRC) containing 68 mass % benzene, and (3) a heavy reformate
stream (heavies) containing toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, and
heavier components with no more than 0.5 mass % benzene.
For purposes of this study the 40 components contained in the
actual feed stream have been lumped together into a representative 15-component mixture. The mass ow rates and compositions of the feed and product streams as considered in the present
simulation study are shown in Table 1.
In order to provide an appropriate basis for the evaluation and
comparison of related costs, two conventional columns are
considered here as new designs, and to provide complete
information both options, i.e., tray and packed columns, are
considered.
3. STAGE AND REFLUX REQUIREMENTS
The two columns of the base-case conguration (see Figure 1)
have been simulated using detailed methods available in ChemCAD. Regarding the simulation approach, a DWC, shown
schematically in Figure 2, has signicantly more degrees of
2-methylpentane
0.080
0.351
0.026
0.000
n-hexane
0.043
0.050
0.270
0.000
benzene
3-methylhexane
0.086
0.020
0.013
0.000
0.680
0.024
0.005
0.026
toluene
0.247
0.000
0.000
0.373
ethylbenzene
0.035
0.000
0.000
0.053
p-xylene
0.042
0.000
0.000
0.064
m-xylene
0.122
0.000
0.000
0.183
o-xylene
0.055
0.000
0.000
0.083
m-ethyltoluene
0.047
0.000
0.000
0.071
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
1,4-diethylbenzene
0.077
0.017
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.116
0.025
ARTICLE
C2
C1 C2
DWC
number of stages
40
38
78
86
reux ratio
1. 70
2.39
2.80
3.55
3.16
2.63
2.51
6.18
5.67
3.50
2.76
4. COLUMN DIMENSIONS
Upon completion of the performance calculations, the number of equilibrium stages (theoretical plates) in each column
section was xed as well as corresponding liquid and vapor ow
rates. For the tray column option, common cross-ow sieve trays
have been chosen with a tray spacing of 0.6 m. Using tray
eciencies as experienced in similar applications, the platformate
splitter contains 61 trays and the benzene recovery column
contains 59 trays, with the feed stage in both cases in the middle
of the column. For packed conventional columns and packed
DWC, Montz-pak B1-350 MN, a state-of-the-art, high performance corrugated sheet structured packing was chosen. Bed
heights in conventional and partitioned parts have been determined in accordance with the number of contained stages,
assuming an HETP value of 0.4 m. This number including the
ARTICLE
Table 3. Dimensions and Components of the DWC and Two Conventional Congurations
conguration
C1/C2 (trays)
C1/C2 (packings)
DWC (packings)a
1.7/2.7
1.7/2.7
2.7
2/2
1.6/1.8
1.7
40.5/39.5
27.1/27.5
37.3
61/59
4/4
7 (4)
number of distributors
4/4
7 (4)
4/4
4/4
7 (4)
7 (4)
ARTICLE
where Ac (m2), Apc (m2), and Amc (m2) are the cross-sectional
areas of the shell of the DWC, prefractionator, and main column,
respectively. The cross-sectional area of the prefractionator
segment of the overall cross-sectional area can be calculated from
Figure 6. Internal conguration, indicating the number of stages in each
bed and the corresponding liquid and vapor ows at the top and bottom
of each bed.
the feed to the liquid coming from the bed above as well as a
certain amount of liquid obtained due to direct condensation of
the ascending vapor upon contact with subcooled feed liquid
makes the liquid load of the bed below the feed nearly 5 times
larger than that on the main column side. Also, on the main
column side of the partition wall there is a side draw where side
product is taken out of the column as a liquid. Owing to a rather
small vapor load this section requires a much lower crosssectional area than the heavily liquid loaded stripping section
on the prefractionator side. Although the vapor and liquid loads
in sections above the feed and draw-off differ to a certain extent,
the partition wall is, as indicated in Figure 6, placed in the center.
This appeared to be a convenient choice in the present case, and
placing a partition wall off-center, as required in the sections
below the feed and draw-off stages, can easily be arranged by
utilizing a nonwelded wall, which is a well-established practice in
the case of DWCs equipped with structured packings.16
One should note that welding a partition wall implies separating the shell into two semicircular sections with equal crosssectional areas. Owing to dierent loads in the prefreactionator
and the main column, this leads always to underdesign on the less
critical side. This was one of the main obstacles for wider
implementation of DWC in the beginning years, which, presently, can be circumvented by placing the partition wall ocenter, in the most appropriate way. Therefore, the introduction
of a nonwelded, self-xing partition wall in 1996 is considered to
be a milestone in the development of DWC technology.1
Apc
dc 2
sin
8
dc 2lpcw
dc
ARTICLE
Section
which is often the case if a part of the partition wall is placed ocenter. Additional bed height is needed to accommodate the
required number of stages, because both a lower specic geometric area and an increased corrugation inclination angle are
associated with less eciency. Also the lateral position of the
partition wall can be corrected accordingly, provided the other
side can have it. If not, then the shell diameter of the DWC needs
to be enlarged accordingly. This means that a trial-and error
procedure is necessary to arrange proper lateral positioning of
the partition wall. The longitudinal positioning is related to the
number of stages contained on the prefractionator and the main
column side, above and below the feed and side product draw-o
2.1a 2.1b
(m)
5.2
(m2)
2.27 2.27
d
p
(m)
1.7 1.7
(mbar) 6.95 6.91
5.2
prefractionator
main column
1.1
2.2
1.2
2.3
2.4
3.6
5.2
4.8
4.0
1.135
1.599
1.135
0.671
6.4
2.27
1.20
5.75
1.43
7.95
1.20
4.25
0.92
9.76
1.7
13.51
stage, respectively. If one side contains more stages and the same
packing is chosen, then the side with fewer stages will have a
portion of empty space. This, however, allows installation of a
coarser packing, to arrive at a lower section pressure drop, if
appropriate. One should also note that additional height of the
column shell may be required to accommodate inclined portions
of the partition wall. This is necessary if the lateral positions of the
partition wall above and bellow the feed dier (one or both on
dierent o-center positions), as encountered in this study.
A reference design for the DWC was generated using the
Montz in-house method for establishing column dimensions.
The diameter of the DWC shell is 1.7 m, based on the design
point corresponding to 75% of the ooding vapor velocity on the
bottom stage.
A detailed drawing of this DWC is shown in Figure 8,
indicating seven packed beds and all auxiliary devices, i.e., column
internals of importance for cost estimation purposes, such as
liquid collectors or catchers, an externally placed liquid splitter,
the liquid distributors, the vapor distributor, and packing support
grids. In all situations a narrow trough liquid distributor with drip
tubes is used while the type of the liquid collector depends on the
specic liquid load. For the specic liquid loads above 20 m3/
m2 h, a chimney type collector is a preferred choice. This device is
also a common choice for side product draw-o location regardless of the liquid load. For lower specic liquid loads, vane
(chevron) type collectors are used. In present study a chimney
tray collector, placed above the vapor inlet, is used to facilitate
initial vapor distribution.
The proper distribution of vapor ow bellow the partition wall
is the key to success with the design of a DWC. This is something
that needs to be xed in the design phase, by arranging the
individual ow resistances to ensure equal pressure drop on two
sides of the partition wall. This is presently done by manufacturers only, i.e., using proprietary design methods. However, as
shown and demonstrated in what follows, it can be done with
required accuracy using recently published methods for estimating the pressure drop of corrugated sheet structured packings and
state-of-the-art packed column internals, respectively.
4.2. Pressure Drop of a Packed DWC. The heights of
individual column sections are indicated in Figure 8. The bed
heights and corresponding cross-sectional areas and equivalent
diameters for each section are shown in Table 4. The former
have been determined by multiplying the required number of
theoretical plates with a constant HETP value as adopted by
Montz for B1-350MN for this case (HETP = 0.4 m). One
should mention here that the Delft model arrives at conservative enough values, similar to those used by Montz in the
present case. However, a thorough verification effort is required
before adopting this method for the determination of bed
height of packed DWCs.
5685
ARTICLE
6
6
RL a tan6
4
7
cos90 R
7
7
b 5
sin90 R cos a tan
2h
where h (m) represents the height and b (m) is the width of the
base of corrugations. The corresponding length of the corrugation side, s (m), follows from
r
b2
s
h2
7
4
These three basic corrugation geometry dimensions depend
on the specic geometric area of the packing, and, being highly
inuential, should be measured upon delivery of a packing, as
well as the corrugation inclination angle, to avoid uncertainties
later on. Assuming a standard conguration utilizing a crimp
angle of 90, which implies that b = 2h, the following expression
can be used to determine the installed specic geometric area or
to back calculate corrugation dimensions from the given area.
4s
8
bh
Another important geometry-related parameter is the
V-shaped fraction of the cross section of a triangular gas ow
channel occupied by liquid lm:
ap
2s
b 2s
dhG
bh 2s2
bh
10
"
2
#0:5
bh 2s
bh 2s 2
bh 2s
2h
b
2h
2bh
b 2s
11
ARTICLE
need to be provided for the top and bottom of each bed contained, and this information can easily be retrieved from the
results of detailed performance calculations.
Corresponding supercial velocities are dened as
uGs
4MG
FG
2 p
FG
FG dc
12
and
uLs
4ML
FL dc 2
13
0:5
14
FL FG
FG
FG, lp
10:57
r!0:25
FL
p
uLs
sin RDC 1:24 A
FG
FG
21
This critical load corresponds roughly with the design point,
which is usually set to 0.70.8 of the ood point. However, as
mentioned before, if the pressure drop corresponding to the
loading point condition FG/FG,lp = 1 exceeds 3 mbar/m, the
latter should be taken as the design limit.
According to the Delft model, the preloading region pressure
drop consists of three major contributions: the pressure drop
associated with the vaporliquid interaction at the interface,
pGL; the pressure drop associated with the vaporvapor
interaction at crossings of open sides of triangular gas ow
channels, pGG; and the pressure drop associated with the
change in ow direction at the transitions between subsequent
packing elements or layers, pDC.
ppreload pGL pGG pDC
and
uLe
uLs
hL sin RL
16
17
FL gap sin RL
where g (m2/s) is gravity acceleration and RL (deg) is the
eective angle of liquid lm ow, dened by eq 6.
4.2.1.2. Working Pressure Drop Model Equations. The Delft
model makes a distinction between the preloading region, where
film flow conditions prevail, and the loading region, where a more
complex fluid-dynamic situation is encountered.
p
p
Fload
19
z
z preload
GL GG DC
FG u2Ge
2
22
hpb
dhG sin R
23
The friction factor, GL, described by the well-known Colebrook and White expression,22 accounts for the eect of the
roughness of the interface, which is here assumed to be equal
to lm thickness.
2
=dhG 5:02
=dhG 14:5
log
GL 2 log
ReGrv
ReGrv
3:7
3:7
24
Here, ReGrv represents the relative phase velocity Reynolds
number:
ReGrv
5687
25
ARTICLE
hpb
dhG sin R
1 j0:722cos R3:14
hpb
dhG sin R
26
hpb
wall
hpe bulk
with
h2pe
2hpe
2
d
c
tan2 R
dc 2 tan R
!0:5
Table 5. Pressure Drop Caused by Narrow Trough Distributors (nt) Installed in Dierent Positions (1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12)
along the DWC, with Indication of Free Area and Corresponding Vapor Load
27
0:445
4092u0:31
Ls 4715cos RDC
ReGe
0:779
34:19u0:44
Ls cos RDC
ReGe
12
type
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
jnt
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.4
FG (Pa0.5)
1.16
1.23
1.41
1.14
1.00
1.65
1.40
p (mbar)
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.07
0.05
2
3
prefractionator
main column
10
11
13
uLe
type
m /m h 16.5 15.5
cc cc
8.9
cc
39.3
ct
15.8
ct
17.9
cc
34.7
ct
jcc/ct
0.25 0.25
0.19
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
FG
Pa0.5
1.27 1.20
1.25
1.34
0.93
1.63
1.57
mbar
0.36 0.32
0.68
0.49
0.24
0.60
0.54
nt 1:21:5 j2:5 j
33
30
In the wall zone also the liquid and vapor load play an inuential
role:
wall
Position
28
29
main column
Table 6. Pressure Drop Caused by Chevron (cc) and Chimney Tray (ct) Collectors Installed in Dierent Positions (2, 3,
6, 7, 10, 11, 13) along the DWC, with Indication of Free Area
and Corresponding Vapor and Liquid Loads
hpe
2
arcsin
dc tan R
prefractionator
31
34
35
ARTICLE
all liquid collectors was chosen, except for the chimney collector
on the main column side, which was reduced to 19% to ensure
equal pressure drop on both sides of the partition wall.
Being rather low, the pressure drop of support grids is
neglected. Also, the numbers shown in Tables 5 and 6 indicate
that the pressure drop of narrow trough liquid distributors is
much lower than that of liquid collectors. This is mainly due to a
much larger free area available for ascending vapor than in the
case of liquid collectors that require relatively more crosssectional area for liquid handling. In any case, as demonstrated
here, the free area of liquid collectors can serve as a means for
ne-tuning the pressure drop of sections in the partitioned part of
a DWC. This can be done automatically using Excel solver, which
will indicate the free area bound between 5 and 30%, generating
the requested pressure drop. The dimensioning procedure for a
three-product DWC is shown schematically in Figure 9.
p (mbar)
Cshell
prefractionator
main column
mbar
mbar
41.07
2.73
41.38
2.41
total
mbar
43.80
43.80
partitioned section
mbar
14.95
14.95
packings
internals
1468:6
fp
dc 1:066 h0:802
c, t-t
280
36
where dc (m) is the column diameter and hc,t-t (m) is the tangentto-tangent column height, while the cost factor fp depends on the
operating pressure. In the present case, for p e 3.5 bar, fp =
2981.68.
ARTICLE
unit price
Table 9. Equipment Costs, Utility Costs, and Total Annualized Cost (TAC) for Conventional Sequence with Respectively Trayed and Packed Columns and a DWC (Price
Reference December 2009)
600 US $/m2
sieve trays
2
2000 US $/m3
4000 US $/m2
liquid collector
2000 US $/m2
support grid
800 US $/m2
For the purchased cost for sieve trays (carbon steel) as well as
structured packings and internals (both made of stainless steel),
we have used the values approved by Montz as reasonable
estimates for the purposes of this comparative study. These are
summarized in Table 8. For structured packings, the price is
proportional to the specic geometric area of the packing. This
means that in the present case the value given in Table 8 needs to
be multiplied by the factor 1.4, which is the ratio of specic
geometric area of packing used in this study, i.e., B1-350 MN, and
the basic type B1-250. That is, the given numbers represent the
nominal specic geometric area of a packing in m2/m3.
Given values are valid for conventional tray and packed
columns. In order to account properly for complexities associated with building a packed DWC, the cost of both packings
and related internals installed in the partitioned part is increased
by 20%, i.e., the value for standard equipment multiplied by the
factor 1.2.
The number of beds and their volumes and the number of
distributors, collectors, and support grids contained in conventional and partitioned parts of the column can be retrieved by
careful inspection of the detailed drawing shown in Figure 8.
Finally, to translate the purchased cost into installed cost for sieve
trays and for structured packings and related internals factors 3
and 2 are used, respectively.
For shell and tube condensers and reboilers, the following
expression allows estimation of the installed cost in US dollars:
1468:6
37
ctype A0:65
Ccond
280
where A (m2) is the required heat transfer area and ctype is the
coecient depending on the type of heat exchanger. For condensers, ctype = 1609.13, and for kettle reboilers, ctype = 1775.26.
These numbers are valid for common construction materials and
the operating pressure as encountered in the present case.
The installed cost (in US dollars) of a red heater is estimated
from
1468:6
14390:71Q 0:82 1:23 ft fm fp 38
Creb
280
where Q (MW) is the reboiler duty, ft is the correction factor
accounting for the type of heater (for a cylindrical heater, ft = 0),
fm is the correction factor that accounts for the construction
material (for carbon steel, fm = 0, and for stainless steel, fm = 0.5),
and fp is the correction factor for the eect of the operating
pressure (for pressures below 34 bar, fp = 0).
A summary of the capital, operating, and total costs for two
conventional congurations and a DWC is given in Table 9.
Although the conventional conguration with two columns
equipped with structured packings appears more cost-eective
than the conventional conguration employing tray columns, a
conguration
C1C2 (tray) C1C2 (packed) DWC (packed)
Installed Equipment Costs (US $)
column shell
1,261,781
781,468
501,621
column internals
678,240
611,793
516,332
reboiler
443,109
401,809
259,461
condenser
399,610
386,898
203,090
total capital
2,782,740
2,181,967
1,480,504
savings (%)
21.6
46.8
121,834
938,071
119,337
907,096
59,169
452,491
total utilities
1,059,905
1,026,433
511,660
savings (%)
3.2
51.7
1,338,179
1,244,630
659,710
7.0
50.7
6. CONCLUDING REMARKS
In this paper we have demonstrated that a commercial
simulator can be used in conjunction with initial guesses for
governing variables obtained from a simple but theoretically
founded short-cut method to generate without computation
diculties an optimized internal conguration of a DWC.
Compared to the conventional two-column-in-series conguration for obtaining benzene- and toluene-rich fractions from a 15component feed, a DWC requires 43.3% less energy to get the
same product specications.
The Delft model for structured packings in combination with
the Rix and Olujic method for packed column internals proved to
be an eective and reliable tool for preliminary dimensioning of
DWCs equipped with both conventional and high performance
corrugated sheet structured packings. The free area of liquid
catchers appeared to be a suitable variable for tuning the pressure
drop in the partitioned part of a DWC.
The compact dimensions of a DWC translate into a considerably lower installed equipment cost. Expressed in total annualized costs (TACs), a DWC enables a 50.7% savings with respect
to the conventional two-columns-in-series conguration employing tray columns, and 47.0% savings with respect to those
employing the same type and size of structured packings.
The fact that much less energy, capital, and space is needed
makes a DWC a highly interesting option for implementation in
aromatics processing plants.
5690
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail: z.olujic@tudelft.nl.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors thank J. Montz for providing the reference
designs for conventional columns and for the corresponding
DWC as well as the information on purchased and installed costs
of trays, packed column internals, and structured packings. We
would also like to thank INA Renery Sisak, Croatia (the MOL
group), for providing actual plant data.
NOMENCLATURE
A = cross-sectional area (m2)
ap = specic geometric surface area of packing, m2/m3
ae = eective (interfacial) area, m2/m3
b = corrugation base length (m)
C = installed cost of equipment (US $)
ctype = heat exchanger type cost coecient
d = diameter (m)
dhG = hydraulic diameter for the gas phase (m)
FG = uGs(FG)0.5 = gas load factor (Pa0.5 or m/s (kg/m3)0.5)
FG,lp = loading point gas load factor (m/s (kg/m3)0.5)
Fload = loading eect factor
f = cost-related correction factor
g = gravity acceleration (m/s2)
HETP = height equivalent to a theoretical plate (m)
h = corrugation height (m)
hc,t-t = tangent-to-tangent column height (m)
hL = operating liquid holdup (m3 of liquid/m3 of bed)
hpb = height of the packed bed (m)
hpe = height of the packing element (m)
htray = height between top and bottom tray (m)
lG,pb = total length of gas ow channel in a packed bed (m)
lG,pe = length of gas ow channel in a packing element (m)
lpcw = distance from column shell to partition wall on prefractionator side (m)
MG = mass ow rate of gas/vapor (kg/s)
ML = mass ow rate of liquid (kg/s)
npe = number of packing elements (layers) in a bed
p = operating pressure (bar)
P = pressure drop (Pa or mbar)
Q = reboiler duty (MW)
ReGe = eective gas phase Reynolds number
ReGrv = relative velocity Reynolds number
ReL = Reynolds number for the liquid
s = corrugation side length (m)
TAC = total annualized cost (US $)
uGe = eective gas velocity (m/s)
uGs = supercial gas velocity (m/s)
uLe = eective liquid velocity (m/s)
uLs = supercial liquid velocity (m/s)
z = unit bed height (m)
Greek Symbols
ARTICLE
cond = condenser
c = column
cc = chevron collector
ct = chimney tray collector
DC = direction change
GG = gasgas interaction
GL = gasliquid interaction
L = liquid
lam = laminar ow
m = related to construction material
mc = main column
nt = narrow trough distributor
o = overall
p = related to operating pressure
pc = prefractionator column
reb = reboiler
shell = related to column shell
t = related to red heater type
trays = related to trays
turb = turbulent ow
REFERENCES
5691
ARTICLE
(9) Errico, M.; Tola, G.; Rong, B.-G.; Demurtas, D.; Turunen, I.
Energy saving and capital cost evaluation in distillation column
sequences with a divided wall column. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2009,
87, 16491657.
(10) Halvorsen, I. J. Minimum Energy Requirements in Complex
Distillation Arrangements. Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and
Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway, 2001.
(11) Halvorsen, I. J.; Skogestad, S. Minimum energy consumption in
multicomponent distillation. 1. Vmin diagram for a two-product column.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2003, 42, 596604.
(12) Halvorsen, I. J.; Skogestad, S. Minimum energy consumption in
multicomponent distillation. 2. Three-product Petlyuk arrangements.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2003, 42, 605615.
. Dividing wall column
(13) Dejanovic, I.; Matijasevic, Lj.; Olujic, Z
application to platformate splittera case study. 20th European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering; Pierucci, S., Buzzi Ferraris,
G., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, 2010; pp 655660.
.; Rietfort, T.; Jansen, H.; Kaibel, B.; Zich, E.; Ruert,
(14) Olujic, Z
G.; Zielke, T. Maximizing the performance of corrugated sheet structured packings. Proceedings of the 9th Distillation and Absorption
Conference, Sept 1215, 2010, Eindhoven, The Netherlands; 2010;
pp 605610.
. Pressure drop of packed column internals.
(15) Rix, A.; Olujic, Z
Chem. Eng. Process. 2008, 47, 15201529.
. Unxed
(16) Kaibel, B.; Jansen, H.; Rietfort, T.; Zich, E.; Olujic, Z
wall: the key to a breakthrough in dividing wall column technology.
Proceedings of Distillation Topical Conference, AIChE Spring National
Meeting, April, 2227, 2007, Houston, TX, USA; AIChE: New York,
2007; pp 2941.
(17) Fair, J. R.; Seibert, A. F.; Behrens, M.; Saraber, P. P.; Olujic, Z.
Structured Packing Performance: Experimental Evaluation of Two
Predictive Models. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2000, 39, 17881796.
.; Behrens, M.; Colli, L.; Paglianti, A. Predicting the
(18) Olujic, Z
eciency of corrugated sheet structured packings with large specic
surface area. Chem. Biochem. Eng. Q. 2004, 18, 8996.
.; Behrens, M.; Spiegel, L. Experimental characterisa(19) Olujic, Z
tion and modelling the performance of a large specic area, high-capacity
structured packing. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2007, 46, 883893.
.; Seibert, A. F.; Fair, J. R. Inuence of corrugation
(20) Olujic, Z
geoemtry on the performance of structured packings: an experimental
study. Chem. Eng. Process. 2002, 39, 335342.
.; Fair, J. R. A general correlation for
(21) Verschoof, H.-J.; Olujic, Z
predicting the loading point of corrugated sheet structured packing. Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res. 1999, 38, 36633669.
. Compute friction factors fast for ow in pipes. Chem.
(22) Olujic, Z
Eng. 1981, 88 (25), 9193.
. Eect of column diameter on pressure drop of a
(23) Olujic, Z
corrugated sheet structured packing. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 1999, 77 (Part
A), 505510.
(24) Douglas, J. M. Conceptual Design of Chemical Processes;
McGraw-Hill: New York, 1988.
(25) Economic indicators. Chem. Eng. 2010, 117 (3), 64.
5692