CHEP7005 DCE2 Binary distillation assignment

Nam
e

Task 2: Shortcut design

Helvio Jos Jalles
Allocated
Acetone/Methyl Ethyl
Monteiro
binary
Ketone
Component

More volatile

Less volatile

Name

Acetone

Methyl Ethyl
Ketone

511 kj/kg

444 kj/kg

29.67 kj/gmol

32.02 kj/gmol

Aspen alias
Latent heat of
vaporisation

Reflux ratio mulp. by n of stages vs. n of stages

700
600
500
400

Reflux ratio multiplied by number of stages

300
200
100
0

7 1217

Number of stages

Reflux ratio vs. Thoretical number of stages

80
70
60
50

Reflux ratio 40
30
20
10
0

10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Theoretical number of stages

The McCabe-Thiele graph was hand plotted and it can be found in the appendix
2.4

Shortcut summary table

Analytica
l

Fenske

Underwo
od

McCabeThiele

DSTWU

Minimum
number of
stages

10.0522

7.7630

Minimum
reflux

2.9531

2.9531

6.1428

2.0456

Optimum
number of
stages

9.7834

Optimum
reflux

5.9062

Commentary:
Among the different types of calculations used to calculate the minimum
reflux it is possible to see that both values calculated analytically and by
Underwood equation are equal, showing that the two methods are equivalent
and correct. The reflux ratio provided by DSTWU was slightly below that
calculated by other methods; however, this should have a different mathematical
model. The minimum reflux calculated graphically was superior to other values;
however, the graph does not have a very high accuracy, and can affect the
entire significance of the calculation.
In relation to the number of stages, the DSTWU and plot McCabe-Thiele
obtained similar values, however the value obtained by the equation of Fenske
was superior. The value obtained by the equation of Fenske was calculated from
the relative volatility found in Hirata et al, however the number of stages was
calculated using the base of Aspen, which as mentioned in task 1 that has a
lower relative volatility than Hirata et al. It is possible to conclude again that the
risks to sub design a column using data from Aspen or over design using the
data Hirata et al, which in both cases can be negative, spending a lot of energy is
needless, or even failing to obtain the desired separation.

Appendix 2.5: DSTWU outputs

Table 1: DSTWU stream results from Aspen.

ACETO-01
METHY-01
Total Flow kmol/hr
Total Flow kg/hr
Total Flow l/min
Temperature C
Pressure bar
Vapor Frac
Liquid Frac
Solid Frac
Enthalpy

cal/mol

Enthalpy
Entropy

cal/gm
cal/mol-

Distilla
Bottom te
Feed
2.9411 37.058
6
84
40
55.882 4.1176
38
2
60
58.823 41.176
54
46
100
4200.3 2449.2 6649.6
29
88
17
94.416 54.323 148.01
53
85
1
77.895 57.636 67.980
32
53
57
1.0132 1.0132 1.0132
5
5
5
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
62621. 58199. 59920.
8
9
1
876.98 978.43 901.10
7
4
6
-

88.424
6
1.2383
4
0.0103
84
0.7414
54
71.405
58
86.805
09

K
Entropy
K

cal/gm-

Density

mol/cc

Density

gm/cc

Average MW
Liq Vol 60F l/min

71.538
1.2026
7
0.0126
33
0.7514
47
59.482
72
51.832
41

78.047
2
1.1737
1
0.0112
6
0.7487
75
66.496
17
138.63
75

Table 2: DSTWU column results from Aspen.

Minimum reflux ratio

Actual reflux ratio
Minimum number of stages
Number of actual stages
Feed stage
Number of actual stages
above feed
Reboiler heating required
Condenser cooling required
Distillate temperature
Bottom temperature
Distillate to feed fraction

2.0456
37
5.9062
46
7.7630
4
9.7834
08
5.9163
48
4.9163
48
51234
8.5
53681
8
57.636
53
77.895
32
0.4117
65

cal/se
c
cal/se
c
C
C

Table 3: DSTWU reflux ratio profile from Aspen.

Theoretical
stages

Reflux ratio

72.4652053

Reflux ratio
multiplied by
number of
stages
579.7216

9.33214104

83.98927

10

5.21427953

52.1428

11

4.00005337

44.00059

12

3.52097428

42.25169

13

3.18784347

41.44197

14

2.88494199

40.38919

15

2.58548891

38.78233

Table 4: DSTWU mass and energy balance from Aspen.

Total
Mole-flow

Units
kmol/
hr

Mass-flow

kg/hr

Enthalpy

cal/se
c

In
100
6649.6
17
16644
48

Out
100
6649.6
17
16889
17

Rel. diff
0
1.37E-16
0.014488273