Final Report

Benzene Removal from Motor Gasoline Pool:
Benzene Removal Options
FOR THE
Phillips 66 Ponca City Refinery
Prepared by
Engineering Design Team________

CHE 4124 – Chemical Engineering Design I
Oklahoma State University
November 23rd, 2015

Executive Summary
This preliminary design was undertaken to evaluate two options for the most cost efficient way
to meet the MSAT-2 requirement by the start of January 1, 2018. The result of the preliminary
design is management should move forward with the first option – selling benzene by pipeline.
It is recommended that the design for the first option be expanded into a detailed design as
soon as possible. It is also recommended that a pipeline be secured (either by contract or
construction) to transport benzene from Ponca City, OK to Pasadena, TX. Finally, it is
recommended that a contract be established with a benzene customer in Pasadena, TX.
Benzene prices have remained volatile over the last decade, swinging from lows of $300/ton to
highs of $1350/ton. While these swings produce a $200 million dollar range of revenue, this
project remains profitable even assuming worst case market conditions.
The design process for the above option is a fractionation train with two distillation towers that
separate out the government mandated 1800 barrels per day (BPD) of benzene at a mass purity
just over 99.8%. An economic analysis indicates that the net present value (NPV) for this project
is $790 million, the majority of this profit is provided by the octane credit which provides $380
million per year. 38,000 BPD of 92 research octane number (RON) combustible products are
produced for the motor pool stream after removing the benzene. An additional $65.1 million
per year comes from the sale of the high purity benzene via pipeline to Pasadena, TX at
$700/ton. This option has a payback period of 0.08 years (~1 month) and a DCFROR of 1500%.
The total construction costs in 2017 will be $17 million and will cost $23.4 million dollars a year
to operate and maintain. Operation will require 14 operators per shift and no unusual health,
safety or environmental concerns are expected.
If the first option is not viable due to unforeseen circumstances, then management should
pursue the second option – reaction of benzene into cyclohexane. This option uses the same
fractionation train as the first option but feeds benzene to a reactor. The benzene reacts with
hydrogen, purchased as a raw material and fed into the reactor, over a Raney-Ni catalyst to
form cyclohexane. This reaction is highly exothermic and operates at high temperature and
pressure. This is a major safety risk and precautions should be taken to prevent a runaway
reaction. This process has an NPV of $590 million, a payback period of 0.18 years (~2 months),
and a DCFROR of 694%. The octane credit provides a revenue of $360 million per year on
40,000 BPD of 91 RON combustible products sent to the motor pool. The total construction
costs in 2017 will be $28.2 million and will cost $38.6 million per year to operate and maintain.
Operation requires 14 operators per shift and has no unusual environmental concerns.
Both options have technical merit and are feasible with standard operating equipment and
utilities. However, from an economic basis the first option (benzene sales via pipeline) provides
nearly $200 million more than the second option. Furthermore, the first option is inherently
safer. It is for these reasons that the first option is recommended and detailed design should
start as soon as possible.
Page 1 of 67
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5
Technical Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Design Basis .............................................................................................................................................. 6
Design Philosophy .................................................................................................................................. 11
Description of the Process ..................................................................................................................... 13
Stream Summary Tables and Process Flow Diagrams .......................................................................... 15
Technical Issues and Design Practices ................................................................................................... 31
Option 1 .............................................................................................................................................. 31
To Pipeline .......................................................................................................................................... 42
Option 2 .............................................................................................................................................. 43
Hydrogenation of Benzene ................................................................................................................ 43
Safety: ..................................................................................................................................................... 46
Environmental: ....................................................................................................................................... 46
Economic Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 47
Capital Cost Estimates ............................................................................................................................ 47
Revenue and Operating Expense Estimates .......................................................................................... 49
Revenue .................................................................................................................................................. 49
Operating Expense ............................................................................................................................. 51
DCFROR Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 53
Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 55
Conclusions: ................................................................................................................................................ 62
Recommendations: .................................................................................................................................... 62
References: ................................................................................................................................................. 64
Appendices: ................................................................................................................................................ 66
List of Equations
Equation 1: Hydrogenation of Benzene ........................................................................................................ 8
Equation 2: Reactor Diameter ...................................................................................................................... 9
Page 2 of 67
List of Figures
Figure 1: Crude Oil Transportation Rates ..................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2: Operational Envelope .................................................................................................................. 10
Figure 3: Ponca City Annual Temperature Values ...................................................................................... 11
Figure 4: Option 1 - Benzene Sales via Pipeline to Pasadena, TX ............................................................... 21
Figure 5: Option 2 - Hydrogenation of Benzene to Cyclohexane ............................................................... 30
Figure 6: Temperature Profile for E-102 ..................................................................................................... 36
Figure 9: Present Worth Cost Analysis Compared to Number of Stages of T-101 ..................................... 40
Figure 10: Present Worth Cost Analysis Compared to Number of Stages of T-101 ................................... 41
Figure 11: Temperature Profile for E-201 ................................................................................................... 42
Figure 12: Temperature Profile for E-301 ................................................................................................... 44
Figure 13: CEPCI Factor Projection ............................................................................................................. 48
Figure 14: Historic Benzene Costs ............................................................................................................... 59
Figure 15: Option 1 NPV Tornado Chart ..................................................................................................... 59
Figure 16: Option 1 DCFROR Tornado Chart ............................................................................................... 60
Figure 17: Option 2 NPV Tornado Chart ..................................................................................................... 61
Figure 18: Option 2 DCFROR Tornado Chart ............................................................................................... 61
List of Tables
Table 1: Reformate Stream Makeup ............................................................................................................. 6
Table 2: Raney Nickel Catalyst Properties .................................................................................................... 9
Table 3: Available Utilities........................................................................................................................... 10
Table 4: Stream Summary Table Option 1 | 1/5 ......................................................................................... 16
Table 10: Stream Summary Table Option 2 | 2/8 ....................................................................................... 23
Table 17: Equipment Summary Table Option 1 .......................................................................................... 33
Table 18: Equipment Summary Table Option 2 .......................................................................................... 34
Table 19: Water Cooled vs Air Cooled Heat Exchangers............................................................................. 35
Table 20: CEPCI Factors ............................................................................................................................... 48
Page 3 of 67
Table 21: Benzene Sales Revenue ............................................................................................................... 49
Table 22: Octane Credit Calculation ........................................................................................................... 49
Table 23: Option 2 Steam Generated Revenue .......................................................................................... 50
Table 24: Option 2 Octane Credit ............................................................................................................... 50
Table 25: Option 2 Fuel Gas Revenue ......................................................................................................... 50
Table 26: Operator Expenses ...................................................................................................................... 51
Table 27: Utility Costing and Consumption Summary ................................................................................ 52
Table 28: Option 1 Cash Flow Table ............................................................................................................ 53
Table 29: Option 2 Cash Flow Table ............................................................................................................ 54
Table 30: 10 Year MACRS Depreciation ...................................................................................................... 55
Table 31: Economic Sensitivity Variables and Percentages ........................................................................ 57
Page 4 of 67
Introduction
This project was initiated by Clint Aichele, of the Refined Products Strategic Planning Team, in
an October 23rd, 2015 memorandum sent to Josh Ramsey, the Downstream Technical Support
Manager.
The goal of this project is to ensure that the overall motor gasoline pool at the Phillips 66 Ponca
City Refinery is within federal regulations by January 1st, 2018. These regulations come from the
Mobile Sources Air Toxics Phase 2 (MSAT-2), and dictate that 1,800 barrels per day (BPD) of
benzene must be removed from the reformate stream.
The reformate stream is a product of the Catalytic Reformer Unit (CRU) in order to provide
increased octane ratings in crude unit naphtha. One of the many high octane products
produced from the CRU is benzene. The following report investigates the preliminary design
and economic viability of two different benzene removal options. In both options the benzene
was separated from the rest of the reformate stream, in order to reduce the volume of liquid
the process had to handle.
The first option focuses on purifying the benzene from the rest of the reformate stream before
it is sold as a commodity chemical and shipped via pipeline from the Ponca City, OK refinery to
the ship channel in Pasadena, TX. When evaluating this option, it is important to note that
benzene now becomes a product that will be sold. Furthermore, the motor pool volume will
decrease in proportion to the amount of barrels per day of benzene that are sold.
The second option has the benzene going through a hydrogenation reaction. The
hydrogenation of benzene produces cyclohexane, which has a lower octane rating but allows
the refinery to meet the MSAT-2 regulations. For this option, much of the reactor design was
based upon information provided to the team via an October 26th, 2015 memorandum from Jan
Wagner, the reaction subject matter expert. It should be noted that this reaction is highly
exothermic and safety considerations should be made to ensure a runaway reaction does not
occur. This process was also evaluated to leverage the heat produced by the reaction to
produce steam to the plant. Lastly, the cyclohexane that is produced in the reactor will be
added back into the motor pool stream. As cyclohexane has a lower Research Octane Number
(RON) than that of benzene, this will reduce the overall RON rating on the stream.
Originally this was designed to be a service project to ensure that the motor pool is in
compliance with federal regulations. However, due to the amount of money generated the
focus of this design team shifted away from minimizing the costs of this project while meeting
the requirement to maximizing the NPV or DCFROR.
Page 5 of 67
Technical Discussion
Design Basis
The total expected flow of the reformate stream from the CRU is 40,000 BPD1 at a pressure of
140 psig and a temperature of 150 °F. The exact make up of this stream can be seen below in
Table 1: Reformate Stream Makeup. Notice that the components are listed in increasing
molecular weight.
Table 1: Reformate Stream Makeup
Octane
Component BPD LV% Motor Research (R+M)/2
Propane 0 0
i -Butane 300 0.75 97.6 100.1 98.9
n- Butane 700 1.75 89.6 93.8 91.7
i-Pentane 2700 6.75 90.3 92.3 91.3
n-Pentane 1500 3.75 62.6 61.7 62.2
n-Hexane 1600 4 26 24.8 25.4
Benzene 2300 5.75 102.8 102.8 102.8
n-Heptane 1600 4 0 0 0
Toluene 8000 20 100.3 105.8 103.1
n-Octane 400 1 0 0 0
Ethyl-benzene 3700 9.25 97.9 100.8 99.4
m-Xylene 4600 11.5 102.8 104 103.4
p-Xylene 3300 8.25 101.2 103.4 102.3
o-Xylene 3500 8.75 100 100 100
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 5800 14.5 100 100 100
Sulfur Compounds 0 0
Total 40000 100
From this reformate stream the two options that were provided to be evaluated were as
follows:
(1) Extraction of benzene from the reformate product via fractionation and subsequent
high-purity (≥99.8 wt.%) sales via pipeline to our tankage on the ship channel in
Pasadena, Texas. The selling price of benzene is $700/ton.
1
Based on standard densities at 14.696 psia, 60 °F as documented in Section 23 of the GPSA Engineering Data
Book, 11th edition.
Page 6 of 67
(2) Use of a fractionation/saturation process employing a fixed bed reactor system and
ultimate blending into the overall gasoline pool in Ponca City.
Both options utilize the same fractionation train and will have a service factor of 95%.
Additionally the design has the same initial processing of the reformate stream in order to
isolate benzene. The main differences occur when handling the benzene as an isolated stream,
as opposed to the entire reformate stream. The two removal options of benzene are further
explored below.
For the first option, the key assumption that was made was the cost to send benzene via
pipeline from the refinery in Ponca City, OK to the ship channel in Pasadena, Texas. This cost
was estimated with a few appropriations from an August 22 nd, 2014 Petroleum Transportation
North America publication from Argus. This data can be seen in Figure 1: Crude Oil
Transportation Rates.
Figure 1: Crude Oil Transportation Rates
The listed price to move light crude from Cushing, OK to Houston, TX is listed at a rate of $2.71
per barrel. The appropriations that were made were as follows:
(1) From Cushing, OK to Houston, TX is 490 miles. At $2.71/bl.
(2) From Ponca City, OK to Pasadena, TX is 560 miles. This works out to $3.10/bl
(3) Product pipelines are less common than crude pipelines
Page 7 of 67
Furthermore, understanding that the exact price that will be used to transport benzene from
the refinery to the ship channel will be unknown as it will be either fixed by a contract price
determined later, or it will fluctuate in response to current market conditions. Therefore the
decision was made, based on the information provided in Figure 1: Crude Oil Transportation
Rates to assume that the cost of transporting benzene from the refinery in Ponca City, OK to
the ship channel in Pasadena, TX would be no higher than $5/bl and no cheaper than $3.10/bl.
As this is a range, it was assumed that price to transport benzene through a pipeline would be
$4.05/bl as this is the middle of the above range. This is significantly higher than the listed price
of crude transportation at $2.71 per barrel, especially given that this is a volume driven process.
The price is further variable because it does not appear that there are any product pipelines
that leave Ponca City and therefore a line would need to be brought to the refinery.
As mentioned above it will be hard to predict the actual transportation cost. While it is
anticipated, that the actual transportation cost will be slightly lower than the above projection
should this project be implemented, the decision to make a conservative yet justifiable
assumption was made in order to maintain a uniform decision making process throughout the
report.
As a final remark about the design basis for option 1, is that there does not appear to be a
petroleum products pipeline that leaves the Ponca City Refinery. Magellan Midstream Partners
has several assets in the area, but none appeared to carry petroleum products away from
Ponca City. Now, there may be some information that is protected and unavailable to this
design group but moving forward it is assumed that because option 1 is an option being
evaluated there is a plan to have the ability to ship benzene out of Ponca City, OK and to
Pasadena, TX. This is an assumption that has been made in order to fairly assess the option.
For the second option, the driving design factor is the reactor. Further information on this
reaction and the reactor specifications were provided in the Reactor Design Information
memorandum provided by Jan Wagner, the Reaction Subject Matter Expert.
3𝐻2 + 𝐶6 𝐻6 → 𝐶6 𝐻12
Equation 1: Hydrogenation of Benzene
The reaction is highly exothermic, liberating ~91,500 Btu/lb-mole at 300 °F. The reaction is
catalyzed by a Raney nickel catalyst in a fixed bed reactor that is 35 feet in height. It was
assumed that if the reaction was run with 10% excess actual volume of hydrogen at 400 °F and
272 psig that the benzene conversion would be 100%. Any unreacted hydrogen, and any
residual nitrogen, will be removed from the cyclohexane product and be either recycled or used
as fuel gas.
Page 8 of 67
The diameter of the reactor was found using
Equation 2: Reactor Diameter, which uses vapor flow rate as the driving design consideration. In
the below equation D is the reactor diameter (ft) and G is the vapor mass flow rate (lb/hr).
𝑙𝑏
𝐷(𝑓𝑡) = 0.1173 ∗ √𝐺 ( )
ℎ𝑟
Equation 2: Reactor Diameter
It is further assumed that there will be a 20 psi pressure drop across the reactor. Further
properties of the catalyst can be found in Table 2: Raney Nickel Catalyst Properties.
Table 2: Raney Nickel Catalyst Properties
Property Cylindrical Extrudates

% Nickel 50
BET area (m²/gm) 44
Pellet density (g/cm³) 1.28
Packed density (g/cm³) 0.77
Size (mm) 3.2
Price ($/lb) 15
Service Life (years) 5
Both options are capable of removing 1,800 BPD of benzene and sending all process streams to
storage at 100 °F and at least 80 psig. What differentiates these two options from each other is
the economic viability of each project. As per the Economic Evaluation Parameters
memorandum sent by Josh Ramsey, Downstream Technical Support Manager the project
evaluation life is 7 years. The hurdle rate is 25%, and the effective tax rate is 40%. Lastly,
depreciation of equipment was done using MARCRS.
Furthermore, when returning streams to the motor pool, the stream must have a minimum
RON of 87. All streams that are returned with a RON less than 87 will incur a cost of $6.30 per
octane per credit. Conversely however if the stream has a RON higher than 87 a credit of $6.30
per octane per barrel will be given.
Economics, while the primary consideration while making design decisions was not the only
factor. Another consideration was what utilities were available at the refinery. The available
utilities as well as the cost of using each utility is provided in Table 3: Available Utilities. While it
would technically be possible to create a new utility at the refinery for use in this project, it was
assumed that it would not prove to be economically advantageous. Therefore design decisions
were made with the utilities that are currently available at the refinery.
Page 9 of 67
Table 3: Available Utilities
Product Specifications Benzene Toluene Mixed-Xylenes
Benzene 99.80 wt% min 2.5 vol% max 0.1 wt% max
Toluene 0.05wt% max 97.0 vol% min 0.5 wt% max
Xylenes 98.0 wt% min
Ethylbenzene 2.0 vol% max
Non-armoatic hydrocarbons 0.15 wt% max 0.2 vol% max 0.5 wt% max
C9 aromatics 1.5 wt% max
Utilities:
Fuel gas 8.5 $/MM-BTU (75 psig, 100 °F)
Electricity 0.07 $/kW-hr
600 psig saturated stream 10 $/M-lbm
175 psig saturated steam 9 $/M-lbm
Demineralized water 1.25 $/M-lbm
Cooling water 0.1 $/M-gal (90 °F supply, 115 °F return)
M= 1,000
Hydrogen: Cost 3,800 $/MM-SCF

Supply conditions 99.99 vol% H2
0.01 vol% N2
200 psig
100 °F
Lastly, this project was designed with the intent to keep all operations within the envelope,
which can be seen in Figure 2: Operational Envelope . Operating within the envelope is defined
as operating with pressures between 14.7 psia and 165 psia and temperatures between 100 °F
and 500 °F. This is done to in order to prevent special mechanical designs or unique utilities.
Operating inside the envelope not only provides a more reliable system but also allows for
more normal operation of the process.
Figure 2: Operational Envelope
The site conditions of the Ponca City Refinery while a bit warm and windy, are rather ordinary.
The greatest anticipated difficulty of the climatic data on operational excellence will be the
hottest months in the summer. As seen in Figure 3: Ponca City Annual Temperature Values.
Page 10 of 67
According to United States Climate Data, Ponca City experiences an annual high temperature of
70.2 °F and an average high of 93 °F and 92 °F in July and August respectively. These high
temperature summer months may provide operational issues as the cooling towers begin to
lose cooling ability. This is an effect not considered in the following preliminary report. The
elevation of the refinery is close enough to sea level that is assumed to be at sea level.
Figure 3: Ponca City Annual Temperature Values
The sparing philosophy for this project was to attempt to spare all critical components to the
operation of the process. The exception being when the physical foot print of the equipment
was too large to be feasibly held for long periods of time regardless of the importance of that
equipment to the process. This led to having pumps and compressors spared.
Design Philosophy
When designing this project, there were several decisions that were encountered the called for
identical treatment in order to remain uniform in the decision making process. The prevailing
design consideration was to ensure that a safe design was produced. Safety not just for plant
personnel but also their families and residents of the surrounding area. Being good stewards for
the environment was the next most important consideration in designing this project. The
design philosophy was ensuring that not only people were protected but that the environment
was protected as well. Both safety and environmental protection are of the upmost importance
and therefore both also have sections later in this report.
Page 11 of 67
Another concerted effort made in this design was to allow economics to illuminate the path
forward when approaching decisions that split into two exclusive directions. In doing so,
justification can be provided behind each decision that was made. While the economic analysis
is in no way exhaustive of all possibilities it is certainly indicative of the thought process behind
those decisions. Furthermore, it was determined that a relatively large increase in capital cost
for an incremental reduction in operating cost was favorable for all major equipment pieces
because of the longevity of the project and the high volume usage and costs of utilities.
As this was intended to be a service project, in order to provide sound economic analysis of the
choices available, the present worth cost was minimized. In doing so, it was determined that
the most economic path forward for either option was only to remove 1800 BPD of benzene
from the reformate stream.
In option 1, removing only 1800 BPD allows for most amount of benzene to be returned to the
motor pool. This is desirable because benzene has a high octane rating and allows for a greater
credit to be claimed for the stream returning to the pool.
In option 2, removing only 1800 BPD allows not only for the maximum amount of benzene to
be returned to the motor pool, but also minimizes the amount of cyclohexane being placed in
the motor pool. Cyclohexane has a RON of 83, which is below 87 and very far away from the
RON of benzene at 102.8. Furthermore, removing the smallest volume of benzene from the
stream allows for the design of a reactor with the smallest volume.
This design was made to work with the available utilities in the plant. Furthermore, while a
service factor was given for the plant, this was not taken into consideration during the actual
design of the equipment but was used during the economic analysis. Another factor that was
not afforded great attention in this preliminary design is the ease at which the equipment could
be cleaned or maintained. Maintenance considerations were not considered from a longevity or
operational stand point. This is because the specifics of the equipment are not readily
understood or specified.
Moving on to other tangible design considerations, it was decided that whenever a range was
provided (efficiencies, H values, fouling factors etc.) that the middle of that range would be
used. This was done in order to allow completion of the preliminary design of the project
without requiring exact technical parameters.
Other design decisions made in which exact technical parameters were unavailable were made
so that they fell within the design heuristics provided.2 These heuristics played an important
role in the design of the distillation towers. As none were taller than 175 feet, this included the
8 feet of additional height provided for vapor disengagement and liquid holdup.
2
Turton et al, “Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of Chemical Processes”, Fourth Edition
Page 12 of 67
The only instances in which these heuristics were violated is in the design of the kettle
reboilers, the drive shafts for the pumps and the reactor. The area of the kettle reboilers should
not exceed 1076 ft² however the kettle reboilers in the proposed design are about five times
this heuristic. The reason this heuristic was violated was because even if the 600 pound steam
was used in the current column designs the kettle reboilers still would have been too large and
the operating costs would have been significantly increased. Therefore, column heuristics
would have to been forfeited in order to get the kettle reboilers within a reasonable size. Due
to the importance of the column over the reboiler, it was decided that the kettle reboiler
heuristic would be violated. The drive shafts had a minimum rating of 100 horsepower.
However, there were many pumps that needed a smaller drive shafts and they were priced
assuming that the costing correlation held. The reactor had a given height and based on the
equation for the diameter it was effectively fixed in size. Therefore, the design heuristic was
violated and the 6/10ths rule was used to scale the maximum capacity.
Lastly, the thought process in determining the splits in separating out the benzene from the
rest of the reformate stream shall be investigated. For the first split, benzene was used as the
light key and n-heptane was used as the heavy key. This was the easiest split, and allowed for
the removal of a significant amount of the liquid volume that was required to be handled. The
second split was with n-hexane as the light key and benzene as the heavy key. This split was
done as it allowed for the isolation of benzene from the rest of the liquid products.
Description of the Process
For a graphical representation of this process please consult the block and process flow
diagrams. To ensure mass and energy balances please consult the stream tables.
In the following process description, the process is divided up into three sections with unique
numerical identifiers. The first section is the fractionation train that both options share and it is
identified with equipment numbers in the one hundreds. The second section is equipment
specific to the first option. This equipment is identified with equipment numbers in the two
hundreds. The third section is equipment specific to the second option which is identified with
equipment numbers in the three hundreds.
This process involves two different options. However, the options only differentiate themselves
after the isolation of benzene. In short, the fractionation train is the same for the two options.
Starting with the fractionation train, the reformate stream is brought over from the CRU and is
used as a feed to the preheater (E-101). The preheater was put in as raising the overall
temperature of the inlet stream reduced the amount of liquid flowing through the bottom of
the column. This allowed for the column diameter to remain within the range of the design
heuristics.
Page 13 of 67
The stream enters the first column (T-101) and undergoes the first of two splits. This split, as
described above, is with benzene as the light key and n-heptane as the heavy key. The bottoms
of T-101 is fed into a kettle reboiler (E-103). The vapor stream leaving the reboiler are refluxed
back into the column while the liquid product goes to a pump (P-102) and then through a heat
exchanger (E-104). P-102 and E-104 are necessary to have the stream have a high enough
pressure and low enough temperature to be sent to the motor pool. The distillate goes through
a total condenser (E-102) and flows into the condensate receiver (V-101). From the condensate
receiver (V-101) the stream is driven by pump (P-101) where part of the stream is refluxed back
into the tower while the rest is sent down the fractionation train.
Following the distillate stream from the first tower (T-101) that is not refluxed, it can be seen
that this stream is fed into the second tower (T-102). In the second tower the second split
occurs with n-hexane as the light key and benzene as the heavy key. Distillate product from the
second tower (T-102) flows through condenser (E-105) and into condensate receiver (V-102). Then into
pump (P-103) were it is then either refluxed back into the tower or sent as a distillate product to a
heat exchanger (E-107) to cool the product off before being sent to the motor pool.
The bottoms of the second column is where the two options diverge, as this is the isolated
benzene stream. Following the first option it can be seen that the bottoms of the second tower
flows through kettle reboiler (E-106) from which the vapor product is refluxed back into the
tower and the bottoms product is fed to a pump (P-201) before being fed to heat exchanger (E-
201) to cool down before being sent to the pipeline for sales in Pasadena, TX.
The second option takes the same bottoms stream from the second column, but instead of
sending it to a pipeline it goes through a jacketed reactor (R-301). The reactor receives the
hydrogen feed from a compressor (C-301) and reactor feed from pump (P-301). The reactor is
cooled by demin. water which produces 175 steam that is then used as a plant utility. The
reactor produces 100% yield of cyclohexane and by design has excess hydrogen that exits the
reactor. At the outlet pressure and temperatures of the reactor all products are vapors.
The reactor products are then sent through a valve (V-301) which drops the pressure from 272
psig to 81 psig, this also reduces the temperature from 400°F to 381 °F. These products are
then sent to the cooler (E-301) before being fed into separator (S-301) which has a vapor
product (mostly hydrogen that is recycled) and a liquid product (that is mostly hydrocarbon).
The vapor product goes to splitter (S-302) in which 95% of the stream is recycled and 5% of the
stream is purged to prevent the buildup of inert gases. The recycled stream is mixed (M-301) in
with a hydrogen feed that is then fed back to the reactor.
The liquid product is sent through a pump (P-303) before going to the motor pool.
Below is the stream summary table and process flow diagram. The stream summary table is
divided into the two different options available and corresponds to each of the two process
Page 14 of 67
flow diagrams. Each PFD has been included after the stream summary table in order to more
readily compare the streams to the process.
In the stream summary table some of the cells have grey backgrounds (they are actually
highlighted yellow but when printed in black and white they will appear grey). This is to denote
that the pressure in the cell has been altered from those calculated by Aspen. This occurs
because the actual height of the column is different from the simulate height of the column.
Specifically these are the reflux pressures going back into both columns (T-101 and T-102) and
the bottoms pressures going back into the reboilers of both columns. It was unknown how to
modify the internal reflux pressure and the bottoms product pressure in Aspen. This causes a
slight difference in enthalpy, however this change was calculated and found to be less than .2%.
The reflux pressure is assumed to be the same pressure as the top stage of the column. The
bottoms product pressure is assumed to be the same pressure as the pressure of the bottom
tray in the column. This is because the outlet product pressure must be equal to the vapor
reflux pressure entering the column on the bottom tray.
Stream Summary Tables and Process Flow Diagrams
Page 15 of 67
Table 4: Stream Summary Table Option 1 | 1/5
Stream Summary Table - Option 1 (1/5)

Stream Number 1 2 3 4 5
T-101 T-101 Distillate to
Stream Label Feed Heated Feed Overheads Pump T-101 Reflux
Phase Liquid Liquid Vapor Liquid Liquid
Pressure (psig) 140.00 134.00 11.23 6.23 11.23
Temperature (°F) 150.00 200.00 161.20 110.00 110.00
Enthalpy (Btu/hr) -87177000 -76038000 -116084836 -56507000 -56507000
Mass Flow Rate (lb/hr)
i-Butane 2459.87 2459.87 6887.64 6887.64 4427.77
n-Butane 5959.12 5959.12 16685.52 16685.52 10726.41
i-Pentane 24564.26 24564.26 68779.79 68779.79 44215.58
n-Pentane 13783.67 13783.67 38593.97 38593.97 24810.41
n-Hexane 15473.67 15473.67 43007.75 43007.75 27647.84
Benzene 29645.05 29645.05 69502.38 69502.38 44680.10
n-Heptane 16038.86 16038.86 47.93 47.93 30.81
Toluene 101638.00 101638.00 0 0 0
n-Octane 4118.25 4118.25 0 0 0
Ethyl-benzene 47000.00 47000.00 0 0 0
m-Xylene 58233.49 58233.49 0 0 0
p-Xylene 41629.37 41629.37 0 0 0
o-Xylene 44152.36 44152.36 0 0 0
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 74395.94 74395.94 0 0 0
Total 479091.90 479091.90 243504.98 243504.98 156538.92
Volumetric Flow Rate (actual ft³/hr) 9859.40 10211.56 799945.53 5917.36 3802.94
Density (lb/ft³) 48.59 45.23 0.30 41.15 41.15
Page 16 of 67

Stream Number 6 7 8
Stream Label T-101 Distillate T-101 Bottoms T-101 Pressurized Bottoms
Phase Liquid Liquid Liquid
Pressure (psig) 66.28 19.53 86.00
Temperature (°F) 110.50 315.95 316.46
Enthalpy (Btu/hr) -56471000 -1228100 -1084800
i-Butane 2459.87 0 0
n-Butane 5959.12 0 0
i-Pentane 24564.21 0.05 0.05
n-Pentane 13783.56 0.11 0.11
n-Hexane 15359.91 113.76 113.76
Benzene 24822.28 4822.78 4822.78
n-Heptane 17.12 16021.74 16021.74
Toluene 0 101638.00 101638.00
n-Octane 0 4118.25 4118.25
Ethyl-benzene 0 47000.00 47000.00
m-Xylene 0 58233.49 58233.49
p-Xylene 0 41629.37 41629.37
o-Xylene 0 44152.36 44152.36
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0 74395.94 74395.94
Total 86966.06 392125.84 392125.84
Volumetric Flow Rate (actual ft³/hr) 2114.42 8666.55 8670.26
Density (lb/ft³) 41.13 47.75 45.23
Page 17 of 67

Stream Number 9 10 11 12
T-102 T-102 Distillate to
Stream Label T-101 to Storage Overheads Pump T-102 Reflux
Phase Liquid Vapor Liquid Liquid
Pressure (psig) 80.00 25.66 20.66 25.66
Temperature (°F) 100.00 167.16 130.00 130.00
Enthalpy (Btu/hr) -40685000 -340762064 -62580000 -62580000
i-Butane 0 15989.17 15989.17 13529.30
n-Butane 0 38734.25 38734.25 32775.14
i-Pentane 0.05 159667.37 159667.37 135103.16
n-Pentane 0.11 89593.14 89593.14 75809.58
n-Hexane 113.76 99808.09 99808.09 84453.00
Benzene 4822.78 10537.68 10537.68 8916.50
n-Heptane 16021.74 0 0 0
Toluene 101638.00 0 0 0
n-Octane 4118.25 0 0 0
Ethyl-benzene 47000.00 0 0 0
m-Xylene 58233.49 0 0 0
p-Xylene 41629.37 0 0 0
o-Xylene 44152.36 0 0 0
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 74395.94 0 0 0
Total 392125.84 414329.70 414329.70 350586.67
Volumetric Flow Rate (actual ft³/hr) 7466.51 873972.03 11179.98 8519.52
Density (lb/ft³) 52.52 0.47 37.06 41.15
Page 18 of 67

Stream Number 13 14 15
Stream Label T-102 Distillate T-102 to Storage T-102 Bottoms
Pressure (psig) 86.00 80.00 33.96
Temperature (°F) 130.72 100.00 253.07
Enthalpy (Btu/hr) -62547000 -63644000 8090280
i-Butane 2459.87 2459.87 0
n-Butane 5959.12 5959.12 0
i-Pentane 24564.21 24564.21 0
n-Pentane 13783.56 13783.56 0
n-Hexane 15355.09 15355.09 4.83
Benzene 1621.18 1621.18 23201.09
n-Heptane 0 0 17.12
Toluene 0 0 0
n-Octane 0 0 0
Ethyl-benzene 0 0 0
m-Xylene 0 0 0
p-Xylene 0 0 0
o-Xylene 0 0 0
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0 0 0
Total 63743.03 63743.03 23223.03
Density (lb/ft³) 37.03 38.19 47.75
Page 19 of 67

Stream Number 16 17
Stream Label T-102 Pressurized Bottoms To Pipeline
Phase Liquid Liquid
Pressure (psig) 86.00 80.00
Temperature (°F) 253.89 100.00
Enthalpy (Btu/hr) 8100820 6584240
i-Butane 0 0
n-Butane 0 0
i-Pentane 0 0
n-Pentane 0 0
n-Hexane 4.83 4.83
Benzene 23201.09 23201.09
n-Heptane 17.12 17.12
Toluene 0 0
n-Octane 0 0
Ethyl-benzene 0 0
m-Xylene 0 0
p-Xylene 0 0
o-Xylene 0 0
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0 0
Total 23223.03 23223.03
Volumetric Flow Rate (actual ft³/hr) 486.72 433.09
Density (lb/ft³) 47.71 53.62
Page 20 of 67
E-101 E-102 P-101 A/B T-102 E-106 P-102 A/B E-107 P-103 A/B
PreHeater Distillate Condenser Reflux Pump N-Hexane/Benzene Column Bottoms Reboiler Pump to Storage Motor Pool Cooler Reflux Pump
T-101 E-103 V-101 E-104 V-102 E-105 E-201 P-201 A/B

Benzene/N-Heptane Column Bottoms Reboiler Condensate Receiver Motor Pool Cooler Condensate Receiver Distillate Condenser Product Cooler Pump to Storage
To Storage
243500 243500 414300 414300
11.2 6.2 25.7 20.7
161 110 167 130
CW CW E-105 63700
3 E-102 4 10 11 CW E-107 14 80.0
100
V-101 V-102
350600
479100 479100 25.7
140.0 134.0 156500 130
150 200 11.2 12
1 2 110 P-101 A/B P-103 A/B
E-101 5
175# Steam
Reformate Feed T-101 T-102
13
6 63700
86.0
87000
130
66.3
110
23200
80.0
100
E-103 E-106
17
175# Steam In 175# Steam In CW E-201 To Pipeline
P-201 A/B
175# Steam Out 175# Steam Out
15 16
392100 23200 23200
19.5 7 34.0
KEY: 316
392100
253
86.0
86.0 254
316
Stream Number # CW E-104
8
Temperature °F 392100
9 80.0
Pressure psig P-102 A/B 100
Mass Flow Rate lb/hr
To Storage
Figure 4: Option 1 - Benzene Sales via Pipeline to Pasadena, TX
Page 21 of 67

Stream Label Feed Heated Feed T-101 Overhead T-101 Distillate to Pump
Phase Liquid Liquid Vapor Liquid
Pressure (psig) 140.00 134.00 11.23 6.23
Temperature (°F) 150.00 200.00 161.20 110.00
Enthalpy (Btu/hr) -87177000 -76038000 -116084836 -56507000
i-Butane 2459.87 2459.87 6887.64 6887.64
n-Butane 5959.12 5959.12 16685.52 16685.52
i-Pentane 24564.26 24564.26 68779.79 68779.79
n-Pentane 13783.67 13783.67 38593.97 38593.97
n-Hexane 15473.67 15473.67 43007.75 43007.75
Benzene 29645.05 29645.05 69502.38 69502.38
n-Heptane 16038.86 16038.86 47.93 47.93
Toluene 101638.00 101638.00 0 0
n-Octane 4118.25 4118.25 0 0
Ethyl-benzene 47000.00 47000.00 0 0
m-Xylene 58233.49 58233.49 0 0
p-Xylene 41629.37 41629.37 0 0
o-Xylene 44152.36 44152.36 0 0
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 74395.94 74395.94 0 0
Cyclohexane
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Total 479091.90 479091.90 243504.98 243504.98
Density (lb/ft³) 48.59 45.23 0.30 41.15
Page 22 of 67

Stream Number 5 6 7
Stream Label T-101 Reflux T-101 Distillate T-101 Bottoms
Pressure (psig) 11.23 66.28 19.53
Temperature (°F) 110.00 110.50 315.95
Enthalpy (Btu/hr) -56507000 -56471000 -1228100
i-Butane 4427.77 2459.87 0.00
n-Butane 10726.41 5959.12 0.00
i-Pentane 44215.58 24564.21 0.05
n-Pentane 24810.41 13783.56 0.11
n-Hexane 27647.84 15359.91 113.76
Benzene 44680.10 24822.28 4822.78
n-Heptane 30.81 17.12 16021.74
Toluene 0 0 101638.00
n-Octane 0 0 4118.25
Ethyl-benzene 0 0 47000.00
m-Xylene 0 0 58233.49
p-Xylene 0 0 41629.37
o-Xylene 0 0 44152.36
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0 0 74395.94
Cyclohexane
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Total 156538.92 86966.06 392125.84
Density (lb/ft³) 41.15 41.13 47.75
Page 23 of 67

Stream Label T-101 Pressurized Bottoms T-101 to Storage T-102 Overheads
Phase Liquid Liquid Vapor
Pressure (psig) 86.00 80.00 25.66
Temperature (°F) 316.46 100.00 167.16
Enthalpy (Btu/hr) -1084800 -40685000 -340762064
i-Butane 0.00 0.00 15989.17
n-Butane 0.00 0.00 38734.25
i-Pentane 0.05 0.05 159667.37
n-Pentane 0.11 0.11 89593.14
n-Hexane 113.76 113.76 99808.09
Benzene 4822.78 4822.78 10537.68
n-Heptane 16021.74 16021.74 0
Toluene 101638.00 101638.00 0
n-Octane 4118.25 4118.25 0
Ethyl-benzene 47000.00 47000.00 0
m-Xylene 58233.49 58233.49 0
p-Xylene 41629.37 41629.37 0
o-Xylene 44152.36 44152.36 0
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 74395.94 74395.94 0
Cyclohexane
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Total 392125.84 392125.84 414329.70
Density (lb/ft³) 45.23 52.52 0.47
Page 24 of 67

Stream Label T-102 Distillate to Pump T-102 Reflux T-102 Distillate
Pressure (psig) 20.66 25.66 86.00
Temperature (°F) 130.00 130.00 130.72
Enthalpy (Btu/hr) -62580000 -62580000 -62547000
i-Butane 15989.17 13529.30 2459.87
n-Butane 38734.25 32775.14 5959.12
i-Pentane 159667.37 135103.16 24564.21
n-Pentane 89593.14 75809.58 13783.56
n-Hexane 99808.09 84453.00 15355.09
Benzene 10537.68 8916.50 1621.18
n-Heptane 0 0 0
Toluene 0 0 0
n-Octane 0 0 0
Ethyl-benzene 0 0 0
m-Xylene 0 0 0
p-Xylene 0 0 0
o-Xylene 0 0 0
Cyclohexane
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Total 414329.70 350586.67 63743.03
Density (lb/ft³) 37.06 41.15 37.03
Page 25 of 67

Stream Label T-102 to Storage T-102 Bottoms Reactor Benzene Feed
Pressure (psig) 80.00 33.96 272.00
Temperature (°F) 100.00 253.07 256.67
Enthalpy (Btu/hr) -63644000 8090280 8136460
i-Butane 2459.87 0.00 0
n-Butane 5959.12 0.00 0
i-Pentane 24564.21 0.00 0
n-Pentane 13783.56 0.00 0
n-Hexane 15355.09 4.83 4.83
Benzene 1621.18 23201.09 23201.09
n-Heptane 0 17.12 17.12
Toluene 0 0 0
n-Octane 0 0 0
Ethyl-benzene 0 0 0
m-Xylene 0 0 0
p-Xylene 0 0 0
o-Xylene 0 0 0
Cyclohexane
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Total 63743.03 23223.03 23223.03
Density (lb/ft³) 38.19 47.75 47.60
Page 26 of 67

Stream Label Reactor Products Depressurized Products Cooled Products
Phase Vapor Vapor Mixed
Pressure (psig) 252.00 81.00 75.00
Temperature (°F) 400.00 383.17 100.00
Enthalpy (Btu/hr) -12753000 -12754000 -19783000
i-Butane 0 0 0
n-Butane 0 0 0
i-Pentane 0 0 0
n-Pentane 0 0 0
n-Hexane 4.92 4.92 4.92
Benzene 0.00 0.00 0.00
n-Heptane 17.38 17.38 17.38
Toluene 0 0 0
n-Octane 0 0 0
Ethyl-benzene 0 0 0
m-Xylene 0 0 0
p-Xylene 0 0 0
o-Xylene 0 0 0
Cyclohexane 25282.55 25282.55 25282.55
Hydrogen 181.36 181.36 181.36
Nitrogen 34.65 34.65 34.65
Total 25520.86 25520.86 25520.86
Density (lb/ft³) 2.25 0.73 3.73
Page 27 of 67

Stream Label Liquid from Flash Products to Motorpool Vapor from Flash
Phase Liquid Liquid Vapor
Pressure (psig) 75.00 80.00 75.00
Temperature (°F) 100.00 100.07 100.00
Enthalpy (Btu/hr) -19610000 -19609000 -173060
i-Butane 0 0 0
n-Butane 0 0 0
i-Pentane 0 0 0
n-Pentane 0 0 0
n-Hexane 4.82 4.82 0.10
Benzene 0.00 0.00 0.00
n-Heptane 17.25 17.25 0.13
Toluene 0 0 0
n-Octane 0 0 0
Ethyl-benzene 0 0 0
m-Xylene 0 0 0
p-Xylene 0 0 0
o-Xylene 0 0 0
Cyclohexane 24982.19 24982.19 300.36
Hydrogen 1.41 1.41 179.95
Nitrogen 0.82 0.82 33.83
Total 25006.50 25006.50 514.36
Density (lb/ft³) 47.35 47.35 0.08
Page 28 of 67

Stream Label Purge Stream Hydrogen Feed To Compressor Reactor Hydrogen
Phase Vapor Vapor Vapor Vapor
Pressure (psig) 75.00 200.00 75.00 272.00
Temperature (°F) 100.00 100.00 100.30 401.49
Enthalpy (Btu/hr) -8653 145575 -164410 2085640
i-Butane 0 0 0
n-Butane 0 0 0
i-Pentane 0 0 0
n-Pentane 0 0 0
n-Hexane 0 0.09 0.09
Benzene 0 0.00 0.00
n-Heptane 0.01 0.12 0.12
Toluene 0 0 0
n-Octane 0 0 0
Ethyl-benzene 0 0 0
m-Xylene 0 0 0
p-Xylene 0 0 0
o-Xylene 0 0 0
Cyclohexane 15.02 285.34 285.33
Hydrogen 9.00 1806.66 1977.61 1977.61
Nitrogen 1.69 2.51 34.65 34.65
Total 25.72 1809.17 2297.81 2297.80
Density (lb/ft³) 0.08 0.07 0.03 0.07
Page 29 of 67
E-101 E-102 E-103 P-101 A/B V-101 P-102 A/B E-104 E-105 E-106 E-107 R-301 P-303 A/B
PreHeater Distillate Condenser Bottoms Reboiler Reflux Pump Condensate Receiver Pump to Storage Motor Pool Cooler Distillate Condenser Bottoms Reboiler Motor Pool Cooler Reactor Demin. Pump
T-101 T-102 V-102 P-103 A/B P-301 A/B C-301 A/B V-301 E-301 P-302 A/B
Benzene/N-Heptane Column N-Hexane/Benzene Column Condensate Receiver Reflux Pump Reactor Feed Pump Hydrogen Compressor Hydrogen Knock-Out Pot Product Cooler Pump to Storage
Purge
To Storage 1800
2300 200.0
63700 100 25
75.0
414300 414300
14 80.0
100 24 23 75.0
243500 243500 100 100
6.2
25.7 20.7 25 Hydrogen
11.2 167 130
161 110
4 10 CW 11
3 CW E-105 E-107 CW
E-102
500
13 22 75.0
C-301 A/B 100
V-101 350600 V-102 63700
479100 156500 86.0 25500
479100 25.7
140.0 11.2 131 75.0
134.0 130
150 110 100
200
5 12 175# Steam 19
1 2 P-101 A/B 2300
175#
272.0 23 25500 25500
P-103 A/B 400 252.0 81.0
V-301
E-101 400 383
T-101 T-102 17 18
Reformate Feed CW 25000
6 75.0 20
87000
66.3
R-301 100
P-302 A/B
E-301
110
E-103 E-106 16
175# Steam In 23200
175# Steam In
272.0
P-301 A/B 257
25000
175# Steam Out 175# Steam Out Demin Water 80.0 21
100
392100 15
7 19.5 23200 P-303 A/B
316 40.0
KEY: 253 To Storage
CW E-104
Stream Number #
Temperature °F P-102 A/B

8 392100
392100 9 80.0
Pressure psig 86.0 100
316
Mass Flow Rate lb/hr

To Storage
Figure 5: Option 2 - Hydrogenation of Benzene to Cyclohexane

Page 30 of 67
Technical Issues and Design Practices
Option 1
Fractionation Train
Key Assumptions and Design Basis
Several assumptions were made in this design project. These will be outlined below by
equipment type, and these assumptions were maintained unless otherwise stated.
After the initial assumptions, Table 17: Equipment Summary Table Option 1 and Table 18:
Equipment Summary Table Option 2 are provided for an easy overview before the design
procedure of each equipment piece.
All “*” assumptions came from Wagner and Whiteley’s design notes as seen in the relevant
footnotes.
Towers:
1. All non-key components were non-distributing. This assumption was made because it
would allow for the distillate and bottoms products to be known in order to size the
towers.3*
2. Overall column efficiency was determined by using the O’Connell Correlation
3. Constant molal overflow*
4. Pressure losses from the top of the columns was 5 psig from the inlet of the overhead to
the outlet of the condenser.*
5. Not to exceed 175 total feet4
6. An extra foot was added to the spacing over the top tray for vapor-liquid disengagement
*
7. 7 feet were added to the below the bottom most tray in the column for liquid hold up.
This liquid head was taken into consideration when doing pressure calculations*
8. Tray spacing would be 24 inches5
9. Volume of total tower would not exceed 520 m³.
10. Geometric mean of the relative volatility was calculated for all components from the
feed stage, top stage, and bottom stage.
3
Wagner and Whiteley, “Design of Equilibrium Stage Separation Processes: Single Stage Flash & Continuous
Distillation”, Online Course Notes, Spring 2010
4
Turton et al, “Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of Chemical Processes”, Third Edition, Table 11.13-14 pg. 384
5
Turton et al, “Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of Chemical Processes”, Third Edition, Table 11.14.1 pg. 384
Page 31 of 67
Pumps:
1. Pump efficiency was calculated from the class pump notes pg. 14 Fig 14.37
2. Motor efficiency was calculated from class pump notes pg.14 Fig 14.38
3. Pipe and valve fitting loses were not considered
Heat Exchangers:
1. Negligible heat loss to surroundings
2. High pressure will be placed on the tube side6
3. Heat transfer coefficient of the fluids (h) from Table 4.10-2.7
4. The outside diameter (Do) of the tubes is ¾”
5. Tube thickness is 18 Birmingham Wire Gauge (BWG).
6. Overall heat transfer coefficient (U) calculated from equation Table 410-10b.8
7. Fouling factors (Rf) are also from Table 4.10-2.
8. All heat exchangers are counter-current
Vessels:
1. Vertical vapor/liquid separators should be used when separating mixtures with a high
vapor/liquid ratio
2. Horizontal vapor/liquid separators should be used when separating mixtures with a low
vapor/liquid ratio.
3. All vessels will have an inlet diverter
4. All vessels have standard instrumentation and normally trained operators
General:
1. The simulation software (Aspen Plus v8.2) provided numbers that are within a
reasonable tolerance
2. Carbon Steel is the preferred material of construction in non-exotic services with the design
pressure and temperature for services that are below 790 bar (11,458 psig) and 350 °C (662 °F).9
3. The design temperature of each component is calculated by adding either 10% of the operating
temperature or 50 °F to the operating temperature, whichever is greater
4. The design pressure of each component is calculated by adding either 10% of the operating
pressure or 50 psig to the operating pressure, whichever is greater
5. The approach temperature for cooling water is 20 °F10
6
7
Wilbuer, Leslie C. “Handbook of Energy Systems Engieering”, Table 4.10-2, 1985.
8
Wilbuer, Leslie C. “Handbook of Energy Systems Engieering”, Table 4.10-10b, 1985.
9
Turton et al, “Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of Chemical Processes”, FourthEdition, Figure 7.5 pg. 182
10
Page 32 of 67
Table 17: Equipment Summary Table Option 1
Heat Exchangers E-101 E-102 E-103 E-104 E-105 E-106 E-107 E-201
Type Fixed Tube Fixed Tube Kettle Reboiler Fixed Tube Fixed Tube Kettle Reboiler Fixed Tube Fixed Tube
Area (ft²) 346 9250 5678 4268 9308 3422 890 211
Duty (Btu/hr) 11138917 -42133813 60437061 -39600050 -66006806 67987790 -1097356 -1516582
Shell
Temp (°F) 250 211 366 165 217 303 165 165
Pres (psig) 190 61 67 110 76 81 110 110
Phase Liquid Condensing Par. Vaporization Liquid Condensing Par. Vaporization Liquid Liquid
MOC CS CS CS CS CS CS CS CS
Number 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 2
Tube
Temp (°F) 427 165 427 366 165 427 181 304
Pres (psig) 225 110 225 86 110 225 136 136
Phase Condensing Liquid Condensing Liquid Liquid Condensing Liquid Liquid
Passes 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 2
Vessels/Towers V-101 V-102 T-101 T-102
Temp (°F) 160 180 355 303
Pres (psig) 56 71 72 86
Orientation Horizontal Horizontal Vertical Vertical
MOC CS CS CS CS
Size
Height/Length 19 14 174 174
Diameter (ft) 7.5 7.5 11.5 11.5
Internals 83 Valve Trays 83 Valve Trays
CS CS
Pumps P-101 (A/B) P-102 (A/B) P-103 (A/B) P-201 (A/B)
Flow (gpm) 487 1081 1394 3784
Fluid Density (lb/ft³) 41.15 45.25 37.06 47.75
B.H.P. (hp) 23.99 54.39 72.83 135.07
Type Centrifugal Centrifugal Centrifugal Centrifugal
Driver E-T.E. E-T.E. E-T.E. E-T.E.
Driver CS CS CS CS
Efficiency 0.71 0.77 0.8 0.85
MOC Cast Iron Cast Iron Cast Iron Cast Iron
Temp (°F) 160 366 180 303
Pres (in) (psig) 6 20 21 34
Pres (out) (psig) 66 86 92 86
E-T.E. Electric-Totally Enclosed
Key CS Carbon Steel
R.N. Rainey-Ni
Page 33 of 67
Table 18: Equipment Summary Table Option 2
Heat Exchangers E-101 E-102 E-103 E-104 E-105 E-106 E-107 E-301
Type Fixed Tube Fixed Tube Kettle Reboiler Fixed Tube Fixed Tube Kettle Reboiler Fixed Tube Fixed Tube
Area (ft²) 346 9250 5678 4268 9308 3422 890 609
Duty (Btu/hr) 11138917 -42133813 60437061 -39600050 -66006806 67987790 -1097356 -7029459
Shell
Temp (°F) 250 211 366 165 217 303 165 165
Pres (psig) 190 61 67 110 76 81 110 110
Phase Liquid Condensing Par. Vaporization Liquid Condensing Par. Vaporization Liquid Liquid
Number 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 2
Tube
Temp (°F) 427 165 427 366 165 427 181 433
Pres (psig) 225 110 225 86 110 225 136 136
Phase Condensing Liquid Condensing Liquid Liquid Condensing Liquid Par. Condensing
Passes 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 2
Vessels/Towers/Reactors V-101 V-102 T-101 T-102 R-101
Temp (°F) 160 180 355 303 450
Pres (psig) 56 71 72 86 322
Orientation Horizontal Horizontal Vertical Vertical Vertical
MOC CS CS CS CS CS
Size
Height/Length 19 14 174 174 35
Diameter (ft) 7.5 7.5 11.5 11.5 18.7389715
Internals 83 Valve Trays 83 Valve Trays R.N. Catalyst
CS CS Packed Bed
Pumps P-101 (A/B) P-102 (A/B) P-103 (A/B) P-301 (A/B) P-302 (A/B) P-303(A/B) C-301 (A/B)
Flow (gpm) 487 1081 1394 3784 4109 40 8257
Fluid Density (lb/ft³) 41.15 45.25 37.06 47.75 47.35 62.00 0.03
B.H.P. (hp) 23.99 54.39 72.83 617.86 14.09 6.42 852.01
Type Centrifugal Centrifugal Centrifugal Centrifugal Centrifugal Centrifugal Centrifugal
Driver E-T.E. E-T.E. E-T.E. E-T.E. E-T.E. E-T.E. E-T.E.
Driver MOC CS CS CS CS CS CS CS
Efficiency 0.71 0.77 0.8 0.85 0.85 0.42 0.72
MOC Cast Iron Cast Iron Cast Iron Cast Iron Cast Iron Cast Iron CS
Temp (°F) 160 366 180 303 303.073 140 451
Pres (in) (psig) 6 20 21 34 75 60 75
Pres (out) (psig) 66 86 92 272 80 175 272
E-T.E. Electric-Totally Enclosed
Key CS Carbon Steel
R.N. Rainey-Ni
Design Procedure
E-101
This preheater (E-101) is a shell and tube carbon steel heat exchanger, that preheats the
reformate feed into the first distillation tower (T-101). Carbon steel was selected as the
material of construction as outlined in the second general assumption. As the reformate stream
enters the tower it cools the vapor traffic. This increases the liquid flow rate to the bottom of
the column and causes the diameter to be outside of the heuristic range. The preheater
alleviates this issue as it decreases the amount of liquid traffic to the bottom of the column.
The outlet temperature for this exchanger was selected as the lowest temperature that would
allow for the diameter of the tower to be within the sizing range provided in the design
textbook.
E-102
Page 34 of 67
This distillate condenser is a shell and tube carbon steel heat exchanger that condenses the
distillate coming off of T-101. The outlet temperature is set at 110 °F as an approach
temperature of 20 °F was added to the cooling water. Looking at the temperature profile in
Figure 6: Temperature Profile for E-102 it can be seen that one pass is insufficient cooling.
Therefore, a second pass was added in order to get the process fluid down to 110 °F. While the
second pass was not required, it was done in order to reduce the operating pressure of the
column. Operating the column at higher pressures is an inherently less safe design than
operating at lower pressures.
Table 19: Water Cooled vs Air Cooled Heat Exchangers demonstrates why water cooled
condensers and heat exchangers were used instead of air cooled heat exchangers and
condensers:
Table 19: Water Cooled vs Air Cooled Heat Exchangers
Water Cooled Air Cooled

Cost ($/M-gal) 0.1 h.p. per 1000 Btu/hr 2
Cooling (Btu/M-gal °F) 8318.35 kW per 1000 Btu/hr 1.49
Δ°F 25 Cost ($/kW-hr) 0.07
Cooling ($/Btu) $ 0.0000005 Cooling ($/Btu) $ 0.10
The cost of cooling with cooling water is significantly less than the cost of cooling using air.
Therefore, it was decided to use water cooled condensers and heat exchangers instead of air
cooled.
This condenser was selected as a total condenser as opposed to a partial condenser because
this stream is refluxed to the tower and sent to the second tower (T-102). This requires moving
the process fluid reasonably far distances (either vertically or horizontally) and attempting to
move a gaseous process fluid is less desirable than moving a liquid process fluid.
Page 35 of 67
Temperature Profile for E-102
180
161
160
140
Temperature (°F)
120 110
100 115
80 90
60
40
20
0
Cooling Water Distillate
Figure 6: Temperature Profile for E-102
E-103
This reboiler (E-103) is a carbon steel kettle reboiler for refluxing vapor back into the column (T-
101). It is a partial reboiler as some of the bottoms product is sent off to storage, and
transporting a liquid is easier than transporting a gas. A kettle reboiler was selected according
to the literature as the correct reboiler for this application.11 It is also significantly cheaper to
operate than a fired heater. It is also the only reboiler in which costing information is provided
in the design textbook.
As mentioned above in the design basis this reboiler has violated the provided sizing heuristics.
Again, the decision was made to violate the design heuristics on the reboiler size as opposed to
the design heuristics for the tower, as the tower is significantly more important.
E-104
This motor pool cooler (E-104) is a double pass shell and tube carbon steel heat exchanger
used to cool down process fluid before being sent to the motor pool. It can be seen in Figure 7:
Temperature Profile for E-104 that two shells are required to achieve the most cooling. It was
selected as a fixed tube heat exchanger to produce the cheapest heat exchanger that safely
cooled the stream down to the storage requirement of 100 °F.
11
Kilkovsky et al, “Software application for supporting of CAE in process engineering: Automated choice of the
suitable reboiler type”, Chemical Engineering Transactions Volume 18, 2009, pg 2.
Page 36 of 67
320 316
300
280
260
Temperature (°F)
240
220
200
180
160
140
120 100
100 115
80 90
Cooling Water Distillate
E-105
The distillate condenser (E-105) is a single pass shell and tube carbon steel heat exchanger. It
operates at 130 °F as opposed to 110 °F because cooling the process stream down to 110 °F
requires that the condenser area be outside of the recommended design heuristic of 1000 m³.
While operating at 130 °F will require the tower to operate at a higher pressure, it does not
violate any design heuristics.
As with E-102 this condenser is a total condenser because it is easier to move liquids
throughout the process than gases. Furthermore, the part of the stream leaving the condenser
that is not refluxed is sent to the motor pool.
E-106
This reboiler (E-106) is a carbon steel kettle reboiler for refluxing vapor back into the column (T-
102). It is a partial reboiler as the bottoms product of this column is fed into the reactor (R-301)
and as stated earlier it is easier to transport a liquid process fluid than a gaseous one.
As with reboiler (E-103) this reboiler (E-106) followed the same decision making tree proposed
by Kilkovsky and others to determine if a kettle reboiler was a suitable reboiler type for this use.
E-107
This motor pool cooler (E-107) is a triple pass shell and tube carbon steel heat exchanger used
to cool down process fluid before being sent to the motor pool. It can be seen in Figure 8:
Temperature Profile for E-107 that this heat exchanger will require three shells. Similar to E-104 It
Page 37 of 67
was selected as a fixed tube heat exchanger to produce the cheapest heat exchanger that safely
cooled the stream down to the storage requirement of 100 °F.

140
131
Temperature (°F)
120
115
100
100
90
80
Cooling Water Series2
P-101
This reflux pump (P-101) is a cast iron centrifugal pump with an electric driver that provides
reflux to the tower (T-101) and feed to the second tower (T-102). Cast iron was selected over
carbon steel because it is more cost effective and because the process fluid does not have
unique corrosion effects on the material.12 The flow rate to this pump was fixed by operating
conditions supplied by Aspen. The driver for this pump was selected as an electric driver as it
was cheapest and most efficient when compared to steam, internal combustion or gas. 13
Of the two required outlet pressures for this pump, the pressure to reflux is higher than the
pressure required to reach the second tower. Therefore the pump was sized to provide
adequate pressure to reflux successfully, and therefore also adequate pressure to reach the
second tower.
P-102
This pump to storage (P-102) is a cast iron centrifugal pump with an electric driver. The
pressure to the inlet of the pump is fixed as it comes from the column bottoms. Therefore, this
pump was designed to get the process fluid to storage pressure in the cheapest manor.
12
QuickCutGasket, “Chemical Resistance Chart”, Online Resource
13
Page 38 of 67
P-103
This reflux pump (P-103) is a cast iron centrifugal pump with an electric driver that provides
pressure for the reflux stream to the tower (T-102) and a stream being sent back to storage.
Similar to the other reflux pump (P-101) this pump’s required pressure output is defined by the
pressure required to get the reflux stream back into the tower as opposed to the pressure
required to get the rest of the stream to storage.
T-101
This distillation tower (T-101) is a carbon steel tower with carbon steel trays at a spacing of 24”.
The initial decision was made to select a distillation tower over a flash because at the given
pressures and temperatures the relative volatilities of the components do not allow for a
beneficial separation process to occur. As this is the first tower in the fractionation train the
easiest split is done first. 14 As the goal of this project is to produce purified benzene, the
possible splits are with the heavier n-heptane and the lighter n-hexane. Of the two splits, the
greatest relative volatility difference is between n-heptane and benzene. Therefore, the split
was done with n-heptane as the heavy key and benzene as the light key. The relative volatilities
used in the design of this tower were supplied by Aspen.
The required specifications for the split was to have at least 24,800 lb/hr of benzene exiting the
distillate of the column and less than 18 lb/hr of n-heptane. This was to ensure that the second
column was able to meet the purity specifications for pipeline sales of benzene.
While an effort has been made to not provide the reader with a step-by-step design of each
piece of equipment in this report, a more in-depth explanation of the design of the distillation
tower is provided in the following paragraphs. This is done as the distillation towers are the
most critical components in this design and required additional steps to the standardized sizing
process. 15
Following the standardized sizing process, a spreadsheet was developed that allowed for
reasonable initial designs that were then input into Aspen. After ensuring that the simulation
converged, the results were analyzed and in each instance the initial design provided results
that did not meet the required specifications. Design sensitivity analysis, a function in Aspen,
was then employed to test a multitude of variables and determine their effect on the process in
relation to other variables. The sensitivity analysis was then filtered in Excel to determine which
variable combinations met the required specifications. These results were saved in order to
later produce a present worth cost of the combination.
14
Turton et al, Table 11.13-4
15
Wagner and Whiteley, “Design of Equilibrium Stage Separation Processes: Single Stage Flash & Continuous
Distillation”, Online Course Notes, Spring 2010
Page 39 of 67
When designing the tower, the goal was to minimize the present worth cost of the tower while
simultaneously meeting the separation requirements without violating the design heuristics.
The filtered sensitivity analysis results that met the required specifications were then copied
into another Excel spreadsheet in which the present worth cost of each proposed set-up of the
column was then evaluated. Consistent with the design basis, a conscientious effort was made
to reduce operating costs at the expense of increased capital costs. This manifests itself in the
maximum amount of trays being used without violating the column height heuristic. The more
trays that are added, the lower the reflux ratio. In this range of trays, the savings of the reduced
reflux ratio outweigh the increased the capital cost of adding another stage. This allows the use
of Figure 9: Present Worth Cost Analysis Compared to Number of Stages of T-101 to determine the
optimum number of trays in the column by minimizing the present worth cost of the column.
T-101 Stage Optimization

Tallest Tower allowed
$45,000,000
$40,000,000
$35,000,000
$30,000,000
$25,000,000
PWC
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$-
46 48 50 52 54 56 58
Number of Stages
Figure 9: Present Worth Cost Analysis Compared to Number of Stages of T-101
T-102
This tower (T-102) is a carbon steel tower with carbon steel trays at a spacing of 24”.
This tower (T-102) was designed to separate benzene from the rest of the incoming distillate
stream from T-101. Thus the required split for this column was the separation of the light key n-
hexane from the heavy key benzene.
Similar to the sizing of the first distillation tower (T-101) this tower (T-102) was designed by first
following standard sizing requirements and then allowing for optimization of the column
through the design sensitivity analysis. The optimization of this tower can be seen in Figure 10:
Present Worth Cost Analysis Compared to Number of Stages of T-101 This was done in order to
Page 40 of 67
minimize the present worth cost of the tower while simultaneously meeting the separation
requirements.
T-102 Stage Optimization

Tallest Tower allowed
$25,600,000
$25,400,000
$25,200,000
$25,000,000
PWC
$24,800,000
$24,600,000
$24,400,000
$24,200,000
$24,000,000
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
Number of Stages
Figure 10: Present Worth Cost Analysis Compared to Number of Stages of T-101
V-101
The condensate receiver (V-101) is a carbon steel vessel that accumulates distillate from the
tower to be refluxed. It was designed with the belief that operators would be trained and the
vessel would have standard instrumentation. It was determined from the provided design notes
on vapor-liquid separators and the Excel spreadsheet that followed the notes that the
horizontal vessel would be the cheapest option.16,17 Furthermore, because nearly everything in
this vessel should enter as a liquid and is then pumped out, no demister was included.
V-102
The condensate receiver (V-102) is a carbon steel vessel that accumulates distillate from the
tower to be refluxed. It was designed with the exact same assumptions and considerations as
the other condensate receiver (V-101) and is about ¾ of the size. As a result, it is also a
horizontal vessel without a demister.
16
Svreck and Monnery, “Design Two-Phase Separators Within the Right Limits”, Chemical Engineering Progress
89.10, 1993
17
Dupré, “How to Create an Excel Spreadsheet for Vapor-Liquid Separator Design”, Online Course Resource, 2014
Page 41 of 67
To Pipeline
Design Procedure
E-201
This heat exchanger (E-201) is a double pass shell and tube carbon steel heat exchanger and
was the cheapest way to get it to pipeline conditions. It can be seen in Figure 11: Temperature
Profile for E-201 that more than one pass was required to reach the necessary conditions. It
was assumed that the pipeline conditions were the same as the storage conditions.

280
254
260
240
220
Temperature (°F)
200
180
160
140
120 100
115
100
80 90
P-201
This pump (P-201) is a cast iron centrifugal pump and is the cheapest way to get the process
fluid to pipeline conditions. As with the temperature conditions, the pressure conditions for the
pipeline were assumed to be the same as pressure storage conditions.
Page 42 of 67
Option 2
Fractionation Train
The fractionation train used in the first option was also used in the second option. While the
purity requirements for the sale of benzene is a constraint that is not explicitly stated in the
second option, there are several reasons to maintain a stream of such high purity being fed into
the reactor.
The first and most important reason for utilizing high purity benzene as a feed to the reactor is
safety. The reactor operates at both a high temperature and pressure. Reducing the amount of
components being fed into the reactor leads to a more inherently safe design.
The second reason for utilizing the high purity benzene as a feed to the reactor is economic
flexibility. Early in the project it was identified that the hydrogenation of benzene would be a
significantly costlier process than the sale of benzene. Utilizing the same fractionation train
allows for the switch to sales to be made should it become an option that was not originally
available to the Ponca Refinery.
Hydrogenation of Benzene
Key Assumptions and Design Basis

The same assumptions made in the fractionation train for heat exchangers, pumps and vessels
were made for this option as well.
Compressor:
1. Mechanical loses were calculated from standard design notes on compressors 18
2. Efficiency calculated by Aspen using the GPSA Isentropic Method.
Reactor:
1. 100% conversion occurred with 10% excess (by volume) hydrogen
2. Volume of reactor was filled with catalyst
Design Procedure
18
Aichele, C. “Compressors”, Course Notes
Page 43 of 67
C-301
This compressor (C-301) is used to compress feed hydrogen and recycled hydrogen up to 272
psig so that it may be fed into the reactor. It is a carbon steel compressor. There was a safety
concern about the use of carbon steel as a material of construction for hydrogen under high
pressure. However it was determined that hydrogen embrittlement and attack is not significant
for carbon steel below 500 °F.19 The sizing of this compressor was similar to the sizing of pumps.
E-301
This product cooler (E-301) is a double pass shell and tube heat exchanger constructed out of
carbon steel. It can be seen in Figure 12: Temperature Profile for E-301 that two shells are
required. The purpose of this product cooler is to remove excess heat developed during the
reaction in order to allow the stream to meet storage conditions. Furthermore, it minimizes the
amount of cyclohexane present in the recycle stream. Lastly, it liquefies the reactor products to
allow for greater ease of separation of hydrogen from the process stream.

400 383
380
360
340
320
300
Temperature (°F)
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120 100
100 115
80 90
P-301
This reactor feed pump (P-301) is a cast iron centrifugal pump with an electric driver. It is the
most cost efficient way to pump the benzene from the second distillation tower (T-102) to the
reactor. The pump is required because the reactor must operate at 272 psig, which is a
significantly higher pressure than the pressure coming off the column bottoms.
19
W. M. Huitt company, Piping Material for Hydrogen Service pg. 1 , 2001
Page 44 of 67
P-302
This pump to storage (P-302) is a cast iron centrifugal pump with an electric driver. This pump is
the most cost efficient way meet motor pool storage conditions.
P-303
This demineralized (demin) water pump (P-303) is a cast iron centrifugal pump with an electric
driver. It provides demin water to the jacket of the reactor to cool down the reactor. The pump
is required because energy produced from the highly exothermic reaction is captured in the
demin water and used to produce 175 pound steam. This pump ensures that the demin water
has a high enough pressure to enter the reactor jacket during stream production and continue
on to the 175 pound steam header.
R-301
This benzene hydrogenation reactor (R-301) is a carbon steel fixed bed catalyst jacketed reactor
with no agitator. The sizing information for this reactor was provided in the reactor memo.20
The reactor was selected as a jacketed reactor in order to ensure sufficient cooling. No agitator
was selected for this reactor because the reactants are vaporized and thus already well mixed
in the reactor.
Demin water was used for cooling the reactor as opposed to cooling water because of its purity.
The cooling fluid for this reactor is being vaporized and turned into steam. In order to ensure
operational excellence, reduced downtime, and decreased maintenance requirements the
demin water was selected to prevent build-up of left over minerals and metals present in nearly
all unpurified water.
V-301
This liquid knock-out pot (V-301) is a carbon steel vessel that allows liquefied reactor products
to separate from unreacted hydrogen. It was designed with the belief that operators would be
trained and the vessel would have standard instrumentation. It was determined from the
provided design notes on vapor-liquid separators and the Excel spreadsheet that followed the
notes that a vertical vessel would be the cheapest option.21,22 A demister was included to
protect the compressor downstream from any liquid that might be entrained in the unreacted
hydrogen being recycled back to the reactor through the compressor.
20
Wagner, “Reactor Design Information: Hydrogenation of Benzene”, Electronic Correspondence, October 26 th,
2015
21
Svreck and Monnery, “Design Two-Phase Separators Within the Right Limits”, Chemical Engineering Progress
89.10, 1993
22
Dupré, “How to Create an Excel Spreadsheet for Vapor-Liquid Separator Design”, Online Course Resource, 2014
Page 45 of 67
Safety:
Safety is the single most important aspect of any technical or operational design. In designing
this process an attempt was made to select process conditions that led to an inherently safer
design. While understanding that working in and around heavy industrial production brings
about an inherent set of risks, every effort has been made to reduce these risks in the design.
Furthermore, the design of all capital equipment has had a safety factor added to it. For
pressures, the design pressure was assumed to be the greater of 50 psig or 10% higher than the
operating pressure. The temperatures were similarly designed with the design temperature
being the greater of 50 °F or 10% of the operating temperature.
The first option offers no extraneous risks than those that can be expected in any industrial
process. The only steam utilized in this plant was 175# steam, as 600# was never required.
Furthermore, the towers were designed to operate at pressures well within the range of
common pressures.
The second option while also designed to be well within all suggested design constraints has a
significant safety risk in the reactor. The reactor contains a highly exothermic reaction
operating under high temperature and pressure. Redundant cooling systems will need to be in
place to ensure that a runaway reaction does not occur should the demineralized water cooling
system fail. Furthermore, when the process hazard analyses occur extra consideration should
be given to such a potentially dangerous unit operation.
Environmental:
Environmental considerations are the second most important considerations to make after the
safety of refinery personnel and surrounding neighbors have been considered. Operational
excellence requires that the refinery be a good steward to the environment and ensure that all
local, state, and federal regulations are being followed. Furthermore, ownership of the refinery
and ethical engineering practices guided this design to ensure that all efforts to protect the
environment were made with good will to others and not just legal requirements.
This project started as a service project to meet newly passed federal guidelines to reduce
benzene release to the atmosphere and the exposure of the consumer at the pump to vapors
from gasoline while refueling their vehicles.
In this design process the only waste produced is a purge off of the hydrogen recycle in which
inert nitrogen gas, trace amounts of n-heptane and n-hexane, small amounts of cyclohexane,
and hydrogen are sent to be burned as fuel gas. Otherwise this process is a zero waste
producing process and should not pose significant risk to the environment.
Page 46 of 67
Economic Analysis
A key assumption that was made while analyzing this project was that numbers provided in the
body of the charge memo (referring specifically to the octane credit and benzene sales price)
were given in 2018 dollars as the authors of the charge memo are aware of the expected
project start time. The second assumption that was made was that numbers provided for the
utilities in the charge memo are representative of current year (2015 dollars) prices and that
there is no uncertainty in the current cost.
Capital Cost Estimates
The capital costing estimates in this report are done based on a module factor approach to
costing proposed by Guthrie and modified by Ulrich. This method takes advantage of compiling
real world data into module factors that are considered representative of the different costs
that can be incurred. This provides a ballpark figure as to the production cost of a plain (vanilla)
piece of capital equipment. Then using different factors for temperature, pressure, exotic
materials, and instillation the total cost of the capital equipment is estimated without requiring
hunting down historical figures for pricing on capital jobs.
Using the above method, the vanilla cost of capital equipment was determined in 2001 dollars.
The vanilla cost was then taken to the installed cost by one of two equations, based upon the
available factors. The first way to go from vanilla costs to installed costs was to use the B 1, B2,
Fp, and Fm factors. The second way was to take the FBM factor provided in the book. The first
method was used for Heat exchangers, process vessels (both horizontal and vertical), and
pumps. The second method was used for the compressor, drives for pumps and compressors,
valve trays, and the reactor.
Once the installed cost had been determined in 2001 dollars it was escalated to 2017 dollars,
the year the facility was to be built. This was accomplished by using the Chemical Engineering
Plant Cost Index (CEPCI). While there is not currently a CEPCI value for the year 2017, it was
projected by taking the historical index values (seen in Table 20: CEPCI Factors) from 2007-2015
and projecting it forward.
Page 47 of 67
Table 20: CEPCI Factors
Using a trend line as seen in Figure 13: CEPCI Factor Projection the CEPCI factors for future years
are calculated. It should be noted that both the 2016 and 2017 factors were calculated based
upon the projection in order to provide a reality check on the factors.
5 Year Projected CEPCI Factor

620
Chemical Engineering Plant
600
580
Cost Index (CEPCI)
560
540
y = 4.4517x - 8391.4
520
R² = 0.2618
500
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Years
CEPCI Values Linear (CEPCI Values)
Figure 13: CEPCI Factor Projection
Once the 2017 cost of the equipment had been determined using the new 2017 CEPCI factor of
587.7, contingencies and fees were added to the cost. This was done by assuming contingencies
were 15% and fees were 3%.
The only instance in which this process wasn’t followed was when sizing capital equipment that
went outside the range for which the factors were applicable. This occurred for the two kettle
reboilers and the reactor. What was done instead was the equipment was sized to the largest
size that the costing correlations still held, and then the cost was scaled up using the 6/10ths
rule. For drivers which were under the minimum sizing requirement, it was assumed that the
costing correlation still held.
Page 48 of 67
Revenue and Operating Expense Estimates
Revenue
In the first option there are two revenues to take into account. The first is benzene that is being
sold from the process. Table 21: Benzene Sales Revenue below shows the annual profit from the
benzene sales in 2018 dollars. The second is the octane credit being given for returning the
stream with an octane rating above 87. The credit was calculated after the benzene had been
removed for pipeline sales and all streams had been recombined in the motor pool. This
calculation for option 1 can be seen below in Table 22: Octane Credit Calculation.
Table 21: Benzene Sales Revenue
Table 22: Octane Credit Calculation
Page 49 of 67
In the second option there are three revenues to take into account. The first is that of the
steam generated from the demin. water used to cool the reactor. This revenue can be seen in
Table 23: Option 2 Steam Generated Revenue. The second revenue stream comes from the
octane credit awarded to the streams returned to the motor pool. This credit calculation can be
seen in Table 24: Option 2 Octane Credit. The third source of revenue for option 2 is the fuel
gas generated from the purge off of the liquid knock-out pot (V-301) before the compressor (C-
301). The revenue produced by this stream can be seen in Table 25: Option 2 Fuel Gas Revenue
below. The purge stream contains mainly hydrogen, nitrogen, and cyclohexane.
Table 23: Option 2 Steam Generated Revenue
175 psig steam generated $19,995 lb/hr

Credit $180 $/hr
Credit $1,497,593 $/yr
Credit 2017 $1,631,699
Table 24: Option 2 Octane Credit
Table 25: Option 2 Fuel Gas Revenue
Purge Stream Enthalpy -8648.639 BTU/hr

Sales Price $8.50 $/MM-Btu
Credit $0.07 $/hr
per year $611.78 $/year
per year (2017) $666.56 $/year
Page 50 of 67
Operating Expense
For estimating the annual operating expenses the cost of manufacturing was calculated without
depreciation. This was done using equation 8.1 from the design book.23 Calculating fixed capital
investments for the first term of the equation is shown in the above section. Calculating the
operating labor term was down using the NOL equation a table of this equation can be seen
below in Table 26: Operator Expenses .24 Notice that the annual total operator costs for both
options are the same, as they require the same amount of operators and that the amount given
is in 2017 dollars. For the final term it was assumed that there were no waste treatment costs,
raw material costs were only incurred in the second option from the hydrogen being fed into
the reactor, and the utility costs were calculated by summing all utility costs.
Table 26: Operator Expenses
23
Turton et al, “Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of Chemical Processes”, Fourth Edition, Equation 8.1 pg. 207
24
Turton et al, “Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of Chemical Processes”, Fourth Edition, Equation 8.3 pg. 208
Page 51 of 67
Table 27: Utility Costing and Consumption Summary
Utility Cost Units Additional Information

Electricity 0.07 $/kW-hr 175lb Steam
600 lb Steam 10 $/M-lb Enthalpy of Vaporization 847 Btu/lb
175 lb Steam 9 $/M-lb Cooling Water
Cooling Water 0.1 $/M-gal Heat Capacity, Cp (100°F) 1.00 Btu/lb-°F
Demineralized Water 1.25 $/M-lb
Utility Summary Table - Option 1
Equipment Using Utility E-101 E-102 E-103 E-104 E-105 E-106 E-107 E-201
Utility In 175# Steam Cooling Water 175# Steam Cooling Water Cooling Water 175# Steam Cooling Water Cooling Water
Utility Out 175# Condensate Cooling Water 175# Condensate Cooling Water Cooling Water 175# Condensate Cooling Water Cooling Water
Inlet Pressure (psig) 175 60 175 60 60 175 60 60
Inlet Temperature (°F) 377 90 377 90 90 377 90 90
Outlet Pressure (psig) 175 60 175 60 60 175 60 60
Outlet Temperature (°F) 377 115 377 115 115 377 115 115
Mass Flow Rate (lb/hr) 13151 1687712 71354 1586220 2643969 80269 60748 60748
Cost (2015 $/yr) $984,985.38 $168,609.11 $5,344,291.65 $158,469.61 $264,142.93 $6,011,982.87 $4,391.35 $6,068.99
Cost (2018 $/yr) $1,104,310.70 $189,035.13 $5,991,721.92 $177,667.30 $296,142.33 $6,740,300.10 $4,923.33 $6,804.21
Equipment Using Utility P-101 A/B P-102 A/B P-103 A/B P-201 A/B
Utility Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity
Electricity Consumption (kW) 20.10 45.06 59.68 109.48
Cost (2015 $/yr) $11,711.00 $26,250.17 $34,765.65 $63,774.90
Cost (2018 $/yr) $13,129.72 $29,430.23 $38,977.31 $71,500.86
Equipment Using Utility E-101 E-102 E-103 E-104 E-105 E-106 E-107 E-301 R-101
Utility In 175# Steam Cooling Water 175# Steam Cooling Water Cooling Water 175# Steam Cooling Water Cooling Water Demineralized Water
Utility Out 175# Condensate Cooling Water 175# Condensate Cooling Water Cooling Water 175# Condensate Cooling Water Cooling Water 175# Steam
Inlet Pressure (psig) 175 60 175 60 60 175 60 60 175
Inlet Temperature (°F) 377 90 377 90 90 377 90 90 90
Outlet Pressure (psig) 175 60 175 60 60 175 60 60 175
Outlet Temperature (°F) 377 115 377 115 115 377 115 115 377
Mass Flow Rate (lb/hr) 13151 1687712 71354 1586220 2643969 80269 60748 281572 19995
Cost (2015 $/yr) $984,985.38 $168,609.11 $5,344,291.65 $158,469.61 $264,142.93 $6,011,982.87 $4,391.35 $28,130.16 $207,999.06
Cost (2018 $/yr) $1,104,310.70 $189,035.13 $5,991,721.92 $177,667.30 $296,142.33 $6,740,300.10 $4,923.33 $31,537.96 $233,196.95
Equipment Using Utility P-101 A/B P-102 A/B P-103 A/B P-301 A/B P-302 A/B P-303 A/B C-301 A/B
Utility Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity
Electricity Consumption (kW) 20.10 45.06 59.68 495.42 12.08 5.56 683.17
Page 52 of 67
DCFROR Analysis
The cash flow analysis of this project was done using a cash flow sheet. This sheet can be seen
below in Table 28: Option 1 Cash Flow Table for option 1 and in Table 29: Option 2 Cash Flow
Table for option 2. These tables will provide an overview of the Discounted Cash Flow Rate of
Return (DCFROR) analysis before going into further detail.
Table 28: Option 1 Cash Flow Table
Project Title: Benzene Removal from the Motor Gasoline Pool - Option 1
Corporate financial situation: Expense
Minimum rate of return, i* = 0.25 or 25.0%
Other relevant project info. 10 Year MACRS Depreciation, Washout Assumption
1 = $1,000,000
End of Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Benzene Sales - 65.1 65.1 65.1 65.1 65.1 65.1 65.1
Motor Pool Credit - 380.7 380.7 380.7 380.7 380.7 380.7 380.7
Net Revenue - 445.9 445.9 445.9 445.9 445.9 445.9 445.9
- Cost of Manufacturing (23.4) (23.4) (23.4) (23.4) (23.4) (23.4) (23.4)
- Depreciation (1.7) (3.1) (2.4) (2.0) (1.6) (1.2) (1.1)
- Writeoff (3.9)
Taxable Income - 420.8 419.4 420.0 420.5 420.9 421.2 417.4
- Tax @ 40% - (168.3) (167.8) (168.0) (168.2) (168.4) (168.5) (167.0)
Net Income - 252.5 251.6 252.0 252.3 252.5 252.7 250.5
+ Depreciation - 1.7 3.1 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.2 1.1
+ Writeoff - - - - - - - 3.9
- Working Capital - - - - - - - -
- Fixed Capital (17.0) - - - - - - -
Cash Flow (17.0) 254.1 254.7 254.4 254.2 254.1 254.0 255.5
Discount Factor (P/F i*,n) 1.0000 0.8000 0.6400 0.5120 0.4096 0.3277 0.2621 0.2097
Discounted Cash Flow (17.0) 203.3 163.0 130.3 104.1 83.3 66.6 53.6
NPV @ i* = 787.2
DCFROR = 1499%
Paybock Period = 0.08 years
Page 53 of 67
Table 29: Option 2 Cash Flow Table
Project Title: Benzene Removal from the Motor Gasoline Pool - Option 2
Corporate financial situation: Expense
Minimum rate of return, i* = 0.25 or 25.0%
Other relevant project info. 10 Year MACRS Depreciation, Washout Assumption
1 = $1,000,000
End of Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Steam and Fuel Gas Credit - 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
Motor Pool Credit - 361.2 361.2 361.2 361.2 361.2 361.2 361.2
Net Revenue - 362.9 362.9 362.9 362.9 362.9 362.9 362.9
- Cost of Manufacturing (38.6) (38.6) (38.6) (38.6) (38.6) (38.6) (38.6)
- Depreciation (2.1) (3.8) (3.1) (2.4) (2.0) (1.6) (1.4)
- Writeoff (7.0) (11.8)
Taxable Income - 322.2 320.5 321.2 321.9 315.4 322.7 311.1
- Tax @ 40% - (128.9) (128.2) (128.5) (128.7) (126.1) (129.1) (124.4)
Net Income - 193.3 192.3 192.7 193.1 189.2 193.6 186.6
+ Depreciation - 2.1 3.8 3.1 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.4
+ Writeoff - - - - - 7 - 11.8
- Working Capital (7.0) - - - - (7.0) - -
- Fixed Capital (21.2) - - - - - - -
Cash Flow (28.2) 195.4 196.1 195.8 195.6 191.2 195.2 199.9
Discount Factor (P/F i*,n) 1.0000 0.8000 0.6400 0.5120 0.4096 0.3277 0.2621 0.2097
Discounted Cash Flow (28.2) 156.3 125.5 100.2 80.1 62.6 51.2 41.9
NPV @ i* = 589.8
DCFROR = 694%
Paybock Period = 0.18 years
The majority of the economic parameters for this project were supplied by the company. 25 The
hurdle rate is 25% and the tax rate is 40%.The depreciation basis that was used for this project
was a 10 year Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS). The 10 year rate can be
seen in Table 30: 10 Year MACRS Depreciation table below. The 10 year depreciation rate was
selected because this project involves equipment assets related to petroleum refining.26 Notice
that in the provided table, years 2018-2024 are bolded. These bolded years are the years in
which the project life will be evaluated, as opposed to the regular years that encapsulate the
rest of the deprecation period of this equipment. This discrepancy occurs because the project
evaluation life is only 7 years, while the deprecation life of the equipment is 10 years. The
remaining deprecation is handled in year 2024 where it is written off.
25
Sanders, Carolyn “Economics: Economic Evaluation Parameters”, Online Course Document, Memorandum.
26
Stermole & Stermole “Economic Evaluation & Investment Decision Making”, Course Textbook, pg.380
Page 54 of 67
Table 30: 10 Year MACRS Depreciation
The largest contributors to the DCFROR and NPV are the octane credit, catalyst cost and the
price of benzene. The economic effect of variability of some of these components can be seen
in Figure 16: Option 1 DCFROR Tornado Chart and Figure 18: Option 2 DCFROR Tornado Chart in
the Sensitivity Analysis section.
Another key parameter that had an influence on the NPV and DCFROR was the catalyst. This is
net working capital because the catalyst is not used up in any single given year, but instead
becomes written off in the 5th year of its use. Notice that the catalyst only affects the second
option as it is used in the reactor and the first option does not use a reactor.
As can be seen in both cash flow tables option 1 and option 2 are both economically attrattive.
They both have NPVs greater than zero and DCFRORs greater than i*. Additionally, option 1 is
nearly $200 million more profitable and has more than double the DCFROR.
Several assumptions were made involving the economic analysis of this project. First among
them was that because Phillips 66 is a large company with lots of projects going on they are
viewed as an expense company. Second, was that a washout assumption was made at the start-
up of the process in 2018. This was because the $6.30 internal credit and therefore it is
expected to be adjusted to accommodate changes made during the course of the project. This
means that changes in manufacturing and operating costs do not affect the net income before
depreciation.
Sensitivity Analysis
Both option 1 and option 2 had five categories that were varied in order to determine the
overall economic stability and profitability of each option. It also explores which factors made
the most economic impact on the option. In Table 31: Economic Sensitivity Variables and lists
Page 55 of 67
the categories as well as the values for both the NPV and DCFROR for each option based on the
variance.
Page 56 of 67
Table 31: Economic Sensitivity Variables and Percentages
Labor Cost Option 1 NPV Option 1 DCFROR Option 2 NPV Option 2 DCFROR
12.1% 786.5 1498% 589.1 693%
6.1% 786.9 1498% 589.4 693%
0.0% 787.2 1499% 589.8 694%
-10.8% 787.8 1500% 590.3 694%
-20.2% 788.3 1501% 590.8 695%
Utility Cost Option 1 NPV Option 1 DCFROR Option 2 NPV Option 2 DCFROR
9.0% 784.2 1493% 586.5 690%
4.6% 785.7 1496% 588.1 692%
0.0% 787.2 1499% 589.8 694%
-8.2% 789.9 1504% 592.6 697%
-15.6% 792.4 1508% 595.2 700%
Capital Costs Option 1 NPV Option 1 DCFROR Option 2 NPV Option 2 DCFROR
20% 783.2 1248% 584.7 602%
10% 785.2 1362% 587.2 645%
0% 787.2 1499% 589.8 694%
-10% 789.2 1666% 592.2 750%
-20% 791.2 1875% 594.7 818%
Pipeline Cost Option 1 NPV Option 1 DCFROR
23% 786.1 1497%
11% 786.7 1498%
0% 787.2 1499%
-14% 787.8 1500%
-23% 788.3 1501%
Benzene Price Option 1 NPV Option 1 DCFROR
89% 901.7 1712%
61% 865.1 1644%
0 787.2 1499%
-29% 750.5 1430%
-57% 713.9 1362%
Catalyst Cost Option 2 NPV Option 2 DCFROR
20% 588.2 661%
10% 588.9 677%
0% 589.8 694%
-10% 595.2 716%
-20% 596.0 735%
Hydrogen Cost Option 2 NPV Option 2 DCFROR
20% 584.7 688%
10% 587.2 691%
0% 589.8 694%
-10% 592.2 696%
-20% 594.7 699%
Page 57 of 67
These percentages were applied to the total values of their respective costs in 2017 dollars.
There were three shared categories among the two options that were varied: capital costs,
utility costs, and labor costs. The capital costs were varied due to the way in which they were
calculated. The use of a correlation and multiple scaling factors for each piece of equipment
leaves a lot of uncertainty about the actual cost of the equipment. Therefore the capital costs
were varied to determine the potential effects of this uncertainty on the profitability of each
option.
Utility and labor costs were the two manufacturing costs that were shared by both options.
They were varied due to the uncertainty involved in escalating from the current 2014 costs to
the future 2018 costs. The choice of values with which to vary these costs are related to their
escalation. As discussed previously, both labor and utility prices are expected to escalate by
approximately 2.9%. Therefore the highest expected value for these costs would be if they both
doubled from the current estimate and the lowest expected value would be if they declined in
cost at the same escalation rate.
In option 1, the sales of benzene were varied according to the previous commodity price of
benzene over the last 10 years as seen in Figure 14: Historic Benzene Costs. The highest value of
benzene was approximately $1325/ton and the lowest was approximately $300/ton. This
represents an 89% increase in the current projected price and a -57% change in the price from
the current $700/ton value given in the charge memo. The other source of uncertainty was the
cost of transportation in the pipeline. The effect of this uncertainty can be seen in Figure 15:
Option 1 NPV Tornado Chart and in Figure 16: Option 1 DCFROR Tornado Chart. The procedure
used to estimate the pipeline costs earlier in the report listed a maximum value of $5/bbl and a
minimum value of $3.10/bbl.
Page 58 of 67
Figure 14: Historic Benzene Costs
Tornado Chart for Option 1 NPV

NPV (1=$MM)
700.0 730.0 760.0 790.0 820.0 850.0 880.0 910.0
Benzene Price
Utility Cost
Capital Cost
Pipeline Cost
Labor Cost
(-20.2%, 12.1%)
Figure 15: Option 1 NPV Tornado Chart
Page 59 of 67
Tornado Chart for Option 1 DCFROR
DCFROR (%)
1200% 1300% 1400% 1500% 1600% 1700% 1800% 1900%
Capital Cost
(-20%, 20%)
Benzene Price
(-57%, 89%)
Utility Cost
(-15.6%, 8.95%)
Pipeline Cost
(--23%, 23%)
Labor Cost
(-20.2%, 12.1%)
Figure 16: Option 1 DCFROR Tornado Chart
The category with the largest impact on NPV for option 1 is the price of benzene. This potential
variance in the price, as well as the significant contribution of benzene sales to overall
profitability for option 1 means that if option 1 is selected for more detailed design, there
needs to be a close watch on the price of benzene. Each of the other categories made less than
a $10 million dollar change in the overall NPV. Thus, there is little risk of the uncertainty in
estimating the utilities, capital costs, pipeline costs, and labor costs in changing the potential
profitability of option 1. Interestingly, the largest change in the DCFROR for option 1 comes
from the capital costs, not the price of benzene. This is due to the way in which the DCFROR is
calculated. Greater investment costs in 2017 will greatly affect the DCFROR, as opposed to later
changes in revenues. Additionally, since NPV is the main decision criteria for these options, the
price of benzene remains the biggest area of risk for the project.
In option 2, the cost of hydrogen and the catalyst for the reactor was varied. This variance can
be seen in Figure 17: Option 2 NPV Tornado Chart and in Figure 18: Option 2 DCFROR Tornado
Chart below. Due to the limited public information on the cost of hydrogen and the catalyst, a
variance of ±20% was assumed to cover the potential change in the cost of these two process
inputs.
Page 60 of 67
Tornado Chart for Option 2 NPV
NPV (1=$MM)
580.0 585.0 590.0 595.0 600.0
Hydrogen Cost
(-20%, 20%)
Capital Cost
(-20%, 20%)
Utility Cost
(-15.6%, 8.95%)
Catalyst Cost
(--20%, 20%)
Labor Cost
(-20.2%, 12.1%)
Figure 17: Option 2 NPV Tornado Chart
Tornado Chart for Option 2 DCFROR

DCFROR (%)
600% 640% 680% 720% 760% 800% 840%
Capital Cost
(-20%, 20%)
Catalyst Cost
(-20%, 20%)
Hydrogen Cost
(-20%, 20%)
Utility Cost
(-15.6%, 8.95%)
Labor Cost
(-20.2%, 12.1%)
Figure 18: Option 2 DCFROR Tornado Chart
There were multiple categories in option 2 that have approximately the same amount of risk in
the project. The costs of hydrogen, capital, utility, and catalyst all provide about approximately
a $10 million dollar range of uncertainty in the NPV of option 2. However, $10 million dollars is
not a wide range in the scope of the potential profit of option 2. Therefore, there is very little
economic risk associated with estimating these costs. Similar to option 1, the largest change in
DCFROR is due to capital costs, with the second largest coming from the catalyst costs. Both of
Page 61 of 67
these costs are involved in the investment required in 2017 in order to start the project, and
thus have the largest influence in the calculation of the DCFROR.
A final observation is that in all cases, option 1 has a higher NPV than option 2. In fact, even the
largest increase in NPV for option 2 only gives an NPV of $595 million, while the worst
performance of option 1 with benzene being sold for $300/ton has an NPV of $715 million.
Therefore option 1 seems significantly more profitable than option 2.
Conclusions:
In conclusion, both option 1 and option 2 are economical and have technical merit. The design
for both options converged was successfully simulated in the simulation software. A key
assumption made that effects the economic feasibility of this project is that there is a viable
way to get benzene out of the Ponca City Refinery via pipeline. It should be noted that for both
options, the removal of 1800 BPD is a crucial part of the design. This is not only the purpose of
the process but it also provides the most favorable economic outcome. This is achieved by the
fractionation train, and thus these pieces of equipment must be properly sized and operated to
fulfill the goal of this plant addition. Economically, both options provide a very positive NPV,
with both options being well over half a billion dollars in NPV. Additionally, there is very little
economic risk associated with the design. All cases of the sensitivity analysis still resulted in an
NPV over $500 million. Therefore, the decision to pursue either option would economically
benefit the company. However, the economic analysis demonstrates that option 1 is about
$200 million more profitable than option 2. Additionally, there is no case from the sensitivity
analysis in which the NPV of option 2 was higher than that of option 1. Lastly, option 1 remains
significantly safer than option 2 as it does not have the highly exothermic reaction. Nor does it
have the high operating pressure and temperature that is required to achieve the reaction.
Recommendations:
The scope of this project and the time frame within which it needed to be completed prevented
all possible design options from being explored. While the preliminary design submitted is a
good base case and proof of concept. It is recommended that in detailed design the use of
packing in both T-101 and T-102 be considered in place of valve trays in order to identify if
there is a potential savings associated with packing.
Page 62 of 67
Also, there are many cases of streams that need to be heated and others that need to be
cooled. Possible heat integration schemes involving the bottoms product of T-101 being placed
in such a way that it heats up the incoming feed stream. This will reduce the required steam in
E-101, and could potentially eliminate the need for the exchanger. Another source of heat
integration is from the highly exothermic reactor that requires its product to be cooled to more
readily separate them from excess hydrogen. As the reactor products are vapor, it would be
easier to pump a cool liquid stream to the reactor product stream than to attempt to move the
vapor any substantial distance.
Finally, if there is an issue with pursuing option 1 and management decides to move forward
with option 2 instead, it is recommended that the fractionation tower design be examined. If it
is determined safe to allow more hydrocarbons into the reactor, then the specifications of the
two towers may be changed in order to lower the cost of operating or building the plant.
If option 1 is only temporarily not available, but may be a future option, we recommend using
our preliminary design and building the towers that could achieve >99.8% mass purity of
benzene due to the large increase in potential profits of switching to option 1. In this instance,
option 2 would be pursued to meet the federal requirements while the necessary
arrangements are made to pursue option 1. While operating under option 2, the reflux ratio of
each tower should be reduced while still removing 1,800 BPD of benzene from the reformate
feed. The reduced reflux ratio would decrease the purity of the benzene stream from the
bottom of T-102, but would also reduce the heat duty of the reboiler and condenser for each
tower, thus reducing utility costs.
If option 1 is not going to be pursued at all, then it is recommended that the number of trays
and the reflux ratio of both towers be lowered to decrease both the capital costs and operating
costs of the fractionation train.
Weaknesses and Omissions:
There are a few areas of weaknesses in our design. The first is the lack of creating an exact
simulation in Aspen. The bottoms products of both towers are simulated at the wrong pressure.
This is due to a lack of understanding by the designers on how to simulate an overall column
efficiency in Aspen as the only efficiency options given were Murphee and vapor efficiencies.
While it is believed that the small change in pressure of a liquid will not cause major problems
when the design moves on to detailed design, it is something that needs to be noted.
Page 63 of 67
The second area of weakness is the lack of detailed information on the cost of hydrogen or the
catalyst. The cost values for the sensitivity analysis were assumed based on a best educated
guess of the possible variability in the cost. Additionally, neither cost was escalated from 2015
to 2017 dollars due to lack of finding detailed historical prices for the commodities. Though the
chosen values for the sensitivity analysis indicate this project will be profitable almost
regardless of variability in the two costs, it still represents an economic weakness of the report.
References:
Argus, Petroleum Transportation North America, Aug. 22, 2014, Online Document,
http://www.aopl.org/pipeline-basics/about-pipelines/, 10/30/15
Colwell, Ronald F., “Benzene in Gasoline Regulations & Remedies”, PowerPoint,
processengr.com, 10/25/15.
Cornell Law, “40 CFR 80.1230 - What are the gasoline benzene requirements for refiners and
importers?”, PDF, 10/25/15.
Coker, A. K. “Ludwig’s Applied Process Design for Chemical and Petrochemical Plants: Volume
2”, Gulf Professional Publishing, 2010.
Dupré, Mason “How to Create an Excel Spreadsheet for Vapor-Liquid Separator Design”, Course
Document, 2014.
Engineering Toolbox, The, “Pressure and Boiling Points of Water”, Online Resource,
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/boiling-point-water-d_926.html, 11/19/15.
Engineering Toolbox, The, “Water-Specific Heats at High Temperatures”, Online Resource,
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-water-d_660.html, 11/19/15.
GPH Enterprises, “Air Cooled Heat Exchanger Guide”, Online PDF, gphenteroruses.com,
10/29/15.
GPSA Engineering Data Book. 12th ed. Vol. 1 & 2. Tulsa: GPSA, 2004. Print.
Kilkovsky et al, “Software application for supporting of CAE in process engineering: Automated
choice of the suitable reboiler type”, Online Publication, Chemical Engineering Transactions
Volume 18, http://www.aidic.it/cet/09/18/134.pdf, 2009, 11/12/15.
NOAA, "Chemical Reactivity Worksheet", Online Software, response.restoration.noaa.gov,
10/31/15.
OrbiChem, “Chemical Market Insight and Foresight: Benzene”, Online Publication,
http://www.orbichem.com/userfiles/CNF%20Samples/ben_13_11.pdf, 11/21/15.
Page 64 of 67
QuickCutGasket, “Chemical Resistance Chart”, Online Resource.
http://www.quickcutgasket.com/pdf/Chemical-Resistance-Chart.pdf, 11/04/15.
Seader and Henley, "Separation Process Principles", Online eBook, http://imtk.ui.ac.id,
10/31/15.
Standard Occupational Classification Code “Oklahoma: Petroleum Pump system Operators,
Refinery Operatros, and Gaugers”, Online Document, http://www.bls.gov/soc/home.htm,
11/20/15.
Stermole, Franklin J. and Stermole, John M. Economic Evaluation & Investment Decisions
Methods. 14th ed. Lakewood, CO.: Investment Evaluations Corporation, 2014.
Svreck, W.Y. and Monnery, W.D. “Design Two-Phase Separators Within the Right Limits”,
Chemical Engineering Progress 89, 1993.
Turner, F.C “Cost of Benzene Reduction in Gasoline to the Petroleum Refining Industry”, Online
PDF, EPA.gov, 10/25/15.
Turton, Richard. Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of Chemical Processes. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle
River, N.J.: Prentice Hall/PTR, 2009.
Turton, Richard. Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of Chemical Processes. 4th ed. Upper Saddle
River, N.J.: Prentice Hall/PTR, 2012.
US Climate Data, “Climate Ponca City – Oklahoma”, Online Resource,
http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/ponca-city/oklahoma/united-states/usok0432,
11/20/15.
Wagner, Jan and Whiteley, Rob, “Design of Equilibrium Stage Separation Processes: Single Stage
Flash & Continuous Distillation”, Online Course Notes, Spring 2010.
Wilbur, Leslie C. “Handbook of Energy Systems Engineering: Production and Utilization”, Junior
Course Document, Wiley Series in Mechanical Engineering Practice, 1985.
Page 65 of 67
Appendices:
Appendix A – Aspen Simulation
Attached in this appendix is the Aspen Simulation Reports. This contains the stream reports and
block reports for both options.
Appendix B – Work File
Attached in this appendix is the majority of the technical spreadsheets produced to cost, size,
and design the two options. All of the tables found in this report were created from these files
or the numbers they contain.
Page 66 of 67

Final Report

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Final Report

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Benzene Removal from Motor Gasoline Pool:

Benzene Removal Options

Phillips 66 Ponca City Refinery

Engineering Design Team________

November 23rd, 2015

Figure 1: Crude Oil Transportation Rates

Equation 1: Hydrogenation of Benzene

Equation 2: Reactor Diameter

Property Cylindrical Extrudates

Hydrogen: Cost 3,800 $/MM-SCF

Figure 2: Operational Envelope

Figure 3: Ponca City Annual Temperature Values

Description of the Process

Stream Summary Tables and Process Flow Diagrams

Stream Summary Table - Option 1 (1/5)

Stream Summary Table - Option 1 (2/5)

Stream Summary Table - Option 1 (3/5)

Stream Summary Table - Option 1 (4/5)

Stream Summary Table - Option 1 (5/5)

T-101 E-103 V-101 E-104 V-102 E-105 E-201 P-201 A/B

Mass Flow Rate lb/hr

Figure 4: Option 1 - Benzene Sales via Pipeline to Pasadena, TX

Stream Summary Table - Option 2 (1/8)

Stream Summary Table - Option 2 (2/8)

Stream Summary Table - Option 2 (3/8)

Stream Summary Table - Option 2 (4/8)

Stream Summary Table - Option 2 (5/8)

Stream Summary Table - Option 2 (6/8)

Stream Summary Table - Option 2 (7/8)

Stream Summary Table - Option 2 (8/8)

Temperature °F P-102 A/B

Mass Flow Rate lb/hr

Figure 5: Option 2 - Hydrogenation of Benzene to Cyclohexane

Water Cooled Air Cooled

Cooling Water Distillate

Figure 6: Temperature Profile for E-102

Cooling Water Distillate

Figure 7: Temperature Profile for E-104

Temperature Profile for E-107

Cooling Water Series2

Figure 8: Temperature Profile for E-107

T-101 Stage Optimization

Figure 9: Present Worth Cost Analysis Compared to Number of Stages of T-101

T-102 Stage Optimization

Temperature Profile for E-201

Cooling Water Series2

Figure 11: Temperature Profile for E-201

Key Assumptions and Design Basis

Temperature Profile for E-301

Cooling Water Series2

Figure 12: Temperature Profile for E-301

Capital Cost Estimates

5 Year Projected CEPCI Factor

CEPCI Values Linear (CEPCI Values)

Figure 13: CEPCI Factor Projection

Table 21: Benzene Sales Revenue

Table 22: Octane Credit Calculation

Table 23: Option 2 Steam Generated Revenue

175 psig steam generated $19,995 lb/hr

Table 24: Option 2 Octane Credit

Table 25: Option 2 Fuel Gas Revenue

Purge Stream Enthalpy -8648.639 BTU/hr

Utility Cost Units Additional Information