# Problem 1.

1
(i) 1 ft = 0.305 m
(ii) 1 lb
m
= 0.454 kg
(iii) 1 lb
f
= 4.45 N
(iv) 1 HP = 746 W
(v) 1 psi = 6.9 kN m
-2
(vi) 1 lb ft s
-1
= 1.49 N s m
-2
(vii) 1 poise = 0.1 N s m
-2
(viii) 1 Btu = 1.056 kJ
(ix) 1 CHU = 2.79 kJ
(x) 1 Btu ft
-2
h
-1

o
F
-1
= 5.678 W m
-2
K
-1
Examples:
(viii) 1 Btu = 1 lb
m
of water through 1
o
F
= 453.6 g through 0.556
o
C
= 252.2 cal
= (252.2)(4.1868)
= 1055.918 J = 1.056 kJ
(x) 1 Btu ft
-2
h
-1

o
F
-1
=
¹
;
¹
¹
'
¹

,
_

¸
¸
Btu
J
10 x 1.056 Btu x 1
3
x
2
3
ft
m
10 x 25.4 x 12 x ft 1

¹
;
¹
¹
'
¹

,
_

¸
¸
x
1
h
s
3600 x h 1

¹
;
¹
¹
'
¹

,
_

¸
¸
x
1
o
o
o
F
C
0.556 x F 1

¹
;
¹
¹
'
¹

,
_

¸
¸
= 5.678 W m
-2

o
C
-1
= 5.678 W m
-2
K
-1
Problem 1.2
W
1
, T
1
t
2
W
2
, t
1
T
2
Variables, M:
1. Duty, heat transferred, Q
2. Exchanger area, A
3. Overall coefficient, U
4. Hot-side flow-rate, W
1
5. Cold-side flow-rate, W
2
6. Hot-side inlet temperature, T
1
7. Hot-side outlet temperature, T
2
8. Cold-side inlet temperature, t
1
9. Cold-side outlet temperature, t
2
Total variables = 9
Design relationships, N:
1. General equation for heat transfer across a surface
Q = UA∆T
m
(Equation 12.1)
Where ∆T
m
is the LMTD given by equation (12.4)
2. Hot stream heat capacity
( )
2 1 1
T T C W Q
p
− ·
3. Cold stream heat capacity
( )
1 2 2
t t C W Q
p
− ·
4. U is a function of the stream flow-rates and temperatures (see Chapter 12)
Total design relationships = 4
So, degrees of freedom = M – N = 9 – 4 = 5
Problem 1.3
Number of components, C = 3
Degrees of freedom for a process stream = C + 2 (see Page 17)
Variables:
Streams 4(C + 2)
Separator pressure 1
Separator temperature 1
Total 4C + 10
Relationships:
Material balances C
v-l-e relationships C
l-l-e relationships C
Equilibrium relationships 6
Total 3C + 6
Degrees of freedom = (4C + 10) – (3C + 6) = C + 4
For C = 3, degrees of freedom = 7
The feed stream conditions are fixed which fixes C + 2 variables and so the design
variables to be decided = 7 – 5 = 2.
Choose temperature and pressure.
Note: temperature and pressure taken as the same for all streams.
Problem 1.4
Volume = l
2
x h = 8 m
3
(i) Open Top
Area of plate = lh l 4
2
+
=
2 2
8 x 4

+ l l l
Objective function =
1 2
32

+ l l
Differentiate and equate to zero:
2
3 2 0

− · l l
m 52 . 2 16
3
· · l i.e.
2
l
h ·
(ii) Closed Top
The minimum area will obviusly be given by a cube, l = h
l
h
l
Proof:
Area of plate = lh l 4 2
2
+
Objective function =
1 2
32 2

+ l l
Differentiate and equate to zero:
2
3 4 0

− · l l
3
8 · l = 2 m
2
2
8
· h = 2 m
Problems 1.5 and 1.6
All calculations are peformed per m
2
area
Heat loss = (U)(temp. diff.)(sec. in a year)
Savings = (heat saved)(cost of fuel)
Insulation Costs = (thickness)(cost per cu. m)(capital charge)
Thickness U Heat Loss Increment Extra Cost
(mm) (Wm
-2
C
-1
) (MJ) Savings (£) Insulation (£)
0 2.00 345.60 20.74
25 0.90 155.52 11.40 0.26
50 0.70 120.96 2.07 0.26
100 0.30 51.84 4.15 0.53(Optimum)
150 0.25 43.20 0.52 0.53
200 0.20 34.56 0.52 0.53
250 0.15 25.92 0.52 0.53
Data: cost of fuel 0.6p/MJ
av. temp. diff. 10
o
C
200 heating days per year
cost of insulation £70/m
3
capital charges 15% per year
American version:
Thickness U Heat Loss Increment Extra Cost
(mm) (Wm
-2
C
-1
) (MJ/yr) Savings (\$/m
2
) Insulation (\$/m
2
)
0 2.00 518.40 45.66
25 0.90 233.28 25.66 0.6
50 0.70 181.44 4.66 0.6
100 0.30 77.76 9.33 1.2(Optimum)
150 0.25 64.80 1.17 1.2
200 0.20 51.84 1.17 1.2
250 0.15 38.88 1.17 1.2
Data: cost of fuel 0.6 cents/MJ
av. temp. diff. 12
o
C
250 heating days per year
cost of insulation \$120/m
3
capital charges 20% per year
Problem 1.7
The optimum shape will be that having the lowest surface to volume ratio.
A sphere would be impractical to live in an so a hemisphere would be used.
The Inuit build their snow igloos in a roughly hemispherical shape.
Another factor that determines the shape of an igloo is the method of construction. Any
cross-section is in the shape of an arch; the optimum shape to use for a material that is
weak in tension but strong in compression.
Problem 1.8
1. THE NEED
Define the objective:
a) purging with inert gas, as requested by the Chief Engineer
b) safety on shut down
2. DATA
Look at the process, operation, units, flammability of materials, flash points and
explosive limits.
Read the report of the incident at the similar plat, if available. Search literature
for other similar incidents.
Visit sites and discuss the problem and solutions.
Determine volume and rate of purging needed.
Collect data on possible purging systems. Discuss with vendors of such
systems.
3. GENERATION OF POSSIBLE DESIGNS
Types of purge gase used: Argon, helium, combustion gases (CO
2
+ H
2
O),
nitrogen and steam.
Need to consider: cost, availability, reliability, effectiveness.
Helium and argon are rejected on grounds of costs and need not be considered.
a) Combustion gases: widely used for purging, use oil or natural gas,
b) Nitrogen: used in process industry, available as liquid in tankers or
generated on site: consider.
c) Steam: used for small vessels but unlikely to be suitable for a plant of this
size: reject.
4. EVALUATION:
Compare combustion gases versus nitrogen.
• Cost
Cost of nitrogen (Table 6.5) 6p/m
3
Cost of combustion gases will depend on the fuel used. Calculations are based
on natural gas (methane).
2CH
4
+ 3O
2
+ (3x4)N
2
→ 2CO
2
+ 4H
2
O + 12N
2
So, 1 m
3
of methane produces 7 m
3
of inert combustion gases (water will be
condensed).
Cost of natural gas (Table 6.5) 0.4p/MJ. Typical calorific value is 40 MJ/m
3
.
Therefore, cost per m
3
= 0.4 x 40 = 16p.
Cost per m
3
of inert gases = 16/7 = 2.3p.
So, the use of natural gas to generate inert gas for purging could be significantly
cheaper than purchasing nitrogen. The cost of the generation equipment is not
likely to be high.
• Availability
Natural gas and nitrogen should be readily available, unless the site is remote.
• Reliability
Nitrogen, from storage, is likely to be more reliable than the generation of the
purge gas by combustion. The excess air in combustion needs to be strictly
controlled.
• Effectiveness
Nitrogen will be more effective than combustion gases. Combustion gases will
always contain a small amount of oxygen. In addition, the combustion gases
will need to be dried thoroughly and compressed.
5. FINAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATION
Use nitrogen for the large scale purging of hazardous process plant.
Compare the economics of generation on site with the purchase of liquid
nitrogen. Generation on site would use gaseous storage, under pressure.
Purchase would use liquid storage and vapourisation.

degrees of freedom = M – N = 9 – 4 = 5 Problem 1. General equation for heat transfer across a surface Q = UA∆Tm (Equation 12. Duty. t2 Total variables = 9 Design relationships. Hot-side outlet temperature. Cold-side flow-rate. Cold stream heat capacity Q = W2 C p ( t 2 − t1 ) 4. W2 6. U 4. U is a function of the stream flow-rates and temperatures (see Chapter 12) Total design relationships = 4 So.3 Number of components. T2 8. Overall coefficient. Exchanger area. Cold-side inlet temperature.Variables. Hot-side flow-rate. Hot-side inlet temperature. W1 5. Cold-side outlet temperature.1) Where ∆Tm is the LMTD given by equation (12. N: 1. Q 2. T1 7. A 3.4) 2. t1 9. heat transferred. Hot stream heat capacity Q = W1C p ( T1 − T2 ) 3. C = 3 Degrees of freedom for a process stream = C + 2 (see Page 17) Variables: Streams Separator pressure Separator temperature Total 4(C + 2) 1 1 4C + 10 . M: 1.

52 m i. degrees of freedom = 7 The feed stream conditions are fixed which fixes C + 2 variables and so the design variables to be decided = 7 – 5 = 2. Note: temperature and pressure taken as the same for all streams.4 h l Volume = l 2 x h = 8 m3 l (i) Open Top Area of plate = l 2 + 4lh = l 2 + 4l x 8l −2 Objective function = l 2 + 32l −1 0 = 2l − 3l −2 l = 3 16 = 2. l = h . h = l 2 Differentiate and equate to zero: (ii) Closed Top The minimum area will obviusly be given by a cube.e.Relationships: Material balances v-l-e relationships l-l-e relationships Equilibrium relationships Total C C C 6 3C + 6 Degrees of freedom = (4C + 10) – (3C + 6) = C + 4 For C = 3. Problem 1. Choose temperature and pressure.

00 0. diff. 10oC 200 heating days per year cost of insulation £70/m3 capital charges 15% per year .96 51. diff.53 0.84 43. temp. spread-sheet solution All calculations are peformed per m2 area Heat loss Savings Insulation Costs Thickness (mm) 0 25 50 100 150 200 250 U (Wm-2C-1) 2.5 and 1.07 4.90 0.53(Optimum) 0. in a year) = (heat saved)(cost of fuel) = (thickness)(cost per cu.52 Increment Savings (£) 20.)(sec.52 120.15 = (U)(temp.56 25.52 0.15 0.6 Insulation problem.30 0.20 0.6p/MJ av.Proof: Area of plate Objective function = 2l 2 + 4lh = 2l 2 + 32l −1 0 = 4l − 3l −2 l =3 8 =2m h= 8 =2m 22 Differentiate and equate to zero: Problems 1.74 11.52 0.26 Extra Cost Insulation (£) Data: cost of fuel 0.53 0.26 0.20 34.60 155. m)(capital charge) Heat Loss (MJ) 345.40 2.53 0.92 0.70 0.25 0.

6 1.2(Optimum) 0. The Inuit build their snow igloos in a roughly hemispherical shape.66 4. Problem 1.6 Extra Cost Savings (\$/m2) Insulation (\$/m2) Data: cost of fuel 0. 12oC 250 heating days per year cost of insulation \$120/m3 capital charges 20% per year Problem 1.90 0.84 38.44 77.00 0.15 Heat Loss (MJ/yr) 518.American version: Thickness (mm) 0 25 50 100 150 200 250 U (Wm-2C-1) 2.40 233. the optimum shape to use for a material that is weak in tension but strong in compression. as requested by the Chief Engineer b) safety on shut down . Another factor that determines the shape of an igloo is the method of construction.17 1.66 25.20 0.17 1.2 1. Any cross-section is in the shape of an arch.80 51. A sphere would be impractical to live in an so a hemisphere would be used.25 0.76 64. temp.7 The optimum shape will be that having the lowest surface to volume ratio.33 1.6 cents/MJ av.66 9. THE NEED Define the objective: a) purging with inert gas.2 1.8 1.2 0.70 0.88 1.28 181. diff.30 0.17 Increment 45.

combustion gases (CO2 + H2O). effectiveness. Helium and argon are rejected on grounds of costs and need not be considered. flammability of materials. availability. Typical calorific value is 40 MJ/m3. use oil or natural gas. cost per m3 = 0. 2CH4 + 3O2 + (3x4)N2 → 2CO2 + 4H2O + 12N2 So. units.4 x 40 = 16p. c) Steam: used for small vessels but unlikely to be suitable for a plant of this size: reject.2. Discuss with vendors of such 3. Collect data on possible purging systems. Calculations are based on natural gas (methane). nitrogen and steam. Read the report of the incident at the similar plat.5) 0. available as liquid in tankers or generated on site: consider. a) Combustion gases: widely used for purging.4p/MJ. flash points and explosive limits. Search literature for other similar incidents. • EVALUATION: Compare combustion gases versus nitrogen. Cost Cost of nitrogen (Table 6. Visit sites and discuss the problem and solutions. Cost of natural gas (Table 6. b) Nitrogen: used in process industry. 4. systems.5) 6p/m3 Cost of combustion gases will depend on the fuel used. Need to consider: cost. if available. operation. equipment readily available: consider. . 1 m3 of methane produces 7 m3 of inert combustion gases (water will be condensed). DATA Look at the process. Therefore. reliability. helium. Determine volume and rate of purging needed. GENERATION OF POSSIBLE DESIGNS Types of purge gase used: Argon.

• Effectiveness Nitrogen will be more effective than combustion gases. the use of natural gas to generate inert gas for purging could be significantly cheaper than purchasing nitrogen.3p. Purchase would use liquid storage and vapourisation. Compare the economics of generation on site with the purchase of liquid nitrogen. Generation on site would use gaseous storage. unless the site is remote. the combustion gases will need to be dried thoroughly and compressed. .Cost per m3 of inert gases = 16/7 = 2. In addition. The cost of the generation equipment is not likely to be high. • Availability Natural gas and nitrogen should be readily available. • Reliability Nitrogen. So. under pressure. The excess air in combustion needs to be strictly controlled. from storage. 5. Combustion gases will always contain a small amount of oxygen. FINAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATION Use nitrogen for the large scale purging of hazardous process plant. is likely to be more reliable than the generation of the purge gas by combustion.