Tamkang Journal of Science and Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.

105-110 (2001)

105

Case Studies on Optimum Reflux Ratio of Distillation Towers in Petroleum Refining Processes
Hsi-Jen Chen and Yeh-Chin Lin
Department of Chemical Engineering, Tamkang University Tamsui, Taiwan 251, R.O.C. E-mail:hjchen@mail.tku.edu.tw

Abstract
For an existing distillation tower such as the propylene splitter in this study, the number of trays is fixed and there are very few degrees of freedom that can be manipulated to maximize operating profit; the reflux ratio can be used to influence the steady-state operating point and thus the daily profit. Also, in the debutanizer design, we have discussed the trade-offs between reflux ratios (energy costs) and annualized capital costs. Key Words: Optimal Reflux Ratio, Propylene Splitter, Debutanizer, Petroleum Refining

1. Introduction
Separations are big businesses in chemical processing. It has been variously estimated that the capital investment in separation equipment is 40-50% of the total for a conventional fluid processing unit. Of the total energy consumption of an average unit, the separation steps accounts for about 70%. And of the separation consumption, the distillation method accounts for about 95% [1]. In general, initial design of a distillation tower involves specifying the separation of a feed of known composition and temperature. Constraints require a minimum acceptable purity of the overhead and/or bottoms product. The desired separation can be achieved with relatively low energy requirements by using a large number of trays, thus incurring larger capital costs with the reflux ratio at its minimum value. On the other hand, by increasing the reflux ratio, the overhead composition specification can be met by a fewer number of trays but with higher energy costs. In particular, the optimization of reflux ratio is attractive for distillation columns that operate with: 1. high reflux ratio; 2. high differential product values between overhead and bottom; 3. high utility costs; 4. low relative volatility, and 5. feed light key far from 50%. In this paper, we explore optimum reflux ratio of two distillation columns for used in the petroleum

refining processes; one is called propylene splitter, an existing tower in a naphtha cracking plant, the other is a debutanizer used in a fluid catalytic cracking plant. The optimization software we used for the optimum reflux-ratio problem of the propylene splitter is GAMS [2] and a flowsheet simulator DESIGN II [3] was used for the basic design of the debutanizer.

2. Propylene Splitter
Figure 1 shows a typical olefins plant in which a propylene splitter is used for separating propane and propylene. The lighter component (propylene) is more valuable than propane. The overhead stream has to be at least 95% propylene. Based on the basic principle for a two-component system, we have to find the minimum reflux ratio, Rm, and Nm, the minimum number of stages to accomplish the separation at total reflux. For a two-component distillation system, if the relative volatility, , is constant, then, we have the enriching operating line:

y=

Rm xD x+ (Rm + 1) (Rm + 1)

where xD is the purity of the overhead propylene. The equilibrium line is given by y = x /[1 + ( 1)x ] 2 The q-line relates feed quality to feed fraction

106

Hsi-Jen Chen and Yeh-Chin Lin

q x y= x F q 1 q 1

where xF is the mole fraction of feed light key (propylene) and q is defined as the ratio of heat needed to vaporize 1 mole of feed at entering condition to the molar latent heat of vaporization of feed. Combining Eqs. (1)-(3), and eliminating x and y, we obtain:

11 where xB is the mole fraction of bottoms light key (propylene). Combining Eqs. (11) and (12), we have

x F F = xD D + xB B

B=

F (x F x D ) xB xD

12

RmxF + qxD [xD (q 1) + xF (Rm 1)] = Rm(1 xF ) + q(1 xD ) (Rm +1)(1 xF ) + (q 1)(1 xD )

(4) Equation (4) can be called the Underwood equation for a binary system. If the feed enters at its boiling point, q = 1, Eq. (4) becomes

If the assumption of constant molar overflow is made, then the liquid (L) and vapor flows (V) are L = RD , and V = (R + 1)D Next we develop expressions for the sales and operating costs. The objective function profit P is defined as propylene sales plus propane sales and minus utility costs and raw material costs. Thus, we have

1 xD (1 xD ) Rm = 1 xF 1 xF

' ' (1 x D )D + C B (1 x B )B + CD

P = (C D x D D + C B x B B )

(C R Q R + C C Q C )

13

' (1 x F )F C F xF F + C F

If the feed enters as vapor at the dew point, q = 0, Eq. (4) becomes

1 xD 1 xD Rm = 1 1 yF 1 yF

where QR is the reboiler heat requirement, QC is the condenser load requirement:

QC = D (R + 1)

Eduljee [4] correlates the Gillilands diagram to

R R 0.5668 N Nm m = 0.751 7 N +1 R +1
where N is the theoretical number of stages and R is the reflux ratio. The actual number of stages, Nact, is obtained by dividing the theoretical number of stages by plate efficiency, . If the relative volatility of the binary mixture is constant, the following analytical expression by Fenske can be used to calculate the minimum number of theoretical stages when a total condenser is used.

= V QR = H D D + H B B H F F + QC
where HD is enthalpy of overhead product, HB is enthalpy of bottoms product and HF is the feed enthalpy. Table 1 gives numerical values for the objective function of the propylene splitter.

x D 1 x B ln 1 x x D B Nm = ln
xB = xD + xD Nm

Equation (9) can be rearranged to give

(1 xD )

The overall material balance gives 10 where F is the feed rate, D is the distillate flow rate, and B is the bottoms flow rate. The component material balance gives

F = D+B

Case Studies on Optimum Reflux Ratio of Distillation Towers in Petroleum Refining Processes

107

Table 1. Numerical values for objective function ofthe propane-propylene splitter

C R = reboiler heat cost

$3.00/ 10 6 Btu $0.009/ 10 6 Btu $0.12/ l b $0.09/ l b $0.16/ l b $0.15/ l b $0.20/ l b $0.20/ l b 1,200,000 l b/day 125 0.95 0.70 1.105 130 Btu/ l b 0.75 1.0

CC = condenser cooling cost

C B = value of propylene in bottoms
' CB = value of propane in bottoms

C F = cost per pound of propylene

' CF = cost per pound of propane

C D = value of propylene in overhead

' CD = value of propane in overhead F = feed rate N act = number of equilibrium stages

x D = mole fraction overhead light key x F = mole fraction of feed light key

= relative volatility = latent heat = plate efficiency

q = feed quality

Figure 1. Typical Olefins Plant

108

Hsi-Jen Chen and Yeh-Chin Lin

Figure 2. Flow Chart of Fluid Catalytic Cracking

Table 2. Component list and mole fraction of debutanizer charge stock Component Ethylene ethane hydrogen sulfide propylene propane isobutene n-butene isobutene mole % 0.1 1.2 2.1 16.3 6.9 6.5 14.3 10.8 Component n-butane pentene isopentane n-pentane hexane heptane octane mole % 3.9 11.9 9.7 2.3 11.8 2.1 0.1

3. Debutanizer
Figure 2 shows a flow chart of a fluid catalytic cracking process. And debutanizer is used for separating butanes and lighter from gasoline product. The feedstock of debutanizer comes from a deethanizer and is 5620 BPSD (barrels per service day). Debutanizer is to operate at 150 psig. The design specification will require the overhead product to contain 98.5% of the butanes and lighter components with a contamination of 1.5 mol% pentanes and pentenes. A feedstock component list with molar contents is shown in Table 2. This is a multi-component distillation design and is to

fractionate between n-butane and i-pentane. We will use DESIGN II for both short-cut and rigorous design for the debutanizer. Note that the lost work (LW) [5] of debutanizer design is calculated by

Ta LW = Bin Bout + 1 Q W 14 Te
where Bin and Bout are input and output availability function of streams, respectively, Ta is ambient temperature, Te is stream temperature, Q is heat load of input and output streams, and W is output power. For equipment cost calculation, we used the Guthries correlations [6]; for distillation tower, the following equation is used

Case Studies on Optimum Reflux Ratio of Distillation Towers in Petroleum Refining Processes

109

M &S 1.066 0.802 (2.18 + Fc ) C ($) = (101.9 )D H 280

15 where M&S is the Marshall and Swift index, we used 792 in this study; D is tower diameter in ft, H is tower height in ft, and Fc corresponds to the correction factors for materials, pressure, etc., we used 1.15 in this study. For heat exchangers, the following equation is used

M &S .0.65 C ($) = (101.3)A (2.29 + Fc ) 16 280

where A is heat-transfer area in ft2, and in this study we used Fc as 1.0 and 1.45 for condenser and reboiler, respectively.

4. Results and Discussion

Depending on the condition of feedstock to the propylene splitter, we can solve for Rm by Eqs. (4)-(6). Given the total number of actual stages, for each reflux ratio R, there must exist an Nm. For specific purity requirement of the overhead, we can calculate xB from Eq. (9), and thus B from Eq. (12), then D from Eq. (10). From the optimization software GAMS using Table 1 as input parameters, we find the minimum reflux ratio is 11.17, the optimal reflux ratio is 16.51 and the profit is $9,350/day for the propane-propylene splitter. In addition, a sensitivity analysis for reflux ratio of 16.51 10% was performed. The results show a profit of $9,043/day for a reflux ratio of 14.86, and a profit of $9,188/day for a reflux ratio of 18.16. The profit function changes about $200-300/day. From the short-cut design of DESIGN II, we can obtain the relationship of reflux ratio versus the theoretical number of stages and feed locations of debutanizer as shown in Table 3. Having obtained the basic design specifications, we are able to do a rigorous tray-by-tray design. The results are shown in Table 4 with the calculation of Table 3. Reflux ratio 0.913 0.957 1.043 1.217 1.522 1.739

lost work listed in the last column. Also, we obtained the results of debutanizer with a overhead temperature of 100oF and a bottoms temperature of 276oF. The overall coefficient of heat transfer is 80 Btu/h.ft2. oF in the reboiler and 90 Btu/h.ft2. oF in the condenser; the logarithmic temperature differences are 130oF and 40oF, respectively. Saturation steam at 250 psig is used in the reboiler. At this pressure, the temperature of the condensing steam is 406 oF and the heat of condensation is 821 Btu / lb . The change in cooling-water temperature is 30 oF for all cases. The overall plate efficiency is 50%, tray spacing is 2 ft with tops disengaging height of 15 ft, and bottoms skirt height of 15 ft. The debutanizer is to operate 8,500 hr per year (stream factor of 0.97). The sum of costs for piping, insulation and instrumentation is estimated as 60% of the cost for the installed equipment. Annual fixed charges amount to 15% of the total cost for installed equipment, piping, instrumentation and insulation. Steam costs $3.50 per 1,000 pounds and cooling water costs $0.05 per 10,000 pounds. By repeated calculations for different reflux ratios, the following results as shown in Table 5 can be prepared. As a result, we would choose the reflux ratio of 1.10 as the optimum one.

5. Conclusion

In the propylene-splitter study, we have shown that the reflux ratio is indeed a sensitive operating variable and affects a daily profit. The optimal reflux ratio is closely related to the feed mole fraction, feed quality, relative volatility, and a separation factor which itself was a function of overhead and bottoms composition. Also, in the debutanizer study, we have determined the optimum value of the reflux ratio by evaluating the annualized capital costs (column, condenser, reboiler) and operating costs (steam, cooling water).

Short-cut results from DESIGN II Theoretical stages 42 35 31 27 24 23 Feedstock location 20 16 15 13 12 11

110

Hsi-Jen Chen and Yeh-Chin Lin

Table 4. Rigorous design results from DESIGN II

Reflux ratio 1.05 1.10 1.20 1.40 1.75 2.00 Theoretical stages 42 35 31 27 24 23 Diameter (ft) 4.73 4.78 4.87 5.05 5.34 5.54 Condenser load (Btu/hr) 9.158 10 6 9.401 10 6 9.883 10 6 1.080 10 6 1.240 10 6 1.351 10 6 Reboiler load (Btu/hr) 1.085 10 7 1.108 10 7 1.155 10 7 1.246 10 7 1.406 10 7 1.517 10 7 Lost work (Btu/hr) 2.88 10 6 2.97 10 6 3.14 10 6 3.46 10 6 4.02 10 6 4.41 10 6

Table 5. Annual cost of debutanizer design versus recycle ratio Reflux Actual number Diameter Column Condenser ratio of stages (ft) ($) ($) 37,000 83,560 5.0 84 1.05 37,630 73,140 5.0 70 1.10 38,870 67,020 5.0 62 1.20 41,180 60,760 5.0 54 1.40 45,050 61,940 5.5 48 1.75 47,635 60,140 5.5 46 2.00 Reboiler ($) 23,560 23,880 24,550 25,780 27,890 29,300 Cooling water ($) 12,970 13,320 14,000 15,300 17,570 19,140 Steam ($) 393,160 401,500 418,530 451,500 509,480 549,705 Total annual cost ($) 550,250 549,470 562,970 594,520 661,930 705,920

References
[1] Fair, J.R., Energy-Efficient Separation Process Design, Recent Developments in Chemical Process and Plant Design, Y.A. Liu, McGee, Jr., H.A. and Epperly, W.R. (eds.), John Wiley & Sons, New York (1987). [2] GAMS Development Corporation, GAMS A USERS GUIDE, Washington, DC, GAMS Development Corporation (1998). [3] ChemShare Corporation, DESIGN II USERS GUIDE, Houston, TX, ChemShare Corporation (1988). [4] Eduljee, H.E., Equations Replace Gillilands Plot, Hydrocarbon Process., 54 (9), 120 (1975). [5] de Nevers, N. and Seader, J.D., Lost Work: a Measure of Thermodynamic Efficiency, Energy, 5, 757 (1980). [6] Douglas, J.M., Conceptual Design of Chemical Processes, McGraw-Hill, New York (1988).

Accepted: Jun. 26, 2001