Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Subject to ~y
m
P~x
m
1
where the optimization parameters used here are: total number of
stages (N
T
), feed location (N
F
), side-draw stage (N
SS
), wall size
(N
DWS
) and location (N
DWC
), boilup rate (V), reux ratio (RR), liquid
and vapor split (r
L
and r
V
), while y
m
and x
m
are the vectors of the
obtained and required purities for the m products [27,28]. Note that
in order to determine the optimal ratio between the energy cost and
the number of stages, an additional objective function was used,
Min N
T
(RR + 1), which approximates very well the minimum of to-
tal annualized cost of a conventional distillation column [54].
Since both distillation columns of the direct sequence (Fig. 2
top) are operated at the same pressure, DWC (Fig. 2 btm) can be
an attractive alternative for the industrial implementation. Metha-
nol is recovered as top distillate, glycerol as bottom product and
water is withdrawn as side stream of the main column. As starting
point of the DWC simulation, the results obtained from the direct
sequence Aspen Plus model were used. In fact, these results
DC2
DC1
Fig. 3. Temperature and composition prole in DC1 and DC2 units of the direct
distillation sequence.
Fig. 4. Vmin diagram of the methanolwaterglycerol system.
Fig. 5. Temperature and composition prole in the dividing-wall column.
A.A. Kiss, R.M. Ignat / Applied Energy 99 (2012) 146153 149
provide the initial estimates for the total number of trays, the feed
tray location, as well as the liquid and vapor split. The optimal de-
sign of the DWC was obtained according to the method described
earlier. Fig. 5 plots the temperature and liquid composition proles
in the DWC unit, while the key parameters of the optimal design
are presented in Table 2. Remarkable, the temperature difference
between the two sides of the wall is very low less than 25 C
such conditions being easily achievable in the practical applica-
tion with little heat transfer expected and negligible effect on the
column performance [23,24].
3.3. Dynamics and control
DWC technology offers indeed key economic benets, but the
controllability of the process is just as important as the savings
in the capital and operating costs. Fig. 6 illustrates the proposed
control structure: two multi loops are needed to stabilize the col-
umn and another three to maintain the set points specifying the
product purities. The regulatory control focuses on maintaining
the specied product purities, while the inventory control aims to
stabilize the column and to control the level in the reux tank
and the level in the reboiler. The level of the reux drum and the
reboiler can be controlled by the manipulated variables D (distil-
late), and B (bottoms), respectively. The composition of the free
product streams is controlled by the remaining variables: L (liquid
reux), S (side-stream) and V (vapor boil-up). Note that the control
structure DB/LSV was reported as the best option for a DWC in our
previous studies [55,56,7,8].
An additional optimization loop is used to manipulate the liquid
split, in order to control the heavy component composition in the
top of pre-fractionator (PF), and implicitly achieving minimization
of the energy requirements [53,52,57,56,58]. Note that any heavy
component (glycerol) going out the top of the wall will end up also
in the liquid owing down in the main column and thus strongly
affecting the purity of the side stream (S). Since the side stream
is collected as a liquid product, it means that any small amounts
of light impurity in the vapor phase will not signicantly affect
its composition. However, even tiny amounts of heavy impurity
in the liquid phase will greatly affect the composition of the side
stream.
At the bottom of the dividing-wall section, the vapor ow is
split proportionally to the cross-sectional area of each side and
the hydrodynamic conditions (e.g. ow resistance). The cross-sec-
tional area of each side is xed by the physical location of the wall,
and this is already set at the design stage hence it cannot be chan-
ged later on, during operation [23]. Because the location of the wall
xes how the vapor ow splits between the two sides of the col-
umn, the vapor split (r
V
) variable is not adjustable during operation
for control purposes [7,8]. Therefore, the vapor split ratio is not
used as a manipulated variable in the dynamic simulations pre-
sented hereafter.
Table 3 lists the tuning parameters of the PID controllers. The
control loops were tuned by a simple version of the direct synthe-
sis method [59]. Fig. 7 presents the results of the dynamic simula-
tions for various industrially relevant disturbances in the set point
(SP), the feed ow rate (F) and feed composition. The mass frac-
tions of all components are returning to their set point within rea-
sonable short times, thus proving that the system can successfully
reject the disturbances. Moreover, the dynamic response of the
proposed control structure is clearly characterized by low over-
shooting and short settling times.
3.4. Process comparison
In order to perform a fair comparison of the two process alter-
natives, the total investment cost (TIC), total operating cost (TOC)
Table 2
Design parameters of an optimal dividing-wall column.
Design parameters Value Unit
Flowrate of feed stream 2900 kg/h
Feed composition (mass fractions)
Methanol:Water:Glycerol 0.473:0.054:0.473
Temperature of feed stream 60 C
Pressure of feed stream 1.2 bar
Operating pressure 0.5 bar
Column diameter 1.1 m
Number of stages pre-fractionator side 10
Total number of stages DWC 30
Feed stage pre-fractionator 7
Side stream withdrawal stage 22
Wall position (from/to stage) 1525
Distillate to feed ratio 0.473 kg/kg
Reux ratio 0.83 kg/kg
Liquid split ratio (r
L
) 0.42 kg/kg
Vapor split ratio (r
V
) 0.25 kg/kg
Methanol product purity 99.9/99.8 %wt/%mol
Water product purity 99.6/99.8 %wt/%mol
Glycerol product purity 99.9/99.9 %wt/%mol
Reboiler duty 975 kW
Condenser duty 793 kW
Methanol
Glycerol
Water
Feed
r
L
r
V
DWC
LC
CC
CC CC
Y
G
CC
LC
CC CC
Fig. 6. Control structure of the DWC unit (4-point control: DB/LSV + r
L
).
Table 3
Tuning parameters of the PID controllers.
Controlled variable Manipulated variable Gain P (%/%) Int. time I (min) Drv. time D (min) Control direction
x
methanol
(in D) L 0.8 40 0
x
water
(in S) V 0.6 20 0
x
glycerol
(in B) S 0.6 40 0
y
G
(at top PF) r
L
1 20 0 +
Level reux drum D 1 100 0 +
Level reboiler B 1 100 0 +
150 A.A. Kiss, R.M. Ignat / Applied Energy 99 (2012) 146153
and total annual cost (TAC) were calculated. The equipment costs
are estimated using correlations from the Douglas textbook to
the price level of 2010, as described by Dejanovic et al. [54]. The
Marshall and Swift equipment cost index (MSI) considered here
has a value of 1468.6. For a carbon steel column, the estimated cost
in US$ is given by the relation:
C
shell
f
p
MSI=280d
1:066
c
h
0:802
c
2
where f
p
is the cost factor (equal to 2981.68 in this case), d
c
is the
column diameter (calculated using the internals-sizing procedure
from Aspen Plus) and h
c
its height (tangent-to-tangent) considering
a tray-spacing of 0.6 m. For heat exchangers (e.g. condensers and
reboilers) the next expression was used to calculate the equipment
cost (US$):
C
hex
MSI=280c
x
A
0:65
3
where c
x
= 1609.13 for condensers and 1775.26 for kettle reboilers,
while A is the heat transfer area (m
2
). Also, a price of 600 US $/m
2
was used for the sieve trays cost calculations.
The following utility costs were considered: US $0.03/t cooling
water and US $13/t steam. For the TAC calculations, a plant lifetime
of 10 years was considered. While the accuracy of the correlations
is in the range of acceptable and realistic 30%, this level of accu-
racy is less important when comparing design alternatives since
the error is consistent in all cases.
Table 4 provides a head-to-head comparison of the key perfor-
mance economic indicators, while Fig. 8 conveniently illustrates
the costs and the CO
2
emissions of the two processes considered.
Remarkable, the DWC alternative is the most efcient in terms of
energy requirements allowing energy savings of 27% while also
being the least expensive in terms of capital investment and oper-
ating costs, leading to 25% lower total annual costs.
The energy requirements are closely linked to the CO
2
emis-
sions, but only when no heat integration is considered. When part
of the process heat is reused instead of primary energy, then the
CO
2
emissions are lower as compared to the gure expected from
the energy data. The CO
2
emissions were calculated according to
method described by Gadalla et al. [60]:
CO
2
emissions
Q
fuel
=NHVC%=100a 4
where a = 3.67 is the ratio of molar masses of CO
2
and C, NHV is the
net heating value, and C% is the carbon content dependent on the
fuel. For natural gas, NHV is 48,900 kJ/kg and the carbon content is
0.41 kg/kg. Hence the amount of fuel used can be calculated as
follows:
Q
fuel
Q
proc
=k
proc
h
proc
419T
FTB
T
0
=T
FTB
T
stack
5
where k
proc
(kJ/kg) and h
proc
(kJ/kg) are the latent heat and enthalpy
of the steam, T
FTB
(K) and T
stack
(K) are the ame and stack temper-
ature, respectively.
The hourly rate of CO
2
emissions for the conventional and DWC
Methanol
Water
Glycerol
Fig. 7. Results of the dynamic simulations at various disturbances in the set point
(change from 0.995 to 0.999), feed owrate (+10% F) and feed composition
(10% water).
Table 4
Head-to-head comparison of conventional vs. DWC alternative.
Key performance indicators Conventional
process
DWC
alternative
Total investment cost (TIC) $563,429 $499,087
Total operating costs (TOCs) $280,491 $208,402
Total annual costs (TACs) $336,834 $258,310
Specic energy requirements
(kW h/ton glycerol)
967.5 709.3
CO
2
emissions (kg CO
2
/h ton glycerol) 135.31 99.19
A.A. Kiss, R.M. Ignat / Applied Energy 99 (2012) 146153 151
alternatives are 183.19 kg/h and 136.34 kg/h, respectively. Table 4
also lists the specic amount of CO
2
emissions per ton of glycerol.
As these emissions are closely linked to the amount of energy re-
quired, it comes as no surprise that the DWC alternative exhibits
also the lowest carbon footprint.
4. Conclusions
This study successfully demonstrated a novel application of
DWC technology for a single step methanol recovery and glycerol
separation in biodiesel production. Compared to an optimized con-
ventional direct sequence of two distillation columns, the novel
proposed DWC alternative reduces the energy requirements by
27% and the equipment costs by 12%, thus leading to 25% savings
in the total annual costs. Notably, the novel separation scheme also
requires less equipment units and reduced plant footprint. Based
on these results, the use of dividing-wall column in biodiesel pro-
duction is especially interesting in case of building new large bio-
diesel plants, but also in the case of revamping existing plants
where the equivalent Petlyuk conguration should be certainly
considered.
Acknowledgments
The nancial support from the Sector Operational Program Hu-
man Resources Development 2007-2013 of the Romanian Ministry
of Labor, Family and Social Protection through the Financial Agree-
ment POSDRU/88/1.5/S/61178 is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Van Gerpen J. Biodiesel processing and production. Fuel Process Technol
2005;86:1097107.
[2] Bowman M, Hilligoss D, Rasmussen S, Thomas R. Biodiesel: a renewable and
biodegradable fuel. Hydrocarbon Process 2006;85:1036.
[3] Lam MK, Lee MT, Mohamed AR. Homogeneous, heterogeneous and enzymatic
catalysis for transesterication of high free fatty acid oil (waste cooking oil) to
biodiesel: a review. Biotechnol Adv 2010;28:50018.
[4] Leung DYC, Wu X, Leung MKH. A review on biodiesel production using
catalyzed transesterication. Appl Energy 2010;87:108395.
[5] Kiss A. Separative reactors for integrated production of bioethanol and
biodiesel. Comput Chem Eng 2010;34:81220.
[6] Kiss AA. Heat-integrated reactive distillation process for synthesis of fatty
esters. Fuel Process Technol 2011;92:128896.
[7] Kiss AA, Bildea CS. Integrated reactive absorption process for synthesis of fatty
esters. Bioresour Technol 2011;102:4908.
[8] Kiss AA, Bildea CS. A control perspective on process intensication in dividing-
wall columns. Chem Eng Process 2011;50:28192.
[9] Kiss AA, Bildea CS. A review on biodiesel production by integrated reactive
separation technologies. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2012;87. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/jctb.378.
[10] Meher LC, Vidya Sagar D, Naik S. Technical aspects of biodiesel production by
transesterication: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2006;10:24868.
[11] Demirbas A. Comparison of transesterication methods for production of
biodiesel from vegetable oils and fats. Energy Convers Manage
2008;49:12530.
[12] Qiu ZY, Zhao LN, Weather L. Process intensication technologies in continuous
biodiesel production. Chem Eng Process 2010;49:32330.
[13] Dunford NT. Biodiesel production techniques, Robert M. Kerr Food &
agricultural products center. Food technology fact sheet. FAPC-150; 2007. p.
14.
[14] Fjerbaek L, Christensen KV, Norddahl B. A review of the current state of
biodiesel production using enzymatic transesterication. Biotechnol Bioeng
2009;102:1298315.
[15] Helwani Z, Othman MR, Aziz N, Fernando WJN, Kim J. Technologies for
production of biodiesel focusing on green catalytic techniques. Fuel Process
Technol 2009;90:150214.
[16] Chemstations Inc. Biodiesel in ChemCAD. White paper; 2010. p. 17.
[17] Atadashi IM, Aroua MK, Abdul Aziz AR, Sulaiman NMN. Rening technologies
for the purication of crude biodiesel. Appl Energy 2011;88:423951.
[18] Balat M, Balat H. Progress in biodiesel processing. Appl Energy
2010;87:181535.
[19] Lin L, Zhou C, Saritporn V, Shen X, Dong M. Opportunities and challenges for
biodiesel fuel. Appl Energy 2011;88:102031.
[20] Olujic Z, Jodecke M, Shilkin A, Schuch G, Kaibel B. Equipment improvement
trends in distillation. Chem Eng Process 2009;48:1089104.
[21] Asprion N, Kaibel G. Dividing wall columns: fundamentals and recent
advances. Chem Eng Process 2010;49:13946.
[22] Harmsen J. Process intensication in the petrochemicals industry: drivers
and hurdles for commercial implementation. Chem Eng Process 2010;49:703.
[23] Dejanovic I, Matijaevic L, Olujic Z