Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwert
yuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
CHNG3807 Project 2 Large
Scale Carbon Nanotube
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiop
Synthesis
Plant design
asdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas
dfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh
jklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjkl
zxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv
bnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn
mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw
ertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwert
yuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiop
asdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfgh
Hasara Fernando (306142988), Erin McMullen
(306191504), Thomas McCrossin (305167103), Sally
Rewell (306156865), Adam Jeffrey (306128152)
Contents
Executive Summary............................................................................................... 6
Overall Mass Balance............................................................................................. 7
Overall Process flow Diagram................................................................................8
Overall Cost Estimate............................................................................................ 9
1.
1.1
Description:................................................................................................ 10
1.1.1
Hopper................................................................................................. 10
1.1.2
Pneumatic conveying...........................................................................10
1.1.3
Rotary Valve......................................................................................... 10
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Design Calculations:................................................................................... 14
1.5.1
Hopper Design:.................................................................................... 14
1.5.2
1.5.3
Ethanol Tank:....................................................................................... 18
1.6
Cost Estimate:............................................................................................ 19
1.6.1
Hoppers:.............................................................................................. 19
1.6.2
Ethanol Tank:....................................................................................... 19
1.6.3
Rotary Valve:........................................................................................ 20
1.6.4
1.7
2.
Conclusion:................................................................................................. 20
Catalyst Preparation..................................................................................... 21
2.1
2.2
Assumptions............................................................................................... 22
2.2.1
Mass Balance.................................................................................... 22
2.2.2
Terminal Velocity...............................................................................22
2.2.3
Fluidisation....................................................................................... 22
2.2.4
Slurry................................................................................................ 22
2.2.5
Hydrocyclone.................................................................................... 22
2.2.6
Drying............................................................................................... 22
2.2.7
Pumping............................................................................................ 22
2.2.8
Filter.................................................................................................. 23
2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
Design Calculations................................................................................. 26
2.6.1
2.6.2
Slurry................................................................................................ 28
2.6.3
Hydrocyclone...................................................................................28
2.6.4
Drying............................................................................................... 29
2.7
2.8
Conclusion.................................................................................................. 30
3.
3.1
3.2
Alternatives to design................................................................................32
3.3
3.4
Mass Balances............................................................................................ 33
3.4.1
3.4.2
Energy Balance:...................................................................................... 35
3.5.1
4.
3.6
Preliminary PFD....................................................................................... 38
3.7
Design Calculations................................................................................. 39
3.8
3.9
Conclusions............................................................................................. 42
Purification.................................................................................................... 56
5.1
5.1.1
Acid Purification................................................................................ 56
5.1.2
Filtration............................................................................................ 57
5.1.3
Drying............................................................................................... 57
5.2
Mass/Energy Balance.............................................................................. 57
5.3
5.4
Design Calculations................................................................................. 59
5.6
Alternative Designs................................................................................. 63
5.7
Cost Estimation....................................................................................... 63
5.8
Assumptions............................................................................................ 66
5.9 Conclusion.................................................................................................. 67
Bibliography......................................................................................................... 68
Appendix B: Calculations..................................................................................70
Nomenclature................................................................................................... 70
Mass Balance.................................................................................................... 70
Mass Balance Matrix......................................................................................... 72
Terminal Velocity............................................................................................... 73
Terminal Velocity Matrix.................................................................................... 73
Fluidisation....................................................................................................... 74
Slurry................................................................................................................ 77
4
Slurry Matrix..................................................................................................... 78
Hydrocyclones.................................................................................................. 78
Hydrocyclone Matrix......................................................................................... 80
Drying............................................................................................................... 81
Drying Matrix.................................................................................................... 82
Executive Summary
Ultra Nano is a company that produces Multi-wall Carbon Nanotubes (MWCNTs)
using Fe2O3/MgO. These MWCNTs are used in the production of electrochemical
double layer capacitors and flat panel displays. Ultra Nano plans to use the
manufacturers of these products as its target market. This report explores the
design to produce these MWCNTs using a system composed of a storage system
for the catalysts, a catalyst preparation system, a fluidised bed. The waste and
products out of the fluidised bed is cleaned using gas cleaning and purification.
The hoppers used to store the raw materials, use mass flow and stainless steel to
help avoid erosion. Three hoppers were designed, with rotary valves, that are
connected to a pneumatic conveying system to transport the raw materials to
the catalyst preparation stage.
The catalyst preparation system focuses on the use of a scaled up fluidised bed
reactor. It combines MgO, Fe(NO3)3.9H2O, and ethanol to form 12092kg per day of
a supported metal oxide catalyst in the form of Fe 2O3/MgO. The waste products
over the system are NO2 and water, while the ethanol is recycled. The entire
process uses 131.8kW, while the system costs approximately $606,690 to
construct.
The Fluidised Bed Reactor uses Ar gas and C 2H2 has to produce carbon
nanotubes using MgO /Fe 2O3 catalysts. The reactor works in 30min batches
producing a total of 4750kg of CNT per day. Reactor has a diameter of 1.5m and
a height of 6.187 m.
The fluidised bed produces a un-purified product at 16964 kg/day. This product is
mixed with 57154L of 40 wt% HCl and processed in a microwave assisted
digester to remove the catalyst and substrate. The liquid and dissolved ions are
removed via a decanting centrifuge and the resulting cake dried to produce 5000
kg of product per day at 95% purity.
For the gas cleaning system, two Stairmand High Flow Rate Cyclones in parallel
were designed, with a flow rate of 4.57m3/s each and a cut diameter of 10m.
The diameter of these cyclones was 0.75m, velocity of 10.20m/s and a pressure
drop of 1049.14Pa. These dimensions all lie within the typical values for a well
designed cyclone. It is recommended that the solids discharge from the cyclone
be fed back into the stream from the FBR heading to the Purification stage.
The overall cost of equipment for the entire plant come to $8,279,274
mass of MgO
Mass of iron nitrate
mass of Ar
mass of C2H2
mass of air going in
mass of water going
in
0.13
0.024
3.9701
23
0.5540
44
13337
00
5.11E+
09
kg/s
kg/s
kg/s
kg/s
kg/s
kg/s
mass of NO2
mass of Water
mass of HCL
mass of MgCl2
mass of FeCl3
mass of
amorphous carbon
12910320
0
19841064
884
20443872
8.3
22789886
81
94168318
.26
kg/s
kg/s
kg/s
kg/s
kg/s
1468494 kg/s
System
Total Fixed
Capital ($)
871,460
Overall
Estimate
The table
the total fixed
for the various
plant.
Catalyst preparation
606,690
4,945,010
156,114
CNT purification
Total cost
Cost
below gives
capital costs
systems in the
1,700,000
$8,279,274
The total cost is $8,279,274 which when looking at a plant producing 5000kg per
day of a high value product, seems like a small investment. Granted that this
report does not include a running costs, it the value appears rather small.
The deviations in the cost for the various systems within the plant require further
attention. Whilst varying values are to be expected, the differing order of
magnitude between the largest value of $4,945,010 and the smallest of
$156,114 could be attributed to several reasons. The most probable reason
would be due to the amount of detail that each individual went to on their
respective system. Those who focused not only on the core equipment and
processes present, but went further and added additional extras such as
conveyor beds and valves etc., would obviously have a greater total fixed capital
cost.
The alternative reasoning behind the large value deviation would be sources to
the use of PTW. Whilst the book provides excellent detail on more common
process instruments, those that are less common and more difficult to establish
size to cost relationships are void from the book.
Unfortunately this cost estimate is rather dry. Various improvements could be
made in the form of a running cost estimate and the expected product values.
However a report such as this focuses on good design and scale up
primarily, and economic feasibility secondly.
1.
1.1 Description:
1.1.1 Hopper
The short-term storage of particulate solids in process plants can present
problems which are often underestimated and can frequently cause flow
stoppages.
1.1.2 Pneumatic conveying
Pneumatic conveying is the transportation of particulate solids using pressurised
gases most commonly air. Until quite recently most pneumatic transportation
systems were done in dilute suspension, using large volumes of air at high
velocity (Rhodes M. , 2008). Today there is an increased interest in dense phase
(where particles are not fully suspended) transportation. Dense phase results in
low air requirements, thus reducing energy costs, and also lower pipeline erosion
rates.
1.1.3 Rotary Valve
A rotary valve is often used to enter or extract material from two chambers with
different pressures. This is extremely useful in pneumatic conveying as solids can
be fed into the air stream at a controlled rate against air pressure.
10
Figure 1: Mass Flow and Funnel Flow in Hoppers: (a) Funnel Flow; (b) Mass
Flow (Rhodes M. , 2008)
Apart from the different flows, there are many different shapes of hoppers
available. Figure 2 shows a few of the different mass flow bins available. The
conical hopper (a) is the simplest design.
While there are many alternatives for hopper design, the simplest and most ideal
cases were selected for this project; Mass flow and a conical hopper.
Alternatives to pneumatic conveying and the rotary valve are less likely.
Pneumatic conveying is a highly successful technique used to transport
particulate solids, thus it is the most appropriate technique to use. The same
applies for rotary valves.
to the fluidised bed reactor. MgO and Fe(NO 3)3.9H2O flows are also transported
via pneumatic conveying.
An important part of this system that is not accounted for within the mass
balance is that of the air that is used in the pneumatic conveyors. From the
calculations in the following sections, the volume of air was approximated to be
0.11m3s-1 for the MgO, 0.42m3s-1 for the Fe(NO3)3.9H2O, and 0.12m3s-1 for the
Fe2O3/MgO conveyors.
An energy balance was not needed over this system due its nature and the way
it as designed. By using gravity to feed the ethanol, any power requirements
associated with the ethanol in this stream are negated. Whilst the pneumatic
conveying does require some power to reach the superficial gas velocity, under
these circumstances the power requirement was determined to be negligible.
Hence the power requirement over the catalyst raw materials storage and
delivery system is assumed to be 0.
12
13
y
c
14
Figure 3 is the sheer cell test used to calculate (angle of internal friction), c
(compacting stress) and y (unconfined yield stress).
The angle of internal friction was already calculated to be = 45. c and y were
determined from the ends of the semi-circle as shown in Figure 3
Table 1: Compacting and Unconfined Yield Stresses
237.705 kPa
482.3 kPa
654.55 kPa
34.45 kPa
68.9 kPa
96.46 kPa
C
= y Error: Reference source not found) for the
ff
limiting condition for flow was also graphed, revealing the conditions under
which flow will occur for the powder in the hopper.
C
= y
ff
Equation 1
15
P
oy
lw
yd
ne
or
F
m
il
ao
lw
(
PF
ou
n
w
dc
et
ri
Fo
ln
o
w
F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
)
Figure 5 clearly shows the critical value for flow is crit=7.5 kPa. All stresses above
this value will cause flow in the hopper.
The minimum hopper outlet diameter is determined by the equation:
B=
H () crit
B g
Equation 2
crit
Where H() is a factor determined by the slope of the hopper wall.
H ( )=2.0+
60
Equation 3
From Error: Reference source not found andError: Reference source not found; B=
42.4 cm for the MgO hopper.
Summarizing, to achieve mass flow without risk of blockage, we require a
stainless steel conical hopper with maximum semi-included angle of cone, 14
and a circular outlet with a diameter of at least 42.4 cm.
The same procedure was followed for the other two hoppers containing iron
nitrate and the other containing magnesium oxide impregnated with iron oxide.
Table 2: Summary of Hopper Design Parameters
Maximum
14
Minimum
B
42.4 cm
Volum
e
8.40
m3
Heig
ht
4.75
m
Diamet
er
1.5 m
14
101.4 cm
3.64
m3
1.16
m
2.0 m
MgO/Fe2O3 Hopper
14
43.6 cm
3.09
m3
1.75
m
1.5 m
Magnesium Oxide
Hopper
Each hopper is made from stainless steel and has the capacity to store 3 days
worth of raw materials.
1.5 m
2.0 m
1.5 m
16
42.4
43.6
101.4
MgO
MgO/Fe2O3
Iron Nitrate
Figure 6: Dimensions of each hopper
U salt =
/2
4 M P 10 g D
f
( 2 )2
1/( +1 )
Equation 4
U = 1.5Usalt
U = 1.5 x 8.962
U = 13.44 m/s
The next step is to calculate the pressure losses through the horizontal and
vertical sections and the bends.
Horizontal Sections:
The pressure loss in the horizontal sections of the transport line is given by:
2
U 2 p ( 1 H ) U pH 2 f g f U 2 L H 2 f p p ( 1 H ) U pH L H
p H = f H fH +
+
+
2
2
D
D
Equation
Equation 6
G= p (1 H ) U pH
Equation
Thus,
H =1
G
=0.998 , and,
p U pH
U fH =
U
=13.46
H
m/s
Rep was calculated using the transitional equation and therefore C D = 2.853
17
U U p
3 f D
f p=
CD f
=0.019
8 p x
Up
Therefore using Error: Reference source not found, pH = 16297.24 Pa, taking fg
= 0.005
Vertical Sections:
The pressure loss in the vertical sections of the transport line is given by:
2 f g f U 2 LV
g
pv =
+0.057 GL v
+ ( 1 v ) g Lv + f v g Lv
D
D p
U pv =
U
U T
v
Equation 8
Equation 9
2v U T U T +U +
G
+ U=0
p v
Equation 10
Total pressure loss = loss across vertical sections + loss across horizontal
sections + loss across bends
18
These calculations were repeated for the other conveying lines. Table 3:
Summary of Pneumatic Conveying Lines shows the summary of results for all the
pneumatic conveying lines.
Pipe
Diameter
(mm)
PH
(Pa)
Pv
(Pa)
Ben
ds
Allowable
Pressure
loss (bar)
Total
Pressure
loss (bar)
MgO
51
16297.
24
1561.5
45
0.2
0.2
Iron
Nitrate
27
7443.8
7
710.36
0.1
0.1
MgO/Fe2
O3
55
5310.3
5
1443.6
46
0.1
0.99
The best way to feed ethanol into the Catalyst Preparation is through a gravity
fed tank, eliminating the need for a pump. The tank is again to be made from
19
96 cm
V = 0.75 m3
1m
Purchased
Cost CITATION Pet03 \l 3081
Total Physical Plant
Cost CITATION Pet03 \l 3081
MgO
$30,000
Iron Nitrate
$20,000
MgO/Fe2O3
$15,000
$84,000
$56,000
$42,000
CITATION Pet03 \l 3081 Purchased cost calculated from (Peters, Timmerhaus, &
West, 2003) fig12-52, pg557 for stainless steel
20
Total Fixed
Capital CITATION Pet03 \l 3081
$113,400
$75,600
$56,700
1.6.2Ethanol Tank:
Table 5: Cost estimate of ethanol tank
Purchased Cost1
Ethanol Tank
$50,000
$170,000
$246,500
$94,500
$132,300
Purchased
Cost CITATION Pet03 \l 3081
Total Physical Plant Cost2
CITATION Pet03 \l 3081 Total physical plant cost calculated from (Sinnott,
2006)table 6.1, pg 252. Includes installation, piping, instrumentation, electrical,
buildings, utilities, storages, site development and ancillary buildings
CITATION Pet03 \l 3081 Total fixed capital calculated from (Sinnott, 2006) table
6.1, pg 252. Includes design and engineering, contractors fee and contingency.
CITATION Pet03 \l 3081 Purchased cost calculated from (Peters, Timmerhaus, &
West, 2003) fig 12-64, pg 575
CITATION Pet03 \l 3081 Purchased cost calculated from (Peters, Timmerhaus, &
West, 2003) fig 12-63, pg 575
21
$246,960
1.7Conclusion:
Overall, 3 hopper storage devices (with rotary valves) will be used to store the
raw materials. These are connected to a pneumatic conveying system that will
transport the particulates to the catalyst preparation. These hoppers use mass
flow and are made from stainless steel to help avoid corrosion.
The final fixed capital investment for the storage of raw materials = $871,460
(US dollars). Depending on the current exchange rate this value will
increase/decrease.
22
2.
Catalyst Preparation
The term catalyst preparation defines itself. It is the preparation of a catalyst that
will be used further on in another reaction. A catalyst increases the rate of a
chemical reaction without be consumed in the reaction itself. Preparing one can
be as simple as adding two chemicals together, or more complex such as the one
that this chapter outlines
The catalyst preparation method used with the report Mauron et al. utilises a
supported metal oxide as a catalyst to the reaction. The conventional
approaches to preparing this material include equilibrium adsorption, grafting,
co-precipitation and impregnation. The key function in characterising supported
metal oxides is the amount of the supported metal oxide relative to the
underlying support surface area. Thus it is important to use an underlying
support substance with a high surface area as the catalytic activity correlates to
the surface density-dependant structure of the supported species (Regalbuto,
2006).
The method utilised by Mauron et al. involves a magnesium oxide (100 m 2 g-1)
supported iron oxide powder, produced by impregnation in an iron nitrate
ethanol solution. Its purpose is to aid in the deposition of carbon nanotubes from
acetylene by chemical vapour deposition
24
2.2 Assumptions
Due to the nature of the problem and various undefined elements within the
recipe, several assumptions have been made throughout the calculations so as
to give the best model of data.
2.2.1 Mass Balance
The major impurities within the final product consist of Fe 2O3, MgO, and
amorphous carbon.
Amorphous carbon accounts for 1% of the final impurities.
All carbon in the product are CNTs.
CNT yield is 28% of unpurified mass (Mauron et al., 2003).
2.2.2
Terminal Velocity
The Fe2O3/MgO density is a combination of 95wt% MgO, and 5wt% Fe 2O3.
The particle diameter is 100m.
Particle diameters are of homogenous size when entering the fluidised
bed.
2.2.3 Fluidisation
The recipe states it takes 20 minutes to produce the mixture, thus it is
assumed that at any point in time, there is 20 minutes worth of catalyst
reactants present.
The particles are all spherical and pack tightly together.
An approximate ratio of 1:3 for radius to height for the column.
The NO2 released in the fluidised bed reactor (FBR) will evaporate from the
reactor solution as its boiling point is 21.1C.
The Fe2O3/MgO will settle to the bottom of the FBR provided the ethanol
flowrate is kept below its terminal settling velocity, and above the MgO
terminal settling velocity.
The minor dilution of the ethanol with water has a negligible effect on the
solution density, and therefore any results using this value.
2.2.4 Slurry
The dilution of the ethanol with a minor amount of water has negligible
effects on the viscosity, density, and therefore any results using this value.
2.2.5 Hydrocyclone
A low flow, high efficiency Stairmand hydrocyclone is used.
The hydrocyclone operates at 90% efficiency.
2.2.6 Drying
Initial temperature is 21.1C.
The heat capacity of the Fe2O3/MgO is the equivalent to the heat capacity
of MgO.
Only Fe2O3/MgO is left after the drying process.
The heat exchangers are only 95% efficient.
25
2.2.7 Pumping
The only drops in pressure in the system are attributed to the various
pieces of equipment.
The centrifugal pumps used are only 60% efficient.
2.2.8 Filter
Due to a lack of supporting calculations, the filter was not included in the
mass, energy, and cost balances. Whilst it would be valuable to have this
data, the filter was included to show how almost all of the SMO could be
retrieved for later use.
MgO = 11227.72kg
Fe(NO3)3.9H2O = 4374.17kg
Ethanol = 72008.75kg
Catalyst Preparation
Fe2O3/MgO = 12092.14kg
Ethanol = 72008.75kg
Water = 1755.69kg
Figure 8: Catalyst preparation mass balance
Due to the undefined nature of the recipe in terms of the products final
composition and quality, it is assumed the three major impurities accounting for
5% of the final product are amorphous carbon (assumed to be 1% of the total
waste), Fe2O3, and MgO. The yield was determined to be 28% (Mauron et al.,
2003) at the system specifications, thus denoting that the amount of Fe 2O3/MgO,
the supported metal oxide (SMO), required was approximately 12092kg per day.
With an iron to magnesium oxide ratio of 5% this corresponded to 4374kg of
Fe(NO3)3.9H2O, and 11228kg of MgO.
A substantial amount of NO2, 1494kgper day, is formed from the degradation of
Fe(NO3)3.9H2O to Fe2O3. This product is not required on site and could potentially
be sold externally. Potential uses for NO 2 include use as an anesthetic and use
within the automotive industry to provided extra power to engines. Water is also
produced from of Fe(NO3)3.9H2O and as can be seen in the PID, will be used
within the heat exchanger CP-HX01 as an extra source of energy, thus saving
money.
26
While a large amount of ethanol, 72009kg per day, flows through the system on
a daily basis, it will be recycled hence saving money and reducing the storage
requirement to approximately 1 to 2 days.
2.4
Name
Power
CP-D01
Balance343.16k
W
There
are
preparation
CP595.35k
to dry the
DC01
W
the pumps.
CPfor
the
-45.83kW
HX01
calculated
heat
the
CPthe
latent
HX02
781.87k
energy
W
heat
for
the
Total
110.81k
power
to
W
plus
the
Name
pressure
Q (L s-1)
of
following
P CP-
CPCP01
CPCP02
1.181
0.506
300000
Preliminary Energy
two sections to the catalyst
energy balance; the power used
SMO, and the power required for
The amount of power required
drying section of the system is
by finding the energy required to
fluids to their boiling points plus
heat of vapourisation, minus the
conserved through the use of
exchangers. The power required
centrifugal pumps includes the
pump to the desired flow rate
power required to overcome the
drops across the various pieces
equipment, as shown in the
equation:
HX02
Table
8
power
Table
9
power
(heat
been
energy
Appendix B.
P CPHX02
300000
P CPC01
1405.7
7
Total
2.767k
W
18.2kW
Power=
Q Pumping
pump efficiency
27
The total energy use is 131.8kW. This is a realistic amount of energy for a
process of this scale and whilst further energy savings can be made by
increasing the efficiency of the components, a large savings in energy could only
come from the alteration of the design.
28
29
Shape
Fe2O3
Density (kg m3
)
5240
MgO
3580
cubic
Fe(NO3)3.9H2O
1680
monoclinic
Ethanol
789
Fe2O3/MgO
3663
trigonal
trigonal
Whilst there is no specific density of the SMO catalyst, it suggested that there is
1-6 wt.% uptake rate (Stobbe et al., 1991) of the Fe in the Fe 2O3/MgO
combination, which corresponds to the 5% ratio used within the recipe. Assuming
the Fe2O3 is deposited on the inside of the MgO, a density can be estimated using
the values in Table 10by:
3
Determining the drag coefficient using equation 1.1 for both the MgO and the
SMO and then substituting them into equation 1.2 gives terminal velocities of
0.0532ms-1 and 0.0517ms-1 for the SMO and MgO respectively. The terminal
velocity of the Fe(NO 3)3.9H2O is not required because it is less dense than the
MgO and is assumed to have a much lower terminal velocity and hence will not
be a problem.
CD=
4 g d 3p ( p )
3 2
1.1
30
V t=
p
1.2
d p
The significance of these values cannot be stressed enough. They imply that
provided the flowrate of the ethanol in the FBR is above 0.0517ms -1 and below
0.0532ms-1 the desired product, the SMO, will settle out of the solution using
gravity settling. Provided these flowrates are above the minimum fluidisation
velocities for the FBR, any need for costly apparatus or energy requirements are
prevented.
However this theory relies on the assumption that all particle sizes are
homogenous on entering the FBR and do not clump together. Provided this
assumption holds, it is feasible that the terminal velocity of the SMO will actually
increase as the MgO attracts the Fe 2O3. While the changing density has already
been accounted for, the increase in size has not. Thus as the SMO develops, it
the Fe2O3 would not only develop on the inside of the MgO, but also the surface
resulting in a larger size and therefore a faster settling velocity.
Due to the nature of the gravity settling method (the SMO will deposit when it is
ready) there is no real need to specify how long the particles should remain in
the FBR thus it is up to the designers discretion to determine the size of the
reactor. To keep consistent with the recipe, it was assumed that the reactor can
hold 20 minutes worth of reactants.
Before determine the FBR dimensions, and despite knowing the shapes of
particles (as shown in Table 8), it was assumed that all the particles were
spherical and the bed packed tightly. This was to simplify things greatly and
allowed the voidage to be determined easily by equation 1.3.
( 3 2 ) 1.3
=
The first step in designing a FBR is determining the pressure drop. Through the
use of equation 1.4 this was determined to be 13250Pa.
P=
Following this calculation the bed height and was calculated to be 0.64m using
equation 1.5. The bed height and the cross-sectional area of the bed are
functions of each other thus to give the reactor a realistic shape a ratio of 1:3 for
the radius to height was aimed for.
H=
P
1.5
( 1 ) ( p f ) g
The final and most important calculation was the determination of the minimum
fluidisation velocity using equation 1.6. It is important that this value is below the
31
terminal velocity of the MgO because if it is not then the gravity settling is no
longer be a viable option as the MgO particles would also settle out and further
processing would be required.
U mf =
( p ) g d 2p
1650
1.6
The minimum reactor volume of 79.94L was simply determined from the crosssectional area multiplied by the height of the reactor. However if one was to
assume that the reaction requires fresh ethanol then the volume would be closer
to 1371L, in which case the dimensions would be different to those currently
stated. In this case the volume of 79.94L will be used so as to reduce the cost of
the plant.
Provided the FBR is operated at approximately 21.1C or above (easy as this is
almost room temperature), the NO2 in the solution will boil and can be collected
for sale.
2.6.2 Slurry
After the FBR the SMO will come out as a slurry in a water/ethanol solution with a
ratio of 1.89% to 98.11% respectively. The viscosity of a slurry can be measured
if the particles settle slowly. For dilute suspensions of fine particles, slurries may
exhibit Newtonian behaviour. In this case, the viscosity of a very dilute
suspension (solids volume fraction less than 2%) of uniform, spherical particles
can be described by the theoretical equation derived by Einstein (Einstein,
1906).
s = f ( 1+2.5 C v ) 1.7
Solving this equation gives a resulting solution viscosity of 0.0013Pa.s, a minor
change from the previous viscosity of 0.0012Pa.s. This increase, though minor,
will increase the amount of friction in the pipe and hence the amount of power
required to pump the fluid. The required pressure per unit length of pipe is solved
using equation 1.8 and determined to be 0.156Pam -1.
P 32 U
=
1.8
2
L
dp
An important factor to keep in mind is the critical deposition velocity. If the flow
of the slurry is to reach this value then the SMO will deposit on the bottom of the
pipe, resulting blockage problems at bends and pump problems. Using equation
1.9 a critical deposition value of 0.037ms -1 was determined. This will not be a
problem unless the pipe has an unnecessarily large cross-sectional area.
Vc=F gD
p
1 1.9
f
this case will result in lower power requirement and hence cost less to run
(Rhodes M. , 1998).
2.6.3 Hydrocyclone
A hydrocyclone operates very similarly to a cyclone, with the only difference
being that instead of a gas as the fluid medium, a liquid is used. The purpose of
this cyclone is to reduce the amount of SMO that needs to filtered prior to being
sent to the next stage in the system. Using the excel function Goalseek and
setting the collection efficiency to 90%, the equiprobable cut diameter was found
to be 33m using equation 1.10. Using this value the cyclone body diameter was
determined to be 0.12m and the characteristic velocity is 0.099ms -1.
(d p)=
1
1.10
d 50 2
1+
dp
( )
Using equation 1.11 a pressure drop of 1405Pa was calculated. This is a low
value and in the long run will savings made due to decrease filtration costs will
repay the initial investment.
f U2
P=Eu
1.11
2
( )
33
Cyclone
type
Stairmand
, H.E.
Final
2.5
0.5
0.40
2
0.25
1
0.05
0
0.37
5
0.03
8
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.05
0
0.02
0
0.05
0
0.05
0
2.6.4 Drying
The drying stage is the most energy intensive stage with the catalyst preparation
system. It is here that the majority of the running costs will be incurred. It
consists of two different drying apparatuses, a traditional dryer and a distillation
column. The dimensions of these two systems have not been presented, however
the most important aspect of energy consumption has.
The method of drying involves the 90% SMO stream and its respective
water/ethanol solution being dried in a traditional drier. The SMO is then carried
on towards the next system, while the water/ethanol gas flows to the distillation
column. From here it is met with the fine flow from the cyclone. The SMO from
the fine flow deposits at the bottom of the distillation column before being
collected and joined the SMO from the coarse flow. The ethanol and water then
separate at their respective boiling points of 100C and 78.4C. From here the
water enters the heat exchanger stream after CP-HX02 while the ethanol is
condensed in CP-HX02 to be recycled.
Using equation 1.12, a total power requirement of 938.52kW was determined.
FBR
Cyclone
Dryer
2 Pumps
20,000
Distillati
on
Column
30,000
27,000
8,500
2 Heat
exchange
rs
30,000
Purchased
Cost ($)
25,000
Total
physical
plant cost
($)
70,000
56,000
84,000
76,500
23,800
84,000
Total Fixed
94,500
75,600
113,400
102,060
32,130
113,400
34
capital ($)
Several assumptions were made when calculating the costs for the equipment.
Stainless steel was selected as the material of choice due to is properties. It is
secure choice as it has high corrosive resistance, tension strengths, and
longevity, despite its slightly higher price. The total physical plant cost is
calculated from (Sinnott, 2006) table 6.1, pg 252. It includes the installation,
piping, instrumentation, electrical, buildings, utilities, storages, site development
and ancillary buildings. The total fixed capital is calculated from (Sinnott, 2006)
table 6.1, pg 252. This also includes design and engineering, contractors fee and
contingency.
When combining the costs of the individual components, a total value $606,690
reached. For a plant of this scale the total cost appears somewhat low, however
the simple explanation exists that this is a preliminary report and various
components were left out so as to provide greater detail on the major equipment
pieces within the plant.
2.8 Conclusion
The scaling up of a literature recipe to a 5000kg per day plant is difficult. Major
challenges included selecting the correct equipment so as to minimise initial
costs and running costs. The equipment chose within this report costs a total of
$606,690 to purchase and install while the power required for the plant is
131.8kW. A more detailed cost analysis is required so as to determine the costs
of materials as well as the selling prices of the potential product. Labour,
maintenance, and other utilities also need to be calculated to get close to a
realistic estimate of economic feasibility. This chapter focused on the design and
calculations process over the economic feasibility of the plant, thus if a more
detailed analysis of the financial situation of the plant is desired, then further
investigation is required.
3.
35
The figure above is a basic image of the FBR being used. (Refer to section 3.6 for
PFD) The FBR runs in 30min batches ensuring that those reactants are in contact
with each other for the 20 min residual time. The gas ( argon and acetylene)
enter the FBR through the streams called argon in and acetylene in. Before
entering the FBR the gases are stored in tanks at double the atmospheric
pressure. The catalyst (Fe 2O3 and MgO) enters the FBR from a bucket conveyer
belt from the solid feed stream above. There is an automatic valve at the
entrance of the solid feed stream to the FBR which is only opened for the first 30
sec of each batch to ensure that all the catalyst required reacts and contacts the
gas for the required amount of time. There is another valve at the exit of the FBR
into the solid discharge stream (through which the CNT and catalysts and
amorphous carbon are released). The valve is only opened for the last 10mins of
each batch and the solid discharge falls directly to a tank where the smaller
amorphous carbon (Fujita, Ishida, Ichihashi, Ochiai, Kaito, & Matsui, 2003) is
filtered out and is collected into a tank for disposal. There is a valve in the
filtering tank which is opened after 10 mins to allow the CNTs + catalyst to fall
into another tank to be purified (see section 5). The gas out stream contains
hydrogen gas, argon, and a minute amount of CNT and catalysts. This stream is
connected to the cyclone (see section 4).
other electrode. (Cheap Tubes Inc, 2008). Arc Discharge and laser ablation are
similar in that they both use thermal energy to produce CNTs. Laser ablation uses
a laser source to cause high temperatures on a carbon electrode so that carbon
is vaporised. This carbon is then cooled using a carrier gas stream. This results in
the formation of CNTs and other carbon by-products.
the gases are entering the FBR at atmospheric temperature and pressure
0.001g of CNT is being produced
Each batch is 30 min
The volume of argon (Ar) going into the FBR is 42cm 3 per batch. (Mauron,
Emmenegger, Sudan, Wenger, Rentsch, & Zuttel, Fluidised-bed CVD synthesis of
carbon nanotubes on Fe2O3/MgO, 2003) Using PV=nRT (assuming an ideal gas),
there is 0.00172 moles of Ar going into the FBR per batch. (as P = 101325 Pa, R
= 8.314 m3Pa/(molK), T = 298 K)
The volume of Acetylene (C2H2) going into the FBR is 368 cm 3 per batch.
(Mauron, Emmenegger, Sudan, Wenger, Rentsch, & Zuttel, Fluidised-bed CVD
37
3.4.2
mole of Ar coming
moles of Ar beingused thelabarotary amount of product
3.4.2.4
Gas leaving the FBR
Assuming that all the Ar entering the FBR leaves the FBR at the gas outlet, moles
of Ar leaving the FBR per batch = 178923.9 moles. The FBR is operating at 650 OC
(Mauron, Emmenegger, Sudan, Wenger, Rentsch, & Zuttel, Fluidised-bed CVD
synthesis of carbon nanotubes on Fe2O3/MgO, 2003). Assuming the Ar is an ideal
gas and is leaving the FBR at atmospheric pressure, using PV=nRT the volume of
Ar leaving the FBR is 13551.42 per batch.
Assuming that all the hydrogen in the C 2H2 that enters the FBR becomes
hydrogen gas that leaves the FBR through the gas outlet, moles of H 2 leaving the
FBR per batch = 38333.33 moles. Assuming that the H 2 is leaving the FBR at the
same conditions as the Ar, volume of H2 leaving the FBR per batch = 2903.31 m3.
It can also be assumed that 1% of the CNT + catalysts are lost through the gas
outlet in the FBR. Thus the amount of CNT + catalyst in the gas outlet of the FBR
per 30 min batch = 3.56 kg (1% of 356.09kg see section 3.423).
Solid feed
MgO = 6251.11 mole
Fe2O3=112.77 mole
Gas discharge
MgO = 62.51 mole
Fe2O3=1.13 mole
C (in CNT) =
104.17*0.01*103/12mole=86.80mole
Ar=178923.9 moles
H2 = 38333.3 mole (that is moles of H
=76666.6 mole)
Solid discharge
MgO = 6188.60 mole
Fe2O3=111.64 mole
C (in amorphous Carbon) =
815.83*103/12mole = 67985.8 mole
C (in CNT) =
104.17*0.99*103/12mole=8594.0mole
Ar gas
178923.9 moles
3.5 Energy
Solid feed
2141.45 KW
Ar gas
0 KW
Gas discharge
512.84KW
Heating required by the FBR =
energy in energy out (assuming no
heat loss)
= (512.84+92236186.1)(2141.45+0+4828.94)KW
=92229728.55
Solid discharge
92236186.1 KW
39
C2H
Figure 13: energy balance
over
FBR refer to
2 gas
Table 13 for calculations4828.94KW
Hf^
Cp
C P dT
^
H
Total
energy
from
stream
226.75
KJ/mole#
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
25OC
226.75
KJ/mole
4828.94KW
Ar stream going in
0
KJ/mole##
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
25OC
0 KJ/mole
0 KW
Catalysts
going in
MgO
601.8
KJ/mole#
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
25OC
601.8
KJ/mole
2089.95KW
Fe2O3
822.2
KJ/Mole#
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
25OC
822.2
KJ/Mole
51.50 KW
Total
Gas
discharge
stream
2141.45
KW
Ar
0 KJ/mole
#
1.3439*1
0-5##
1.9894*1
0-3
11.043
2.8*109
650OC
2797069.2
1 KJ/mol
278034758
.5 KW
MgO
601.8
KJ/mol#
10.86##
0.001197
208700
7718.45
650OC
8320.26
KJ/mol
288.95 KW
Fe2O3
822.2
KJ/mol#
24.72##
0.01604
423400
22532.35
650OC
23354.55
KJ/mol
14.63KW
H2
0 KJ/mol#
3.249##
#
0.000422
8300
2210.504
650OC
2210.50
KJ/mol
47075.55
KW
CNT(i.e. C)
0 KJ/mol#
1.771##
0.000771
-86700
1204.05
650OC
1204.05
512.84KW
40
KJ/mol
Total
Solid
discharge
278082650
.5
MgO
601.8
KJ/mol#
10.86##
0.001197
208700
7718.45
650OC
8320.26
KJ/mol
28605.95
KW
Fe2O3
822.2
KJ/mol#
24.72##
0.01604
423400
22532.35
650OC
23354.55
KJ/mol
1448.49
KW
C
(including
CNT and
amorphou
s)
0 KJ/mol#
1.771##
#
0.000771
-86700
1204.05
650OC
1204.05
KJ/mol
92206131.
64 KW
Total
92236186.
1
41
Figure 14: PFD of the FBR design (refer to section 3.1 for description)
42
p f
U mf =
This gave a minimum fluidisation velocity of 0.00459m/s. From this Re mf was
calculated to be 0.003992.
U*
and
d =d p
d*
( p ) g
2
were
calculated
by
2
U =U
( p ) g
1
3
and
from
1
3
The graph in (Harris, 2008) was used to determine that the particles in the FBR
are class A particles which are suitable for conventional fluidised beds. The
terminal velocity (UT) was then calculated (assuming that the particles are all
spheres). Using this, the bubble size and the bubble velocity was determined
through
43
UT
( 2)
2
g
d BV =
Using
B=
0.5
UU mf
UB
(Rhodes M. , 2008). Thus using (1-)=(1- B)(1-mf) the voidage in the FBR can be
determined. This allows for the determination of the bed density 948.09kg/m 3 (as
bed density = (1-)*particle density). As the mass of the particles in the bed is
known (356.09kg/30 min) the volume of the bed can be determined (0.3756 m 3).
Using this and the cross-sectional area of the bed the height of the bed can be
determined as 0.213m.
Assuming Umf=Umb (Rhodes M. , 2008) U-U mb = 0.830. Using this and the 1.5m
FBR diameter the Transport disengagement height (TDH) is determined to be 3.5
m (figure 17-8 (Perry & Green)). Assuming the splash zone is 10% of the TDH,
and the dilute transport height is 50% of the TDH, the splash zone height =
0.021m and the dilute transport height = 1.75m. This results in a total freeboard
height of 5.271m. The height of the plenum chamber is assumed to be 0.7 m to
allow room for maintenance when required. The quartz layer place in between
the sieve and the bed can be assumed to be 0.003m (Mauron, Emmenegger,
Sudan, Wenger, Rentsch, & Zuttel, Fluidised-bed CVD synthesis of carbon
nanotubes on Fe2O3/MgO, 2003). This results in a total height of 6.187m.
44
1.75m
Total height
of FBR =
6.187m
5.271
m
3.5m
0.021
m
0.213
m
0.7
m
Figure 15: Heights of the FBR (Rhodes M. , 2008)
The pressure drop over the FBR is then calculated to be 1976.44 Pa using
P=H ( 1 ) ( p f ) g
Pa (see section 4) and that that gas leaves the FBR at the top at atmospheric
pressure, the assumption that the inlet gas is pressurised to 2 atm is a sufficient
assumption. This is because the addition of the pressure drop over both the FBR
and cyclone to the atmospheric pressure (104345.58 Pa) is less than 2 atm
(202640 Pa). This confirms the view that this pressure will be enough to cause a
driving force that forces the gas to move into the FBR when the valve at the gas
inlet to the FBR is opened.
The solid feed stream is a bucket conveyer that must carry 251.92kg to the valve
at the FBR by the time each new batch begins. This it can be assumed that the
conveyer takes 20 mins to carry all the mass to the valve. There will be 10 mins
in between each batch for the conveyer. Thus the conveyer belt needs to be
able to carry 0.21 kg/min of the catalyst to the valve at the FBR. This valve will
open for 30 secs ensuring that all the catalyst falls into the FBR.
The pressurised tanks from which the Ar and the C 2H2 enters the FBR must be
large enough to have enough gas to last a week. Thus the Ar tank must be large
enough to have 735036.3m3 (2187.60795*2*24*7) while the C2H2 tank must be
large enough to carry 157476.9 m3 (468.681*2*24*7).
45
The solid discharge from the FBR drops by gravity to a tank which contains a
filter that has sieves with a diameter of 8nm. This is so the amorphous carbon
(with a diameter of 5nm (Fujita, Ishida, Ichihashi, Ochiai, Kaito, & Matsui, 2003))
formed in the FBR can be separated from the CNT and catalyst particles. The
discharge straight from the FBR will stay in the 2 m3 filter tank for 5 mins. The
amorphous carbon will be collected and disposed of After the 5mins a valve will
open which will allow the CNT + catalyst particles (352.5254kg/30 min batch) to
move into another 2 m3 tank, from where they will be purified (see section 5).
In designing the furnace used for this heat exchanger, it can be assumed that
coal will be used as the fuel. Thus the specific heat capacity of carbon can be
used. An assumption can be made that the coal will be heated from 25 OC to
650OC.
The
mass
of
carbon
required
will
be
919.2
kg/s
(92229728.55*12/1204.0*1000kg/s).
Ar Feed
tan
k
CITATION Pe
t03 \l 3081
C2H2
feed
tan
k
FBR
Bucket
convey
e
r
CITATION Pet03 \l 3
081
CITATION
CITATION
Pet03 \l 3081
Filter
tan
k
CITATION Pet
03 \l 3081
Pet03 \l
Storag
e
tan
k
CITATION Pe
t03 \l 3081
3081
Purcha
sed
cost
$300000
$300000
$20000
0
$7000
$28000
$28000
Total
Physica
$1020
000
$1020
000
$63000
0
$19600
$78400
$78400
CITATION Pet03 \l 3081 Purchased cost calculated from (Peters, Timmerhaus, & West, 2003)
Figure12-52 pg 557
CITATION Pet03 \l 3081 Purchased cost calculated from (Peters, Timmerhaus, & West, 2003)
Figure12-52 pg 557
CITATION Pet03 \l 3081 Purchased cost calculated from (Peters, Timmerhaus, & West, 2003)
figure 15-34 pg 848
CITATION Pet03 \l 3081 Purchased cost calculated from (Peters, Timmerhaus, & West, 2003)
Figure 12-61 pg 574
CITATION Pet03 \l 3081 Purchased cost calculated from (Peters, Timmerhaus, & West, 2003)
Figure12-52 pg 557
CITATION Pet03 \l 3081 Purchased cost calculated from (Peters, Timmerhaus, & West, 2003)
Figure12-52 pg 557
46
l
cost
s
CIT
ATION
Pet03 \l
3081
Total
Fixed
cost
s
$435000
$435000
$28000
0
$9450
$38080
$38080
CITATI
ON Pet03 \l
3081
3.9 Conclusions
This design of a FBR allows for the production of 5000kg of 95 % pure CNTs per
day. The FBR itself has a diameter of 1.5m and a height of6.187m. The system
requires a large amount of heating by the furnace to keep the FBR at the
required temperature. In fact the required amount of heating is unreasonable. A
method to reduce this required amount of heating is to heat the products coming
in (that is the gases and the catalysts). While this requires more heat exchangers
throughout the system, the overall energy required to heat the system will
reduce as the products in the FBR will not have to be increased to such a great
temperature in a short period of time. In addition, the gas products can be stored
at lower pressures. In order to ensure that that the gas enters the FBR a blower
can be used. The total cost of the FBR section of the system is $4 945 010.
4.
47
Particle Size
>100m
Separation Technique
Gravity settling techniques
<10m
Gas cyclones
It can be seen from Table 15 above, a gas cyclone would be the most suitable
technology to use, as it can easily remove the catalyst particles and the catalyst
particles with the CNTs still attached, and this solids stream can then be taken to
the next stage for purification. The cleaned gas, contained carbon nanotubes can
be disposed of, by burning them in a furnace.
The reverse flow gas cyclone is the gas cyclone most commonly used in industry
and is shown in Figure 16 below.
It works by creating a vortex within the body of the cyclone, when the inlet gas
into the cylindrical section is introduced tangentially. Centrifugal forces act on
the particles in the gas, which cause the particles to move rapidly outwards
towards the inside surface of the cyclone, while the gas flows inwards, causing
the particles to separate from the gas. Solids are pushed down through the
bottom outlet (which is sealed to gas) by the outer vortex and out via the solids
exit. The cleaner gas containing fine nanotubes particles leaves the cyclone via
the outlet at the top.
48
4.3 Assumptions
Reasonable Cyclone Diameter
After reading a variety of literature about designing cyclones, typical
diameters in these papers were around 0.3-1.3m. Therefore, it is assume that
the average diameter for a typical well designed cyclone is around 0.8m
Particle Diameters
From the FBR section, it is assumed that the catalyst particles have a
diameter of 100m.
Particle Cut Diameter was assumed to be 10m. This is because cyclones are
not very good at removing particles sizes less than 10m. Setting the particle
cut diameter at this value means that the cyclone will definitely remove the
catalyst particles and the catalyst particles that have CNT attached to them,
thus getting full recovery of the catalyst particles. Not all nanotubes
particulates of diameter 0.4-500nm will be lost via the gas outlet.
49
Figure 17 Standard Performance Curve for Stairmand High Flow Rate Cyclone
at a given particle diameter (Sinnott, 2005) (pg 451)
From Figure 17, it can be determined that the efficiency of Stairmand H.R cyclone
is around 70%. This means that 70% of the mass of particles in will be captured
and will exit the cyclones via the solids outlet, and the remaining 30% of the
particles stay suspended in the gas.
Mass (particles in) = 1.878g/s
Mass (particles out via solids) = 70% x 1.878g/s
=1.385g/s
Mass (particles out with gas) = 30% x 1.878g/s
=0.59g/s
From this, it can be recommended that 0.59g/s of clean gas can be added to the
flow taken to the CNT Purification stage. It is also recommended that the
particles out of the top of the cyclone be collected in a furnace for burning. The
carbon burnt, with oxygen is released as CO 2 into the atmosphere.
50
51
52
Unclean gas emissions from the FBR enter two cyclones in parallel so that the
gas can be cleaned by removing the particles in suspension (Cyclone 1 and
Cyclone 2). The solid particles collected at the bottom of the cyclone contain
catalysts and catalyst with CNT particles still attached. These solid particles are
taken to the purification section, so that CNTs collected from the cyclones can be
washed and cleaned. This stream minimises catalyst and CNT loss through the
gas stream, and also increases the overall product of CNTs.
It is recommended that the clean gases from the top of the cyclones are sent to
a furnace for burning. Burning the CNTs particles allows CO 2 to be released into
the atmosphere, with little environmental effects. CNTs are thought to be
carcinogenic, and have the same effects are that of Asbestosis. It is therefore
important that the particles are burnt before they are released to the
atmosphere.
Valves, are placed at the gas entrance (Valve 1 and Valve 2) and gas exit (Valve
3 and Valve 5) of both cyclones, as well as the solids exit of the cyclones (Valve 4
and Valve 6), to allow one cyclone to keep running if the other is having
mechanical problems, and also, allow one or both cyclones to shut for cleaning,
or scheduled plant shutdown periods. Check Valves (Check Valve 1 and Check
Valve 2) are placed in the gas exit stream to prevent backflow of the gas.
A full worked method, for two cyclones in parallel with cut diameter of 10m over
both the Stairmand H.E and Stairmand H.R are shown below.
4.6.2 Cyclone Diameter and Dimensions
From this assumption of the particle cut diameter, Cyclone Diameter, D, can be
calculated, using the equation below, by manipulation of both the cut diameter
equation and the characteristic velocity equation and solving simultaneously.
4Q
D2
d2c
and
18D I
St
pU
18D I
St
pd2c
4Q 18D I
St
D2 pd2c
D 3
4Q pdc2
18StI
4Q d
18St
9.14
4023
.357 0.000001
2
D
18 1.4 104 5.033 102
3
2
p c
I
D = 2.10m
4Q pdc2
18StI
9.14
4023
.357 0.000001
2
18 6 103 5.033 102
D = 0.75m
Once, the cyclone diameter is determined, the dimensions listed below can be
determined relative to the diameter length.
Dimension
Diameter of
Cyclone
Letter Reference
(in Figure 20 below)
D
Inlet height
Inlet width
L
54
Outlet length
Outlet diameter
Cylinder height
Overall height
Dust outlet
diameter
Conical Height
Table 17 below shows the dimensions for both Stairmand H.E and Stairmand H.R
cyclones for the calculated cyclone diameters of 2.10m and 0.75m respectively.
Table 17- Dimensions of Stairmand H.E and Stairmand H.R Cyclones
Dimensio
ns
A
B
C
E
J
L
K
N
Dimensions
Relative to
Diameter (H.E
Cyclone)
4.0 x D
2.5 x D
1.5 x D
0.375 x D
0.5 x D
0.2 x D
0.5 x D
0.5 x D
Stairmand
H.E
Cyclone
(m)
8.390332
5.243957
3.146374
0.786594
1.048791
0.419517
1.048791
1.048791
Dimensions
Relative to
Diameter (H.R
Cyclone)
4.0 x D
2.5 x D
1.5 x D
0.575 x D
0.875 x D
0.375 x D
0.75 x D
0.75 x D
Stairmand
H.R
Cyclone
(m)
3.02075
1.887968
1.132781
0.434233
0.660789
0.283195
0.566391
0.566391
55
4Q
D2
Typical velocity for well designed cyclones is around 10-20m/s (Sinnott, 2005)
Table 18- Velocity Calculation over Stairmand H.E and Stairmand H.R Cyclones
4Q
D2
4Q
D2
9.14
2
U
2.102
9.14
2
U
0.752
U = 0.66m/s
U = 10.20m/s
Eu
P
U2
g
2
EuU2
2
EuU2
P
2
EuU2
P
2
P = 30.66 Pa
46 0.4382 10.202
2
P = 1049.14 Pa
56
Stairmand H.E
Stairmand H.R
Typical Values
(Rhodes,
2008)
(maximum flow
25m3/s)
Stokes Number
Eulers Number
Total Flow
(m3/s)
1.4 x 10-4
320
9.14
6 x 10-3
46
9.14
Number of
Cyclones
(in parallel)
Flow into each
Cyclone (m3/s)
Particle Cut
Diameter
Dc (m) (assumed)
Diameter of
Cyclone
D (m)
Velocity
U(m/s)
Pressure Drop
P (Pa)
4.57
4.57
10m
10m
2.10
0.75
0.3 - 1.3
0.66
10.20
10 - 20
30.66
1049.14
500 - 1500
Detailed Calculations, over a range of both cut diameter and number of cyclones
can be found in Appendix A1.
By comparing the calculated values for Stairmand H.E and Stairmand H.R
cyclones in Table 20 above, it can be seen that the diameter, velocity and
pressure drop over the Stairmand H.R lie closer to the typical values, and thus
the design is best suited to our needs.
4.6.6 Design Choice
From the design calculations, 2 Stairmand High Flow Rate cyclones in parallel
where chosen as the gas cleaning system, the dimensions of which are shown in
Figure 21 below.
57
Cost
Purchased Cost
($5,900 each)
Total Physical Plant Cost
Conclusion
It can be seen from the design calculations that having two Stairmand H.R
cyclones in parallel with a cut diameter of 10m is a well suited design to the
needs of our process. This is due to the fact that the diameter and dimensions of
the cyclones, the velocity and the pressure all lie within the typical values range.
The cyclone also operates with a high efficiency of 70%. Electrostatic
precipitators are not necessary in this process, as they are very energy intensive
and expensive, just the equipment costing $100.700(US) (for carbon steel) from
Figure15-48 pg 868 (Peters, Timmerhaus, & West, 2003). The two cyclones are a
much cheaper option costing only $5,900 and a total fixed capital cost of
$156,114. By mass balance calculations, it can be seen that if the efficiency of
the electrostatic precipitator was operating at its maximum, it would only recover
1.062kg per 30 minutes (reaction time), and is therefore not worth the cost.
It is recommended that the particles that are not captured by the cyclones are
sent to a furnace and burnt. Burning carbon with oxygen forms CO 2 and can be
released to the atmosphere in small amounts.
Safety is also an important factor when using cyclones to clean carbon
nanotubes particulates from Argon and Hydrogen gas. The fine CNT particles are
thought to be carcinogenic, and are thought to have the same affects as
asbestosis. It is therefore important that great care is taken when burning these
particles, and that they are not released into the atmosphere. The gas cyclone
system must be checked regularly for leaks. This is because hydrogen gas is a
stable, but very flammable gas, igniting spontaneously at 560 oC (Oxford, 2008).
Leaking of hydrogen gas may spontaneously combust, the fire being extremely
hot and invisible. Argon gas must also be monitored, as it is a simple asphyxiant,
CITATION Pet03 \l 3081 Total physical plant cost calculated from (Sinnott, 2006) Table
6.1, pg 252. Includes installation, piping, instrumentation, electrical, buildings, utilities,
storages, site development and ancillary buildings.
CITATION Pet03 \l 3081 Total fixed capital calculated from (Sinnott, 2006) table
6.1, pg 252. Includes design and engineering, contractors fee and contingency.
59
60
5.Purification
The purification process is one of the most important parts of the CNT
manufacturing process, transforming the impure raw CNTs into the
product to be sold to the consumer. A purity of 95% is required for the
application of the CNTs in consumer electronics, and so a robust
purification process is essential. The purification process is inherently
simple due to the solubility of the magnesium oxide substrate used. The
purification process will focus solely on the removal of the catalyst and its
substrate, assuming that amorphous carbon is present in such small
amounts as to be negligible. The process is run as a continuous process
as this is a more commercial viable mode of operation, reducing both the
capital expenditure compared to a batch process, and also providing the
possibility of scale up.
5.1.2 Filtration
The filtration process uses a screen bowl decanter centrifuge to force the
nanotubes to sediment out of solution. A decanter centrifuge, will operate by
feeding the slurry into the centre of the horizontal centrifuge, where the solids
settle at the edges and are removed by a helical screw, rotating a different speed
from the centrifuge. The type of decanter centrifuge used is a specialised type of
centrifuge called a screen bowl centrifuge. In this type of centrifuge an extra
screen is added at teh solids collection outlet allowing extra washing of the solid
with pure water. It is in this step that the majority of the water, the remaining HCl
and the dissolved ions are removed. CITATION Pet03 \l 3081 The liquid is discharged to
waste water treatment and recycling while the sediment moves on to the final
drying process.
5.1.3Drying
The cake from the centrifuge is then fed into the rotary dryer, where any
remaining moisture is removed by the passage of dried air. The final granular
product is the moved by conveyor belt to product storage from where it can be
shipped.
63
kg
hr
V
=0.51m3. Using a safety factor of 25% to account for any
kg
2785.68 3
m
2 hr 7.06
64
2 day 58550.8
V
kg
1035 3
m
kg
day
1.5m
Diameter
0.76m
12m
Diameter
4m
5.4.2 Mixer
Using assumption 16, with a residence time of 0.25 hour and flow rate of
7515.1kg/m3 the volume of the tank must be 0.55 m 3. Under assumption 15, the
dimensions of a stirred tank of 0.55 m3, to mix the fluid would be D=0.80, H=1.10
Using the guidelines set out in (Perry R. , 1997) and assumption 17, an off centre
fluid foil impellor should be used. The H/D ratio of 1.375 falls within the
acceptable range of 0.75-1.75. The rest of the specifications were assumed from
the ranges outlined in (Perry R. , 1997). The mixer was lined with FRP to protect it
from corrosion.
Material of
Construction
Mixer
FRP lined carbon
steel
Height
1.10m
Diameter
0.8m
65
Impellor Type
RPM
400
Residence time
0.25 h
Length
3.90 m
Diameter
0.6 m
Residence time
0.25 h
Velocity (u)
7.79m/hour
95 kW
0.32 m
66
bowl length
0.34 m
bowl diameter
0.11 m
bowl speeds
900-2000rpm
Flow rate
92 kg/min
(4)
Once u0 was found equation 3 could be re-arranged to find the sigma value of
8.52
5.4.5 Rotary Dryer
In order to calculate the dimensions of the rotary drier the following data was
used:
Inlet air temperature (assumed)
650 K
Inlet product
mass balance)
286.9 K
temperature (from
163 K
The energy required evaporate the moisture in the filter cake was calculated to
be
product
T dew pt T
product
T product out T
Q solid =mC p solid
67
airT airout .
The results of the design calculations can be seen in Table 23 below. The final
diameter to length ration was 1:6, similar to that of a typical rotary dryer. For full
calculations see appendix C.
Table 23- Results for Rotary Dryer
Rotary Dryer
Material of
Carbon
construction
Steel
Diameter
2.06m
Length
12.76m
Number of flights
18
RPM
12
2931.1kW
T air in
650 K
T air out
473 K
T product in
286.9 K
T product out
450 K
68
5.4.6 Pumps
P101
Material of
Construction
Flow rate
0.04 m3/min
Pressure drop
Efficiency
Power`
P102
Material of
Construction
Carbon steel
Flow rate
0.001m3/min
Pressure drop
Efficiency
Power`
5.7Cost Estimation
The costs need to be estimated for the following pieces of plant:
69
Raw Product
Storage
HCl
Storag
Mixer (with
agitator
Purchased
Cost CITATION Pet03 \l 3081
$5000
Total Physical
Plant
Cost CITATION Pet03 \l 3081
$15 750
$236 250
$22 050
Total Fixed
Capita
l CITATION Pet03 \l 3081
$22 050
$330 750
$30 870
PFR
Purchased Cost
$25000
CITATION Pet03 \l 3081 Purchased cost calculated from (Peters, Timmerhaus, &
West, 2003) fig12-52, pg557
CITATION Pet03 \l 3081 Total physical plant cost calculated from (Sinnott,
2006)table 6.1, pg 252. Includes installation, piping, instrumentation, electrical,
buildings, utilities, storages, site development and ancillary buildings
CITATION Pet03 \l 3081 Total fixed capital calculated from (Sinnott, 2006) table
6.1, pg 252. Includes design and engineering, contractors fee and contingency.
70
Purchased Cost
Total Physical Plant
Costd
$598 500
$837 900
5.7.4Rotary Dryer
Table 27- Cost of Rotary Dryer
Installed Cost
Rotary Dryer
$120 000
$294 000
5.7.5Pumps
Table 28- Costs for P101 and P102
P101
P102
Purchased
Cost CITATION Pet03 \l 3081
$15 000
$3 000
$47 250
$7 875
$66 150
$11 025
5.8 Assumptions
1. Negligible amounts of CNTs are lost through the process. That is the
centrifuge and rotary drier all have 100% capture of the CNTs.
2. That all the dissolved ions and all the remaining HCl are removed in
the centrifuge
3. That while HCl isnt very effective at removing amorphous carbon,
when the amorphous carbon is present in such small amounts, HCl
digestion is capable of removing all the amorphous carbon.
CITATION Pet03 \l 3081 Purchased cost calculated from (Peters, Timmerhaus, &
West, 2003) fig12-21, pg518 for stainless steel
71
5.9 Conclusion
A purification process for producing 5000 kg/ day, of 95% purity CNTs has been
developed. The process consists of storage tanks feeding into a mixer and a
microwave assisted acid digester to remove all the catalyst and substrate. The
72
water and dissolved solids are then removed in a screen bowl decanting
centrifuge. The resulting cake is dried in a rotary dryer to produce the granular
final product. The design specifications for these unit operations have been
listed. The purification section of the plant is expected to cost US$1.7 million.
73
Bibliography
Brandt. A Varco Corperation. (2004). 1850 Decanting Centrifuge. Retrieved 10
20, 2008, from Product specifications.
Che Plus. (n.d.). Design considerations for shell and tube heat exchangers.
Retrieved 10 23, 2008, from Che Plus:
http://www.cheresources.com/designexzz.shtml
Cheap Tubes Inc. (2008). Carbon Nanotubes, Production Methods for Carbon
Nanotubes Including Arc Discharge, Laser, Chemical Vapor Depsition and Ball
Milling by Cheap Tubes Inc. Retrieved October 20, 2008, from
http://www.azonano.com/Details.asp?ArticleID=1561
Coulson, J., Richardson, J., Backhurst, J., & Harker, J. (1954). Coulson and
Richardson's Chemical Engineering: Fluid Flow, Heat Transfer and Mass Transfer
(Volume 1). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Einstein, A. (1906). Eine neue Bestimmung der Molekuldimension. Ann. Physik.
Environment, Health & Safety - US. (2007). Ferric Oxide. Retrieved October 20,
2008, from http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/f1306.htm
Fujita, J., Ishida, M., Ichihashi, T., Ochiai, Y., Kaito, T., & Matsui, S. (2003).
Graphitized wavy traces of iron particles observed in amorphous carbon nanopillars.
Gillies, R. G., Schaan, J., Summer, R. J., McKibben, M. J., & Shook, C. A. (2000).
Deposition velocities for Newtonian slurries in turbulent flow. Can. J. Chem. Eng.
Harris, A. (n.d.). 3805-Product Formulation and design. Lecture KL10FLuidisation . Univeristy of Sydney.
Jun, L., & Harris, A. T. (2008). Microwave assisted acid digestion of alumina
supported carbon nanotubes. Seperation and Purification Technology , 602-608.
Louis, C., & Che, M. (1995). Preparation of solid catalysts. Wiley-VCH.
Mauron, P., Emmenegger, C., Sudan, P., Wegner, P., Rentsch, S., & Zuttel, A.
(2003). Fluidised Bed CVD synthesis of carbon nanotubes on Fe2O3/MgO.
Dianmond and Related Materials , 780-785.
Mauron, P., Emmenegger, C., Sudan, P., Wenger, P., Rentsch, S., & Zttel, A.
(2003). Fluidised-bed CVD synthese of carbon canotubes on Fe2O3/MgO.
Fribourg: Diamond and Related Materials.
Mauron, P., Emmenegger, C., Sudan, P., Wenger, P., Rentsch, S., & Zuttel, A.
(2003). Fluidised-bed CVD synthesis of carbon nanotubes on Fe2O3/MgO.
Diamond and Related Materials , 780-785.
74
McKay, D. (1994). JSC-1: A NEW LUNAR SOIL SIMULANT. Retrieved October 20,
2008, from http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/strategies/jsc_lunar_simulant.pdf
Overcamp, T. J., & Manth, S. V. (1998). A simple method for estimating cyclone
efficiency. Anderson: Environmental Progress.
Perry, R. H., & Green, D. W. (Eds.). Perrys chemical engineers handbook (7 ed.).
Perry, R. (1997). Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook. United States: McGraw
Hill.
Peters, M., Timmerhaus, K., & West, R. (2003). Plant Design and Economics for
Chemical Engineers. New York: McGraw Hill.
Physical properties of carbon nanotubes. (n.d.). Retrieved October 22, 2008, from
http://www.pa.msu.edu/cmp/csc/ntproperties/equilibriumstructure.html
Regalbuto, J. (2006). Catalyst Preparation: Science and Engineering. CRC.
Rhodes, M. (1998). Introduction to Particle Technology. Sussex: John Wiley & Sons
Ltd.
Rhodes, M. (2008). Introduction to Particle Technology. West Sussex: John Wiley.
Science STuff inc. (n.d.). MSDS:: Magnesium Oxide. Retrieved October 20, 2008,
from http://www.sciencestuff.com/msds/C2026.html
See, H. (2008). CHNG3805: Product formulation and design. Sydney: The
University of Sydney.
Sinnott, R. (2006). Chemical Engineering Design. Oxford: Elsevier.
Stobbe, D. E., van Buren, F. R., Stobbe-Kreemers, A. W., van Dillen, A. J., & Geus,
J. W. (1991). Iron oxide dehydrogenation catalysts supported on magnesium
oxide. J. Chem. Soc.
Winnik, J. (1997). Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics. John Wiley and Sons
Inc.
75
Appendix B: Calculations
Nomenclature
Nomenclat
ure
Fe2O3/MgO
Definition
Nomenclat
ure
Cp
Definition
MgO
Magnesium oxide
Particle density
Fe2O3
Iron oxide
Fluid density
Fe(NO3)3.9
H2O
Iron nitrate
Viscosity
C2H5OH
Ethanol
Re
Reynolds Number
(s)
Solid
Vt
Terminal velocity
(l)
Liquid
CD
Drag coefficient
(g)
Gas
Voidage
Gravity
Pi
dp
Particle diameter
Change in pressure
Umf
Minimum fluidization
velocity
Mixture density
Ar
Archimedes number
Vc
Critical deposition
(dp)
Collection efficiency
Velocity
Eu
Eulers number
St
Stokes number
Hvap
Latent heat of
vapourisation
Heat capacity
Mass Balance
Several production variables are defined in the project briefing:
76
The ratio of the MgO to Fe in the precursor is given as 5wt% (Mauron et al.,
2003)
Amount of total catalyst:
catalyst ( s )=169644740122=12092.14 kg
Composition:
5 Fe=12092.14 0.005=604.61kg
Number of moles:
255.85
(+3 16)=5.41 kgmol
Fe2 O3 (s)=864.42/
N O 3 3 .9 H 2 O( s)=2 5.41=10.83 kgmol
Fe
Amount of iron nitrate:
11227.72+4374.17=15601.89 kg
Amount of ethanol:
The recipe used by Mauron et al., 2003, specifies an amount of 200ml of ethanol
per batch.
25+9.19
() 15601.89=91265.84 L=72008.75 kg
200/
ethanol (l , g)=
Amount of by-products:
Catalyst Prep
Balance
Known Values
Mass product
5000 kg
Amorphous Carbon
1%
Mass CNT
4750 kg
Amorphous Carbon
122.14 Kg
Fe(5%) or
MgO(95%)
Yield
28%
Catalyst
12092.
14 kg
Unpurified Mass
Fe2O3
864.42 kg
M.W.
MgO
11227.
72 kg
Fe
55.85
12.01
16.00
Mg
24.31
Iron Oxide
Iron Nitrate
5.41 kg mol
10.83 kg mol
16964.
29 kg
404.06 g mol-1
14.01
4374.1
7 kg
1.01
Ethanol
46.07
15601.
9 kg
ethanol
91265.
84 L
Catalyst Prep
Balance
ethanol
72008.
75 kg
Fe
604.61
Fe2O3
864.42
Density of ethanol
0.789 kg L-1
5%
Mass Balance
IN
kgmol
e
mass(k
g)
MgO
278.53
11227.
kgmol
e
OUT
water
97.43
mass(k
g)
1755.6
78
72
Fe(NO3)3.9H2O
ethanol
10.83
4374.1
7
NO2
1563.1
3
72008.
75
ethanol
Catalyst:
Total (exclude
ethanol)
15601
.90
32.48
1494.2
5
1563.1
3
72008.
75
12092.
14
15601
.90
79
Terminal Velocity
Assumptions:
Fe2O3/MgO density:
CD=
4 g d p ( p )
3 2
V t=
p
d p
3.5 0.0012
=0.0532m s1
789 0.0001
CD=
V t=
3.4 0.0012
=0.0517 ms1
789 0.0001
80
Fe2O3/MgO Terminal
Velocity
at Re =
20.59 1
CD
Rep
3.5
0.0532 ms-1
Vt
MgO Terminal
Velocity
Rep
Fe2O3/MgO
Density
3663 kg m-3
MgO Density
3580 kg m-3
Dimension
0.0001 m
Ethanol Viscosity
0.0012 Pa.s
Ethanol Density
at Re =
20.00 1
CD
Constants
Gravity
789 kg m-3
9.81 m s-2
3.4
0.0517 ms-1
Vt
Fluidisation
Assumptions:
Voidage:
( 3 2 )=0.26
=
Pressure drop:
P=
P=
P=13250.48 Pa
Bed height:
H=
P
( 1 ) ( p f ) g
13250.48
=0.64 m
( 10.26 ) ( 3663789 ) 9.81
U mf =
( p ) g d 2p
1650
=0.00014 m s
1650 0.0012
Minimum reaction volume:
82
Fluidisation Matrix
Fluidisation
Total Mass MgO
Total Volume MgO
Total Mass Fe(NO3)3.9H2O
Total Volume
Fe(NO3)3.9H2O
Constants
11227.72 kg day-1
Cross-sectional
Area
3.14 m3 day-1
Radius
4374.17 kg day-1
Gravity
2.60 m day
-1
Density of Water
0.13 m2
0.2 m
9.81 m s-2
kg
1000 m-3
72008.75 kg day-1
Density of Ethanol
kg
789 m-3
91.27 m3 day-1
Fe2O3/MgO Density
kg
3663 m-3
1755.69 kg day-1
3
1.76 m day
-1
98.76 m3 day-1
Dimension
0.0001 m
Ethanol Viscosity
1.20E03 Pa.s
Voidage
0.26
Temperature
21.1 C
20 minute Fluidisation
Total Mass MgO
155.9405 kg
56 20mins-1
Water-Ethanol
Mixture
m3
0.043559 20mins-1
Water
60.75236 kg
1 20mins-1
Ethanol
Total Volume
Fe(NO3)3.9H2O
m3
0.036162 20mins-1
Density
1000.121 kg
528 20mins-1
m3
1.267581 20mins-1
24.38455 kg
8 20mins-1
m3
0.024385 20mins-1
1.89%
98.11%
kg
792.98 m-3
83
Total Volume
m3
1.37169 20mins-1
1371.69 L 20mins-1
Pressure Drop
Bed Height
Min Fluidisation
Velocity
Minimum Reaction
Volume
13250.48 Pa
0.64 M
0.00014 m s-1
79.94 L
84
Slurry
Assumptions:
The dilution of the ethanol with a minor amount of water has negligible
effects on the viscosity, density, and therefore any results using this value.
Volume fraction:
C v=
( volume particles )
volume particles+ volume liquid
0.000038
=0.0323
000038+001143
Mixture density:
m=Cv p +(1C v ) f
3
0.0323 3663+ ( 10.0323 ) 789=881.96 kg m
Slurry viscosity:
0.0013
Archimedes number:
4
d
(
3)
Ar =
3
p
f ( p f ) g
s
0.0013 2
F value:
0.4
0.4
Vc=F gD
p
1
f
)
85
1 )=0.037 ms
( 3663
789
P 32 U
=
L
d p2
32 0.0013 0.0376
=0.156 Pam1
2
0.1
Slurry Matrix
Slurry
Constants
Volume Ethanol/water
0.0011 m3 s43 1
Fe2O3/MgO
Density
Volume Particles
0.0000 m3 s38 1
Ethanol
Density
Volume Fraction
0.0323
Ethanol
Viscosity
Mixture Density
kg
881.96 m-3
Slurry Viscosity
Reynolds numer
kg
789 m-3
0.0012 Pa s
m s-
Fe2O3/MgO Vt
0.0013 Pa s
80.3
Flowrate
Pipe Diameter
Cross-sectional
Area
Archimedes Number
kg
3663 m-3
17.63
Velocity
0.053
0.00118 m3
1 s-1
0.1 m
0.0314 m2
0.03760 m s3 1
m s-
F
Critical Deposition
Velocity
P Velocity
relationship
0.621
0.037 m s
Gravity
-1
Particle
Diamter
9.81
0.0001 m
0.1560 Pa
69 m-1
86
Hydrocyclones
Assumptions:
(d p)=
1
d
1 + 50
dp
( )
d 50
( 2 p 4 Q )/(18 St )
D=3
18 0.0013 0.00014
(0.000033 3663 4 0.001181)/( )=0.12 m
D= 3
2
Characteristic velocity:
U=
4Q
D
4 0.001181
1
=0.099 m s
0.12
Pressure drop:
P=Eu(( f U 2)/2)
320((889.326 0.0992 )/2)=1405 Pa
Exit areas and volumes calculated by applying the ratios of the dimensions
relative to the diameter to the coarse and fine exit of the hydrocyclone, E and N
respectively.
87
Hydrocyclone Matrix
Hydrocyclone
Constants
Hydrocyclone
Body Diameter
Flowrate
0.00118 m3 s1 1
Mixture Density
kg
889.326 m-3
Characteristic
Velocity
Pressure Drop
d50
- collection
efficiency
0.12 m
0.099 m s-1
1405.77 Pa
0.000033 m
90.00%
Slurry Viscosity
0.0013 Pa s
dp
0.0001 m
Eu
320
St50
0.00014
Exit Areas
Volume
Ethanol/water
0.00107 m3 s7 1
0.0119 m2
Volume
Particles
0.00003 m3 s8 1
0.0067 m
N percentage area
64%
E percentage area
36%
Ethanol Density
Fe2O3/MgO
Density
kg
789 m-3
kg
3663 m-3
Exit Volumes
N Exit Fe2O3/MgO
0.000003
8 m3 s-1
N Exit
Ethanol/water
0.000689
216 m3 s-1
N Total
0.000693
0 m3 s-1
E Exit Fe2O3/MgO
0.000034
4 m3 s-1
E Exit
Ethanol/water
0.000387
684 m3 s-1
E Total
0.000422
1 m3 s-1
88
2.5
0.5
0.3
75
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.4
02
0.2
51
0.0
50
0.0
38
0.0
50
0.0
20
0.0
50
0.0
50
89
Drying
Assumptions:
Energy equation:
Q=m C p T + H vap
Dryer
Water:
Total:
90
Drying Matrix
Consta
nts
Drying
Q = mCpT +
Hvap
Dryer
(E)
Distillatio
n(N)
Water
mCpT
Hvap
Q
2.57
17.57
20.15
-1
4.57 kj s
-1
31.23 kj s
-1
35.80 kj s
Density of
Water
1000 kg m-3
Density of
Ethanol
789 kg m-3
Density
Fe2O3/MgO
3663 kg m-3
kj kg-1 K-
Cp Ethanol
4.187
Ethanol
2.440
mCpT
44.59
Hvap
269.8
1
314.4
0
558.59 kj s-1
mCpT
8.62
0.96 kj s-1
8.62
0.96 kj s-1
0.877
373 K
351.4 K
846 kj kg-1
2257 kj kg-1
Fe2O3/MgO
Q Total
343.1
6
System Total
938.5
2 kW
595.35 kW
91
Dryer(E
)
Distillatio
n(N)
Fe2O3/MgO
0.00003
40
0.0000038 m3 s-1
Ethanol/water
0.00041
20
0.0007320 m3 s-1
Ethanol
0.00040
42
0.0007182 m3 s-1
Water
0.00000
78
0.0000138 m3 s-1
Mass Ethanol
0.31892
0.56663 kg s-1
Mass Water
0.00779
0.01383 kg s-1
Mass Fe2O3/MgO
0.12454
0.01392 kg s-1
92