You are on page 1of 8

# HOMEWORK

MEMORANDUM
Date: September 29, 2016
To: Dr. Narisara Thongboonchoo and Asst. Prof. Dr.
Yaneeporn Patcharavorachot
From: Nattanon Sakulkhunsawatt
Re: Problem 3.1 (DSTWU model , RadFrac model , Distl
model)

Introduction
The feed mixture stream, consisting of 60 mole%
ethanol, 40 mole% water, enter to Distillation column
with a flow rate of 100 kmol/h at 40°C and 1 atm so as to
recover at least 85% of the light key component in the
liquid distillate and 80% of the heavy key component in
the bottoms. The column operates at 1 atm with no
pressure drop throughout. For this workshop the column
are DSTWU model , RADFRAC model and Distl model.
These were modeled using ASPEN Plus as the simulation
tool with the Wilson property method.
The DSTWU model is shortcut distillation design
using the Winn-Underwood-Gilliland method to estimate
minimum number of stages, minimum reflux ratio, and
either actual reflux ratio or number of stages.
The RadFrac model is rigorous fractionating column
model for simulating all types of multistage vapor-liquid
fractionation operations (e.g. Ordinary distillation,
Absorption, Stripping). This model can have multiple feed

and product streams and can occur chemical reaction in
column.
The Distl model is shortcut distillation for complex
petroleum fractionation units. It calculates composition
based on the Edmister approach. Actually, it can use this
column model to verify the product results.

Objectives
There were two main objectives for this workshop:
• To find out the minimum number of stages, actual
number of stages and feed composition with DSTWU
model.
• To compare result that are similated with DSTWU
model , RadFrac model, Distl model.

Conclusions
The first objective is To find out the minimum number
of stages, actual number of stages and feed composition
with DSTWU model. ; these values can be seen below in
Table 1. and Table 2.
Table 1. Summary result from DSTWU model

From Table 1 it shows the data about reflux ratio and
number of stages. There are
DSTWU

The minimum
reflux
ratio
F
D
B

Stream I D
From
To

DSTWU

DSTWU

LIQUID

LIQUID

DSTWU
Actual reflux
ratio

Phase

LIQUID

= 0.61

= 1.5

Substream: MI XED

Minimum
number of stages
kmol/hr

Mole Flow

ETHANOL

60. 00000

51. 00000

9. 000000

100. 0000

59. 00000

41. 00000

Feed location
l/min
71. 06188

2493. 643

991. 1103

55. 85439

19. 69137
82. 75609

= 97

40. 00000of
8. 000000
32. 00000 = 139
Actual number
stages

WATER

Total Flow
Total Flow

kmol/hr
kg/hr

3484. 754

Total Flow

Temperature

= 128

C

40. 00000

77. 98384

0.0

0.0

0.0

Enthalpy

cal/mol

-66730. 46 -64971. 69

-66642. 30

Enthalpy

cal/gm

-1914. 926 -1537. 241

-2756. 842

Density

mol/cc

. 0234537

. 0176053

. 0347021

Density

gm/cc

. 8173050

. 7440906

. 8388701

34. 84754

42. 26514

24. 17342

70. 20603

51. 85346

18. 35257

ETHANOL

. 6000000

. 8644068

. 2195122

WATER

. 4000000

. 1355932

. 7804878

sureusedbar
1. 013250to
1. 013250
These valuePresis
for it1. 013250
applied
simulate
Vapor Frac
0.0
0.0
0.0
rigorous model. Liquid Frac
1. 000000 1. 000000 1. 000000
Solid Frac

Enthalpyof feed
cal/sec and
-1.8536E+6-1.0648E+6
Table 2. Amounts
product-7.5898E+5
stream including
Entropy
cal/mol-K -63. 35307 -71. 50824 -44. 42328
their
property
DSTWU
Entropy
cal/gm-Kfor
-1. 818007
-1. 691896 model
-1. 837691

Average MW
Liq Vol 60F

l/min

Mole Frac

Stream I D

B

D

F

From
From Table
2 it is clear
To
amount of distillate
and
bottom
are
more
Phase
LIQUID
LIQUID
LIQUIDpurity. Almost of
XED
distillate is Substream
light : MIkey
component that is ethanol and
Mole Flow
kmol/hr
almost of bottom
component
as water.
ETHANOLis heavy key
10. 45445
49. 54555 60. 00000
WATER

30. 54555

9. 454451

40. 00000

Mole Frac

ETHANOL
. 2549866
. 8397551 . 6000000
The second
objective is
to compare
the result that
WATER
. 7450134 . 1602449 . 4000000
are similatedTotalwith
DSTWU
Flow
kmol/hr
41. 00000 59. 00000 100. 0000
kg/hr
1031. 913 2452. 840 3484. 754
Distl model. Total Flow
Total Flow

l/ min

20. 73738

54. 79018

71. 06188

Temperature

C

82. 14405

77. 99964

40. 00000

1. 000000

1. 000000

1. 000000

0.0

0.0

0.0

-66558. 31

-65038. 79

-66730. 46

-2644. 496

-1564. 426

-1914. 926

Table 3. Amounts
of bar
feed and
product
including
Pressure
1. 013250
1. 013250 stream
1. 013250
Vapor Frac
0.0
0.0
0.0
their
model
Liquid Frac
Solid Frac
Enthalpy

cal/mol

Enthalpy

cal/gm

Enthalpy

cal/sec

Entropy

cal/mol-K

-45. 89206

-70. 43586

-63. 35307

Entropy

cal/gm-K

-1. 823384

-1. 694246

-1. 818007

Density

mol/cc

. 0329517

. 0179472

. 0234537

Density

gm/cc

. 8293505

. 7461315

. 8173050

25. 16861

41. 57357

34. 84754

19. 32518

50. 88085

70. 20603

Average MW
Liq Vol 60F

l/ min

-7.5803E+5 -1.0659E+6 -1.8536E+6

Distl
Stream I D

B

D

F

From

DI STL

DI STL

LIQ UID

LIQ UID

To

DI STL

Phase

LIQ UID

Substream: MI XED
Mole Flow

kmol/ hr

Tot al F low

kmol/ hr

41. 00000

59. 00000

100. 0000

Tot al F low

kg/hr

1005. 033

2479. 722

3484. 754

Tot al F low

l/ min

20. 04771

55. 49105

71. 06188

Temper at ure

C

82. 52052

77. 98742

40. 00000

Pressur e

bar

1. 013250

1. 013250

1. 013250

Vapor F rac

0.0

0.0

0.0

Liquid F rac

1. 000000

1. 000000

1. 000000

0.0

0.0

0.0

Table 4. Amounts
of feed 9.and
product stream
ETHANO L
496293 50. 50371 60. 00000
W ATER
31. 50378
8. 496224 40. 00000
including their property
for Distl
model

Solid Fr ac
Ent halpy

cal/ mol

Ent halpy

cal/ gm

-2717. 514 -1546. 415 -1914. 926

Ent halpy

cal/ sec

- 7.5866E+ 5- 1.0652E+ 6- 1.8536E+ 6

Ent ropy

cal/ mol- K

-44. 92564 -71. 14162 -63. 35307

Ent ropy

cal/ gm- K

-1. 832728 -1. 692672 -1. 818007

Density

mol/cc

. 0340853

. 0177205

. 0234537

Density

gm/ cc

. 8355340

. 7447814

. 8173050

24. 51299

42. 02919

34. 84754

18. 68447

51. 52156

70. 20603

ETHANO L

. 2316169

. 8559950

. 6000000

W ATER

. 7683848

. 1440038

. 4000000

Average MW
Liq Vol 60F

l/ min

-66614. 40 -64994. 55 -66730. 46

Mole Fr ac

From Table 3. and Table 4. the results are similar to
Table 2 that is simulated from DSTWU model. They show
the data about the amount of distillate and bottom are
more purity. Almost of distillate is light key component
that is ethanol and almost of bottom is heavy key
component as water.
However, the data that simulated from DSTWU model
, RadFrac model and Distl model. are different. So,
comparision the result that are similated with 3 models is
shown in Table 5

Table 5. Composition of Ethanol and water in product
streams for 3 models

Compo
nent
Ethano

Composition (Mole frac.)
DSTWU
Distl
Botto Distilla Botto Distilla Botto Distilla
m
te
m
te
m
te
0.220 0.864 0.255 0.840 0.232 0.856

l
Water

0.780

0.136

0.745

0.160

0.768

0.144

From Table 5 show that data that are simulated from
3 models are similar because RadFrac and Distl model are
simulated by input data about reflux ratio and number of
stages from DSTWU model.

Discussion
This case is the feed mixture stream, consisting of 60
mole% ethanol, 40 mole% water, enter to Distillation
column with a flow rate of 100 kmol/h at 40°C and 1 atm
so as to recover at least 85% of the light key component
in the liquid distillate and 80% of the heavy key
component in the bottoms. The column operates at 1 atm
with no pressure drop throughout.
From Table 5 show that data that are simulated from
DSTWU model , RadFrac model and Distl model are
similar. However, the data that simulated from 3 models
are different. You can see that the data from DSTWU and
Distl is more similar than compare with RadFrac model
because DSTWU and Distl model are shortcut distillation
column but RadFrac model is rigorous fractionation
column.

Recommendations
If you want to simulate this statement with the result
is more reliable, I think you should whether use RadFrac
model to simulate because rigorous model needs more

input and the result is more accuracy or adjust the
operating condition to have more purity of product
stream.
However, Model that you choose to simulate should
depend on the situation about input that you know and
the output that you want to know.