BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM AND GAS | v. 13 n. 4 | p.

323-332 | 2019 | ISSN 1982-0593

DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF A SYSTEM TO OBTAIN POLYMER GRADE

PROPYLENE BY MEANS OF VAPOR RECOMPRESSION DISTILLATION

a, b
Fontana, M. 1; b Fernandes, L. M.; c Souza, T. A.

a
University of Campinas (UNICAMP), School of Chemical Engineering, Campinas, SP, Brazil
b
Federal Technological University of Paraná, UTFPR, Department of Chemical Engineering, Francisco Beltrão, PR, Brazil
c
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Graduate Program in Technology of Chemical and Biochemical Processes, School of
Chemistry, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

Received: 15.08.2019 / Revised: 03.11.2019 / Accepted: 03.11.2019 / Published on line: 20.12.2019

ABSTRACT
Propylene in a purity degree above 99.5% (polymer purity grade- PPG) is a first-generation basic
petrochemical that represents a vital link in refining-petrochemical integration. The strict specification of
the product and the need to maximize the energy efficiency of the propylene/propane distillation process
poses several challenges to the optimization of both the design and operation of the plant. Using a Petro-
SIM (KBC) technology, a polymer grade general model from a propylene distillation unit was developed by
means of vapor recompression. The sensitivity for feeding with different propylene fractions was
analyzed, reaching a value of 0.94, which is considered the minimum propylene fraction in the feed
required to the tower to generate a product with polymer purity grade. Based on the data obtained in the
simulation, the tower was designed and evaluated by means of vapor recompression, showing a potential
alternative way to obtain propylene at polymer grade which could be cost saving in industrial processes.

KEYWORDS
propylene; distillation; steam recovery; simulation, design

1
To whom all correspondence should be addressed.
Address: School of Chemical Engineering, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Av. Albert Einstein, 500 - Cidade Universitária,
CEP, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
ZIP Code: 13083-852 | e-mail: fontana.michelli@gmail.com
doi:10.5419/bjpg2019-0027

323
 BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM AND GAS | v. 13 n. 4 | p. 323-332 | 2019 | ISSN 1982-0593
1. INTRODUCTION
The separation of propane/propylene mixtures
is very important commercially for the chemical
and petrochemical industry (Rege & Yang, 2002;
He et al., 2018). Propylene is used in the
production of polypropylene, acrylonitrile, acrylic
acid, isopropanol, cumene, phenol, gasoline blend,
trimmers, tetramers for detergents, propylene
oxide, and oxo-alcohols (Gomes et al., 2009; Umo
& Bassey, 2017; Roeentan et al., 2017; Ravanchi et
al., 2010).
The most common way of obtaining propylene
is via fluidized catalytic cracking or steam cracking;
the latter accounting for 56% of the global
propylene production (He et al., 2018; Kuah et al.,
2018). An important source of propylene is through
three-carbon hydrocarbons, which are obtained in
several processes of refinement and cracking to
which oil is subjected. The propylene produced in
the refineries can be found in three specifications:
(1) the refinery-grade, which has 50 to 70% of
purity; (2) the chemical grade, containing between
90 and 95% of molar purity; and (3) the polymer
grade, which exceeds 99.5% of molar purity (Umo
& Bassey, 2017).
The polypropylene industry accepts only
propylene at polymer purity grade (PPG) (Lopes,
2011). Polypropylene is a thermoplastic polymer,
that is, it can be molded using heating. It is one of
the most used olefin polymers because it does not
include any polar group in its chain (Kawasumi et
al., 1997). To produce polypropylene, propylene is
polymerized through high catalytic activity, under
controlled heat and pressure. Industrially,
propylene is reacted with an organometallic,
transition metal catalyst, to provide a site for the
reaction to occur. Propylene molecules are added
sequentially through a reaction between the
metallic functional group on the growing polymer
chain and the unsaturated bond of the propylene
monomer (Maier & Calafut, 1998). Thus, high-
purity propylene is necessary, since even low
amounts of impurities deactivate the catalysis in
the production of polypropylene (Mauhar et al.,
2004).
Propylene is a highly flammable colorless gas.
Its molecular formula is C3H6, and its boiling point is
225.45 K at ambient pressure. The propane
molecular formula is C3H8 and its boiling point is
324
231.05 K at ambient pressure (He et al., 2018;
GETIS, 2018). This similarity of propane and
propylene boiling points makes it difficult to
separate their mixtures, requiring the use of large-
sized towers, increasing expenses due to the high-
reflux stream (Briggs & Segers, 1971).
The propylene and propane mixture separation
is conventionally carried out via distillation (Umo &
Bassey, 2017). These processes involving
distillation are the main consumers of industrial
energy, accounting for 40 to 70% of capital and
operating costs in a typical chemical plant
(Bruinsma et al., 2012).
The propylene splitter is the last distillation
column from the fractionation system of liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG). Its purpose is to separate
propane and propylene streams from other
impurities (Lopes, 2011). The propylene feeding
splitter varies in composition and this is the main
process disturbance. The feed that arrives at the
propylene splitter comes from the de-ethanizer, in
which all the lighters of the stream (methane,
ethanes, ethenes, CO, CO2, and H2S) are separated.
Aiming at producing propylene to supply the
commercial demand, the industry is gradually
adopting technologies such as propane
dehydrogenation, olefin metathesis, and methanol
to propylene. However, regardless of the technique
used to obtain this product, the propane and
propylene mixture is always generated, and it must
be separated with one more process step (Umo &
Bassey, 2017).
Nowadays, the propylene and propane are
separated by distillation. Such process demands a
great amount of energy because of the
resemblance in their relative volatilities (Bruinsma
et al., 2012; Ghosh et al., 1993). Due to the low
thermodynamic process efficiency (Kazemi et al.,
2017a) and the increasing of environmental
requirements for quality petroleum products
(Speigh & Heinemann, 2006), it becomes
necessary to expand the knowledge about these
systems. The low energy efficiency of the process
lies in a large amount of energy required in the
reboiler and in the thermal demand at a lower
temperature in the condenser (Bruinsma et al.,
2012; Ponce et al., 2015; Zygula & Kolmetz, 2011).
Due to the increase of oil prices and the growing
market demand for propylene, the interest in
 BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM AND GAS | v. 13 n. 4 | p. 323-332 | 2019 | ISSN 1982-0593
developing new processes for propylene
production has increased in recent years (Kazemi
et al., 2017b). Therefore, processes such as vapor
recompression, heat pump distillation (Kazemi et
al., 2017c), thermally coupled distillation columns
and internally heat-integrated distillation columns
have been proposed to reuse the heat from the
currents of their own system (Kazemi et al.,
2017a). By means of process simulators, a plant
can be operated in several conditions, determining
which condition provides the optimum operating
performance (Rocha, 2009).
The thermodynamic operation principle of a
distillation system by vapor recompression uses
work to produce temperature differences to allow
for heat transfer (Luyben, 2018). The heat from the
overhead vapor is upgraded by means of a
compressor to such a level that its saturation
temperature exceeds the reboiler temperature
(Bruinsma et al., 2012). Therefore, the
condensation heat can be used to drive the
distillation column reboiler (Bruinsma et al., 2012).
Because of this, no water stream is required in the
reboiler (Coker, 2010), making the process
economically attractive. Cost savings even greater
than 42% can be achieved using the vapor
recompression system (Harwardt & Marquardt,
2012).
The use of an appropriate process simulator
makes it possible to quickly evaluate various
industrial scenarios, and it is also useful to help in
the decision-making process (Jorge et al., 2017).
The Petro-SIM (KBC) simulator makes it possible to
evaluate them. The use of these innovative
technologies improves the management of the
challenges facing the industry significantly. This
platform integrates business data into a database
system offering operational support for plant
designs and for performance monitoring (KBC,
2017).
Table 1. Base case data.
Vapor
Pressure Temperature
Stream (phase Stage
[kPa] [K]
fraction)
Feed 1.0 121 2240 348.75
Bottom_recycle 1.0 190 2240 333.19
Top_recycle 0.03 0.97 2200 325.83
Condenser - - - -
Compressor - - - -
This work aims at evaluating the distillation
process of vapor recompression to achieve
propylene at a polymer purity grade using the
simulator Petro-SIM (KBC). Moreover, a distillation
tower was designed to find an efficient internal
tower, aiming at reducing the cooler load to obtain
an efficient and environmentally friendly process.
2. SIMULATION AND TOWER DESIGN
The propylene and propane distillation tower
projects were carried out by the Petro-SIMTM
software (KBC). The simulation was based on
operational parameters such as temperature,
pressure, flow rate, molar composition, and
product composition obtained from the literature.
The plant design was assembled according to
the vapor recompression distillation system
discussed by Kazemi et al. (2018). The distillation
tower was simulated with 190 theoretical stages
with the main feeding into stage 121. Two recycles,
one from the bottom stream fed into tray 190 and
another from the top stream fed into stage 1 were
considered. The thermodynamic package used was
Peng Robinson, as accurately predicted by Kazemi
et al. (2018) to describe a propane/propylene
distillation system. Other data for the base case are
shown in Table 1.
The purity degree obtained with the proposed
conditions was evaluated, and a sensitivity analysis
was performed, changing the propylene fraction at
the tower feed. Since the tower distillation
internals were designed based on a series of sizing
calculations where tower internals were sized
according to the methodology presented by Caldas
et al. (2007).
Flow Composition (molar
Energy
rate fraction)
[kW]
[kmol/h] Propylene Propane
376.4 0.9622 0.0378 -
4729.5 0,1971 0,8029 -
4829.9 0.9958 0,0041 -
- - - -4350
- - - 3054
325
 BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM AND GAS | v. 13 n. 4 | p. 323-332 | 2019 | ISSN 1982-0593
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Propane and propylene have similar molecular
sizes and physical properties, which makes the
process of separation problematic. The separation
is generally performed in towers with a stage
number between 150 and 200, with high reflux and
high pressure (1600 to 2640 kPa), requiring high
energy (Umo & Bassey, 2017; Gadalla et al., 2005).
This justifies the use of 190 stages at the tower and
high pressure (2200 kPa). According to Roeentan et
al. (2017), distillation columns up to 100 m height
that include about 200 trays with very large reflux
ratio are usually required. Besides that, the number
of trays is related directly to the column capital
cost. A higher tray number means higher capital
invested in the tower and a reduction on the
capital invested in the heat exchanger, also
reducing energy costs (Hussain & Lee, 2018).
Likewise, high pressure values lead to a decrease in
the column diameter, as the vapor density
increases (Hussain & Lee, 2018).
The steam recompression system does not have
a condenser and a reboiler coupled to the
Figure 1. Propylene distillation by means of vapor recompression.
326
distillation column. These two pieces of equipment
were eliminated from the system to give rise to
another type of current integration to supply the
energy required. Even though they were not
considered in the simulation, both condenser and
reboiler still appear interconnected to the
distillation column in the illustration. The
justification for their presence is because the
design of the tower in the simulator is fixed and
does not change with their removal from the
flowsheet. Based on the study of Kazemi et al.
(2018), the process arrangement used in the
simulation was organized. Figure 1 shows the
configuration applied in the study, as well as the
currents that interconnect the system.
The top stream that passed through the
compressor was compressed from 2200 kPa to
5226.2 kPa. Its temperature was increased from
325.83 to 388.55 K and to the dew point. Then, the
top stream was used to supply the energy to the
bottom stream using a shell and a tube heat
exchanger. Afterwards, the top product passed
through the shell and its temperature decreased
from 388.55 K to 351.85 K. The bottom stream
 BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM AND GAS | v. 13 n. 4 | p. 323-332 | 2019 | ISSN 1982-0593
Table 2. Base case output process data.
Molar fraction
Stream
Propylene Propane
Top product 0.9958 0.0042
Bottom product 0.1973 0.8027
Propane 0.1973 0.8027
Propylene 0.9958 0.0042
passed through the tube. With this step, the
bottom stream became vapor. Following, the
bottom product returned to the bottom in a vapor
recycle stream at 333.19 K. In the end, the top
product underwent a pressure drop from 5226.2
kPa to 2200 kPa, as well as a cooling step to
decrease its temperature from 325.83 K to 324,07
K, entering the tower as a liquid recycle stream,
going to the top of the distillation tower (Kazemi et
al., 2017c).
As shown in Table 2, at the top product, PGP
was obtained in a molar fraction of 0.9959 and
propane was obtained at 0.0041. This stream
leaves the tower at a flow rate of 5189.4 kmol/h
and only a part of it (355.8 kmol/h) is removed
from the system, the remaining 4833.6 kmol/h
return to the tower through the recycle stream
from the top. These data corroborate the results
obtained by Kazemi et al. (2018) in the Aspen
Hysys simulator and in an operational plant. Both
studies generated a flow of 359.9 kmol/h at the top
in a propene molar fraction of 0.9960.
In the bottom stream, the composition of
Figure 2. Sensitivity analysis of propylene at the top stream.
3
Flow rate [kmol/h] Density [kg/m ]
5189.4 48.71
4746.4 407.2
20.56 51.85
355.8 344.84
0.8027 of propane and 0.1973of propylene was
obtained at a molar fraction, leaving the tower at a
molar flow of 4746.4 kmol/h. This stream passes
through the heat exchanger, where it becomes
purely vapor and its flow is divided between the
recycle that returns to the tower (4725.84 kmol/h)
and the product stream that leaves the system
(20.56 kmol/h).
The simulation was also studied by varying the
propylene molar fraction in the main feed stream.
In this study, the main feed composition stream
was considered to contain propylene and propane.
This analysis was carried out to obtain, for the
same processing conditions, the feed containing
lower propylene molar fraction that still provided
PGP as the product from the top stream. The more
propylene at the feed also contributes to more
propylene at the top (Fig. 2) and bottom (Fig. 3)
stream.
The lowest molar fraction of propylene in the
tower feed that made it possible to obtain the
polymer grade propylene at the top was 0.94 of
propylene, with the remaining 0.06 of propane
327
 BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM AND GAS | v. 13 n. 4 | p. 323-332 | 2019 | ISSN 1982-0593

Figure 3. Sensitivity analysis of propylene at the bottom stream.

molar fraction. With this feed composition, it was
possible to generate PPG with molar composition
of 0.9953 of propylene and 0.0047 of propane at a
molar flow rate of 352.4 kmol/h. In addition, under
these conditions, a bottom stream with propylene
molar composition of 0.1134 and 0.8866 of
propane was generated, leaving the system in a
flow rate of 23.96 kmol/h.
The presence of impurities, such as n-butane,
even in low fractions in the feed composition can
be listed as a negative factor in yield. Table 3 shows

Table 3. Analysis with the presence of n-butane in feed composition.

Molar fraction
Chemical species
Feed Top product Bottom product
Propylene 0.9600 0.9958 0.1982
Propane 0.0350 0.0042 0.8023
n-butane 0.005 0 0.0003
Propylene 0.9535 0.9957 0.1965
Propane 0.0450 0.0043 0.8033
n-butane 0.0015 0 0.00011
Propylene 0.9530 0.9957 0.1966
Propane 0.045 0.0043 0.8031
n-butane 0.002 0 0.00015
Propylene 0.9525 0.9956 0.3532
Propane 0.0465 0.0044 0.6467
n-butane 0.001 0 0.0001
Propylene 0.9525 0.9956 0.3532
Propane 0.0455 0.0044 0.6466
n-butane 0.002 0 0.0002
Propylene 0.952 0.9957 0.1965
Propane 0.0455 0.0043 0.8032
n-butane 0.0025 0 0.00019
Propylene 0.9515 0.9957 0.1965
Propane 0.0455 0.0042 0.8032
n-butane 0.003 0 0.00023
Propylene 0.951 0.9957 0.1965
Propane 0.0455 0.0042 0.8032
n-butane 0.0035 0 0.00028
Propylene 0.95 0.9957 0.1964
Propane 0.0455 0.0042 0.8031
n-butane 0.0045 0 0.00035
Propylene 0.949 0.9957 0.1963
Propane 0.0455 0.0042 0.8031
n-butane 0.0055 0 0.00043

328
 BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM AND GAS | v. 13 n. 4 | p. 323-332 | 2019 | ISSN 1982-0593

the composition obtained in the top and bottom
products with the presence of n-butane in the feed
at different molar fractions.
For the less favorable feed conditions (rich in C4
and low in propylene), the model has difficulty at
converging, a condition that is only reached when
there is strict specification control of the maximum
fraction of C4 (<0.0055 molar fraction) in the
upstream process (depropanizer).
The top distillation product almost reaches the
temperature to be used as a thermal source, but it
is usually incapable of direct utilization, being
treated as waste heat in conventional processes
(Galvão, 2016). The vapor recompression
technology is used to upgrade the heat by
compressing the vapor distillate, emerging as a cost
saving opportunity (Kiss et al., 2012). In a context
in which automation technologies guide the
necessary process evolution industry to the
technological level idealized for Industry 4.0, the
development of in silico chemical processing model
assumes fundamental importance for the
development of advanced manufacturing tools and
technologies (Joly et al., 2018).
According to Kazemi et al. (2018), the vapor
recompression results in a 73.6% reduction in cold
utility process requirements when compared to the

Table 4. Tower project.

Parameter Value Unit

dp (Droplet diameter) 25 mm
2
g (Acceleration of gravity) 9.81 m/s
Cd (Drag coefficient) 0.7 -
Ffluid (Fluid factor) 0.9 -
Fsystem (System Factor) 0.9 -
3
CFSgas (Volumetric flow rate of gas in tray conditions) 0.115 m /s
Fflood (Flood factor for the system) 0.8 -
3
GPM (Liquid flow) 407.2 m /h
X (Souders and Brown factor) 0.307 -
Vn (Gas velocity) 0.0605 m/s
CSB (Souders and Brown constant) 0.0216 m/s
Vaf (Maximum gas velocity in a tower running on the air-water system) 0.0605 m/s
Vf (Maximum steam speed) 0.049 m/s
2
Af (Free area) 2.93 m
VDSG (Maximum downcomer speed) 0.234 m/s
2
Adm (Minimum downcomer area) 4.502 m
2
Atower (Tower area) 7.435 m
Dt (Tower diameter) 3.076 m
hw (Output spout height) 60 mm
Dynamic seal 75 mm
2
Ada (Area under the downcomer) 0.225 m
Lw (Length of downcomer) 3.032 m
H (Downcomer height) 1.795 m
hud (Clearance on the downcomer for the entry of liquid into the tray) 74.339 mm
Number of main indents 1 -
2
αfd (Area of all trays drain holes) 0.002 m
td (Drainage time) 6 min
Trapdoor size 0.45 x 0.6 m
“Dead area” (Area on the tray holder without valves or holes) 0.063 m
NPASSE (Tray number passes) 2 -
FPL (Length of liquid path) 13.84 m
Δ (Hydraulic gradient) 0.848 m
ΔPd (Pressure drop on downcomer output) 0.024 m
ΔPiw (Pressure drop on inlet spillways) 0.0004 m
hd (Downcomer pressure drop) 0.024 m
Valve Specification 14 gage
Tray thickness 1.88 mm
Tray hole diameter 38 mm
2
Perforated area 0.351 m
Center to center valves distance 75 mm
Valves number per tray 378 -

329
 BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM AND GAS | v. 13 n. 4 | p. 323-332 | 2019 | ISSN 1982-0593
conventional distillation column that requires the
highest net energy for its operation and
application. This system shows significant
improvement in the process regarding energy-
saving. Therefore, it is a great process
intensification system (Niu & Rangaiah, 2016),
showing operating cost savings for the production
of propylene at the polymer purity grade.
Although the simulation provides a lot of
information about products, tower configuration
characteristics needed to be further developed
with another methodology. To verify whether the
process data and the plant configurations are
applicable to the industry, a methodology of
project calculations was applied. Considering the
parameters used in the design calculations, as well
as the parameters obtained in response, all factors
used in the project were checked. Table 4 shows
the main parameters obtained in the literature to
the project and the calculated ones by the
equations presented by Caldas et al. (2007).
The diameter calculated for the tower was 3.07
meters. This is also supported by the work of Umo
and Bassey (2017) in a propylene distillation tower,
where they used three meters of diameter tower
to system with 290.7 kmol/h at the feed. Towers
with two passages must be at least two meters in
diameter (Caldas et al., 2007). Because the tower
diameter is of approximately three meters, it was
chosen for the two-passage plate.
The perforated area should be 8 to 15% of the
active area, where optimum value is 12% (Caldas et
al., 2007). The value obtained for this parameter
was 0.351 m2. In addition, the number of valves per
plate obtained was equal to 378. These values
corroborate what was used by Mauhar et al.
(2004). Their work presents a system to distillate
propylene with a valve tray type with two passages
and with 388 holes per tray. This result shows that
the tower size for a vapor recompression system
can be kept the same for processes that are
already operating by conventional distillation. This
allows the use of the same tower to make the
alteration in the steam recompression system
generating energy and cost savings, without the
need to build a new column for the vapor
recompression process.
330
4. CONCLUSIONS
The distillation with vapor recompression was
effective for the PPG separation at feeds with
molar propylene fractions over 0.94. The model
was robust but significantly sensitive to different
feed qualities. This vapor system recompression
can show cost savings in the process, being a great
choice to separate propylene from propane.
It was possible to note that the propylene
fraction was reduced in the feed, and so was the
top thermal load. Therefore, the investments
required for the condenser also decreased. In
addition, it was possible to see that the efficient
feed control composition is a critical variable for
the process energy optimization, since it affects the
performance and the convergence of the
simulation directly.
The tower was designed considering valve trays.
The sizing resulted in a diameter pursuant to that
found in the literature for other processing systems
with the same load, which shows that it is suitable
for applications in processes already used in
industrial operation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to recognize the Federal
Technological University of Paraná for the support
provided.
5. REFERENCES
Briggs, T. M.; Segers, V. H. Separation of
propane and propylene by distillation, United
States Patent Office, n. 3,568,457, 1971.
Bruinsma, O. S. L.; Krikken, T.; Cot, J.; Sarić, M.;
Tromp, S.A.; Olujić, Ž.; Stankiewicz, A. I. The
structured heat integrated distillation column.
Chemical Engineering Research and Design, v. 90,
p. 458–470, 2012.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2011.08.023
Caldas, J. N.; Lacerda, A. I. D.; Veloso, E.;
Paschoal, L. C. M. Towers internals: trays and fills.
2nd ed. Rio de Janeiro: Interciência: Petrobras,
2007.
 BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM AND GAS | v. 13 n. 4 | p. 323-332 | 2019 | ISSN 1982-0593
Coker, A. K. Ludwig’s Applied Process Design
for Chemical and Petrochemical Plants, v. 2, 4th
ed. Burlington: Elsevier inc, 2010.
Gadalla, M.; Olujic, Z.; Sun, L.; de Rijke, A.;
Jansens, P. J. Pinch analysis-based approach to
conceptual design of internally heat-integrated
distillation columns. Chemical Engineering
Research and Design, v. 83, p. 987–993, 2005.
https://doi.org/10.1205/cherd.04301
Galvão, M. L. Application of heat pump on
propene distillation column, In: Technical Scientific
Congress of Engineering and Agronomy, Foz do
Iguaçu, Brazil, 2016. Available at: < Macromolecules, v. 30, n. 20, p. 6333–6338, 1997.
http://docplayer.com.br/47418014-Aplicacao-de-
bomba-de-calor-em-coluna-de-destilacao-de-
propeno.html>. Accessed on: Feb. 17th, 2018.
GETIS (2018). Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health of the German Social Accident
Insurance, Gestis Substance database. Available at:
<http://gestis-
en.itrust.de/nxt/gateway.dll/gestis_en/010100.xml
?f=templates$fn=de fault.htm$3.0>. Accessed on:
Feb. 17th, 2018.
Ghosh, T. K.; Lin, H. D.; Hines, A. L. Hybrid
adsorption-distillation process for separating
propane and propylene. Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research, v. 32, p. 2390–2399, 1993.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ie00022a024
Gomes, P. S.; Lamia, N.; Rodrigues, A. E. Design
of a gas phase simulated moving bed for
propane/propylene separation. Chemical
Engineering Science, v. 64, p. 1336–1357, 2009.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2008.11.022
Harwardt, A.; Marquardt, W. Heat‐integrated
distillation columns: Vapor recompression or
internal heat integration. AIChE Journal, v. 58, n.
12, p. 3740-3750, 2012.
https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.13775
He, M.; Liu, S.; Bai, L.; Liu, X. Propane/propylene
separation and CO2 capture in magnetic ionic liquid
[bmim][FeCl4]. Chemical Engineering Research and
Design, v. 137, p. 186-193, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2018.07.022
Hussain, A.; Lee, M. Optimal design of an
intensified column with side-reactor configuration
for the methoxy-methylheptane process, Chemical
Engineering Research and Design, v. 136, p. 11–24,
2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2018.05.006
Joly, M.; Miyake, M. Y.; Odloak, D.; Menezes, B.
C.; Kelly, J. D. Refinery production scheduling
toward Industry 4.0. Frontiers of Engineering
Management, v. 5, n. 2, p. 202–213, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FEM-2017024
Jorge, L. M. D. M.; Yoshi, H. C. M. H.; Rocha, L.
B.; Silva R. O. D., Fundamentals of process
simulation in the Aspen HYSYS, v. 1, Maringá:
Eduem, 2017.
Kawasumi, M.; Hasegawa, N.; Kato, M.; Usuki,
A.; Okada, A. Preparation and mechanical
properties of polypropylene-clay hybrids.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ma961786h
Kazemi, A. ; Beheshti, M.; Khalili, R. Influence of
recycle streams of C 5 / C 6 and C 4 hydrocarbon
cuts on the performance of methanol to propylene
( PVM ) reactors. Chemical Engineering Science, v.
172, 385–394, 2017b.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2017.06.051
Kazemi, A.; Faizi, V.; Mehrabani-Zeinabad, A.;
Hosseini, M. Evaluation of the performance of heat
pump-assisted distillation of an ethanol–water
mixture, Separation Science and Technology, v.52,
p. 1387–1396, 2017a.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01496395.2017.1281306
Kazemi, A.; Mehrabani-Zeinabad, A.; Beheshti,
M. Development of a novel processing system for
efficient sour water stripping, Energy, v. 125, p.
449-458, 2017c.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.02.135
Kazemi, A.; Mehrabani-Zeinabad, A.; Beheshti,
M. Distillation without hot utilities; development of
novel distillation configurations for energy and
costs saving for separation of propylene/propane
mixture. Chemical Engineering and Processing -
Process Intensification, v. 123 p. 158–167, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2017.10.027
KBC, Technology - Process Simulation. [10-10-
2017]. Available at: <http://www.kbcat.com/tec
hnology/process-simulation-software>. Accessed
on: Oct. 10th, 2018.
Kiss, A. A.; Landaeta, S. J. F.; Ferreira, C. A. I.
Towards energy efficient distillation technologies -
Making the right choice. Energy, v. 47, p. 531–542,
2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.09.038
331
 BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM AND GAS | v. 13 n. 4 | p. 323-332 | 2019 | ISSN 1982-0593
Kuah, W. C.; Effendy, S.; Farooq, S. Industrial
Scale Propylene/Propane Separation Using
Pressure Vacuum Swing Adsorption. Industrial &
Engineering Chemical Research, v. 57, p. 6451–
6463, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.8b00289
Lopes, M. S. Case study of a depropenizer
column. 2011. 46 f. Monography (Bachelor in
Chemical Engineering), Federal University of Rio
Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, 2011.
Luyben, W. L. Design and control of a pressure-
swing distillation process with vapor
recompression. Chemical Engineering and
Processing - Process Intensification, v. 123, p. 174–
184, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2017.09.020
Maier, C.; Calafut, T. Polypropylene: The
Definitive User's Guide and Databook, Plastics
Design Library, Norwich, NY, USA, 1998.
Mauhar, S. M.; Barjaktarović, B. G.; Sovilj, M. N.
Optimization of propylene - Propane distillation
process, Chemical Papers, v. 58, n. 6, p. 386–390,
2004.
Niu, M. W.; Rangaiah, G. P. Retrofitting an
isopropanol process based on reactive distillation
and propylene-propane separation. Chemical
Engineering and Processing - Process
Intensification, v. 108, p. 164–173, 2016.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2016.07.013
Ponce, G. H. S. F.; Alves, M.; Miranda, J. C. C.;
Maciel Filho, R.; Maciel, M. R. W.Using an internally
heat-integrated distillation column for ethanol-
water separation for fuel applications. Chemical
Engineering Research and Design, v. 95, p. 55–63,
2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2015.01.002
Ravanchi, M. T.; Kaghazchi, T.; Kargari, A.
Facilitated transport separation of propylene–
propane: Experimental and modeling study.
Chemical Engineering and Processing - Process
Intensification, v. 49, p. 235–244, 2010.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2010.01.011
332
Rege, S. U.; Yang, R. T. Propane/propylene
separation by pressure swing adsorption: Sorbent
comparison and multiplicity of cyclic steady states,
Chemical Engineering Science, v. 57, p. 1139–1149,
2002. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2509(01)00440-7
Rocha, L. B. Design of an atmospheric
fractionation unit using petroleum Hysys. 2009.
116 f. Monography (Bachelor in Chemical
Engineering), Federal University of Ceará,
Fortaleza, 2009.
Roeentan, H.; Azizi, S.; Bakeri, G.;
Peyghambarzadeh, S.M. Experimental
measurement of propane and propylene
absorption in NMP/AgNO3solvent, Chemical
Engineering Research and Design, v. 117, p. 240–
249, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2016.10.008
Speight, J. G.; Heinemann, H. The Chemistry
and Technology of Petroleum. 4. ed. Wyoming:
CRC Press, 2006.
https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420008388
Umo, A. M.; Bassey, E. N. Simulation and
Performance Analysis of Propylene-Propane
Splitter in Petroleum Refinery Case Study,
International Journal of Chemical Eng. Appl. v. 8,
p. 1–4, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.18178/ijcea.2017.8.1.621
Zygula, T. M.; Kolmetz, K. Design guidelines for
propylene splitters. Spring National Meeting,
Chicago, Illinois, p. 14-17, 2011. Available at:
<http://www.klmtechgroup.com/PDF/Articles/
articles/Design%20Guidelines%20for%20Proplyene
%20Splitters%20-%20Rev%20in.pdf>. Accessed on:
Sep. 09th, 2018.