Applied Thermal Engineering 106 (2016) 1033–1041

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng

Dividing wall column: Improving thermal efficiency, energy savings and

economic performance
Md Aurangzeb, Amiya K. Jana ⇑
Energy and Process Engineering Laboratory, Department of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
Kharagpur, 721 302, India

h i g h l i g h t s

 A rigorous model is developed for a dividing wall column.

 Heat transfer model for metal wall is proposed.
 Performance improvement is quantified for a ternary system.
 Thermal efficiency, energy savings and cost are three used indices.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This work aims at investigating the performance improvement of a dividing wall column (DWC) for the
Received 10 June 2015 separation of a ternary system. It is true that for fractionating a ternary mixture, at least a sequence of
Revised 31 May 2016 two conventional distillation columns is required. To improve energetic and economic potential, and
Accepted 13 June 2016
reduce space requirement, two columns are proposed to merge into one shell with a dividing wall. For
Available online 15 June 2016
developing the mathematical model of a distillation column, we consider the effect of heat transfer
through the metal wall placed at an intermediated position inside the cylindrical column. The simulated
Keywords:
DWC model is verified using the Aspen Plus flowsheet simulator with a wide variety of phase equilibrium
Dividing wall column
Heat transfer
models. The superiority of this proposed heat integrated configuration is shown for a ternary hydrocar-
Thermal efficiency bon system over a conventional distillation sequence (CDS) in terms of mainly three performance
Energy savings indexes, namely thermal efficiency, energy savings and total annual cost (TAC). It is investigated that
Economics the dividing wall distillation scheme can secure a 37.5% energy efficiency, and a 22.6% savings in energy
consumption and 23.23% in TAC. The promising performance can also be quantified in terms of a reason-
ably low payback period of 2.11 years.
Ó 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction process consumes a 60–70% of the total energy as a single unit. It

Because of the rapid growth in urbanization and industrializa-
tion, mainly in developing nations, the energy demand is steadily
rising with time. At the same time, the carbon-based energy
sources, which account for the major portion of energy consump-
tion, are rapidly depleting. Moreover, these hydrocarbon-based
resources cause pollution and CO2 buildup in the atmosphere, lead-
ing to the global warming. In this context, the judicious use of
energy in an industrial unit is a potential issue of research.
Distillation is employed as a separation unit for more than one-
and-half century [1]. In chemical and petroleum industries, this
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: akjana@che.iitkgp.ernet.in (A.K. Jana).
is reported that the distillation column accounts for 3% of the
world’s total energy consumption [2] with a thermodynamic effi-
ciency of around 5–10% [3]. Therefore, this unit is a natural choice
for improving its energy efficiency, economic performance and
emission level through the thermal integration route.
There are several heat integration schemes reported in litera-
ture [4], for example heat pump assisted distillation [5], internally
heat integrated distillation column (HIDiC) [6] and dividing wall
column (DWC). It is interesting to note that the use of a wall to
divide a HIDiC column into two closed semi-cylinders is also
reported by Seader [7]. Among these configurations, the DWC tech-
nology has emerged as an attractive proposition [8]. The dividing
wall column is a modified form of the Petlyuk column [9]. Actually,
the prefractionator and the main column of the Petlyuk setup are
merged into a single shell with a vertical wall placed inside [10].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.06.079
1359-4311/Ó 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
1034 M. Aurangzeb, A.K. Jana / Applied Thermal Engineering 106 (2016) 1033–1041

Nomenclature

Abbreviation T temperature (K)

CDS conventional distillation sequence T0 ambient temperature (K)
CI capital investment ($) DT temperature difference across the dividing wall (K)
DWC dividing wall column DT LMTD logarithmic mean temperature difference of heat
HIDiC internally heat integrated distillation column exchanger (K)
M&S Marshall and Swift cost index DT w rise in coolant temperature (K)
OC operating cost ($/year) U overall heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 K)
TAC total annual cost ($/year) V vapor flow rate (gmol/min)
WH weir height [inch in Eq. (9)]
Symbol WL weir length [inch in Eq. (9)]
A area of heat exchanger (m2) W min minimum work for separation (J/min)
Ant B; Ant C Antoine constants wc amount of coolant (kg/min)
Aw area of dividing wall (m2) ws amount of steam (kg/min)
a1 ; a2 ; a3 ; a4 constant of enthalpy correlation x liquid phase composition (mole fraction)
B bottoms flow rate (gmol/min) y vapor phase composition (mole fraction)
C side stream flow rate (gmol/min) Dz dividing wall thickness (mm)
Cp heat capacity (kJ/kg K) c liquid phase activity coefficient
D distillate flow rate (gmol/min) d cost factor for dividing wall
dia column diameter (in.) g Murphree tray efficiency
F feed stream flow rate (gmol/min) gthermal thermodynamic energy efficiency
H enthalpy of mixture (J/gmol) h payback period (year)
h enthalpy of pure component (J/gmol) k latent heat (J/gmol)
hchtc convective heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 K) qav g average density of liquid [(lb/ft3) in Eq. (9)]
hT tray stack height (m)
k thermal conductivity (W/m K) Subscript
L liquid flow rate (gmol/min) con condenser
LC height of column (m) i component index
Lw lost work (J/min) n tray index
Mwav g average molecular weight of liquid [(lb/lbmol) in Eq. reb reboiler
(9)] s steam
m liquid holdup on tray (gmol) w divided wall
P total pressure (mmHg)
Psat vapor pressure (mmHg) Superscript
Q heat (J/min) L liquid phase
R universal gas constant (J/gmol K) V vapor phase
S entropy (J/gmol K)
DS rate of entropy change (J/min K)

An improved understanding of the design, operation and control of
this DWC configuration is discussed by Kiss [11,12]. Presently,
more than 100 units are in operation worldwide [8].
A common assumption of the DWC is that no heat transfer
occurs across the dividing wall [13]. However, in reality, this
assumption is not truly valid unless the insulated wall is applied.
The heat transfer through the wall, even in small quantity, affects
the thermal dynamics of the DWC. This, in turn, affects the energy
efficiency performance of the same process. Keeping this issue in
mind, subsequently, Lestak et al. [14] have studied the effect of
heat transfer across the wall of the DWC with an example of tern-
ary mixture of methanol, isopropanol and butanol. The exergy loss
of heat transfer across the dividing wall has also been performed
using the method of minimum driving force profile [13]. Further,
Niggemann et al. [15] have performed both the experimental and
theoretical studies on DWC to produce high purity fatty alcohol.
Their process model predicts the dependency of hydrodynamics
and wide distribution of vapor split on the heat transfer across
the vertical wall. Again, the same research group [16] has analyzed
the startup operation of DWC with considering heat transfer across
the wall. Jing et al. [17] have proposed a heat transfer model of
DWC, in which, the additional virtual intermediate heat exchang-
ers are placed between the prefractionator and the main column,
and thus the heat transfer process among the virtual intermediate
heat exchangers will produce the thermal-coupled effect. Through
a simple thought experiment and simulation study [18], it is con-
cluded that the change in minimum energy demand of DWC can-
not be more than the amount of heat which is transferred across
the dividing wall.
All these studies conducted taking heat transfer through the
wall into account have shown the estimation of the percent energy
savings and/or energy efficiency improvement. Based on our
knowledge, there is no economic evaluation made so far consider-
ing this heat transfer issue in open literature. In this contribution,
our objective is to investigate the economic feasibility of the DWC
that considers heat transfer through the internal wall. A perfor-
mance comparison is also made between the DWC with heat trans-
fer through the wall and without that in the aspects of three
indices, energy savings, energy efficiency and cost. To perform this
work, we develop a simulated distillation model and it is verified
with Aspen Plus simulator.
This article has been organized as follows. The conventional dis-
tillation sequence is discussed in Section 2. In Section 3, the devel-
opment of a dividing wall column is explained. The three
performance indices, namely thermal efficiency, energy savings
and TAC are detailed in Section 4. Subsequently, the simulation
results are discussed in Section 5. Finally, last section of this article
ends with a conclusion note.
 M. Aurangzeb, A.K. Jana / Applied Thermal Engineering 106 (2016) 1033–1041 1035

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of a conventional distillation sequence (CDS) (Pdt = Product).

2. Conventional distillation sequence To develop the model of both conventional and dividing wall
columns, the following assumptions and considerations have been
It is a fact that for fractionating a ternary mixture into three adopted:
separate product streams, at least a sequence of two conventional
distillation columns is required, in which, each tower typically con-  The liquid is perfectly mixed on each tray.
sists of a reboiler and a condenser. A wide-boiling ternary mixture  The liquid and vapor leaving each tray are in equilibrium.
of n-hexane, n-heptane and n-octane is taken here for simulation  The operating pressure of 101.325 kPa is considered for the top
purpose. For this sample hydrocarbon system, accordingly we con- stage in all columns with a constant tray pressure drop of
sider a direct sequence of the two distillation columns, as shown in 0.3 kPa.
Fig. 1. In this scheme, the bottom stream leaving the first tower  The vapor-phase Murphree efficiency of 70% has been assumed
becomes the feed to the subsequent column. for each tray.
In the conventional distillation sequence (CDS), there are total  The vapor-phase holdup is negligible with regard to the liquid-
28 trays in the first column and 30 in the second column, excluding phase holdup.
the reboiler and a condenser. The trays are counted in ascending  Algebraic forms of equations are used to determine the
order from the bottom to top. The model and system characteris- enthalpy of liquid and vapor phase.
tics are reported in Table 1.  The fast energy dynamics is assumed to transform the differen-
tial energy equation to algebraic form for computing the vapor
flow rate.
 The liquid flow rate leaving each tray is calculated using the
Table 1
Francis weir relationship.
Conventional distillation sequence: physical specification and steady state simulation
results.  Variations of liquid holdups are considered in each tray, exclud-
ing in reflux drum and column base.
Ternary mixture: n-hexane/n-heptane/n-octane
 The Hildebrand model of regular solution [19] is used to predict
Column 1 Column 2 the vapor-liquid equilibrium (VLE).
Physical specification
Total number of tray 28 30 It should be noted that the derivation of process model is shown
Column diameter (m) 1.6 1.4
later for both the CDS and DWC together.
Feed composition 0.4/0.3/0.3 0.004/0.492/0.504
Feed flow rate (kmol/h) 336 199.83
Feed temperature (°C) 88.83 112.33 3. Dividing wall column (DWC)
Feed tray location 17 15
Steady state composition (mole fraction) 3.1. Basic configuration and operating principle
Overhead stream (Pdt 1) 0.982/0.016/0.002 –
Overhead stream (Pdt 2) – 0.011/0.965/0.024
Bottom stream (Pdt 3) – 0.001/0.062/0.937
As shown in Fig. 2, the two columns of the conventional distil-
lation sequence are merged into a single shell, a part of which is
Steady state flow rate (kmol/h)
Overhead stream (Pdt 1) 136.17 –
divided by a wall. Unlike the conventional scheme, it accompanies
Overhead stream (Pdt 2) – 95.06 a single condenser as well as a reboiler. This scheme is called as
Bottom stream (Pdt 3) – 104.77 dividing wall column (DWC), which mainly comprises of four com-
Heat exchanger duty and thermal efficiency partments, namely top section that includes the condenser, bottom
Reboiler duty (kW) 3285 2566.67 section that accompanies the reboiler, left divided section (pre-
Condenser duty (kW) 3099 2537.67 fractionator) that receives a feed stream and right divided section
Energy efficiency (%) 16.04
that discharges a side product.
1036 M. Aurangzeb, A.K. Jana / Applied Thermal Engineering 106 (2016) 1033–1041

Species (i) mole balance

dðmn xn;i Þ
¼ ðLnþ1
C n Þxnþ1;i þ V n
1 yn
1;i
Ln xn;i
V n yn;i
dt
þ F n xF;i ð2Þ
Energy balance

dðmn HLn Þ
¼ ðLnþ1
C n ÞHLnþ1 þ V n
1 HVn
1
Ln HLn
V n HVn
dt
þ F n HLF  Q w ð3Þ

In the above modeling equations, xn;i is the mole fraction of com-

ponent i in the liquid stream leaving nth tray, yn;i the mole fraction
of component i in the vapor stream leaving nth tray, xF;i the mole
fraction of component i in the feed stream, Ln the liquid flow rate
leaving nth tray (gmol/min), Vn the vapor flow rate leaving nth tray
(gmol/min), F the feed flow rate (gmol/min), mn the liquid holdup
on nth tray (gmol), HLF the enthalpy of feed stream (J/gmol), HLn the
enthalpy of liquid leaving nth tray (J/gmol), HVn the enthalpy of
vapor leaving nth tray (J/gmol) and Qw (J/min) the heat transfer
through the divided wall.
It is true that the dynamics of internal energy change is much
faster than the composition or total holdup changes. Hence, the
Fig. 2. Dividing wall column. differential energy equations are transformed to their algebraic
forms by putting zero on the left-hand side of Eq. (3) to compute
vapor flow rate (Vn).

The splitting of liquid coming from the top section and that of Enthalpy correlation
vapor leaving the bottom section is done with using one set of col-
lector – and – distributor at the top and bottom with respect to the The vapor phase enthalpy is estimated using a fourth-order
wall, respectively. Avoiding the physical contact of fresh feed with polynomial [20] as:
the stream flowed through the right side of the wall, the DWC can V a2 2 a3 3 a4 4
h ¼ a1 T þ T þ T þ T ð4Þ
produce a side stream enriched with intermediate component. 2 3 4
Three products, including the top and bottom streams, can be
The values of the constants, a1 through a4 with temperature (T)
simultaneously withdrawn from a single DWC column, thereby
in K, are given elsewhere [19].
avoiding the use of two columns. This, in turn, leads to reduce both
The enthalpy of a liquid (hL) can be computed using the follow-
the energy consumption and cost.
ing form of relationship:
L V
h ¼h
k ð5Þ
3.2. Mathematical model
with
Based on the assumptions stated before, we would like to " #
2 Ant B
develop the modeling equations for a typical nth plate shown in k ¼ RT ð6Þ
Fig. 3. Along with the internal liquid and vapor streams, a feed ðAnt C þ TÞ2
and a side stream are also associated with the nth plate for model- The latent heat of vaporization (k) is in J/gmol, the universal gas
ing purpose. The equations are derived as follows: constant (R) is equal to 8.314 J/gmol K. The Antoine constants,
Ant_B and Ant_C, are adopted with the vapor pressure (Psat) at
Total mole balance mmHg and temperature (T) at K.
dmn It should be noted at this moment that Eqs. (4) and (5) corre-
¼ Lnþ1
C n þ V n
1
Ln
V n þ F n ð1Þ spond to pure component enthalpies. Accordingly, the mixture
dt
enthalpies have the following forms:
X
Nc
V
HV ¼ yi hi ð7Þ
i¼1

X
Nc
V
HL ¼ xi ðhi
ki Þ ð8Þ
i¼1

Here, Nc is the total number of species present in the mixture.

Tray hydraulics

The nonlinear form of Francis weir formula is used to calculate

the liquid flow rate leaving a tray. With reference to nth tray, it has
Fig. 3. Schematic representation of nth tray of a column. the following form:
 M. Aurangzeb, A.K. Jana / Applied Thermal Engineering 106 (2016) 1033–1041
!1:5
999qav g W L 183:2mn Mwav g W H
Ln ¼
ð9Þ
Mwav g qav g d 12
Here, the liquid flow rate (L) is in lbmol/h, the column diameter
(d) in inch, the average density of liquid mixture (qavg) in lb/ft3, the
holdup of tray liquid (m) in lbmol, the average molecular weight of
liquid mixture (Mwavg) in lb/lbmol, the weir length (WL) in inch and
the weir height (WH) in inch.
Vapor-liquid equilibrium
For a multicomponent mixture with liquid phase nonideality,
the phase equilibrium can be expressed as:
Pyn;i ¼ cn;i Psat
n;i xn;i ð10Þ
Here, y denotes the vapor-phase equilibrium composition, c
the liquid phase activity coefficient and P the total pressure. In
order to compute the unknown entities (T and yn;i ), an iterative
convergence technique, like the Newton-Raphson method, can be
used. The computational steps to carry out the bubble point calcu-
lation are outlined elsewhere [19].
Murphree efficiency
The Murphree tray efficiency (g) is used to estimate the depar-
ture of vapor-phase from its equilibrium state and it can be defined
for nth tray as:
yn;i
yn
1;i
gn ¼ ð11Þ
yn;i
yn
1;i
Heat transfer mechanism through dividing wall
Note that the energy balance equation [Eq. (3)] includes a term
Qw, which accounts for the rate of heat transfer between the liquids
of two divided trays across the wall. Accordingly, we consider three
thermal resistances, two convective resistances in both tray liquids
and a conductive resistance through the metal wall. Accordingly,
we have:
Q w ¼ UAw DT ð12Þ
where
1 2 Dz
¼ þ ð13Þ
U hchtc k
Aw ¼ W H d ð14Þ
Here, DT is the temperature difference across the wall. The con-
vective heat transfer coefficient, hchtc is adopted as 348.9 W/m2 K
[21] and the thermal conductivity, k of dividing wall as 16 W/m K
[21]. The thickness (Dz) of dividing wall is assumed as 2 mm [22].
Accordingly, the overall heat transfer coefficient, U is calculated
as 170.73 W/m2 K. Moreover, we consider the weir height, WH
equals 0.05 m and the diameter, d equals 1.4 m.
3.3. Simulation algorithm
A dynamic simulator for the proposed DWC model has been
developed with the following computational steps:
Step 1: The column specifications (total number of stages, col-
umn diameter, weir height and weir length), feed specifications
(composition, flow rate and temperature), feed tray location,
stage pressure drop, tray efficiency, and initial conditions like
liquid compositions and liquid holdup on all trays, are given
as input.
1037
Step 2: The heat input to the reboiler and reflux rate are pro-
vided at each time step.
Step 3: The temperature and vapor-phase equilibrium compo-
sition for each tray are computed for a given pressure and
liquid-phase composition. The actual vapor-phase composition
is calculated subsequently by employing the Murphree rela-
tionship [Eq. (12)].
Step 4: Calculate the vapor and liquid phase enthalpies for each
tray based on the algebraic form of Eqs. (4) and (5).
Step 5: Calculate the internal liquid flow rate for all trays using
the Francis weir formula [Eq. (9)].
Step 6: All the vapor flow rates are computed from the energy
balance equations as described before.
Step 7: Calculate the heat transfer through the dividing wall, Qw
from Eq. (13).
Step 8: Use the desired splitting ratio for both the vapor and liq-
uid streams to distribute to the two dividing sides of the col-
umn. A sensitivity analysis is performed for selecting the said
ratio and it is elaborated later.
Step 9: The time derivative of all total and component balance
equations is evaluated.
Step 10: All balance differential equations, except for the energy
balance, are solved by using a numerical scheme. Then calculate
liquid holdup and liquid-phase composition for all trays for the
future time step.
Step 11: To continue the simulation, go back to Step 3.
Based on this computer-assisted algorithm, we develop the
computer codes in MATLAB environment for simulating the
differential-algebraic equation (DAE) system.
4. Performance indices
To quantify the performance of the DWC column over its con-
ventional counterpart, three indices have been used. They include
thermal efficiency, energy savings and total annual cost (TAC), and
they are briefly presented below.
4.1. Thermal efficiency
The thermodynamic efficiency for a continuous steady-state
flow system is derived by combining the first law and second
law of thermodynamics. The detail of thermodynamic analysis
for a general separation system is available elsewhere [23]. For a
distillation column, the first and second law of thermodynamics
can be defined by the following forms:
X
u
ðQ reb;k
Q con;k Þ þ FHF
DHD
BHB
CHC ¼ 0 ð15Þ
k¼1
Xu  
Q con;k Q reb;k
DS ¼

FSF þ DSD þ BSB þ CSC P 0 ð16Þ
T con;k T reb;k
k¼1
Here, D represents the distillate flow rate, B the bottoms rate, Q
the heat load and S the entropy. Note that the subscript D denotes
the distillate, B the bottoms, F the feed, reb the reboiler and con the
condenser. Here, the symbol C is used to represent the side stream
flow rate for DWC and the overhead flow rate of the second column
in CDS. Moreover, u is 2 for CDS and 1 for DWC.
The inefficiency of a process is measured in terms of lost work
(Lw). The magnitude of Lw depends on process irreversibility, which
includes finite driving force for heat and mass transfer, mixing of
streams differing in temperature, pressure, and composition, etc.
The lost work is determined by combining Eqs. (16) and (17),
and it takes the following expression:
1038 M. Aurangzeb, A.K. Jana / Applied Thermal Engineering 106 (2016) 1033–1041

Lw ¼ T 0 DS column (m), as given in Eq. (24), that depends on the number of

Xu      trays (Ntray) and tray spacing (=0.6 m) with a 10% allowance [24].
T0 T0
¼ Q reb;k 1

Q con;k 1
For the disengagement of vapor and liquid, this allowance leads
T reb;k T con;k
k¼1 to provide an excess space at both ends of the column.
þ FðHF
T 0 SF Þ
DðHD
T 0 SD Þ
BðHB
T 0 SB Þ
CðHC
T 0 SC Þ
Xu       Distillation tray
T0 T0
¼ Q reb;k 1

Q con;k 1

W min ð17Þ
k¼1
T reb;k T con;k  
M&S 1:55
Tray cost ð$Þ ¼ 97:243d hT ðcs þ ct þ cm Þ ð24Þ
Here, T0 is the ambient temperature and Wmin the minimum 280
work required to separate the mixture, and it is given by the fol-
Here, the constant, cs = 1.0, ct = 0.0 (for sieve tray type), and
lowing expression:
cm = 1.7. The tray stack height, hT = 0.6(Ntray
1).
W min ¼ ðDHD þ BHB þ CHC
FHF Þ
T 0 ðDSD þ BSB þ CSC
FSF Þ
 Heat exchanger
ð18Þ
 
Finally, the thermodynamic energy efficiency for conventional M&S
distillation sequence and dividing wall column can be defined as: Heat exchanger cost ð$Þ ¼ 474:668A0:65 ð2:29 þ ðcd þ cp Þcm Þ
280
W min ð25Þ
gthermal ¼
W min þ Lw
with
W min
¼P      ð19Þ Q
u T0
k¼1 Q reb;k 1
T
Q con;k 1
T T 0 A¼ ð26Þ
reb;k con;k U DT LMTD
Here, the coefficients, cm = 3.75, cp = 0.0 (up to 10.2 atm pres-
4.2. Energy savings sure), and cd = 1.35 for reboiler and 0.8 for condenser. A is the area
of heat exchanger (m2) and DTLMTD the logarithmic mean temper-
The second performance index for evaluating the DWC column ature difference. It is assumed that the overall heat transfer coeffi-
over the conventional distillation sequence is energy savings. We cient (U) of reboiler and condenser is 1000 W/(m2 K) [27].
use the following expression for calculating the percent reduction Further, for evaluating the cost of utility, we adopt the yearly
in energy consumption as: working time of 8000 h. The costs of steam and coolant [27] are
taken as $13 per ton and $0.03 per ton, respectively. The amounts
Q CDS
Q DWC
Energy saving ð%Þ ¼  100 ð20Þ of steam (ws) and coolant (wc) are estimated (kg/min) using the fol-
Q CDS
lowing forms:
Here, Q is the reboiler heat load.
Q con
wc ¼ ð27Þ
C p DT w
4.3. Total annual cost (TAC)

Q reb
A useful parameter typically considered for analyzing the eco- ws ¼ ð28Þ
nomic performance is the total annual cost, and it is defined as: ks
Here, Cp denotes the heat capacity of water (4.183 kJ/kg K), DTw
capital investment ðCIÞ
TAC ð$=yearÞ ¼ operating cost ðOCÞ þ the rise in temperature of water (K) and ks the latent heat of steam
payback period
(J/kg).
ð21Þ
The capital investment includes the cost of equipments, namely 5. Results and discussion
distillation column and its trays, and two heat exchangers (i.e.,
reboiler and condenser). The operating cost is the summation of 5.1. Conventional distillation sequence
the cost of steam and cooling water.
The TAC is estimated based on the equations given in Douglas Running the conventional distillation simulator, we obtain
[24]. Here, we adopt the value of the Marshall and Swift (M&S) 98.2 mol% n-hexane from the overhead of first column, and
index as 1672 [25]. The stainless steel is used as a material of con- 96.5 mol% n-heptane and 93.7 mol% n-octane from the overhead
struction for both the CDS and DWC. The formulas used for calcu- and bottom of second column, respectively. Table 1 reports the
lating the installed cost of the column, trays and heat exchanger
are described below:
Table 2
Verification of our simulation results with Aspen Plus.
 Distillation column
VLE model Column 1 Column 2
 
M&S 1:066 0:802 Overhead stream Overhead stream Bottom stream
Column cost ð$Þ ¼ 937:636d LC ð2:18 þ cm cp Þd ð22Þ (Pdt 1) (Pdt 2) (Pdt 3)
280
Our result
with Hildebrand 0.982/0.016/0.002 0.011/0.965/0.024 0.001/0.062/0.937

LC ¼ ðN tray
1Þ  0:6  1:1 ð23Þ Aspen Plus result

Ideal 0.98/0.019/0.001 0.011/0.963/0.026 0.002/0.06/0.938
Here, the coefficients, cm = 3.67 and cp = 1.0 (up to 3.4 atm pres- UNIQUAC 0.968/0.032/0.0 0.011/0.965/0.024 0.0/0.06/0.94
sure). The cost of a dividing wall in DWC is taken into account by a UNIFAC 0.972/0.028/0.0 0.01/0.951/0.039 0.0/0.073/0.927
Wilson 0.968/0.032/0.0 0.01/0.965/0.025 0.001/0.06/0.939
factor o [26]. The value of o is adopted as 1.1 for DWC and 1 for
NRTL 0.969/0.031/0.0 0.011/0.965/0.024 0.0/0.06/0.94
CDS. Note that d is the diameter of column (m), LC the height of
 M. Aurangzeb, A.K. Jana / Applied Thermal Engineering 106 (2016) 1033–1041 1039

Table 3
Process specification and steady state results of dividing wall column.

Ternary mixture: n-hexane/n-heptane/n-octane

Without heat transfer (Case 1) With heat transfer (Case 2)
Process specification of dividing wall column
Total number of trays 50 50
Column diameter (m) 1.4 1.4
Feed composition 0.4/0.3/0.3 0.4/0.3/0.3
Feed flow rate (kmol/h) 336 336
Feed temperature (0C) 88.83 88.83
Feed tray location 25 25
Reflux ratio 2.8 2.53
Steady state composition (mole fraction)
Overhead stream (Pdt 1) 0.983/0.016/0.001 0.996/3.999  10
3/1  10
6
Side stream (Pdt 2) 0.002/0.969/0.029 0.019/0.967/0.014
Bottom stream (Pdt 3) 0.004/0.04/0.956 0.001/0.018/0.981
Steady state flow rate (kmol/h) and other parameter
Overhead stream (Pdt 1) 136.6 133
Side stream (Pdt 2) 96.89 101.78
Bottom stream (Pdt 3) 102.51 101.22
Reboiler duty (kW) 4210 4530
Condenser duty (kW) 4094.5 4285.87
Liquid split factor (%) 67.6 57
Vapor split factor (%) 33 31
Energy efficiency (%) 39.55 37.5

relevant information of this distillation sequence. Our simulation

results are verified using the RadFrac unit of the Aspen Plus simu-
lator and they are documented in Table 2. It clearly reflects that the
n-hexane purity based on the Hildebrand VLE model is very close
to the value obtained for an ideal case but it is slightly away for
the other activity coefficient models. On the other hand, the purity
of n-heptane and n-octane obtained based on the Hildebrand
model is reasonably close to the values obtained for other activity
coefficient models.

5.2. Dividing wall column: the proposed scheme

5.2.1. Influence of heat transfer across dividing wall

To investigate the effect of heat transfer through the dividing
wall in terms of heat duties in both the condenser and reboiler,
and product purity and flow rate, we compare the DWC column
between its two cases. In the first case, we assume that there is

Fig. 4. The temperature profile of dividing wall column at steady state. Fig. 5. Influence of liquid and vapor split on the purity of product streams.
1040 M. Aurangzeb, A.K. Jana / Applied Thermal Engineering 106 (2016) 1033–1041

Table 4
Comparative performance study between CDS and DWC based on thermal efficiency, energy savings and TAC.

Cost item Conventional distillation sequence Dividing wall column

Column 1 Column 2 Case 1 Case 2
Condenser duty (kW) 3099 2537.67 4094.5 4285.87
Reboiler duty (kW) 3285 2566.67 4210 4530
Total reboiler duty of CDS 5851.67 – –
Area of reboiler (m2) 56.55 63.82 89.23 97.66
Area of condenser (m2) 57.58 30.28 76.16 80.48
Cooling water (1000 ton/year) 1066.83 873.59 1409.53 1475.41
Steam (ton/year) 42847.16 33477.79 54912.2 59086.05
Cost of coolant ($/year) 32004.97 26207.83 42285.9 44262.3
Cost of steam ($/year) 557013.19 435211.28 713858.61 768118.65
Total operating cost ($/year) 589018.16 461419.11 756144.51 812380.95
Operating cost saving (%) – 28.02 22.7
Reboiler cost ($) 2.8708  105 3.1055  105 3.8614  105 4.0946  105
Condenser cost ($) 2.0899  105 1.3763  105 2.5063  105 2.598  105
Column cost ($) 5.4461  105 5.0022  105 8.38  105 8.38  105
Tray cost ($) 5.2626  104 4.5957  104 7.7651  104 7.7651  104
Capital investment ($) 10.933  105 9.944  105 15.524  105 15.849  105
Capital investment saving (%) – 25.64 24.08
TAC (h = 3 year) ($/year) 17.463  105 12.736  105 13.41  105
TAC saving (%) – 27.07 23.23
Payback period, h (year) – 1.82 2.11
Energy saving (%) – 28.1 22.6
Energy efficiency (%) 16.04 39.55 37.5

no heat transfer involved and in the second case, heat transfer
occurs from high temperature to low temperature side of the divid-
ing wall. As shown in Table 3, Case 1 involves less reboiler and con-
denser duty with maintaining a close purity and productivity. For
Case 2, along with the results included in Table 3, Fig. 4 is addition-
ally produced to show the thermal driving force existed at steady
state between the two divided sections. Obviously, the heat
exchange takes place from the right to left side, involving more
reboiler and condenser duty compared to Case 1. It is worth notic-
ing that the DWC (Case 2) improves its purity significantly in terms
of mainly n-hexane and n-octane compared to its Case 1 and the
conventional distillation sequence.
Based on the procedure mentioned before, the proposed DWC
column (Case 2) secures a 22.6% savings in energy consumption
over the conventional distillation sequence. It leads to an increase
in energy efficiency from 16.04% (CDS) to 37.5% (DWC). As far as
cost is concerned, it is evident in Table 4 that the proposed DWC
column (Case 2) involves a 24.08% decrease in capital investment
and a 22.7% decrease in operating cost over its conventional anal-
ogous. Overall, the DWC configuration secures a 23.23% savings in
TAC with a payback period of 2.11 years.
6. Conclusion

This article deals with a dividing wall distillation column, for

5.2.2. Influence of liquid and vapor split
The effect of liquid and vapor splitting at the top and bottom of
the dividing wall, respectively, play a vital role in achieving a rea-
sonable purity in the side stream. Performing a sensitivity test,
Fig. 5 is produced that demonstrates the influence of splitting fac-
tor, which refers to a percent of a stream directed to the right of
dividing wall. Based on this simulation experiment, we finally
choose a vapor splitting of 31% and liquid splitting of 57% for
DWC (Case 2). The information provided in Table 3 shows that
the percentage of liquid split to right side of dividing wall is higher
for first case of DWC in comparison with second case. On the other
hand, the percentage of vapor split is very close between them.
5.2.3. Performance improvement
In this section, we attempt to carry out a comparative perfor-
mance study between the conventional distillation sequence and
dividing wall column. The two cases of dividing wall column are
evaluated in Table 4 with reference to the CDS in terms of a couple
of performance indexes, namely thermal efficiency, energy savings,
capital investment, operating cost, TAC and payback period. Ana-
lyzing the result, it is observed that Case 1 of the dividing wall col-
umn shows a better savings in TAC, energy and operating cost over
its Case 2. Further, there is a little difference in their performance
in the context of energy efficiency. On the other hand, Case 2 pro-
duces a little more payback period (2.11 year) over its Case 1
(1.82 year).
which, we propose a model to consider the heat transfer through
the metal wall. The performance of this proposed heat integrated
configuration over the conventional distillation sequence is evalu-
ated for the separation of a wide boiling three component hydro-
carbon mixture. A comparative analysis of DWC and its
conventional analogous is demonstrated in the aspects of three
performance indicators, namely thermal efficiency, energy savings
and total annual cost.
It is observed that the proposed dividing wall column secures a
reduction in energy consumption by 22.6% with an improvement
in energy efficiency to 37.5%. Moreover, the economic analysis
reveals that the proposed configuration provides a significant sav-
ings in operating cost and TAC with a reasonably low payback time
of 2.11 years. We are currently involved in optimization and con-
trol of DWC column introducing further thermal integration
through heat pumping.
References
[1] A.R. Daum, Petroleum in search for an industry, Penn. Hist. 26 (1959) 21–34.
[2] H.K. Engelein, S. Skogestad, Selecting appropriate control variables for heat-
integrated distillation system with prefractionator, Comput. Chem. Eng. 28
(2004) 683–691.
[3] D. Bruinsma, S. Spoelstra, Heat pump in distillation, in: Distillation and
Absorption Conference, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2010, pp. 21–28.
[4] A.K. Jana, Heat integrated distillation operation, Appl. Energy 87 (2010) 1477–
1494.
[5] O. Annakou, P. Mizsey, Rigorous investigation of heat pump assisted
distillation, Heat Recov. Syst. CHP 15 (1995) 241–247.
 M. Aurangzeb, A.K. Jana / Applied Thermal Engineering 106 (2016) 1033–1041
[6] M.A. Gadalla, Internal heat integrated distillation columns (iHIDiCs) – new
systematic design methodology, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 87 (2009) 1658–1666.
[7] J.D. Seader, Continuous distillation apparatus and method, United States
Patent 4,234,391, Nov. 18, 1980.
[8] A.A. Kiss, R.R. Rewagad, Energy efficient control of BTX dividing-wall column,
Comput. Chem. Eng. 35 (2011) 2896–2904.
[9] F.B. Petlyuk, V.M. Platonov, D.M. Slavinskii, Thermodynamically optimal
method for separating multicomponent mixture, Ind. Chem. Eng. 5 (1965)
555–561.
[10] G. Kaibel, Distillation columns with vertical partitions, Chem. Eng. Technol. 10
(1987) 92–98.
[11] A.A. Kiss, Advanced Distillation Technologies: Design, Control and Application,
first ed., Wiley, West Sussex, 2013.
[12] N.V.D. Long, Y. Kwon, M. Lee, Design and optimization of thermally coupled
distillation schemes for the trichlorosilane purification process, Appl. Therm.
Eng. 59 (2013) 200–210.
[13] B. Suphanit, A. Bischert, P. Narataruksa, Exergy loss analysis of heat transfer
across the wall of the dividing-wall distillation column, Energy 32 (2007)
2121–2134.
[14] F. Lestak, R. Smith, V.R. Dhole, Heat transfer across the wall of dividing wall
columns, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 72 (1994) 639–644.
[15] G. Niggemann, C. Hiller, G. Fieg, Experimental and theoretical studies of a
dividing-wall column used for the recovery of high-purity products, Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 49 (2010) 6566–6577.
[16] G. Niggemann, C. Hiller, G. Fieg, Modeling and in-depth analysis of the start-up
of dividing-wall columns, Chem. Eng. Sci. 66 (2011) 5268–5283.
1041
[17] F. Jing, H. Yuqi, L. Chunli, Energy-saving mechanism in heat transfer
optimization of dividing wall column, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 52 (2013)
18345–18355.
[18] C. Ehlers, M. Shröder, G. Fieg, Influence of heat transfer across the wall of
dividing wall columns on energy demand, AIChE J. 61 (2015) 1648–1662.
[19] A.K. Jana, Chemical Process Modeling and Simulation, second ed., Prentice Hall,
New Delhi, 2011.
[20] B.E. Poling, J.M. Praustnitz, J.P. O’Connell, The Properties of Gases and Liquids,
fourth ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1987.
[21] B.K. Dutta, Heat Transfer: Principles and Applications, first ed., PHI Learning,
New Delhi, 2009.
[22] G. Kaibel, M. Stroezel, U. Rheude, Dividing wall column for continuous
fractionation of multicomponent mixtures by distillation, United States Patent
5,914,012, Jun 22, 1999.
[23] W.D. Seider, J.D. Seader, D.R. Lewin, S. Widagdo, Product and Process Design
Principles: Synthesis, Analysis and Evaluation, third ed., Wiley, New Jersey,
2009.
[24] J.M. Douglas, Conceptual Design of Chemical Processes, first ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1988.
[25] Economic indicator, Chemical engineering plant cost index, August 2011.
[26] L. Sun, X. Chang, C. Qi, Q. Li, Implementation of ethanol dehydration using
dividing-wall heterogeneous azeotropic distillation column, Sep. Sci. Technol.
46 (2011) 1365–1375.
[27] B. Suphanit, Design of internally heat integrated distillation column (HIDIC):
Uniform heat transfer area versus uniform heat distribution, Energy 35 (2010)
1505–1514.