Plant II - Final Draft 2

Team contribution
Mohamed Anas Mohamed Khalid

Activity Total
Alhamad Ahmed Shamlooh Alnaimi
Chapter 9 25% 25% 25% 25% 100%
Chapter 10 25% 25% 25% 25% 100%
Chapter 11 25% 25% 25% 25% 100%
Chapter 12 25% 25% 25% 25% 100%
Chapter 13 25% 25% 25% 25% 100%
Signature
Acknowledgement
The company design team would like to thank the supervise Dr. Fares AlMomani who provided us with
very useful guides and special thanks to the teaching assistant Eng. Dana Abdeen who provided us with some
very powerful feedback on our work and without there golden advises the project would not reach up to this
stage so really special thanks to them.
Secondly the team wants to thank Dr. Fadwa El-Jack for her help in understanding the main steps
regarding the needed tasks form the team.
Finally, the team is thankful for the chemical engineering department for providing the team with the
perfect environment and facilities to work in the project and to reach the aimed targets.
Table of Contents
Team contribution ................................................................................................................................................ 2
Acknowledgement................................................................................................................................................. 3
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 10
Executive Summary (Arabic) ............................................................................................................................. 12
Chapter 9 Process optimization ...................................................................................................................... 14
9.1 Objective .................................................................................................................................................... 14
9.2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 14
9.2.1 Heat integration......................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
9.2.2 Waste heat recovery ................................................................................................................................................................................ 15
9.3 Potential areas of heat recovery .............................................................................................................. 15
9.4 Methodology and computation ................................................................................................................ 18
9.4.1 Graphical method...................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
9.4.2 Algebraic method ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 20
9.4.3 Heat exchanger network design............................................................................................................................................................. 22
9.5 Waste Heat Recovery ............................................................................................................................... 25
9.6 discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 27
9.7 conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 28
Chapter 10: Heat Exchangers Design ............................................................................................................. 30
9.1 Objective .................................................................................................................................................... 30
9.2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 30
9.3 Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 31
9.4 E-107 Detailed design ............................................................................................................................... 32
9.4.1 Fluid allocation ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 32
9.4.3 Assumptions and constrains .................................................................................................................................................................... 34
9.4.4 Design sample calculation ........................................................................................................................................................................ 34
9.5 Results ........................................................................................................................................................ 38
9.5.1 E-107............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 38
9.5.2 E-100............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 41
9.5.3 E-104............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 42
9.5.4 E-106............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 43
9.6 HTRI drawings ........................................................................................................................................... 45
9.7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 47
Chapter 11: Separator Design ......................................................................................................................... 49
11.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 49
11.2 Separator configuration(V-401) ............................................................................................................. 50
P a g e 4 | 125
11.3 Separator design methodology .............................................................................................................. 51
11.4 Constraints .............................................................................................................................................. 51
11.5 Assumption .............................................................................................................................................. 51
11.6 Sample Calculation ................................................................................................................................. 52
Final data sheet for the separator ................................................................................................................. 54
11.7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 56
Chapter 12: Distillation Column Design ........................................................................................................ 58
12.1 Objective .................................................................................................................................................. 58
12.2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 58
12.3 Assumptions ............................................................................................................................................ 60
12.4 Constrains ................................................................................................................................................ 61
12.5 Methodology and Sample calculation ................................................................................................... 61
11.6 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 72
11.7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 77
Chapter 13: Economic Evaluation .................................................................................................................. 79
13.1 Objective .................................................................................................................................................. 79
13.2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 79
13.3 Feeds and products ................................................................................................................................. 80
13.4 Market Study ........................................................................................................................................... 82
13.4.1 Raw material ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 82
13.4.2 Products .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 83
13.4.3 Inflation ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 86
13.5 Utilities ..................................................................................................................................................... 87
13.5.1 Steam generation .................................................................................................................................................................................... 87
13.5.2 Electricity .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 88
13.6 Assumptions ............................................................................................................................................ 89
13.7 Cash flows ................................................................................................................................................ 90
13.7.1 Capital cost .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 90
13.7.2 Operating Cost........................................................................................................................................................................................ 95
13.7.3 Product’s Revenue .................................................................................................................................................................................. 97
13.8 Economic Analysis................................................................................................................................... 99
13.8.1 Payback time ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 99
13.8.2 Return on Investment ............................................................................................................................................................................ 99
13.8.3 Discounted Cash Flow .........................................................................................................................................................................100
13.8.4 Discounted Cash flow Rate of Return ..............................................................................................................................................101
13.9 Scenarios ................................................................................................................................................ 102
13.9.1 First Scenario ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 102
P a g e 5 | 125
13.9.2 Second Scenario .................................................................................................................................................................................... 104
13.9.3 Third Scenario ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 106
13.10 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 108
Final Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 109
References ......................................................................................................................................................... 110
Appendix A (E-100 detailed design) ............................................................................................................... 111
Appendix B (E-104 Design) ............................................................................................................................. 114
Appendix C (E-106 design) .............................................................................................................................. 120
P a g e 6 | 125
List of tables
Table 1 Targeted streams ................................................................................................................................................. 15
Table 2 Thermal pinch analysis summary ....................................................................................................................... 19
Table 3 External heat exchangers summary for Tmin= 10oC ..................................................................................... 23
Table 4 External heat exchangers summary for Tmin= 50oC above the pinch ........................................................ 24
Table 5 fuel consumption before and after WHR ....................................................................................................... 25
Table 6 emissions before and after WHR ...................................................................................................................... 26
Table 7 steam generated from WHR ............................................................................................................................. 26
Table 8 Properties summary ............................................................................................................................................ 33
Table 9 Design summary using Kern's method ............................................................................................................. 39
Table 10 E-107 Case 1: design using HITRI ................................................................................................................... 40
Table 13 E-104 shell design............................................................................................................................................... 42
Table 14 E-104 tubes design ............................................................................................................................................. 42
Table 15 E-106 Kern's method design ............................................................................................................................ 43
Table 16 NRU operating conditions and fluid physical properties ............................................................................. 50
Table 17 Final data sheet for the separator ................................................................................................................... 54
Table 18 HYSYS Final data sheet for the separator ..................................................................................................... 55
Table 19 Physical properties of the debutanizer ........................................................................................................... 59
Table 20 Debutanizer main specifications ...................................................................................................................... 59
Table 21 Type of distillation column ............................................................................................................................... 60
Table 22 Top section Hydraulic ....................................................................................................................................... 74
Table 23: Bottom section hydraulic results ................................................................................................................... 76
Table 24 Comparison between HYSYS results and hand calculation ........................................................................ 76
Table 25 Summary of the feed and products ..................................................................................................................... 80
Table 26 Feed and products flow rates per year ................................................................................................................ 81
Table 27 Chemical plants index (2008-2017) ................................................................................................................... 91
P a g e 7 | 125
Table 28 Summary of product's revenue ............................................................................................................................ 97
Table 29 Explanation of cash flows yearly .......................................................................................................................... 98
List of Figures
Figure 1 Process PFD with hot and cold streams highlighted ..................................................................................... 17
Figure 2 the optimum setting of energy cost trade off to a theshold problem ........................................................ 18
Figure 3 graphical thermal pinch analysis for Tmin = 10 oC ........................................................................................ 19
Figure 4 graphical thermal pinch analysis for Tmin = 50 oC ........................................................................................ 20
Figure 5 Temperature interval diagram .......................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 6 Cascade sample interval..................................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 7 Cascade representation of the system ............................................................................................................ 22
Figure 8 HEN for Tmin= 10oC ......................................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 9 HEN for Tmin= 50 oC ........................................................................................................................................ 24
Figure 10 Waste Heat Recovery Simulation .................................................................................................................. 27
Figure 11 E-107 Rating results.......................................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 12 E-100 HITRI design ........................................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 13 E-106 HTRI design ............................................................................................................................................ 44
Figure 14 tube bundle layout with dimension ................................................................................................................ 45
Figure 15 heat exchanger shell dimension...................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 16 Shell baffle spacing and overall dimension .................................................................................................... 46
Figure 17 single stage vertical separator ......................................................................................................................... 49
Figure 18 Tori-spherical head........................................................................................................................................... 71
Figure 19 Hysys results for top section .......................................................................................................................... 72
Figure 20: Top section Geometry ................................................................................................................................... 73
Figure 21: bottom section main results .......................................................................................................................... 74
Figure 22: Bottom section geometry .............................................................................................................................. 75
Figure 23 Global natural gas demand ................................................................................................................................. 82
Figure 24 Henry Hub natural gas price ............................................................................................................................... 83
P a g e 8 | 125
Figure 25 Japan's LNG imports prices ................................................................................................................................. 84
Figure 26 Natural gas liquid prices ...................................................................................................................................... 85
Figure 27 Inflation rates in Qatar between 2012 and 2022 ............................................................................................. 87
Figure 28 LNG plants metric cost ........................................................................................................................................ 91
Figure 29 Parameters used in factorial method ............................................................................................................. 94
Figure 30 Base case cash flow diagram ........................................................................................................................... 98
Figure 31 Cash flow diagram with today's money............................................................................................................. 100
Figure 32 Discounted cash flow ......................................................................................................................................... 101
Figure 33 Cash flow diagram for the first scenario ........................................................................................................... 102
Figure 34 Discounted cash flow for the first scenario ....................................................................................................... 103
Figure 35 Cash flow diagram in the second scenario........................................................................................................ 104
Figure 36 Discounted cash flow for second scenario ........................................................................................................ 105
Figure 37 Cash flow diagram for the third scenario .......................................................................................................... 106
Figure 38 Discounted cash flow for the third scenario ...................................................................................................... 107
P a g e 9 | 125
Executive Summary
In the first stage of designing an LNG plant, the main elementary tasks were achieved which are
technology selection, material balance, energy balance, EIA and HAZOP. These tasks were achieved with the
help of the simulation program HYSYS. A full plan was simulated which consisted of four main sections that
produced an amount of 7.5 MTPA of high quality LNG that satisfies the global demand.
In the second phase of this project, the first task was to optimize the process which was mainly done in
two parts, the first is heat integration in which the hot and cold process streams are used to exchange heat
which reduces the load that the utility has. This task helped in reducing the operating cost as it will reduce the
amount of steam and electricity needed in the plant, on the other hand, it increases the fixed cost as more heat
exchangers will be needed to be installed. In a later stage in this project, the team conducted an economic
analysis on this case, the result was that the total cost of the plant increased after applying the heat integration
which makes it ineffective. The second part in heat optimization is the waste heat recovery in which the high
temperature flue gas resulted from burning the fuel is used to produce high pressure steam which is needed in
the heat exchangers all over the plant. This process is beneficial in two ways, environmentally and economically.
One of the regulations set by the ministry of municipality and environment in Qatar is that air emissions cannot
exceed 200 oC, where the resulted flue gas has a temperature that exceeds 1000 oC, therefore, these streams
will be used to produce steam which will decrease the flue gas temperature to below 200 oC but above its dew
point so that it remains as a vapor when discarding it. Additionally, this step will increase the profit in the project
as the fuel needed to produce steam will decrease which decreases the operational cost.
After optimizing the process, an updated simulation sheet is then produced where all the equipment in
the process are simulated, the next step is the equipment design which is a crucial step that will decide the
capital cost of the project. The team started in designing the heat exchangers, due to the high capacity of the
plant, many heat exchangers are having big duties, thus, the team made a decision to split the entering stream
into multiple streams that enters multiple heat exchangers with identical designs working in parallel. At this
point, the team have designed four heat exchangers using both Kern’s method and the simulation program HTRI,
and as HTRI has proved its efficiency, the remaining heat exchangers were designed with it.
P a g e 10 | 125
Next equipment to be designed is the separators. Only one separator exists in the plant which
was in the NRU unit used to separate the final LNG product from the fuel gas produced in the plant which is
rich in nitrogen. This equipment was designed in HYSYS and by hand calculation. The flow entering the separator
was again divided into multiple flows entering multiple identical separators working in parallel because all the
flow of the plant is entering this unit which is a lot to be handled by one unit only. The team came up with a
final optimum design in which the LNG product meets the global standards with the desired Wobbe index by
the clients.
The last type of equipment to be designed was the distillation columns. Debutanizer column was designed
in details using HYSYS and by hand calculation. The results were very close and comparable, thus, the remaining
distillation columns in the plant were designed in HYSYS. Overall, the final results were compared to the real
distillation columns operating in QatarGas and found to be close and acceptable.
The last part of this project was the economical evaluation to validate its feasibility. Detailed cash flows
yearly were calculated, the project showed a return on investment value of 25% which is acceptable. Overall
profit of the plant exceeded 30 billion dollars at the end of project. However, this study was based on 25 years
life time while in reality plants last to more than 30 years, thus, actual profitability analysis will be even better.
Finally, several scenarios were studied to evaluate the economics if some sudden change happened. The first
scenario was evaluating the profit in the event of a severe drop in the LNG price which reduces the overall
income, the result showed that the plant will recover its capital investment after 14 years. Although this payback
time is unsatisfying for any investor, this is an extreme condition which is not likely to happen and though, the
plant will start making profit for more than 10 years then. Two other scenarios were done to compare the base
case with adding some optimization techniques to the process, both scenarios gave the advantage to the base
case as applying optimization increased the total cost in both cases. The optimized processes helped in
minimizing the total emissions of the plant, however, the team chose not to apply them as they are not cost-
effective, and the plant is already operating within the regulations.
P a g e 11 | 125
‫)‪Executive Summary (Arabic‬‬
‫يعرض هذا التقرير تصميم مصنع لتصنيع الغاز الطبيعي المثال حيث يعتبر حاليا أحد اهم مصادر الطاقة في العالم خصوصا في المجال‬
‫الصناعي‪ .‬كما ان الطلب العالمي للغاز المسال يزداد يوما بعد يوم‪ ،‬واستجابة الى رؤية قطر للعالم ‪ ٢٠٢٤‬التي تهدف الى رفع الكمية المنتجة في‬
‫قطر من ‪ ٧٧‬مليون طن في السنة الى ‪ ١٠٠‬مليون طن في السنة‪ ،‬تسعي مجموعة قطر غاز للتكنلوجيا المكونة من أربعة مهندسين كيميائيين الى‬
‫تغطية جزء من هذا اإلنتاج عبر تصميم وانشاء مصنع قادر على انتاج ‪ ٧.٥‬مليون طن في السنة من الغاز المسال‪.‬‬
‫وقد أتم الفريق المرحلة االولى من تصميم هذا المصنع عبر اختيار بدقة كافة المعدات المناسبة لتشغيل المصنع باإلضافة لتحديد المواد‬
‫والطاقة المناسبة لتشغيل المصنع‪ .‬كما اتم في المرحلة االولى دراسة التأثير البيئي للمصنع باإلضافة الى دراسة االخطار المحتمل أن يواجهها المصنع‬
‫مع تحديد ردة الفعل المناسبة لكل حدث‪ .‬وختاما‪ ،‬اختار الفريق منطقة راس لفان الصناعية التي تقع في شمال قطر لبناء المصنع فيها حيث بحسب‬
‫الدراسة التي اجراها الفريق أنها أفضل المدن الصناعية في قطر الحتضان هذا النوع من المصانع‪.‬‬
‫في المرحلة الثانية من المشروع‪ ،‬استطاع فريق قطر غاز للتكنلوجيا بإتمام تصميم المصنع كامالً‪ .‬بدايةً‪ ،‬استطاع الفريق من تحسين كفاءة‬
‫المصنع عن طريق تقنيتين‪ ،‬األولى هي التكامل الحراري والثانية هي االستفادة من مخلفات المصنع الحرارية في انتاج بعض من الطاقة التي يستهلكها‬
‫المصنع‪ .‬ساعدتا هاتان التقنيتان في تقليل كمية الطاقة والوقود المحتاجة في المصنع مما له انعكاسات إيجابية على الجانبين البيئي واالقتصادي‬
‫للم صنع‪ .‬الخطوة التالية للفريق كانت عبارة عن تصميم كل المعدات المستخدمة في المصنع داخليا‪ ،‬بدءا ً بمبادالت الحرارة حيث صمم المهندسين‬
‫تفصيليا ً أربعة مبادالت حرارية يدويا وعبر برنامج المحاكاة "‪ ،"HTRI‬وحيث ان النتائج كانت قريبة جداً‪ ،‬اعتمد الفريق برنامج المحاكاة كمصدر‬
‫معتمد لتصميم باقي المبادالت‪ .‬انتقل بعد ذلك الفريق لتصميم البرج الفاصل الذي يفصل السوائل عن الغازات والذي يكمن في القسم الرابع من‬
‫المصنع‪ ،‬حيث تم تصميم هذا البرج بدقة لما له من أهمية كبيرة على جودة المنتج لمطابقة المعايير العالمية للغاز المسال‪ .‬نهايةً‪ ،‬صمم الفريق أبراج‬
‫التقطير بدءا ً ببرج انتاج البيوتان عن طريق الحسابات اليدوية ومن ثم برنامج المحاكاة "‪ ،"HYSYS‬واعتمد الفريق برنامج المحاكاة لتصميم باقي‬
‫أبراج التقطير بسبب حيث انه أكثر دقة من الحسابات اليدوية‪ .‬اختتم الفريق تصميم مصنع الغاز المسال عبر اجراء تحليل اقتصادي لدراسة جدوى‬
‫هذا المشروع‪ ،‬وكما هو متوقع‪ ،‬تبين ان المصنع مجدي اقتصاديا وسيحقق أرباح طائلة تجتاز الثالثين مليار دوالر امريكي‪ .‬وسيبدأ المصنع بتحقيق‬
‫األرباح بدءا ً من السنة السادسة من بدء تصميم المصنع‪ .‬تم دراسة بعض الحاالت الشاذة لتوقع الحالة االقتصادية للمصنع في الظروف السيئة وتبين‬
‫ان المصنع سيتمكن على األقل من استرجاع رأس المال المستثمر في أسوأ الحاالت (ولو كان ذلك بعد مدة طويلة)‪ ،‬وسيتمكن من جني بعض األرباح‬
‫القليلة‪.‬‬
‫‪P a g e 12 | 125‬‬
Chapter 9
Process
Optimization
P a g e 13 | 125
Chapter 9 Process optimization
9.1 Objective
This chapter aims to optimize the process by integrating the heat in the system through utilizing the process’
streams.
9.2 Introduction
9.2.1 Heat integration
As energy is the essence of a chemical plant, thus, every portion of it should be utilized wisely. As any
chemical plant has plenty of streams that need to be heated and other streams to be cooled, it is essential to
exchange the heat between these streams before adding any external heating or cooling utilities which will not
only save money, but it will help to reduce the emissions which helps the environment. Streams in the process
are classified into two categories, hot and cold streams. A hot stream is a stream that is needed to be cooled
which is thermodynamically means that its heat capacity needs to be lowered, in other words, a hot stream has
an amount of energy stored in it that should be removed by decreasing its temperature. Cold stream is the
exact opposite as it needs to be heated and its heat capacity needs to rise be increasing the temperature.
Counter current shell & tube heat exchangers will be used to achieve the desired heat transfer, thus, the heat
can be transferred from the hot stream to the cold stream as long as the target temperature of the cold stream
is less than the inlet temperature of the hot stream to avoid any thermodynamic violation as from the
fundamentals of heat transfer, the heat flows from the object of the higher temperature to the object of the
lower temperature. In most of the cases, process streams are not enough to fulfill all the heat needs of the plant
and therefore it is necessary to add external heaters and coolers to cover for the excess energy. By the end of
this chapter, a heat exchangers network will be designed to decide where to put the external heat exchangers
and which streams should exchange heat.
P a g e 14 | 125
9.2.2 Waste heat recovery
Another prospective of the process optimization is the waste heat recovery (WHR). WHR is a unit that
utilizes the waste heat in the process, the main source of heat in the WHR unit in an LNG plant is the high
temperature flue gas resulting from burning the fuel. The produced flue gas has a temperature of nearly 1900
o
C which can’t be vented to the air as governments puts limitation on the temperature of the vented gases and
thus flue gas needs to be cooled anyway. It is a wise idea to use this very high temperature stream in the process
in a way that will cool it down instead of cooling it without any use. In the designed LNG plant, the flue gas will
be utilized in producing HP steam as it has a very high temperature and is capable of achieving the job. This step
is beneficial from many perspectives, it will decrease the operating cost as less fuel will be needed to produce
steam which leads to the next benefit which is the fact that it is environmentally better as less fuel means lass
emissions, and lastly it will decrease the capital cost as all the WHR needs is a simple heat exchangers facility
instead of the complicated fuel burning system which size will decrease as the load on it will decrease.
9.3 Potential areas of heat recovery

Between all the streams in the system, streams that was taken to heat integration were shortlisted to
four streams, many constrains were taken into consideration, thermal shock is one of the main factors as the
streams temperatures’ in the plant varies from below -160oC to above 200oC and thus not any two streams can
be combined together. Moreover, streams from section 3 which is the liquefaction plant as Ap-x technology
was used which is already an optimized process.
Table 1 Targeted streams
Stream Stream Supply Target Mass
Heat flow Stream Type
Notation Name Temperature Temperature Flowrate
o o
C C Ton/hr kW
Recycled S-109 95.59 22 600 48894.42 HOT
Regen
S-106 155.6 96 592 41805.69 HOT
bottom
Fuel gas S-309 10 81.5 210 7789.03 COLD
Rich DEA S-104 30.46 93.33 608.4 41480.12 COLD
P a g e 15 | 125
Fuel gas leaves the nitrogen rejection unit with a temperature of around -160oC, it is not possible to use
this stream to cool any other stream due to the extremely low temperature as the material of the heat
exchanger will be exposed to a thermal shock, thus, as a kind of optimization its temperature was increases
gradually to 10oC through four stages using cold streams from the liquefaction plant. The streams are highlighted
in the PFD in graph 1.
P a g e 16 | 125
Figure 1 Process PFD with hot and cold streams highlighted
9.4 Methodology and computation
Various affective methods have been used to implement the heat integration in chemical process, in this
process Linnhoff method was used. At first the minimum utility targets were identified prior to the heat
exchanger network design. The minimum utility requirements for cooling and heating were determined using
the thermal pinch analysis algebraically and graphically. In this heat integration task, the phase change heat
exchangers were eliminated for simplicity. To find the minimum utility targets, the targeted cold and hot streams
were listed in table 1.
9.4.1 Graphical method
Using the given information from table 1, the hot and cold composite curves were generated for different
Tmin by trail and error the (Threshold) temperature was found to be 57oC. The purpose of changing the
Tmin is to analyze the effect of different Tmin on the operating and capital cost, the two d are 10 and 57 oC.
As it’s clear from figure 3 there is no pinch temperature on the composite curve which leads to a threshold
problem. In this analysis more than one scenario were used to study the effect the different Tmin were analyzed
to study their operating and capital cost. to avoid the complexity in the heat exchanger design, the max Tmin
was chosen to be 50 rather than 57 oC .
Figure 2 the optimum setting of energy cost trade off to a theshold problem
In the threshold problem the min temperature should be set either at TThreshold or more since the utility
requirement for any Tmin below threshold temperature is constant, which implies that the operating cost is
constant whereas the capital cost will increase. as shown in the figure 1. For this case the TThreshold = 57 oC . As
a result, the most convenient Tmin is 57 oC for the optimum capital and operating cost.
Pinch temperature
T min 10oC
Recoverable
heat
Min cooling requirement
Figure 3 graphical thermal pinch analysis for Tmin = 10 oC
Analyzing figure 2 the minimum cooling utility requirement was 41430.97kW and no heating utility
needed. this utility requirements were constant up to Tmin= 57oC. which implies that the maximum recoverable
energy is 49569.03 kW. After that the Tmin was set to 50 oC at this Tmin the threshold problem was still an
issue. Figure 3 shows the thermal pinch point and the minimum utility requirement. The minimum heating utility
requirement is 0 kW and the minimum cooling utility requirement is 41430.97 kW. The recoverable heat is
49071 kW. table 2 summarize all the thermal pinch analysis results.
Table 2 Thermal pinch analysis summary
Tmin Tmin = 10 oC Tmin = 50 oC

Min heating requirement (kW) 0 0
Min cooling requirement (kW) 41430.97 41430.97
Recoverable heat (kW) 49569.03 49569.03
Pinch temperature (oC) 150.6 130.6
Threshold yes yes
P a g e 19 | 125
Pinch temperature
T min 50 oC
Recoverable
heat
Min cooling requirement
Figure 4 graphical thermal pinch analysis for Tmin = 50 oC
9.4.2 Algebraic method
The system can also be represented in another way which is the algebraically where the cascade method
is used. The system needs to be divided into thermal intervals and then by doing a heat balance on each stage,
the pinch location will be determined which will be the stage where the most negative heat value presents. This
method should give the same result as the graphical method regarding the minimum heating and cooling duties
and the pinch temperatures. The following calculations will be based on the second case where the Tmin = 50
o
C as it will be the applicable case.
P a g e 20 | 125
105.6
101.33
89.546
46
45.59
46
38.46
18
-28
Figure 5 Temperature interval diagram
Cascade sample calculation:
Figure 6 Cascade sample interval
By pursuing the energy balance to calculate r1:

For hot stream
50
∆𝑡𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑑,ℎ𝑜𝑡 = 155.6 −
2
∆𝑡𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑑,ℎ𝑜𝑡 = 130.6
P a g e 21 | 125
For cold stream
50
∆𝑡𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑑,ℎ𝑜𝑡 = 93.33 + 2
𝑜
∆𝑡𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑑,ℎ𝑜𝑡 = 118.33 𝐶
Then,
𝑟1 = ∆𝑡𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑑 ∗ 𝐶𝑃
𝑟1 = (126.6 − 122.33) ∗ 701
𝑟1 = 2995.139
Continuing the same way for the next intervals will give the following cascade diagram:
Figure 7 Cascade representation of the system
9.4.3 Heat exchanger network design
After determining the minimum utility requirement for the process, the heat exchanger network can be
designed based on the minimum energy requirement (MER). Such a network will assure that the generated
design can achieve the minimum operating cost based on the thermal pinch analysis. For this process two HEN
(Heat Exchanger Network) were generated to analysis the deferent possible designs using two different Tmin
10, 50 oC respectively. The first step of HEN is to generate the grid representation for different Tmin.
P a g e 22 | 125
For Tmin = 10 oC the grid was done without any Tmin violation.
22
95.59
10
81.5
93.33 30.46
Figure 8 HEN for Tmin= 10oC
Since all the (HEN) below the pinch temperature, this implies there is no heating utility. Doing the
energy balance to check for any Tmin. violation the results in table 3 were obtained.
Table 3 External heat exchangers summary for Tmin= 10oC

Heat exchanger Duty (kW) Final temperature oC Targeted temperature Extra cooling
o
number C duty(kW)
1 7789 83.86 22 41038 C1
2 41480.1 96.464 96 325.96C2
P a g e 23 | 125
or Tmin = 50 oC :
105.6 105.6
105.6 105.6
Figure 9 HEN for Tmin= 50 oC
Table 4 External heat exchangers summary for Tmin= 50oC above the pinch
Heat exchanger Duty Final temperature Targeted Temperature Extra cooling duty(kW)
o
number (kW) C temperature Difference
o o
C C
1 7789 83.86 22 61.86 41038 C1
2 41480.1 96.464 96 0.464 325.96C2
P a g e 24 | 125
9.5 Waste Heat Recovery
the steam generation in the process is usually done by supplying feed water to a fired boiler. The fire
tube reboiler uses the fuel gas to produce the steam at the desired quality. After fuel combustion the exhaust
gases at 1750 oC need to be cooled to a temperature of less than 200 oC but slightly higher than its dew points
due to the environmental restriction. This large temperature difference is considered as significant recoverable
heat. In practice the exhaust gas temperatures are at 750 oC due to heat loses within the furnace.
Using the Aspen HYSYS the amount of steam generated was calculated as follows:
1- The combustion reactor gas effluent was cooled to 750 oC.
2- A cooler was used to cool the reactor effluent to 271.3 oC and the duty was calculated.
3- The cooler duty was coupled with a heater and the heater feed was a boiler feed water at 251.3 oC and
the pressure is 40 bar for high pressure steam generation.
4- The heater outlet was specified as saturated steam at 40 bar.
5- Using the given information HYSYS calculated the high-pressure steam flow rate.
Results are summarized in table 6 below.
Table 5 WHR unit summary

Heat Outlet
Heating duty Steam quality Steam flow rate Inlet temperature
exchanger temperature
o o
kW HP,MP,LP Ton/hr C C
1 5.23 x 105 HP 1084 759.3 270
2 1.178 x 105 LP 157.4 270 152
Table 5 fuel consumption before and after WHR
# Before WHR After WHR

(ton/h) (ton/h)
Fuel Gas Consumption 729 662.7

Saving %: 9.1 %
P a g e 25 | 125
Its noticeable that the amount of fuel used of the plant is reduced by 9.1% which will decrease the operating
cost.
Table 6 emissions before and after WHR
# Before WHR After WHR Before WHR After WHR

Flow rate Flow rate Conc. (ppm) Conc. (ppm)
(Kmol/h) (Kmol/h)
COx 30648.6 27861.2 132324.1 124796.1
NOx 18.4 16.8 16 16
From the above table, the emissions of carbon dioxide (COx) and NO x are reduced after using the WHR unit,
which is excepted since the amount of burned fuel is minimized after using the WHR unit.
Table 7 steam generated from WHR
# From fuel From WHR Total

(ton/h) (ton/h) (ton/h)
Steam Generated 11849.4 1241.4 13090.76
From the above table, the steam amount generated from burning fuel is reduced by using WHR unit, thus the
emissions will decrease.
P a g e 26 | 125
Figure 10 Waste Heat Recovery Simulation
9.6 discussion
Graphical approach is a useful tool for finding the minimum energy requirements for a chemical plant.
Since the plant has a Threshold problem, QGTech design team has made 3 scenarios for choosing the Tmin in
the sake of finding the optimum operating conditions for the plant. After trying different value for Tmin the team
found that the Tmin which is the threshold temperature is 57 oC and this temperature is the optimum
temperature to choose for the key parameter Tmin to operate at, as its shown on figure 1 the total cost will be
minimum at this temperature. The other scenario was to choose two temperatures 50 oC and 10 oC and
compare the results, the results was an increase in the utility requirements which means higher operating cost,
which implies that the best scenario is to choose the Tmin to be 50 oC. After that, another approach was used
to find the minimum energy requirements which is algebraic (cascade) method was used. The minimum
temperature difference was set to be 57 oC to compare the results between the graphical and algebraic methods
at this temperature, and the results was that they match exactly and give the same values for minimum cooling
and heating. The minimum cooling in both methods is 41928.27 kW and no heating is required. Finally, after
discussing the different cases and scenarios, the results in the saving amount of energy is really small as shown
in table 5 compared to the number of heat exchangers added to perform these cases, so the team decided to
not add these cases because the cost of applying the extra heat integration aspects on the process which is
already integrated will cost more than what it saves in terms of money and emission reduction .
P a g e 27 | 125
9.7 conclusion
In short, the heat integration was done by using different tools and equipment’s such as ICheme sheet,
Hysys simulation software, and hand calculation to compare the results. The main findings were that the plant
has a threshold problem, the threshold temperature which is the optimum temperature to choose as Tmin is
57 C and the minimum requirements at this temperature is 41430.97 kW cooling utility only. different scenarios
were applied to compare different cases and the to choose the optimum conditions for the plant. The plant
already integrated before this stage, so the new integrated part will cost more money than the saving in energy,
so it will not be applied.
P a g e 28 | 125
Chapter 9
Heat
Exchangers
Design
P a g e 29 | 125
Chapter 10: Heat Exchangers Design
9.1 Objective
This chapter aims to design several heat exchangers in the simulated process using Kern’s method and
following TEMA standards, and then verify these designs using HTRI.
9.2 Introduction
An LNG plant can be described as one huge optimized heat exchanger that removes the heat from
natural gas to bring it from the gaseous phase to the liquid phase. And as we go deep into the plant, it appears
that it contains a large number of heat exchangers in which each has to be designed separately as each has
different fluids and operating conditions. In a previous stage of this project, heat optimization has been applied
in the process which resulted in increasing the number of heat exchangers in the plant. The next stage in the
process is to design the equipment starting by the heat exchangers. Each heat exchanger should be designed
individually, and an optimum design should be produced for each unit. An optimum design produces a unit that
is able to function well and achieves its mission within the limits and constrains by using the least amount of
material possible to reduce the capital cost.
Heat exchangers resulted from the process optimization will be designed to decide whether or not the
applied optimization is practical. One of the resulted heat exchangers was meant to cool down the regenerated
amine solvent in section-100 using the cold fuel gas produced in section-400. This heat exchanger was noted in
the process as E-107. This report will present the detailed hand-calculation design of this shell & tube heat
exchanger in which the regenerated solvent stream’s temperature is reduced from 95.6 oC to 84.0oC by
increasing the temperature of the fuel gas which is the cold fluid from 10oC to 81.55oC. This unit along will help
in decreasing the operating cost as it will carry some of the load used to cool the regenerated solvent, but on
the other hand, it will increase the capital cost as more heat exchangers are needed to be manufactured, thus,
at a later stage the team will carry an economic analysis based on the suggested designs to study the feasibility
of this operation. Other heat exchangers have been produced in the heat integration step such as E-100, E-104
and E-106, the final design of these units will be reported, and the detailed calculations are presented in the
appendix.
P a g e 30 | 125
At this stage, carbon steel will be assumed to be the material used in all the heat exchangers. But more
than one scenario will be studied in the economic analysis to choose the best material. Type of material will not
affect the process of designing the heat exchangers as the conductive resistance is too small comparing to the
convective and radiative heat transfer and so it can be neglected (although it was considered in the calculations
later in this report).
9.3 Methodology
1. Get the heat transfer rate, flowrate, fluid flow, temperatures from Aspen Hysys.
2. Get the properties for the hot and cold stream from the Aspen Hysys (density, viscosity, thermal
conductivity and heat capacity) at average temperature of the streams.
3. Decide the type of heat exchanger that will used.
4. Assume the initial overall heat transfer coefficient U up on the type of fluids.
5. Calculate the log mean temperature of the streams.
6. Find the heat transfer area using the equation of heat transfer.
7. Decide the tube dimensions according to TEMA standard.
8. Calculate the heat transfer coefficient for shell and tube using suitable Nusselt equation.
9. Calculate the overall heat transfer coefficient and compare it with assumed value. If the values are
significantly differing with error greater than 30%, use the calculated U and iterate the calculation until
reach less than 30% deviation.
10. Calculate the pressure drop in the tube and the shell and tube side and check them with the design
constrains, if there are unsatisfied results return to step 7 to change some heat exchanger layout validate
the design.
11. Optimize the overdesign to get cheapest exchanger that will satisfy the duty.
P a g e 31 | 125
9.4 E-107 Detailed design
9.4.1 Fluid allocation

The decision of which fluid should go in the shell and which in the tube should be based on many factors.
All the factors will be discussed and then the decision will be made based on them.
❖ Fluid temperature
The hot fluid should be generally placed in the tube side to avoid the heat leaks, as if the
temperature in the shell side is higher than the ambient temperature then a heat will be transferred from
the hot fluid to the atmosphere which is undesired as it is considered as a heat loss. Thus, the fuel gas
should be placed in the shell according to this factor.
❖ Fluid phase
The vapor should generally be placed in the shell side as it requires more volume and then placing
it in the shell side will reduces the pressure drop comparing to allocating it in the tube side [1]. Therefore,
this factor suggests placing the fuel gas in the shell again.
❖ Operating pressure
The fluid with the higher pressure should go in the tube side as high-pressure tubes are cheaper
and requires less material thickness than the high-pressure shells [2]. As the pressures of the fuel gas
and the regenerated solvent are 1 bar and 5 bar, respectively, then the fuel gas should go into the shell.
❖ Flow rate
According to Sinnott and Towler, placing the lower flowrate fluid in the shell side gives a better
design economically [2]. Hence, this factor agrees with the other previous factors that the fuel gas should
be placed in the shell as referring to table 1, it has a lower flowrate than the other fluid.
❖ Viscosity
To enhance the heat transfer, the more viscous fluid should be allocated in the shell side as more
heat transfer coefficient can be achieved [2]. So, this factor proposes that the regenerated solvent should
pass through the shell.
P a g e 32 | 125
All the factors except the last one agrees that the hot fluid which is the regenerated solvent should be
allocated in the tube side while the cold fluid which is the fuel gas is to be placed in the shell side and that will
be the decision. Some factors were not considered in the comparison such as the corrosion as both fluids does
not contain corrosive materials and therefore it doesn’t make a difference.
9.4.2 Fluids’ properties
Properties for the hot and the cold fluids were retrieved from the simulation program ASPEN HYSYS.
All properties are summarized in table 1 below.
Table 8 Properties summary
Cold Hot
Description Fuel gas Regenerated Amine solvent
Phase Vapor Liquid
Inlet temperature (T1) oK 283.15 368.74
Outlet temperature (T2) oK 354.7 357.15
Mass flow rate (m) Kg/s 58.333 166.667
Density () Kg/m3 0.7114 973.7
Viscosity () N∙s/m2 1.307x10-5 5.245 x10-4
Thermal conductivity (K) W/(m∙K) 0.0346 0.4025
Kinematic viscosity () m2/s 1.8372 x10-5 5.3867 x10-7
Heat Capacity (Cp) J/Kg∙K 1906 4118
Prandtl number (Pr) 0.7182 5.3662
All properties were taken as the average between the inlet and the outlet streams except the heat
capacity (Cp) which was calculated using the following equation.
𝑄 = 𝑚 ∙ 𝐶𝑝 ∙ ∆𝑇
Where Q is the duty of the heat exchanger, m is the mass flow rate and T is the temperature difference
between the inlet and the outlet streams.
Kinematic viscosity can be calculated as the following:

=

P a g e 33 | 125
And Prandtl number as the following:
𝐶𝑝 ∙ 
𝑃𝑟 =
𝐾
Sample calculation
This sample calculation will be based on the cold fluid.
The duty of the heat exchanger is retrieved from ASPEN HYSYS to be 7.955x106 W.
➢ 𝐶𝑝𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑 = 58.333×(354.7−283.15) = 1906 𝐽⁄𝐾𝑔. 𝐾

7.955×106
1.307×10−5 2
➢ 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑 = = 1.8372 × 10−5 𝑚 ⁄𝑠
0.7114
1906×1.307×10−5
➢ 𝑃𝑟 = = 0.72
0.0346
Note: more accurate number with more significant figures in the excel sheet.
9.4.3 Assumptions and constrains
• No heat leaks to the surrounding and the efficiency of the heat exchanger is 100%.
• The design is based on steady state operation, startups and shut downs are not included in the calculation.
• Liquid velocity in the tubes are not to exceed 4 m/s and vapor velocity in the shell should be less than
30 m/s.
• Pressure drop in the tubes where the liquid flows is limited by 0.35 bar while the maximum allowable
pressure drop in the shell side where the vapor is flowing should be (0.5 x system gauge pressure).
• AES shell & tube heat exchanger is to be used with one shell pass and two tube passes.
9.4.4 Design sample calculation
After calculating all the properties and choosing the fluid side in the heat exchanger, the next step is to
design. In this design, a decision was made to divide the flow into 5 equal streams and enters 5 identical heat
exchangers (parallel process) because of the very high flowrates in the system as the capacity of the plant is high
(7.5 MTPA). Accordingly, one fifth of the flow rate will be considered in the calculation, and one design will be
proposed to be applied on all five heat exchangers.
Kern’s method is basically based on assuming an overall heat transfer coefficient, then calculating the
area needed for the heat transfer, then based on some decisions the design parameters will be ready. Using
P a g e 34 | 125
these parameters, heat transfer by conduction, convection and radiation can be calculated and thus a new overall
coefficient can be calculated which should be used again for the next trial, error between the two coefficients
should be calculated and an error of less than 30% should be obtained for an acceptable design.
Starting with Uassumed=140 W/m2 oC.
Step1: Finding the logarithmic temperature difference

As the temperature difference differs from on end to another, A logarithmic average temperature difference
(∆𝑇𝑙𝑚 ) should be used.
∆𝑇1 − ∆𝑇2
∆𝑇𝑙𝑚 =
∆𝑇
ln(∆𝑇1 )
2
As the heat exchanger is counter-current, then

➢ ∆𝑇1 = 357.15 − 283.15 = 74.0 𝑜 𝐾
➢ ∆𝑇2 = 368.71 − 356.7 = 14.01𝑜 𝐾
74−14.01
➢ ∆𝑇𝑙𝑚 = 74 = 36.04
ln(14.01)
However, in practice, a true temperature difference (∆𝑇𝑚 ) is used where the logarithmic temperature difference
is multiplied by a correction factor (F).
∆𝑇𝑚 = 𝐹 × ∆𝑇𝑙𝑚
F is a dimensionless factor which is a function of the streams’ inlet and outlet temperatures, using Figure 12.19
in the book [2], F was obtained to be 0.871.
➢ ∆𝑇𝑚 = 0.871 × 36.04 = 31.39
Step 2: calculating the area needed to achieve the desired heat transfer
𝑄
𝐴=
𝑈 × ∆𝑇𝑚
As the flow was divided into five portions, the duty will be distributed on the five heat exchangers.
7.599×106
➢ 𝑄= = 1.52 × 106 𝑊
5
1.52×106
➢ 𝐴 = 140×31.39 = 345.88 𝑚2
P a g e 35 | 125
Step 3: making decisions and calculating tubes dimensions
An initial decision will be to take the number of tubes (Nt) to be 1000, the length (L) to be 7 m and the
thickness to be 2.8 mm, thus, the outer diameter can be calculated.
𝐴 345.88
➢ 𝑂𝐷 = 𝜋∙𝐿∙𝑁 = 𝜋×7×1000 = 0.01573 𝑚 = 15.73 𝑚𝑚
𝑡
➢ 𝐼𝐷 = 15.73 − 2.8 = 12.93 𝑚𝑚

𝜋×(0.01293)2
➢ 𝐴𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 = = 1.313 × 10−4
4
𝐴 ∗𝑁 1.313×10−4 ×1000
𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 𝑡
➢ 𝐴𝑡 = 𝑇𝑢𝑏𝑒 = = 0.06565 𝑚2
𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠 2
Step 4: calculating shell’s dimensions

Pitch ratio was chose to be 1.25.
➢ 𝑃𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ = 1.25 × 15.73 = 19.66 𝑚𝑚
➢ 𝐶𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 19.66 − 15.73 = 3.39 𝑚𝑚
𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 × 𝑏𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑙𝑒 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 × 𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑙 𝐼𝐷
𝐴𝑠 =
𝑃𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ
So, Shell ID should be calculated first, for single shell pass and two tube passes the formula is:
1
𝑁𝑡 2.291
𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑙 𝐼𝐷 = 𝑑𝑜 ( ) + 93
0.156
1
1000 2.291
➢ 𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑙 𝐼𝐷 = 15.73 (0.156) + 93 = 814.76 𝑚𝑚
➢ 𝑏𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑙𝑒 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 0.2 × 814.6 = 162.92 𝑚𝑚

0.00339×0.162×0.81476
➢ 𝐴𝑠 = = 0.02276 𝑚2
0.01966
Step 5: calculating flow properties in the shell side

𝐺𝑠 𝑑𝑒
𝑅𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑙 =
𝜇
𝜇 0.14
𝑁𝑢𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑙 = 0.36 × 𝑅𝑒 0.55 × Pr 0.33 × ( )
𝜇𝑤
P a g e 36 | 125
Where Gs and de,shell are mass velocity and equivalent shell diameter respectively
𝑚𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑙 11.666 𝑘𝑔
➢ 𝐺𝑠 = = 0.02276 = 512.56 𝑠 𝑚2
𝐴𝑠
2 2
4×(𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ2 −(𝜋∙𝑂𝐷 ⁄4 ) 4×(19.662 −(𝜋∙15.73 ⁄4)
➢ 𝑑𝑒 = (𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ) = = 26.279 𝑚𝑚
𝜋∙𝑂𝐷 𝜋∙15.73
➢ 𝑑𝑒 = 0.026279 𝑚
512.56 ×0.026279
➢ 𝑅𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑙 = = 1.0315 × 106 ≪ 𝑇𝑢𝑟𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡
1.307×10−5
0.14
1.307x10−5
➢ 𝑁𝑢𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑙 = 0.36 × (1.0315 × 106 )0.55 × (0.7182)0.33 × ( ) = 362.77
0.00089
Step 6: calculating flow properties in the tube side

Re is the uses the same formula as in the shell side but the viscosity correction will be neglected as it is
a viscous liquid, Nu has a different multiplying coefficient only which in the case of tubes will be 0.023. And d e
equals to the pipes internal diameter.
𝑚𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒𝑠 33.33 𝑘𝑔
➢ 𝐺𝑡 = = 0.06565 = 507.7 𝑠 𝑚2
𝐴𝑡
507.7 ×0.01293
➢ 𝑅𝑒𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 = = 1.252 × 105 ≪ 𝑇𝑢𝑟𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡
5.245 x10−4
➢ 𝑁𝑢𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 = 0.023 × (1.252 × 105 )0.55 × (5.366)0.33 = 25.48
Step 7: calculating the total heat resistance

ℎ𝑖 𝐷𝑖
𝑁𝑢 =
𝐾
𝑁𝑢𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑙 ×𝐾 362.77×0.0346
➢ ℎ𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑙 = = = 477.62
𝑑𝑒 0.02628
7.18×0.4025
➢ ℎ𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 = = 223.5
0.01293
➢ 𝑅𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝑅𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑙 + 𝑅𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 + 𝑅𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

𝑂𝐷
1 1 ln( 𝐼𝐷 )
➢ 𝑅𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = ℎ + 𝑂𝐷 + 2𝜋×𝐾
𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑙 ℎ𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 × 𝐼𝐷 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 ×𝐿
15.73
1 1 ln( )
12.93
➢ 𝑅𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 477.62 + 15.73 +
2𝜋×59×7
= 0.0344
25.48×
12.93
1 1 𝑊
➢ 𝑈𝑛𝑒𝑤 = 𝑅 = 0.0344 = 29.04 𝑚2 𝑜 𝐶
𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
P a g e 37 | 125
Step 8: calculating the error
𝑈𝑛𝑒𝑤 − 𝑈𝑜𝑙𝑑
𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = | | × 100
𝑈𝑜𝑙𝑑
29.04−140
➢ 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = | | × 100 = 79.25% > 30%
140
As the error is more than 30%, another trial should be done by taking U=29.04 as an initial guess.
Step 9: Calculating velocity and pressure drop

After the iteration and when the error reaches the acceptable limit, velocity and pressure drop in both
the shell and the tubes should be calculated to make sure that the values are within the tolerable range.
𝐺𝑠 512.56 𝑚
➢ 𝑣𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑙 = 𝜌 = 0.7114 = 720 ≪ very high!
𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑙 𝑠
𝐺 507.7 𝑚
➢ 𝑣𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 = 𝜌𝑡 = 973.7 = 0.521 𝑠 ≪ within the range
𝑡
𝐿 𝜇 −0.14 𝜌×𝑣𝑡2
➢ ∆𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 = 𝑁𝑝 [8 𝑓 (𝑑 ) (𝜇 ) + 2.5]
𝑖 𝑤 2
−0.14
7 5.245 x10−4 973.3×0.5212
➢ ∆𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 = 2 [8 × 2.9 × 10−2 (0.01293) ( ) + 2.5]
0.00089 2
➢ ∆𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 = 36.39 𝑘𝑃𝑎 = 0.36 𝑏𝑎𝑟 ≫ almost acceptable

𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑙 𝐼𝐷 𝜇 −0.14 𝜌×𝑣 2
𝑠
➢ ∆𝑝𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑙 = 8 𝑓 ( ) (𝜇 )
𝑑𝑒 𝑤 2
−0.14
814.76 1.307x10−5 0.7114×720
➢ ∆𝑝𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑙 = 8 (1.8 × 10−2 ) (0.02628) ( 0.00089
) 2
➢ ∆𝑝𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑙 = 2064.52 𝑘𝑝𝑎 = 20.65 ≫ very high but expected because of the high velocity
9.5 Results
9.5.1 E-107
It is obvious from the previous trial that some of the decisions taken were wrong. So some of the decisions
were manipulated and by trial and error using excel sheet, the optimum design was produced which satisfies all
the constrains in the design, summary of the design is in table 2 below.
P a g e 38 | 125
Table 9 Design summary using Kern's method
shell side Tube side

Shell ID 1.3 m OD 32 mm
Pitch ratio 1.5 Number of tubes 1300
Baffle spacing to Shell ID ratio 1 Length 7.7 m
Velocity 29.1 m/s Velocity 0.075 m/s
Pressure drop 0.15 bar Pressure drop 0.007 bar
Passes 1 Passes 2
Overall
Material Carbon steel
U overall 49.4 W/m2C
Now, this design should be verified using HTRI simulation program using the rating function. Figure 1
below shows the result of the rating.
Figure 11 E-107 Rating results
The rating result agrees with the iterative mechanical design using Kern’s method with the required U, as the
iterative method suggested that U=49.4 W/m2C while in the rating it shows that U= 55.88 W/m2C which is
very close, however, the overdesign is big which from figure 1 it is around 150%. Although a safety factor should
be considered in the design, 150% is a big difference and will increase the capital cost by a big factor.
To avoid this problem, A design with less overdesign should be obtained using HITRI. Using the
simulation program can also give much more accurate result as it counts for the vibrations in the system which
affects the flow and the heat transfer which is a factor that was not taken into consideration in Kern’s method.
Thus, three different designs will be done by changing the decisions and then based on the results, the best
design will be picked.
P a g e 39 | 125
Table 10 E-107 Case 1: design using HITRI

Shell ID 0.539 m OD 31.75 mm
Baffle spacing to Shell ID ratio 1.16 Length 7.315 m
Passes 1 Passes 4
Overall
Overdesign 0.59 %

Passes 1 Passes 2
Overall
Overdesign 7.17 %

Passes 1 Passes 2
Pressure drop 0.112 bar Pressure drop 0.012 bar
Overall
Overdesign 8.12 %
P a g e 40 | 125
9.5.2 E-100
Figure 12 E-100 HITRI design
P a g e 41 | 125
9.5.3 E-104
Table 13 E-104 shell design
shell dimension HTRI design Kern’s method design

Shell inner diameter (mm) 1422.2 1447
Baffle spacing (mm) 597.06 651.15
Baffle number 9 9
Baffle type (mm) Single segmental 21% cut Single segmental 25% cut
shell passes 1 1
Heat transfer coefficient W/m2.K 1017.2 252.6
Table 14 E-104 tubes design
Tube dimension HTRI design Kern’s method design

Tube inner diameter (mm) 58 58
Tube length (m) 6.069 6
Tube outer diameter (mm) 63.5 63.5
Tube number 188 180
Tube pitch (mm) 75 80
Tube passes 2 2
Heat transfer coefficient W/m2.K 176.2 344.1
P a g e 42 | 125
9.5.4 E-106
Table 15 E-106 Kern's method design
Fluid Allocation Shell (Hot) Tube (cold)

Fluid name Fuel Gas Fuel Gas
Mass flowrate, Kg/s
63.620 11.666
(divide by 5)
Velocity m/s 9.9 (within range) 13.1 (within range)
U calculated (W/m2.K) 55.84

Total Area (m2) 360.5
Area (m2) 1.44 0.00010
Heat exchanged (W) 4246000
Do
Number of Tubes Tube Pitch =
(tubes)= Thickness = 2.1 mm Length of tubes= 10 m
= 800 17.8 mm
14.24 mm
Tube passes: 2 Shell passes: 1
Baffle type: single segmental Baffle cut: 15% Baffle spacing: 663.865 mm
Fouling resistance (W/m2.K)-1 0.0002 0.000235
Pressure Drop (Pascal) 22.2 (within range) 407.9 (within range)
P a g e 43 | 125
Figure 13 E-106 HTRI design
P a g e 44 | 125
9.6 HTRI drawings
Drawings for H-104 will be presented.
Figure 14 tube bundle layout with dimension
P a g e 45 | 125
Figure 15 heat exchanger shell dimension
Figure 16 Shell baffle spacing and overall dimension

P a g e 46 | 125
9.7 Conclusion
At the end, the objective of the report was achieved and three different designs. Which proofs the point
that the design is an art that is not limited and is an open ocean. Each produced design can have its benefit and
its negatives, for example, an excellent design can have all the parameters within the standards and the flow
within the constrains but on the other side it has a big overdesign which leads to an increase in the capital cost.
Kern’s method gives a good estimate design, but it considers the chemical transfer phenomena through
heat, mass and momentum balances. However, some other factors that may affect the design such as the
mechanical factors (e.g. vibrations) are not considers and these are very important factors in the practice. The
use of the simulation program (HITRI) gives a better design while it has an easy platform to enter all the data.
All the constrains can be entered and the desired design with any desired design parameters can be obtained.
the mechanical design approach using Kern’s method gave a demonstration on how each parameter and
each decision can impact the overall design. The design task was an opportunity to explore the heat exchanger
in depth using different tools. Approaching this design task was a major help in terms of understanding the trade-
off between cost and achieving the best design.
P a g e 47 | 125
Chapter 11
Separator
Design
P a g e 48 | 125
Chapter 11: Separator Design
11.1 Introduction
Chemical processes in general contains a separation unit for either collecting a desired product or removing
impurities from the feed. Separation in general is done by removing one or more spices from one phase to
another and this can be done by introducing a mass separation agent or just by heating and cooling. Single stage
Phase separators or flush drums are common separation units in almost all chemical plants. The process fluid
usually heated in case of saturated liquid before entering the phase separator, the liquid phase will flow to the
bottom of the separator and the vapor will go from the top. Cooling the vapor has the same effect since it will
generate a condensate which is the second phase. Many single-phase separators utilize the momentum and
gravity to separate the phases, a mesh usually installed to minimize entrainment by causing coalescing on the
mish surface as shown in figure 1.(1)
Figure 17 single stage vertical separator
Phase separation can also be done by changing the stream pressure using a throttling valve or a
compressor. Reducing the pressure of a saturated liquid create a second phase and this phenomenon called
flushing. The design of such equipment is highly dependent on the vessel diameter, since the vapor velocity which
is a function of the vessel diameter control the drag force on the liquid droplets, high velocity will cause
entrainment and that will lead to flooding. (2)
P a g e 49 | 125
11.2 Separator configuration(V-401)
Achieving a good design for the NRU phase separator requires choosing the appropriate internals, the
correct vessel orientation, and the material of construction. These specifications were chosen based on the
operating conditions and fluids physical properties listed in table 16.
Table 16 NRU operating conditions and fluid physical properties
Operating conditions & physical properties
vapor density 2.10 kg/m3
Liquid density 466.51 kg/m3
vapor MW 18.60 g/mol
liquid MW 18.11 g/mol
Vapor molar flow 3.14 kmol/s
Liquid molar flow 14.34 kmol/s
vapor mass flow 58.39 kg/s
Liquid mass flow 259.70 kg/s
Due to the relatively low vapor volume compared to the liquid and due to the low operating pressure, the
vertical orientation was selected with a mesh to reduce the vessel diameter. The mesh will reduce the
entrainment and increase the separator efficiency. Lean LNG has negligible tendency towards foaming formation
which implies that using a horizontal separator will not be beneficial.
P a g e 50 | 125
11.3 Separator design methodology
1- Deciding on the best orientation based on the operating conditions .
2- Using the k factor the settling velocity was calculated.
3- The vessel diameter was calculated using the settling velocity.
4- The liquid holds up volume was calculated using the liquid volumetric flow rate with a 10 min residence
time.
5- Using the liquid holds up time the sump height was calculated.
6- The sump height was added to find the total separator height.
7- The vessel wall thickness was calculated based on ASME standard.
11.4 Constraints
1- Diameters less than 4 meters are desired for easy shipping.
2- High flow rates.
3- Separator lagging is needed due to the cryogenic temperatures.
4- Separator length not exceed 20 meters for easy shipping and installation.
11.5 Assumption
1- No foaming within the separator therefore a vertical orientation was selected.

2- Due to the high flow rate, one third of the flow will be used for the design and the flow will be divided
on three identical separators.
3- Carbon steel was selected as the construction material since no corrosive fluids in the NRU.
4- The maximum allowable stress taken as 100 oF since no cryogenic data was found for carbon steel.
5- The separation efficiency was taken as 100 %.
6- The K factor was chosen as 0.07 for the vertical vessel with a mesh.
P a g e 51 | 125
11.6 Sample Calculation
Velocity calculation
𝜌𝑙− 𝜌𝑣
𝑢𝑡 = 𝐾 [ ] , 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝐾 = 0.07
𝜌𝑣
0.5
(466.51 − 2.10)𝐾𝑔
𝑢𝑡 = 0.07 [ 𝑚3 ] = 1.04𝑚/𝑠
𝐾𝑔
2.1 3
𝑚
When the mesh pad is added:
𝑢𝑡 = 𝑢𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙
Calculate 𝐃𝐕
𝑉𝑉 = 27.80 𝑚3 /𝑠
4𝑉𝑣
𝐷𝑉 = √
𝜋 × 𝑢𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙
4 × 0.3 × 27.80 𝑚3 /𝑠
𝐷𝑉 = √ = 3.19 𝑚
𝜋 × 1.04 𝑚/𝑠
Calculate liquid hold up volume

𝑉𝑙 = 0.167𝑚3 /𝑠
𝐿𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑 ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑢𝑝 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 = 𝑉𝑙 × ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑢𝑝 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒
𝐿𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑 ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑢𝑝 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 = 0.167 × 10 × 60 = 100.2 𝑚3
Calculate liquid depth
𝜋𝐷2
𝐴𝑐 =
4
𝜋 × 3.192 𝑚2
𝐴𝑐 = = 7.99 𝑚2
4
𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑 ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑢𝑝 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒
ℎ𝑉 =
𝐴𝐶
100.2 𝑚3
ℎ𝑉 = = 12.53𝑚
7.99 𝑚2
Adding 0.15 m for level control.
P a g e 52 | 125
Estimate the length of the separator
𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ = ℎ𝑉 + 𝐷𝑉 + 0.5𝐷𝑉 + 0.4 + 0.15
𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ = 12.53 + 3.19 + 0.5(3.19) + 0.4 + 0.15 = 17.85 m
The separator height is relatively high, but such height is acceptable for high production.
Calculate vessel wall thickness
𝑃𝑖 𝐷𝑖 3.19 × 1000 × 1
𝑡= = = 12.22 𝑚𝑚
2𝑆 − 𝑃𝑖 2 × 131 − 1
Where (S) is the maximum allowable stress at 100F according to ASME (S= 131 Mpa)
Corrosion allowance= 2 mm then added with the thickness
t = 14.22mm
P a g e 53 | 125
Final data sheet for the separator
Table 17 Final data sheet for the separator
Separator V-401 Design Specifications
operating Data Temperature -162 oC Pressure 1 bar
vessel operating conditions
Phase Liquid Vapor
Flow rate 77.91 kg/s 17.514 kg/s
Density 466.51 kg/m3 2.10 kg/m3
Volume flow rate 0.167 m3/s 8.34 m3/s
Vessel Specifications
Material of
carbon steel
construction
Hold up time 10 min
Vessel diameter 3.19 m
Liquid hold up vol. 100.2 m3
Column Length 17.85 m
Vessel wall thickness 14.22 mm
P a g e 54 | 125
Table 18 HYSYS Final data sheet for the separator
Separator V-401 Design Specifications
operating Data Temperature -162 oC Pressure 1 bar
vessel operating conditions
Phase Liquid Vapor
Flow rate 259.70 kg/s 58.39 kg/s
Density 466.51 kg/m3 2.10 kg/m3
Volume flow rate 0.557 m3/s 27.8 m3/s
Vessel Specifications
Material of
carbon steel
construction
Hold up time 10 min
Vessel diameter 5.944 m
Liquid hold up vol. 334.01 m3
Column Length 20.80 m
Vessel wall thickness 9.525 mm
P a g e 55 | 125
11.7 Conclusion
Using the process simulation aspen HYSYS a larger separator was designed, since HYSYS do not account
for the mesh effect. Moreover, the flow in the simulation was not divided to compare between the different
designs. The diameter obtained from HYSY is almost 6 meters with a 20.8 meter in height such dimensions need
special tools and equipment to construct them as well as the shipping and transporting difficulties. As design
team the smaller separators were selected to avoid these special design extra costs, to assure a safe and reliable
operation. The NRU (V-401) is a critical equipment in the LNG process since it controls the Wobbe Index, and
any failure in this equipment will lead to an off-spec product. The three separators configuration add more
reliability, controllability to the process and give an extra capacity in case a BOG needs to be recycled in future.
References:
1- Seader, J. D., & Henley, E. J. (2005). Separation process principles. Chichester: John Wiley.
2- Towler, G. P. (2013). Chemical engineering design: Principles, practice and economics of plant and process
design, second edition (2nd ed.). Kidlington, Oxford, U.K. ; Waltham, Mass.: Butterworth-Heinemann.
P a g e 56 | 125
Chapter 12
Distillation
Column
Design
P a g e 57 | 125
Chapter 12: Distillation Column Design
12.1 Objective
This report aims mainly to design one of the distillation columns in the plant using hand calculation then
using HYSYS based on some decisions to come up with a final design that lays within the acceptable operating
constrains (weeping, entrainment …etc.).
12.2 Introduction
Distillation column is one of the most used equipment in the chemical industries to separate components
from a mixture as it is the most efficient method as well as fact that it can produce almost pure products.
Distillation columns exists almost in every plant which makes it very important. In this plant, many distillations
are there where most of them were in section 2 which is fractionating the heavy hydrocarbons into pure
streams. Also, an additional distillation column was in section 1 which functions mainly in purifying the amine
solvent to reuse it as a separating agent in the AGRU absorber unit again, which is commonly known as the
regenerator. In this report, T-203 was chosen to be designed which is the debutanizer, it is the last part in the
NGL section in which a stream of C4, C5 and C6 enters the column and it separates them into two stream, high
purity C4 stream (97 mol%) and other stream of C5+ which are then sold as these are considered final products.
The debutanizer gains its importance from the highly desired product it produces, as C4 has many uses in the
chemical industries, it is used in the oil refineries as it is added to the gasoline pool to manipulate the vapor
pressure of the mixture as well as it increases the octane number. It is also used in the manufacturing of butylene
which makes it needed for other industries. The stream entering the debutanizer has a pressure of 2 bar,
temperature of 116 oC and a molar flow of 515 Kmol/hr. From the simulated plant in HYSYS, the main physical
properties were retrieved and summarized in table 1 below.
P a g e 58 | 125
Table 19 Physical properties of the debutanizer
Physical Property Top Section Bottom Section

Vapor density (Kg/m3) 24.81 28.36
Liquid density (Kg/m3) 502.4 504.1
Vapor flow (Kmol/hr) 1743 1534
Liquid flow (Kmol/hr) 1572 1875
Vapor mass flow (Kg/s) 28.33 31.967
Liquid mass flow (Kg/s) 25.769 39.806
Surface tension (N/m) 6.05E-03 5.25E-03
Vapor MW 58.97 76.08
Liquid MW 59.01 76.43
Temperature (C) 81.56 135
Pressure (bar) 1 1.5
In an earlier stage of this project, the optimum number of stages and reflux ratio was calculated, tray spacing is
a decision which will be validated later, table 2 below shows the main specifications of the debutanizer.
Table 20 Debutanizer main specifications
Distillation column specs

Number of stages 30
Feed stage location 15
Reflux Ratio 5
Type of plates sieves
Light Key n-butane
Heavy key n-pentane
Spacing (m) 0.45
P a g e 59 | 125
Decisions regarding the type of the distillation columns are to be made, these decisions are summarized
in table 3.
Table 21 Type of distillation column
Type of Distillation Column

Flow type Continuous
Interior contacting Tray
Material of Construction Carbon steel
Type of head and closure Tori-spherical
Flow type is continuous as it flows the whole operation which is based on a steady state continues
operation. Interior contacting are trays as these are the most commonly used type, and referring to the running
plants in Qatar, Qatar gas uses tray-columns for all of the distillation columns they have. Carbon steel is used
for the type of material as it is the cheapest as well as the fact that the column operating conditions are
moderate (130 oC and 2 bar) and does not need any special expensive type of alloys. Tori-spherical type of head
and closure is used as this type is the most commonly used for pressures less than 15 bar, and it is relatively
cheaper than the other types except the flange only which can only be used at low pressures.
12.3 Assumptions
1. Plate spacing to be between 0.3 – 0.9 m
2. Down-comer percentage area between 10%-12%
3. weir height of 50 mm
4. hole diameter between 2 – 5 mm
5. plate thickness between 3-10 mm
6. 70% tray efficiency
P a g e 60 | 125
12.4 Constrains
1. Column’s diameter not to exceed 5 m
2. Actual vapor velocity uv should not be below the minimum vapor uh to prevent weeping
3. Fractional entrainment (⍦) should be below 0.1.
4. Liquid flow rate should be within the range of single or double flow to avoid back flow.
12.5 Methodology and Sample calculation
The steps are as follows:
Step 1: Column Diameter
Two diameters will be obtained in this step, one for the rectifying section and another for the stripping section.
Calculate vapor and liquid flow-factor (FLV):
𝐿 𝜌𝑣
𝐹𝐿𝑉 = √
𝑉 𝜌𝐿
Where:
L= Liquid molar flow rate, kmol/h
V= Vapor molar flow rate, kmol/h
1572 24.81
➢ 𝐹𝐿𝑉,𝑇𝑂𝑃 = 1743 √502.4 = 0.200
1875 28.36
➢ 𝐹𝐿𝑉,𝐵𝑂𝑇𝑇𝑂𝑀 = 1534 √504.1 = 0.290
Obtain the value of K1 from figure 11.34.

➢ 𝐾1 𝑇𝑂𝑃 = 0.065
➢ 𝐾1𝐵𝑂𝑇𝑇𝑂𝑀 = 0.057
P a g e 61 | 125
Correction for surface tensions in K1:
𝜎 2
𝐾𝐶 = 𝐾1 ( )
0.02
0.00605 2
➢ 𝐾𝑐,𝑇𝑂𝑃 = 0.065 ( ) = 5.12 × 10−2
0.02
0.00525 2
➢ 𝐾𝑐,𝐵𝑂𝑇𝑇𝑂𝑀 = 0.065 ( ) = 4.36 × 10−2
0.02
The, determine the flooding velocity:
𝜌𝐿 − 𝜌𝑣
𝑢𝑓 = 𝐾𝑐 × √
𝜌𝑣
502.4−24.81
➢ 𝑢𝑓,𝑇𝑂𝑃 = 5.12 × 10−2 × √ = 0.224 𝑚/𝑠
24.81
504.1−28.36
➢ 𝑢𝑓,𝐵𝑂𝑇𝑇𝑂𝑀 = 4.36 × 10−2 × √ = 0.179 𝑚/𝑠
28.36
Calculating the velocity at the maximum flow rate by assuming a flooding percentage, 90% flooding for
both sections will be assumed to give a smaller design parameters. However, with this high factor, an excellent
control system should be installed as the column will be about to flood.
𝑢𝑣,𝑡𝑜𝑝 = 𝑢𝑓 × 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔%
➢ 𝑢𝑣,𝑇𝑂𝑃 = 0.9 × 0.224 = 0.202
➢ 𝑢𝑣,𝐵𝑂𝑇𝑇𝑂𝑀 = 0.9 × 0.179 = 0.161 𝑚/𝑠
Calculate the maximum volumetric flow rate:
𝑉 × 𝑀𝑤
𝑉𝑣,𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
𝜌𝑣
Where, V= vapor flow rate, kmol/s

Mw= molecular weight, kg/kmol
V= vapor flow rate, kmol/s
P a g e 62 | 125
1743
( )∗58.97 𝑚3
➢ 𝑉𝑣,𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑇𝑂𝑃 = 3600
= 1.15
24.81 𝑠
1534
( )∗76.08 𝑚3
➢ 𝑉𝑣,𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑚 = 3600
= 1.14
28.36 𝑠
Finding the net area of the column:
𝑉𝑣,𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝐴𝑛 =
𝑢𝑣
1.15
➢ 𝐴𝑛,𝑇𝑂𝑃 = 0.202 = 5.70 𝑚2
1.14
➢ 𝐴𝑛,𝐵𝑂𝑇𝑇𝑂𝑀 = 0.161 = 7.11 𝑚2
From the net area calculate the cross-sectional area:

𝐴𝑛
𝐴𝑐 =
(100 − 𝐴𝑑% )
Where, Ad% = down comer area percentage (assumed)
Ad% will be assumed to be 12% as it is a valid initial guess according to Sinnott and Towler.
5.7
➢ 𝐴𝑐,𝑇𝑂𝑃 = 1.0−0.12 = 6.472 𝑚2
7.11
➢ 𝐴𝑐,𝐵𝑂𝑇𝑇𝑂𝑀 = 1.0−0.12 = 8.080 𝑚2
Obtain column diameter from the cross-sectional area:
4 × 𝐴𝑐
𝐷𝑐 = √
𝜋
4×6.472
➢ 𝐷𝑐,𝑇𝑂𝑃 = √ = 2.87 𝑚2
𝜋
4×8.08
➢ 𝐷𝑐,𝐵𝑂𝑇𝑇𝑂𝑀 = √ = 3.21 𝑚2
𝜋
As there is a significant difference between the two diameters, a column with two diameters will be designed,
the remaining sample calculation will be based on the top section only. Detailed calculation for the bottom
section is in the excel sheet.
P a g e 63 | 125
Step 2: Liquid Flow Pattern
Calculate the maximum liquid volumetric flow rate:
𝐿 × 𝑀𝑤
𝑉𝐿,𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
𝜌𝐿
Where, L = Liquid flow rate kmol/s
Decide liquid flow arrangement can from Figure 11.35.
1572
(3600)×59.01 𝑚3
➢ 𝑉𝑙,𝑀𝑎𝑥 = = 0.0513
502.4 𝑠
Refering to Figure 11.35 in the book, a double pass liquid arrangment should be considered as the liquid
volumetric flow rate is relatively high.
Decisions regarding the plates are taken as the following (within the ranges given by the book):
➢ ℎ𝑤 = 50 𝑚𝑚
➢ 𝑑ℎ = 3 𝑚𝑚
➢ Plate thickness = 3 𝑚𝑚
Step 3: Provisional Plate Design
Calculate the cross-sectional area of the down comer,
𝐴𝑑 = (𝐴𝑑% × 𝐴𝑐 )
Calculate the net area available for vapor-liquid disengagement
𝐴𝑛 = (𝐴𝑐 − 𝐴𝑑 )
Calculate bubbling area
𝐴𝑎 = (𝐴𝑐 − 2 × 𝐴𝑑 )
Hole area is calculated by assuming a specific percentage for the hole:
P a g e 64 | 125
𝐴ℎ = 𝐴ℎ% × 𝐴𝑎
Where, Ah% = the hole area percentage
Calculate weir length
𝑙𝑤
𝑙𝑤 = ( ) × 𝐷𝑐
𝐷𝑐 𝑡𝑜𝑝
𝑙
(𝐷𝑤 ) is obtained from figure 11.39
𝑐 𝑡𝑜𝑝
➢ 𝐴𝑑 = 0.12 × 6.472 = 0.777 𝑚2

➢ 𝐴𝑛 = 6.472 − 0.777 = 5.696 𝑚2
➢ 𝐴𝑎 = 6.472 − (2 × 0.777) = 4.919 𝑚2
➢ 𝐴ℎ % = 7.0% < 𝑀𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑣𝑜𝑖𝑑 𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑔
➢ 𝐴ℎ = 0.07 × 4.919 = 0.344 𝑚2
𝑙
➢ 𝑈𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐹𝑖𝑔𝑢𝑟𝑒 11.39 ≫ (𝐷𝑤 ) = 0.73
𝑐
➢ 𝑙𝑤 = 0.73 × 2.87 = 2.096 𝑚
Step 4: Check Weeping
Minimum liquid rate at 70% turn-down

𝐿𝑚𝑖𝑛 = (70% × 𝐿)
calculate the maximum and minimum height of liquid crest over down comer weir,
2
𝐿 3
ℎ𝑜𝑤,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 750 × ( )
𝜌𝐿 × 𝑙𝑤
2
𝐿𝑚𝑖𝑛 3
ℎ𝑜𝑤,𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 750 × ( )
𝜌𝐿 × 𝑙𝑤
Where, ℎ𝑜𝑤 = weir crest
P a g e 65 | 125
Calculate the minimum vapor velocity based on assuming initial values for: hole diameter, wire high and the plate
thickness:
𝐾2 − 0.9(25.4 − 𝑑ℎ )
𝑢ℎ = 1⁄
2
𝜌𝑣
𝐾2 can be obtained from figure 11.37
Determine the actual minimum vapor velocity to check if the operating rate is above the weep point or not as
the following:
𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑛 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜% × 𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥

𝑢𝑣 =
𝐴ℎ
Check if 𝑢𝑣 > 𝑢ℎ
𝑘𝑔
➢ 𝐿𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.7 × 25.769 = 18.04 𝑠
2
25.769 3
➢ ℎ𝑜𝑤,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 750 × (2.096×502.4) = 63.22 𝑚
2
18.04 3
➢ ℎ𝑜𝑤,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 750 × (2.096×502.4) = 49.84 𝑚
➢ 𝑈𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑝ℎ 11.37 ≫ 𝐾2 = 31

31−0.9(25.4−3) 𝑚
➢ 𝑢ℎ = = 2.17
24.810.5 𝑠
0.7 ×1.15 𝑚
➢ 𝑢𝑣 = = 2.34 𝑠
0.344
As uv > uh, then there will be no weeping in the system
Step 5: Check the Plate Pressure Drop
The maximum vapor velocity through the holes

𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑢ℎ,𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
𝐴ℎ
Find the orifice coefficient, Co, from Figure 11.42.
The pressure drop through the dry plate
P a g e 66 | 125
𝑢ℎ,𝑚𝑎𝑥 2 𝜌𝑣
ℎ𝑑 = 51 [ ] ×
𝐶𝑜 𝜌𝐿
Then the residual head,
12.5 × 103
ℎ𝑟 =
𝜌𝐿
Calculate pressure head
ℎ𝑡 = ℎ𝑑 + ℎ𝑤 + ℎ𝑤𝑜,𝑚𝑎𝑥 + ℎ𝑟
Total pressure drop
𝛥𝑃(𝑃𝑎) = 9.81 × 10−3 × ℎ𝑡 × 𝜌𝐿
1.15 𝑚
➢ 𝑢ℎ,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = = 3.342
0.344 𝑠
➢ 𝑈𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑝ℎ 11.42 ≫ 𝐶𝑜 = 0.82

3.342 2 24.81
➢ ℎ𝑑 = 51 [ 0.82 ] × 502.4 = 41.83 𝑚
12.5×103
➢
ℎ𝑟 = = 24.88 𝑚
502.4
➢ ℎ𝑡 = 41.83 + 50 + 49.84 + 24.88 = 179.94 𝑚

➢ ∆𝑃/ 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 9.81 × 10−3 × 179.94 × 502.4 = 886.8 𝑃𝑎
Step 6: Down comer Liquid Back-up
The following procedure is used to make sure that the liquid in the down comer is below the top of the outlet
weir on the plate above:
The height of the bottom edge of the apron above the plate
ℎ𝑎𝑝 = ℎ𝑤 − 10 𝑚𝑚
Then the area under the down comer
𝐴𝑎𝑝 = ℎ𝑎𝑝 × 𝑙𝑤
The forth height is determined as following:
𝜌𝑙,𝑎𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 50% 𝜌𝑙
P a g e 67 | 125
Head loss in the down comer
2
𝐿
ℎ𝑑𝑐 = 166 × [ ]
𝜌𝑙 × 𝐴𝑎𝑝
Then back-up in the down comer
ℎ𝑏 = ℎ𝑤 + ℎ𝑜𝑤,𝑚𝑎𝑥 + ℎ𝑡 + ℎ𝑑𝑐
Check that the value of ℎ𝑏 is less than 0.5×(Plate spacing + weir height), else change the assumption for the
areas or plate spacing.
Residence time is checked using the following equation:
𝐴𝑑 × ℎ𝑏 × 𝜌𝐿
𝑡𝑟 =
𝐿
➢
ℎ𝑎𝑝 = 50 − 10 = 40 𝑚𝑚
➢ 𝐴𝑎𝑝 = 40 × 10−3 × 2.096 = 0.0838 𝑚2
25.769 2
➢ ℎ𝑑𝑐 = 166 × [502.4×0.0838] = 62.15 𝑚
➢ ℎ𝑏 = 50 + 49.84 + 179.94 + 62.15 = 355.4 m

0.0838×355.4×10−3×502.4
➢ 𝑡𝑟 = = 5.38 s
25.769
As the residence time tr is greater than 3 seconds then it is acceptable.
Step 7: Check Entrainment
The actual velocity

𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑢𝑣 =
𝐴𝑛
Then the percentage of flooding
𝑢𝑣
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 % = × 100
𝑢𝑓
Then the fractional entrainment obtained from Figure 11.35 should be less than 0.1
P a g e 68 | 125
➢ The flooding percentage was decided from the beginning to be 90%
➢ Using figure 11.35 >> ⍦ = 1.6 × 10−2
As ⍦ < 0.1 then it matches the criteria.
Step 8: Trial Layout
Allow 50 mm unperforated strip round plate edge; 50 mm wide calming zones.
Step 9: Perforated Area
From Figure 11.40 get the angle subtended by chord 𝜃𝑐

Then
𝐴𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑡𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 180 − 𝜃𝑐
The mean length, unperforated edge strips

(𝐷𝑐 − 𝑢𝑛𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝 𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑒)𝜋 × 𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑒
180
Area of unperforated edge strips
= 𝑢𝑛𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝 𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑒 × 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑢𝑛𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝𝑠
Then the mean length of calming zones
= 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ + 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑢𝑛𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝𝑠
Area of calming zones is
= 2(𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑚 𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ × 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ)
Total Area for perforations,
𝐴𝑝,𝑇 = 𝐴𝑎 − 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑑 𝑢𝑛𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝𝑠 − 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑠
𝑙𝑝
Then from figure 11.41 get the value of , check that it is within 2.5 to 4
𝑑ℎ
P a g e 69 | 125
➢ Using figure 11.40 >> 𝜃𝑐 = 94
➢ 𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝜃𝑐 = 180 − 94 = 86
(2.87−50×10−3 )𝜋×86
➢ 𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ = = 4.234 m
180
➢ 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑈𝐸𝑆 = 50 × 10−3 × 4.234 = 0.212 𝑚2

➢ 𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑒 = 2.096 + (50 × 10−3 ) = 2.146 𝑚
➢ 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑒 = 2 × 2.146 × 50 × 10−3 = 0.215 𝑚3
➢ 𝐴𝑝 = 4.92 – 0.212 – 0.215 = 4.49 𝑚2
𝐴ℎ 𝑙
➢ = 0.0766 ≫ 𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑝ℎ 11.41 , 𝑑𝑝 = 3.25 (𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒)
𝐴𝑝 ℎ
Step 10: Number of Holes

𝜋 𝜋
➢ 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑛𝑒 ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑒 = 4 × 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 2 = 4 × (3 × 10−3 )2 = 7.07 × 10−6 𝑚2
ℎ 𝐴 0.344
➢ 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑜𝑓 ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑠 = 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑛𝑒 = 7.07×10−6 = 48712 ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑒
ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑒
Step 11: Calculation of Column Wall Thickness
minimum shell required thickness (mm)
𝑃𝑖 × 𝐷𝑖
𝑡=
2𝑆 − 𝑃𝑖
Where, Pi: shell internal pressure (N/mm2)
Di: shell internal diameter (mm)
S: design stress for the selected material of construction (N/mm2) at a given temperature
Then the thickness is rounded to the nearest standard value
𝑵
➢ 𝑴𝒂𝒙𝒊𝒎𝒖𝒎 𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒐𝒘𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒔 ≫ 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒕𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝟏𝟑. 𝟐 @ 𝟏𝟑𝟓𝒐 𝑪 = 𝟏𝟐. 𝟗 𝒌𝒔𝒊 = 𝟖𝟖. 𝟗𝟒 𝒎𝒎𝟐
𝑵
➢ 𝑷𝒊 = 𝟐 𝒃𝒂𝒓 = 𝟎. 𝟐
𝒎𝒎𝟐
𝟎.𝟐×𝟐.𝟖𝟕
➢ 𝐭 = 𝟐×𝟖𝟖.𝟗𝟒−𝟎.𝟐 = 𝟑. 𝟐𝟑 𝐦𝐦
P a g e 70 | 125
➢ 𝑨𝒍𝒍𝒐𝒘𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 = 𝟒 𝒎𝒎 ≫ 𝒕 = 𝟕. 𝟐𝟑 𝒎𝒎
➢ 𝑈𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑎𝑔𝑒 1004, 𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎 𝑣𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑙 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝐷 =
2.5 𝑡𝑜 3.0 𝑖𝑠 10 𝑚𝑚, 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 10 𝑚𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑏𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑
➢ 𝑡 = 0.01 𝑚
Step 12: Column Head Height

Column head has different types
Based on the column(De-Butanizer) pressure (2 bar at inlet, 1.5 bar at the bottom, and 1 bar at the top) the
selected tori-spherical head is:
Figure 18 Tori-spherical head
Now the dimensions of the head are calculated as following:

𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 44: 𝐶𝑅 = 𝐷𝑐 = 2.87 𝑚
𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 45: 𝐾𝑅 = 0.1 × 𝐷𝑐 = 0.1 × 2.87 = 0.287
𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 46: 𝑆𝐹 = 3.5 × 𝑡 = 3.5 × 0.01 = 0.035
𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 47: 𝐷𝐻 = 0.1935 × 𝐷𝑐 − 0.455 × 𝑡 = 0.1935 × 2.87 − 0.455 × 0.01 = 0.551
𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 48: 𝑇𝐻 = 0.035 + 0.551 = 0.586 𝑚
Step 13: Column Height
Assuming trays efficiency to calculate the actual number of trays

𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠
𝑁𝑎𝑐 =
𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦
P a g e 71 | 125
The optimum number of trays was calculated using HYSYS while doing the energy balance in an earlier stage of
this project and it was found to be 30 theoretical stages. Plate efficiency from historical data can be as high as
70%, thus 70% efficiency will be considered.
Now, calculate column height
𝐻𝑐 = (𝑁𝑎𝑐 − 1) × (𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔) + ∆𝐻(𝑓𝑜𝑟 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑢𝑒𝑟).
𝐻𝑐 = 29 × 0.45 + 0.586 + 0.656 (𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑐𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑢𝑒𝑟) = 20.14 𝑚.
11.6 Results and Discussion
Hysys Design results

Top section of distillation column:
The first stage of the design done QGTech design team was performed using Aspen Hysys software,
since it’s a good starting point for the design to get an insight about the final values of the important parameters
for the design. Moreover, the team chooses to start the design using Hysys software because it is easier to use.
The final results of the main design parameters using Hysys software are in figure 2.
Figure 19 Hysys results for top section
P a g e 72 | 125
The column (T-203) is separated into two main section, Top (rectifying) section which is from equilibrium
stage 1 till stage 14 since the total column consist of 30 theoretical stags. Also, the bottom (stripping) section
which is start from equilibrium stage number 15 till 30. The main results of the top section are the tray type is
sieves which is reasonable sine it gives higher capacity compared to other tray types, and the plant is operating
at a very high capacity. The top section height found to be 8.534 m and the diameter equals 2.414 m. The values
are acceptable for the section height and diameter since in actual industries there are similar distillation with
higher value than the obtained, as the team observed in Qatar Gas. Also, number of passes is 1 and tray spacing
is 0.6096 m. the total section pressure drop is 88.8 mbar which is acceptable since it’s a small value. Finally, the
section is operated at the given conditions and gives the desired purity of butane (since it’s a De-Butanizer) at
the top product without any weeping.
The following figure shows the Geometry of the top section:
Figure 20: Top section Geometry
P a g e 73 | 125
The following table shows the main hydraulic results for the top section such as pressure drop per tray:
Table 22 Top section Hydraulic
The main parameter in this table is pressure drop per tray which varies between 2.101 mbar and 2.286 mbar
across the top section.
Bottom (stripping) Section:

The following figure sum up the main results for the bottom section:
Figure 21: bottom section main results
The bottom or stripping column is designed using Sieve tray type same as the top section. The diameter
of the bottom section is 2.433 m which is higher than the diameter of the top section a little, and this is
P a g e 74 | 125
reasonable since the bottom diameter can be same or higher than the top diameter, but the top section diameter
cannot be higher than the bottom diameter from an engineering point of view. Also, the height of stripping
section found to be 9.754 m, o the total height of the distillation column using Aspen Hysys design is equal to
9.754 m plus 8.534 m which gives 18.3 m. Furthermore, tray spacing is the same as the top section 0.6096 m,
and the section pressure drop is 103.1 mbar. The stripping section operates without any weeping at any tray.
The total findings from Hysys is acceptable compared to Qatar Gas towers which has similar heights and
diameters since QGTech team has visited the plant and its noticeable that the obtained results are practical.
The following figure illustrate the geometry of the bottom section:
Figure 22: Bottom section geometry
P a g e 75 | 125
The following table presents the main hydraulic parameters in the bottom section:
Table 23: Bottom section hydraulic results
the pressure drop per tray in the bottom section is ranging between 2.581 mbar and 2.802 mbar across the
bottom section.
Table 24 Comparison between HYSYS results and hand calculation
HYSYS Hand Calculation

Parameters
Top Bottom Top Bottom
Column Diameter 2.414 2.433 2.87 3.21
Height (m) 8.534 9.754 9.45 9.45
Entrainment None None None None
Weeping None None None None

Weir Length (mm) 50.8 50.8 50 50
Weir Height (m) 1.754 1.546 2.1 2.3
Spacing (m) 0.6096 0.6096 0.45 0.45
Total Height (m) 19.288 20.14

P a g e 76 | 125
11.7 Conclusion
After conducting both stages of the design h=which are Hysys simulation software and hand calculation
its noticeable that the main design parameters are close and comparable. Moreover, QGTech design team
obtained the total height of column (T-203) by hand calculation equals to 20.14 m and by using the hysys software
to be 19.288 m. Also, the diameter of the top section equals 2.414 m in hysys results and 2.87 m in hand
calculation which are very close to each other. Finally, QGTech notice that the results are realistic and practical
compared to the distillation towers that are in Qatar Gas since the team visited the site of Qatar Gas.
P a g e 77 | 125
Chapter 13
Economic
Evaluation
P a g e 78 | 125
Chapter 13: Economic Evaluation
13.1 Objective
QGTech team aims in this chapter to perform a profitability analysis to approve the viability of the
designed plant as well as making some design decisions based on the economical behavior of the alternatives.
13.2 Introduction
The main objective behind any project initiated is making money unless it is for charity or military
purposes. Hence, after being done from designing the plant, the next step is to study the project’s attractiveness.
This chapter presents in details an economic analysis for the plant designed by QGTech team. Cost analysis of
the project includes the total investment spent in designing and constructing the plant which has an estimated
length of around 4 years, it also includes the operating cost of the project which can be branched to several
things such as the cost of the raw material, utilities, maintenance of equipment and salaries, it also includes the
profit achieved from selling the products which is the most important factor as it decides whether the capital
investment is recoverable or not. However, studying the economics is always tricky as unpredictable events
may happen which can affect extremely the whole study, therefore, some scenarios will be studied to decide
whether the project is feasible at these situations. Moreover, some decisions in the earlier stages of this project
was left for the economic study which will be performed in this chapter, so, all decisions regarding the design of
the plant will be finalized by the end of this chapter.
As the project life is long (usually lasts for more than 25 years). Prices will definitely change over time
due to inflation, thus, inflation rates will be considered after the year 17 as the amount will be significant by then.
After calculating the cash flows annually, there are many economic methods or parameters used to represent
the data such as the Rate of Return (ROR), pay-back time, annualized cost …etc. These parameters are usually
used to decide between alternatives and to study the feasibility of the project.
P a g e 79 | 125
13.3 Feeds and products
The designed plant was based on a single feed which is wet and sour natural gas retrieved from the
north’s well in Qatar assuming it has a fixed composition. The composition of the raw material was taken as an
average from several sources as stated in the material balance chapter, the material balance was constructed
based on a production rate of around 7.8 MTPA, but as the plant is meant to produce lean LNG, C2+
hydrocarbons that was originally in the feed had to be removed and then fractioned in section 2 producing
ethane, propane, butane, pentane and hexane. Quantities and purities of all these streams are summarized in
(Table 25) below.
Table 25 Summary of the feed and products
C2 C3 C4 C5&C6 Fuel LNG

Stream Feed
product product product product produced product
Flow rate
1195.49 2.6 2.1 9.0 28.94 210.04 932.52
(ton/h)
Wet and Sour C5- 55% C1- 65% Lean

Purity 97% 92.5% 96.3%
Qatari NG C4- 45% N2 – 35% LNG
As the cost analysis will be performed on annual basis, all flow rates above should be calculated per year
as the following:
932.52 𝑡𝑜𝑛 24 ℎ𝑟 344 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 𝑡𝑜𝑛

𝐿𝑁𝐺 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = × × = 7698885.12
ℎ𝑟 1 𝑑𝑎𝑦 1 𝑦𝑟 𝑦𝑟
Performing the same calculations on the rest of the streams results in (Table 26).
P a g e 80 | 125
Table 26 Feed and products flow rates per year
C2 C3 C4 C5&C6 Fuel LNG

Stream Feed
product product product product produced product
Flow
rate 9.87 × 106 2.1 × 104 1.7 × 104 7.4 × 104 2.4 × 105 1.7 × 106 7.7 × 106
(ton/yr)
There are also some undesired by-products produced in the conditioning sections which are CO2 and H2S, these
streams were assumed to go to treatment plant but as these plants were not simulated nor studied, they won’t
be included in the analysis.
P a g e 81 | 125
13.4 Market Study
13.4.1 Raw material
Global demand of natural gas is continuously increasing as it is a cleaner energy source than the other
fuels due to the low carbon content it has. It has thus been a favorable source of energy everywhere in the
world as illustrated in (Figure 23) below.
Figure 23 Global natural gas demand
Natural gas consumption increased from 298 Bcf/day in 2007 to 342 Bcf/day and is predicted to reach up to 397
Bcf/day in 2025. This increasing demand plays an important factor in deciding the price of the natural gas as it is
a fundamental rule the economics that the price increases with the increasing demand especially in the case of
the natural gas where the supply is almost steady as only limited countries have it.
Other factor affecting the price of natural gas is the shale gas which is the gas trapped between sedimentary
rocks which is expected to be produced more in the coming years which will lead to a decrease in the price of
the regular natural gas due to the existence of an alternate source of energy. However, some claims that
extracting the shale gas is a very polluting and environmentally harmful process which is why it is not used widely
these days. Percentage recovered from a well is another factor as the more amount recovered leads to a less
price due to the decrease in the cost of extraction per unit extracted, researches on Enhanced Oil Recovery
P a g e 82 | 125
(EOR) is wide these days which helps in increasing the amount recovered as it reached a percentage as high as
90% with new technologies. [13]
Henry hub is a main natural gas distribution corporation based on America, it is then considered as a reliable
source to take the price of the natural gas internationally as it continuously produces the natural gas prices in
$/MMBtu on a daily basis as in (Figure 24).
Figure 24 Henry Hub natural gas price
The price is obviously fluctuating up and down and has reached a maximum value of around 13 $/MMBtu in 2006
and 2006. However, it always goes back to the its average value at around 2-4 $/MMBtu as observed that it has
been in this range the last 4 years. Therefore, today’s price which is 2.8 will be considered as the international
price of NG. However, as Qatar facilitates the process of investment, the natural gas price locally is less. A ratio
of 0.5 to the international price will be considered in the evaluation. [10]
13.4.2 Products
13.4.2.1 LNG
Although the demand on LNG is constantly increasing, the price of LNG shows a different behavior than
the demand’s as the price of LNG is linked with oil prices. Importing and exporting countries usually agrees on
the selling price the LNG with a long-term contract as LNG requires a regasification plant in the receiving
terminal which has to be built. Yet, some shipments are sold without contracts in the occasions where a project
needs a certain amount of energy for limited time only. These shipments are mostly sold by the current market
price.
P a g e 83 | 125
As Japan is one of the biggest markets for LNG and has the big share of LNG exports by Qatar, prices
from Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade & Industry are retrieved as in (Figure 25) which shows two prices for
each period, contract-based and arrival based as discussed earlier.
Contract-based Arrival-based
20.0
18.0
16.0
LNG Price ($/MMBtu)
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
Feb-14 Aug-14 Mar-15 Oct-15 Apr-16 Nov-16 May-17 Dec-17 Jun-18
Figure 25 Japan's LNG imports prices
As Qatar exports LNG by the two means, an average value between the two prices over the range from
March 2014 up to today is calculated and found to be 8.7 $/MMBTU. This value will be used as the price of LNG
to proceed in the study. [11]
13.4.2.2 Ethane
Ethane is desired by some industries and it sometimes is the main feed of a plant such as the ethylene
production plant in which the ethane is steam cracked to remove the hydrogen which un-saturate the carbon
bonds producing ethene. Recently, researchers have proposed producing acetic acid using the ethane as the
feedstock. Moreover, ethane is used as a refrigerant in refrigeration cycles which is the case in this plant where
P a g e 84 | 125
ethane a contributor in the mixed refrigerant used in the second cycle in the liquefaction plant. Although the
amount of ethane produced (2.6 ton/h) seems very small and incomparable to the amount produced of LNG, it
can be of a very big value when this amount is calculated per annual.
Figure 26 Natural gas liquid prices
According to U.S. Energy Information Administration (Figure 26), the price of ethane has been
almost steady the past year at around 3-4 $/MMBTU. So, a price of 3.5 $/MMBtu will be used for ethane. [9]
13.4.2.3 Propane
Propane is a very important product as it has several uses, commercially and industrially. Propane is the
source of energy used for cooking and barbequing in houses as it sold in small cylinders and is called Liquified
petroleum gas (LPG). While on the other hand it can be used in the chemical industries as a source of fuel in
some occasions, as a feedstock to produce propylene, and finally it can be used as a refrigerant as it is a part of
P a g e 85 | 125
the MR. From (Figure 26), Propane price flocculates between 7 and 11 $ $/MMBTU, the team decided to take
an average value of 9 $/MMBTU as the price of propane.
13.4.2.3 Butane
Butane gains its importance from the fact that it is a very desirable component in the chemical industries
especially in the oil refineries as it is blended with the gasoline pool as it has a high octane number (90+), as well
as using in the alkylation units in the refineries. Butane is also used in other industries as a source for the
production of butylene. Commercially, butane is sometimes sold as LPG. As observed from (Figure 26), butane’s
trend is almost identical with the propane’s, so the team will take the same price for butane which is 9 $/MMBtu.
13.4.2.3 Pentane and Hexane

There are no direct data for the prices of pentane and hexane, but as they are mainly used as in the
gasoline blend, the team made an assumption to take the price of them as half of the gasoline’s price. Using
(Figure 26), average gasoline price in the last year is around 13 $/MMBtu, thus, taking half of it which is 6.5
$/MMBtu as the price for the last product.
13.4.3 Inflation
As inflation affects highly the prices in the long term, it has to be accounted for an accurate study. Thus,
the inflation rate in Qatar from 2012 up to today, then extending with the predicted values up to 2022 are
presented in (Figure 27) below.
P a g e 86 | 125
Figure 27 Inflation rates in Qatar between 2012 and 2022
As predicting the inflation rate at some point in the future depends on many factors (i.e. Economic
growth) and is a whole science by itself, the team decided to take an average value of the inflation rates presented
in (Figure 27) between 2012 to 2022 which is 2.4% and consider it as the inflation rate per year. [8]
13.5 Utilities
13.5.1 Steam generation
Although some of the steam is generated by waste heat recovery, the remaining amount is significant
and needed to be produced by fuel burning. Therefore, the amount of fuel needed for steam generation is
calculated as following:
1. Calculate the duty needed to produce that steam through hysys by inserting a regular heater with a feed
of pure water at ambient temperature and pressure and outlet of steam (i.e. 40 bar for HP steam), then
retrieve the duty produced by the heater.
P a g e 87 | 125
2. Calculate the amount of fuel needed from its high heating value as following:
𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙𝐻𝐻𝑉 = 5.01 × 104 𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔
𝑘𝐽 24 ℎ 344 𝑑𝑎𝑦 𝑘𝑔 1 𝑡𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑜𝑛
𝑚 (𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙) = 𝑑𝑢𝑡𝑦 ( ) × × × × = 𝑎𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 ( )
ℎ 𝑑𝑎𝑦 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 5.01 × 104 𝑘𝐽 1000 𝑘𝑔 𝑦𝑟
Using this value, the price needed per year for steam generation can be calculated then.
13.5.2 Electricity
𝑄𝐴𝑅
According to Kahramaa, the local price of electricity in Qatar for industries is 0.13 𝐾𝑊 , which is equivalent to
𝑄𝐴𝑅 1$ $
(0.13 𝑘𝑊 × 3.64 𝑄𝐴𝑅 = 0.0357 𝑘𝑊 )
While if the plant produces its own electricity, it will be as the following:
𝑘𝐽
1 𝑘𝑊 = 1
𝑠
Amount of fuel equivalent to 1 kW:
𝑘𝐽 𝐾𝑔 1 −5
𝐾𝑔 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙
1 × × = 2.6613 × 10
𝑠 5.01 × 104 𝑘𝐽 0.75 𝑘𝑊
Price of this amount of fuel:
−5
5.01 × 104 𝑘𝐽 0.9478 𝐵𝑡𝑢 1 𝑀𝑀𝐵𝑡𝑢 1.4 $
2.6613 × 10 𝑘𝑔 × × × 6
× = 1.7 × 10−6 $/𝑘𝑊
𝑘𝑔 𝑘𝐽 10 𝐵𝑡𝑢 𝑀𝑀𝐵𝑡𝑢
It is obvious that the idea of the plant producing its own electricity is better even with considering the
capital cost of the additional equipment needed is the difference between the two values is vary huge.
13.5.3 Fresh water and Sea water
P a g e 88 | 125
Fresh water is circulated in the plant, although some amount of make-up water needed to be added
periodically, the price of this amount relative to the cash flows the plant deals with is insignificance, while sea
water is totally free. Hence, both will not be considered in the analysis.
13.6 Assumptions
1. Design & engineering and constructing the plant will be done within the first four years
2. Plant life time is 25 years
3. The plant shutdown for 21 operating days annually.
4. Inflation rate is 2.4%
5. Interest rate is 15%
6. Local price of natural gas is (0.5× International price “from Henry hub”)
7. Cost of capturing the emissions and pollution treatment is neglected
8. Electricity will be produced in the plant and not taken from Karama
9. Prices of raw material, fuel and products were taken as an average from 2017.
P a g e 89 | 125
13.7 Cash flows
13.7.1 Capital cost
Calculating the capital cost at this stage gives mainly a rough estimation, there are several methods to
evaluate it, however, none of them can be considered as a more accurate than the others. The team will conduct
throughout this report three different approaches to calculate the capital cost which are the historical method,
step-count method, and factorial method. Then the team will use his judgment to choose the most convenient
value to apply through the rest of the analysis.
Historical Method
Historical method is the easiest method known to estimate the cost of any project, as it requires no
design parameters but the capacity which used to scale up or down from the previous capacity. Still, this method
is important as it gives a rough indication about at least the number of digits of how much these projects usually
cost. It is also reliable as it is based on practical data. This method can be applied through the following equation:
𝑆2 𝑛
𝐶2 = 𝐶1 ( )
𝑆1
Where,
C2 = New cost at the new capacity
C1 = Old cost at the old capacity
S2 = New Capacity
S2 = Old capacity
n = factor which is typically 0.6 for chemical industries
Then, the calculated new cost should be moved to the current time as cash flows get affected as the
time passes due to inflation, through:
Cost index in year A

Cost in year A = Cost in year B ×
Cost index in year B
P a g e 90 | 125
Table 27 Chemical plants index (2008-2017)
Year CPI
2008 575.0
2009 521.0
2010 550.0
2011 586.0
2012 585.0
2013 567.0
2014 575.8
2015 537.0
2016 550.9
2017 553.0
Figure 28 LNG plants metric cost
Historical data will be based on QatarGas4 train as it is the latest train constructed here in Qatar back
in 2009. Cost of QG4 can be calculated from (Figure 28) above. [12]
𝐶𝑄𝐺4 = (7.8 × 106 ) × 550 = 4.29 × 109 $
P a g e 91 | 125
Using historical method:
7.6 0.6
𝐶2 = 4.29 × 109 ( ) = 4.22 × 109 $
7.8
Converting from 2009 to 2017, (as 2018 data is still un-announced):
553
𝐶𝐻𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 = 4.22 × 109 × ( ) = 4.48 × 109 $
521
Step-Count Method
This method is more rigorous than the historical method, the data required are number of fractional
units and the capacity of the plant. From experience, engineers developed a correlation that converts these two
data point into a rough estimated capital cost of the plant. For the gas processing plants, the correlation is:
𝐶 = 14000 𝑁 𝑄0.615
Where,
• C = Capital cost of the plant
• N = Number of fractional units
• Q = production rate in tons/yr
From the simulated plant in hysys, number of fractional units (N) has been counted to be 33 units.
𝐶𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑝𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 = 12000 × 33 × (7.6 × 106 )0.615 = 6.75 × 109 $
P a g e 92 | 125
Factorial Method
This method is more advance than the previous ones as it requires some design parameters regarding
each unit in the plant, it uses the following correlation
𝐶 = 𝐹 (∑ 𝐶𝑒 )
Where,
• C = Total capital cost
• Ce = Total delivered cost of all the major equipment items.
• F: Lang Factor
P a g e 93 | 125
Diameter (m)
Figure 29 Parameters used in factorial method
P a g e 94 | 125
Factorial method needs one design parameter for each type of equipment such as the power for centrifugal
compressors, the diameter for tray columns and the area for heat exchangers. Each parameter is applied to the
equation (𝐶𝑒 = 𝑎 + 𝑏𝑆 𝑛 ), where a, b, n are factors presented in table 6.6.
Some of the parameters are unknown such as the areas of the heat exchangers as not all of them where designed.
Thus, the upper limit from table 6.6 was considered. Detailed calculation is done in the excel sheet and the
result is:
𝐶𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 = 3.63 × 108 $
While factorial method is the most complex and advanced method, it gave the least convenient value of
the capital cost as some design parameters where assumed due to lack of data, as well as the fact that there are
some missing equipment in the simulated plant as only the primary plant were simulated. Therefore, the team
decided to work with the value calculated from the step-count method in the next parts.
13.7.2 Operating Cost

Fixed Operating Cost
Fixed operating cost starts obviously after the plant starts operating and producing, this cost includes
many things such as maintenance cost, labor, Insurance, license, taxes ...etc. this cost increases as the plant ages
as it needs more maintenance at that point for example, insurance prices goes up as the risk increases and many
other reasons. Literature suggests that this cost can be estimated as a function of the capital investment, it was
assumed that in the first period of the plant (up to year 9) it is around 4% of the capital yearly, then it increases
to 5% from year 10 to 17, then increases again to 6.5 at years after 17.
➢ 𝐹𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 (𝑢𝑝 𝑡𝑜 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 9) = 0.04 × 6.75 × 109 = 2.7 × 108 $
➢ 𝐹𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 (𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠 10 − 17) = 0.05 × 6.75 × 109 = 3.38 × 108 $
➢ 𝐹𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 (𝐴𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 17) = 0.065 × 6.75 × 109 = 4.39 × 108 $
P a g e 95 | 125
Variable Operating Cost
This cost will be estimated exactly as it includes the raw material, fuel needed in the whole plant (including
steam and electricity generation).
1. Raw material
Natural gas is the only feed to the plant and from chapter 3, it has a flow rate of 1195.46 ton/hr.
1195.46 𝑡𝑜𝑛 2204.62 𝑙𝑏 8256 ℎ𝑟 0.021560 𝑀𝑀𝐵𝑡𝑢 1.4 $
𝐶𝑅𝑎𝑤𝑀𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 = × × × × = 6.57 × 108 $/𝑦𝑟
ℎ𝑟 𝑡𝑜𝑛 𝑦𝑟 𝑙𝑏 𝑀𝑀𝐵𝑡𝑢
2. Fuel for electricity

It was calculated in chapter 5 (Energy Balance) to be 98 ton/hr
98 𝑡𝑜𝑛 2204.62 𝑙𝑏 8256 ℎ𝑟 0.021560 𝑀𝑀𝐵𝑡𝑢 1.4 $
𝐶𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = × × × × = 5.38 × 107 $/𝑦𝑟
3. Fuel for steam generation

It reduced after applying waste heat recovery, using Energy balance excel sheet it was calculated to be 728.95
ton/hr
728.95 𝑡𝑜𝑛 2204.62 𝑙𝑏 8256 ℎ𝑟 0.021560 𝑀𝑀𝐵𝑡𝑢 1.4 $
𝐶𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑚𝐺𝑒𝑛 = × × × × = 4.00 × 108 $/𝑦𝑟
Thus, total variable operating cost is the sum of all of them:

$
𝐶𝑉𝑎𝑟.𝑂𝑝𝑟 = 1.11 × 109
𝑦𝑟
After 17 years of operating the plant, the inflation rate should be accounted for using the formula:
𝐶𝑉𝑎𝑟.𝑂𝑝𝑟,𝐹𝑢𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 = 𝐶𝑉𝑎𝑟.𝑂𝑝𝑟,𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡 (1.024)𝑛

Where n is the year at which the cash flow is calculated.
P a g e 96 | 125
13.7.3 Product’s Revenue
As the prices per unit energy where found in section 13.4.2, it’s a simple conversion now from tonnes to dollars
as done in the previous part. (Table 28) below summarizes the results.
Table 28 Summary of product's revenue
HHV Price
Product Quantity(ton/yr) Ib/yr MMBTU $/yr
(BTU/lb) ($/MBTU)
LNG 7.6 × 106 16973116113 23050 3.91E+08 8.8 3,442,826,872.41
C2 21465.6 47323491.07 22160 1.05E+06 3.5 3,670,409.97
C3 17337.6 38222819.71 21490 8.21E+05 9 7,392,675.56
C4 74304 163812084.5 21180 3.47E+06 9 31,225,859.54
C5&C6 238928.64 526746858.3 20910 1.10E+07 6.5 71,592,799.25
Total profit per year then is:

$
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑖𝑡 = 3.557 × 109
𝑦𝑟
Now is the time to construct the cash flow diagram. The capital investment has to be divided first as illustrated
in (Table 29) below.
P a g e 97 | 125
Table 29 Explanation of cash flows yearly
Year Positive Cash Flows Negative Cash Flows
1 - - Design & Engineering (10% of capital cost)
2 - - Construction Phase 1 (40% of capital cost)
3 - - Construction Phase 2 (40% of capital cost)
- Working Capital (10% of capital cost)

4 Products’ Revenue
- Fixed & Variable operating costs
5-16 Products’ Revenue - Fixed & Variable operating costs
- Fixed operating cost with inflation

17-25 Products’ Revenue
- Variable operating cost
The cash flow is constructed in the excel sheet then:

$35,000,000,000.00
$30,000,000,000.00
$25,000,000,000.00
$20,000,000,000.00
$15,000,000,000.00
$10,000,000,000.00
$5,000,000,000.00
$-
0 5 10 15 20 25
$(5,000,000,000.00)
$(10,000,000,000.00)
Figure 30 Base case cash flow diagram
P a g e 98 | 125
13.8 Economic Analysis
13.8.1 Payback time
As observed in (Figure 30), the payback time is year 6. So, the project starts to make profit starting from
year 6 until the end of the project. The payback time is considered good and is giving an indication that the
project is attractive as the capital investment will be recovered in short term after 3 years only of starting up
the plant.
13.8.2 Return on Investment
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑛𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑖𝑡

𝑅𝑂𝐼 = × 100
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑠𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
Another parameter used in evaluating the economics of a project is the return on investment which
represent the ratio of annual profit to the capital investment as a percentage. This parameter is useful in
comparing parameters, as the higher ROI is, the more attractive the project.
1.69 × 109
𝑅𝑂𝐼 = × 100 = 25.03%
6.75 × 109
P a g e 99 | 125
13.8.3 Discounted Cash Flow
Converting all the cash flows to today’s money using an interest rate of 15% (as the saving account in
QNB).
$25,000,000,000.00
$20,000,000,000.00
$15,000,000,000.00
$10,000,000,000.00
$5,000,000,000.00
$-
0 5 10 15 20 25
$(5,000,000,000.00)
$(10,000,000,000.00)
$(15,000,000,000.00)
Figure 31 Cash flow diagram with today's money
P a g e 100 | 125
13.8.4 Discounted Cash flow Rate of Return
One of the parameters used in analyzing the economics of a project is the Discounted Cash Flow Rate
of Return (DCFRR). It is basically calculating the rate of return which makes the project recovers its investment
at the end of the project.
$-
0 5 10 15 20 25
$(1,000,000,000.00)
$(2,000,000,000.00)
$(3,000,000,000.00)
$(4,000,000,000.00)
$(5,000,000,000.00)
$(6,000,000,000.00)
$(7,000,000,000.00)
Figure 32 Discounted cash flow
(Figure 32) was drawn on a rate of return of 9.57% which is the DCFRR. The project is economically
attractive when ROI > DCFRR which is the case here.
P a g e 101 | 125
13.9 Scenarios
13.9.1 First Scenario
One of the possible scenarios that may be happen in the near future is if the LNG price drops. Many
factors can affect the price, one of them is the increase in the supply which can happen nearly as USA is going
to increase its exports of LNG by 2020. Moreover, new shale natural gas wells have been discovered in the area
which will increase the competition in the region, this may affect the price of the LNG globally. In this section,
the team will study this possibility to decide whether this project will be viable at these conditions or not, as if
it is not, the risk will be high on the investors which will drive them away.
The new LNG price will be decreased to 5 $/MMBTU which is considered a very low price. In the
economic analysis, everything will be identical with the base case expect the product price which will be reduced
to the new value at the new price which 5 $/MMBTU. The metrics are then calculated and presented below.
$6,000,000,000.00
$4,000,000,000.00
$2,000,000,000.00
$-
0 5 10 15 20 25
$(2,000,000,000.00)
$(4,000,000,000.00)
$(6,000,000,000.00)
$(8,000,000,000.00)
Figure 33 Cash flow diagram for the first scenario
Pay-back time moved to year 14 which is a very long time and unacceptable, ROI is also calculated
from (Figure 33), it dropped heavily to 7.87% comparing to the base case which was around 25%.
P a g e 102 | 125
$-
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
$(1,000,000,000.00)
$(2,000,000,000.00)
$(3,000,000,000.00)
$(4,000,000,000.00)
$(5,000,000,000.00)
$(6,000,000,000.00)
$(7,000,000,000.00)
Figure 34 Discounted cash flow for the first scenario
DCFRR was calculated in this scenario and found to be 4.44%, ROI is still more than DCFRR which makes it
profitable project, however, all the metrics shows that the project by itself is not attractive to investors as it
became too risky. Still, this scenario is an extremum situation as the LNG price was reduced heavily more than
any economist can expect. But in the worst-case scenario, this analysis shows that the investors will at least
recover their capital investment at some point and make some profit even if it is too late, which is not likely to
happen.
P a g e 103 | 125
13.9.2 Second Scenario
The base case studied in the previous was without the heat integration as the team stated in the previous
chapter that the result of heat integration does not seem practical and engineering insights tells that the applied
heat integration was not economically feasible, this section is to verify that point. After applying the heat
integration, the capital cost increases due to the additional units installed, to around 7 billion dollars. On the
other hand, the operating cost decreases as the fuel needed in the utility is less after applying the optimization,
Although the decrease in the operating is very small.
$35,000,000,000.00
$30,000,000,000.00
$25,000,000,000.00
$20,000,000,000.00
$15,000,000,000.00
$10,000,000,000.00
$5,000,000,000.00
$-
0 5 10 15 20 25
$(5,000,000,000.00)
$(10,000,000,000.00)
Figure 35 Cash flow diagram in the second scenario
Pay-back time is almost the same as it was in the base case between year 6 and 7. However, the ROI
decreased to 21.7% as well as the net profit achieved at the end of the project decreases to less than 30 billion
US dollars which proves the first point that the applied heat integration applied is ineffective.
P a g e 104 | 125
$-
0 5 10 15 20 25
$(1,000,000,000.00)
$(2,000,000,000.00)
$(3,000,000,000.00)
$(4,000,000,000.00)
$(5,000,000,000.00)
$(6,000,000,000.00)
$(7,000,000,000.00)
$(8,000,000,000.00)
Figure 36 Discounted cash flow for second scenario
Using (Figure 36), DCFRR was calculated to be 6.635% which is less than the base case noting that the more
the DCFRR is the more attractive the project. All the metrics studied agree that the applied process optimization
on the heat exchangers is infeasible.
P a g e 105 | 125
13.9.3 Third Scenario
The last scenario is the one studied in the EIA chapter (chapter 7) which is a comparison between the whole
plant with section-200 which is the fractionation unit or without it. First, including the NGL section will increase
the capital and the operating costs as more units are needed to be installed and more energy is needed to run
them while it will increase the total income of the plant since more products are produced and sold. On the
other hand, excluding section-200 will decrease the capital cost by two ways, decreasing the energy needed in
the plant and taking the feed of section-200 as a fuel to the rest of plant which will decrease the amount of fuel
purchased, it will also cause a decrease in the capital cost while the overall income of the project will decrease
as LNG will be the only product.
$35,000,000,000.00
$30,000,000,000.00
$25,000,000,000.00
$20,000,000,000.00
$15,000,000,000.00
$10,000,000,000.00
$5,000,000,000.00
$-
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
$(5,000,000,000.00)
$(10,000,000,000.00)
Figure 37 Cash flow diagram for the third scenario
(Figure 37) presented the cash flow diagram of the plant with excluding section-200 (as the base case is
including it). The ROI in this case is 24.48% which is slightly less than the base case. Pay-back time is exactly the
same.
P a g e 106 | 125
$-
0 5 10 15 20 25
$(1,000,000,000.00)
$(2,000,000,000.00)
$(3,000,000,000.00)
$(4,000,000,000.00)
$(5,000,000,000.00)
$(6,000,000,000.00)
$(7,000,000,000.00)
Figure 38 Discounted cash flow for the third scenario
DCFRR in this case is 11.12% which is close to the base case. Metrics in this case was disagreeing, ROI
was indicating that including the NGL section is more cost effective while DCFRR indicating that applying this
technique is more cost-effective. Overall, result tells that both cases can be applied, and both will result in almost
the same economical behavior of the plant. Accordingly, other industrial factors should be considered to choose
the best case. QGTech team decided to choose the base case which includes section-200 because these
hydrocarbons will be needed as a makeup for the MR, as in the case of excluding the NGL section, this makeup
is needed to be purchased (which was not accounted for in this analysis). This factor gives the upper hand to
the base case which agrees with practice as most LNG plant has a fractionation section.
P a g e 107 | 125
13.10 Conclusion
All in all, the results of the economic analysis were expected as it agrees with the currently practicing
industries. The base case was found to be cost effective and high revenues will be achieved. Extremum cases
were studied where the LNG price was highly decreased, the project was still found to be able to recover the
capital investment and make small profits. The base case was also studied against two different cases which are
applying the
P a g e 108 | 125
Final Conclusion
The designed plant of QGTech design team for producing lean LNG with a capacity of 7.5 MMTPA went
through two main phases, phase one and two. On phase one the main tasks completed are technology selection,
material balance, energy balance, site location, EIA and HAZOP analysis. One of the main decisions that the
team has to decide was the production rate of the plant, and the team agreed on 7.5 MMTPA and this is justified
by trying to match Qatar’s 2024 vision for increasing the production of LNG from 77 MMTPA to 100 MMTPA.
Moreover, the capacity was a critical factor in determining the technology for the plant, which Ap-x technology
was selected which is currently used in Qatar Gas. Energy balance accomplished to determine the utility amount
and type needed to run the plant. The full plant with all units has been simulated using Hysys software. Also, Ras
Laffan Industrial City was selected to host the plant after defeating the two other industrial cities in Qatar
Dukhan and Mesaieed. Finally, a HAZOP study was conducted to account for different scenarios of possible
hazards that can occur in any unit in the plant, and how to deal with that hazard.
The second phase of the process started by optimizing the designed plant. So, heat integration was
conducted using pinch analysis technique, and then waste heat recovery used to generate steam which will
minimize the fuel gas usage on the utility side and environmentally minimize CO x and NOx emissions from the
plant. After that, detailed heat exchanger design, separator design and distillation design was done to gain
engineering insight about these equipments design parameters and to check for any hazard within these
equipments. Furthermore, economic analysis completed to find the main economical parameters which are
capital cost, operating cost, product prices, net profit, cash flow, payback period and rate of return. Finally,
profitability analysis was done with different scenarios to show the effect of the market on the profit of the plant
which has a life time of 25 years, the best scenario was the base case scenario which results in payback period
of 6 years and 25% ROR. Also, the worst scenario was conducted to show that the investment will be recovered
even under tough conditions.
P a g e 109 | 125
References
[1] Bayram, H., & Sevilgen, G. (2017, August 07). Numerical Investigation of the Effect of Variable Baffle
Spacing on the Thermal Performance of a Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger. Retrieved March 25, 2018, from
http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/8/1156/htm
[2] Sinnott, R., & Towler, G. (n.d.). Chemical Engineering Design (5th ed.).
[3] Towler, G. P. (2013). Chemical engineering design: Principles, practice and economics of plant and process
design, second edition (2nd ed.). Kidlington, Oxford, U.K. ; Waltham, Mass.: Butterworth-Heinemann.
[4] THERMOPEDIA Website. (2011). Shell and Tube heat exchanger. Retrieved from: (1st ,April, 2015) from:
http://www.thermopedia.com/content/1121/
[5] Lecture: Heat Exchanger Equipment Design, Qatar University, 2017
[6] J. Holman. (2010). Heat transfer. Tenth Edition. TableA-9 .United States, New York. McGraw-Hill
Companies.
[7] Seader, J. D., & Henley, E. J. (2005). Separation process principles. Chichester: John Wiley.
[8] (n.d.). Qatar- Inflation rate 2022 | Statistic. Retrieved from

https://www.statista.com/statistics/379995/inflation-rate-in-qatar/
[9] U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/weekly/#tabs-prices-4
[10] U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/weekly/#tabs-prices-4
[11] Spot LNG Price Statistics, Japan's ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.meti.go.jp/english/statistics/sho/slng/index.html
[12] Songhurst, B. (2014). LNG Plant Cost Escalation. doi:10.26889/9781907555947
[13] Gary, J. H., Handwerk, G. E., & Kaiser, M. J. (2007). Petroleum refining technology and economics. Boca
Raton: CRC Press.
P a g e 110 | 125
Appendix A (E-100 detailed design)
P a g e 111 | 125
P a g e 112 | 125
P a g e 113 | 125
Appendix B (E-104 Design)
In table 2 the standard dimensions were applied to generate a feasible heat exchanger. From the physical
properties the log mean temperature can be calculated as follows. Kern method was used for the heat exchanger
mechanical design, the largest pipe diameters were used to reduce the tube side linear velocity to an accepted
value.
((−15 + 25) − (−18.2 + 50))
𝑇𝐿𝑀𝑇𝐷 = = 18.84 𝑜𝐶
−15 + 25
ln ( )
−18.2 + 50
Since one shell pass and tow tube passes were chosen the correction factor (F) = 0.95 using figure 1.
−15 + 18.2
𝑅= = 0.128
−25 + 50
−25 + 50
𝑆= = 0.71
−15 + 50
After the TLMDT was corrected, the overall heat transfer coefficient can be estimated or assumed to find the total
heat transfer area the table below summarize al the mechanical design decision that were made following the
stranded to start the detailed mechanical design.
P a g e 114 | 125
Tube length 6m
Tube outer diameter (OD) 63.5 mm
Tube inlet diameter (ID) 58 mm
Overall heat transfer coefficient 135 W/m2.K
Material used Carbon steel
Pitch size 80 mm
Tube pattern Square pitch
Baffle type Single segmental 25% cut
From the process simulation the E-104 duty is 2588.88 kW but fifth of this value will be used. Which implies:
2588.88
𝑄𝐸104 = = 517.78 𝑘𝑊
5
The duty value and the overall transfer coefficient were used to find the required area for the heat transfer.
𝑄 517.78 𝑥 103
𝐴= = = 214.29 𝑚2
∆𝑇𝐿𝑀𝐷𝑇 . 𝑈 17.898 𝑥 135
After finding the total area the number of tubes can be calculated:
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 = 6 𝑥 63.5 𝑥 10−3𝑥 𝜋 = 1.197 𝑚2
Dividing the total area by the tube area to find the number of tubes
214.29
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒𝑠 = = 180 𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒
1.197
Using table below the k, n constants can be found:
1
180 2.291
𝑇𝑢𝑏𝑒 𝑏𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 (𝐷𝑏 ) = 63.5 ( ) = 1379 𝑚𝑚
. 156
𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 (𝐷𝑠 ) = 68 + 1379 = 1447 𝑚𝑚
180
𝑇𝑢𝑏𝑒 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠 = = 90
2
𝜋
𝑇𝑢𝑏𝑒 𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 = 𝑥 582 = 2642.079 𝑚𝑚 2
4
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 = 90 𝑥2642.079 𝑥 10−6 = .2378 𝑚 2
11.666
𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = = 49.060 𝑚/𝑠
. 2378
P a g e 115 | 125
49.060
𝑓𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = = 49.027 𝑚/𝑠
1.007
𝜌𝑢𝑑𝑖 1.007 𝑥 49.027𝑥 58𝑥 10−3
𝑅𝑒 = = = 299777
𝜇 9.552 𝑥 10−5
𝐶𝑝 𝜇 1775.5 𝑥 9.552𝑥10−5
𝑃𝑟 = = = 0.74
𝑘𝑓 0.0230
𝐽ℎ = 3.5 𝑥 10−3 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑓𝑖𝑔𝑢𝑒𝑟 2

0.0230 −3 033
𝑤
ℎ𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 = 𝑥 3.5 𝑥 10 𝑥 299777 𝑥 0.74 = 344.1
63.5 𝑥 10−3 𝑚2 . 𝑘
Shell side calculation:
(𝑃𝑡 − 𝐷𝑜 )𝐷𝑠 𝑙𝑏 (80 − 63.5)𝑥 1447𝑥1447𝑥. 5
𝐴𝑠 = = 𝑥 10−6 = 0.230 𝑚2
𝑃𝑡 75
𝑚̇ 63.61 𝑘𝑔
𝐺𝑠 = = = 276.2 2
𝐴𝑠 0.230 𝑚 .𝑠
𝐺𝑠 276.2
𝑢𝑠 = = = 5.96𝑚/𝑠
𝜌 46.27
1.27 2 1.27
𝑑𝑒 = (𝑃𝑡 − 0.785𝑑𝑜2 ) = ((80𝑥10−3 )2 − 0.785(63.5𝑥10−3 )2) = 0.065 𝑚
𝑑𝑜 63.5𝑥10−3
𝑢𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝜌 10.05 𝑥 0.065 𝑥 46.27
𝑅𝑒 = = = 158628
𝜇 1.13 𝑥 10−4
P a g e 116 | 125
𝐶𝑝 𝜇 2535 𝑥 1.13𝑥10−4
Pr = = = 8.45
𝑘𝑓 0.0339
𝑗ℎ = 1.5 𝑥 10−3 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑓𝑖𝑔𝑢𝑒𝑟 3

0.0339 𝑊
ℎ𝑠 = 𝑥 1.5𝑥 10−3𝑥 158628 𝑥 8.450.33 = 252.58 2
0.065 𝑚 .𝑠
𝑑𝑜 63.5
1 1 1 𝑑𝑜 ln ( 𝑑𝑖 ) 1 1 63.5𝑥10−3 ln ( )
58 + 7.35 𝑥 10−4 = 0.00766
= + + + 𝑅𝑓 = + +
𝑈𝑜 ℎ𝐼 ℎ𝑠 2𝑘𝑤 344.1 252.58 2𝑥50
1 𝑊
𝑈𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑙 = = 130.6 2
0.00766 𝑚 .𝑘
130.6 − 135
𝑈𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑟𝑟 = | | 𝑥100 = 3.26 %
135
Since the error is less than 30 % the pressure drop in the tube side and the shell side can be calculated.
For the tube side equation 2 can be used to find the pressure drop.
𝐿 2
∆𝑃𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 = 2 𝑥 (8 𝑥 𝑥𝑓 𝑥 𝜌 𝑥 𝑢𝐴𝑣𝑒 )
𝑑𝑖 𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒
Using figure 4with 𝑅𝑒 = 299777 the friction factor 𝑓𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 = 2.2 𝑥 10−3
P a g e 117 | 125
6 −3 2
𝑁
∆𝑃𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 = 2 𝑥 (8 𝑥 𝑥2.2 𝑥 10 𝑥 1.007 𝑥 49.027 ) = 8813.9 = 8.8 𝑘𝑃𝑎
58 𝑥 10−3 𝑚2
For the shell side equation 3 can be used to estimate the pressure drop.
𝑓𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑙 𝐺𝑆2 𝐷𝑠 (𝑁𝑏 + 1)
∆𝑝𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑙 =
2𝜌𝐷𝑒
Using figure 5 with 𝑅𝑒 = 202466 to find the shell side friction factor 𝑓𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑙 = 1.9 𝑥 10−2
P a g e 118 | 125
1.9 𝑥 10−2 𝑥 276.22 𝑥 1.477 𝑥 10 𝑁
∆𝑝𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑙 = = 3559 2 = 0.03 𝑏𝑎𝑟
2 𝑥 46.27 𝑥 0.065 𝑚
P a g e 119 | 125
Appendix C (E-106 design)
Step 1+2: Collecting physical properties of the heat exchanger streams
Step 3: Assume overall heat transfer coefficient
The assumption of the overall heat transfer coefficient is a function of type of the shell side and tube side fluids.
Some typical values are represented in table 2, so the initial guess was used as 250 W/m2.oC for the first trial.
P a g e 120 | 125
Step 4: Decide on the heat exchanger type and dimensions
The heat exchanger type chosen has one shell pass and two tube passes, having two tube passes increases the flow
path and still remains compact. This could be adjusted in the following trials if the tube side design velocity is
too low since having more tube passes will increase the tube side velocity.
For one shell pass and two tube passes, the flow is not true counter-current and a correction factor must be used
to calculate the mean temperature difference from the log mean temperature difference.
The sample calculation is for the first trial of heat exchanger design calculation:
(𝑇1 −𝑡2 )−(𝑇2 −𝑡1 )
∆𝑇𝑙𝑚 = (𝑇 −𝑡 ) = 21.74 oC
𝑙𝑛 (𝑇1 −𝑡2 )
2 1
(𝑇1 −𝑇2 )
𝑅= = 0.15
(𝑡2 −𝑡1 )
( 𝑡2 −𝑡1 )
𝑆= = 0.58
(𝑇1 −𝑡1 )
𝐹𝑡 = = 0.97
Ft it is be taken from the following figure :
∆𝑇𝑚 = 𝐹𝑡 ∆𝑇𝑙𝑚 = 21.74*0.97 = 21.09 oC
P a g e 121 | 125
Step 5: Heat transfer area
Q 2.12×106
A0 = U = A0 = 250×21.09 = 402.7 m2
o× ∆Tm
Step 6: layout and tube size
• the tubes are plain tubes arranged in a triangular pattern and the pitch is l.25xDo(outer Diameter).
• The tube length and diameter were selected according to TEMA standard:
Do= 25.4 mm(1 inch)
Thickness= 2.1 mm
Di = 𝐷𝑜 − (2𝑥 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠) = 25 − 2 × 2.1 = 21.2 mm
Tube length = 4.88 m
carbon steel was selected for both shell and tubes since the operating pressure is not too high and the fluids are
not corrosive.
Step 7: Number of tubes and tube side velocity
Surface Area of 1 tube: 𝐴1 = 𝜋𝐷𝑜 𝐿 = 4.88 × 25.4 × 10−3 × 3.14 = 0.389m2

𝐴 402.7
Number of tubes: 𝑁𝑡 = 𝐴𝑜 = 0.389 = 1034 tube
1
Number of tubes per pass: 516

𝜋
Tube cross sectional area: 𝐴𝑐,𝑡 = 4 𝑑𝑖2 = 3.5 × 10−4 𝑚2
Total flow area =𝑁𝑡 × 𝐴𝑐,𝑡 = 516 × 3.5 × 10−4 = 0.181 𝑚2

𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑖𝑛 𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 58.33 𝐾𝑔
Mass velocity: 𝐺 = = 0.181 = 322.3 𝑚2𝑠
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎
𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 322.3 𝑚
Tube side velocity: 𝑢𝑡 = = = 392.1
𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 0.822 𝑠
Its noticeable that this velocity inside the tubes is very high. In order to solve this issue two scenarios can be
applied:
1- divide the mass flow
2- increase the tube diameter
P a g e 122 | 125
By dividing the mass flow there will be more than heat exchanger which has typical design to serve the purpose
of one big heat exchanger. So, for the next trial the mass flow rate has been divide by 5, and the diameter of the
pipe should be increased to decrease the velocity to avoid fouling and satisfy the optimum range.
Step 8: bundle and shell diameter

1
𝑁𝑡 1⁄𝑛1 1034 2.207
𝐷𝑏 = 𝑑𝑜 (𝐾 ) = 25 × (0.249) = 1090 𝑚𝑚
1
K1 and n1 are constants that depend on the number of tube passes.
Clearance = 71 mm
The shell diameter is equal bundle diameter plus clearance.
Shell inside diameter (D s)= 1161 mm = 1.161 m
Step 9: tube side heat transfer coefficient
𝑢 𝑑 𝜌 392.1 × 21.2 × 10−3 × 0.822

𝑅𝑒 = = = 594164.5
𝜇 1.15 × 10−5
𝐶𝑝 𝜇 1820×1.15×10−5
𝑃𝑟 = = = 0.73
𝑘𝑓 0.02875
𝑁𝑢 = 𝑗ℎ 𝑅𝑒𝑃𝑟 0.33 = 1.9 × 10−3 × 594164.5 × 0.730.33 = 1017.6

𝑁𝑢 𝑘𝑓 1017.6×0.02875
ℎ𝑖 = = = 1380 W/m2.C
𝑑𝑖 21.2×10−3
Jh is the heat transfer factor for tube side taken from figure in the book.
Step 10: shell side heat transfer coefficient
P a g e 123 | 125
Baffle spacing (Lb)= 0.2 x Do = 0.2 x 25.4 = 5.08 mm
Tube pitch = 1.25 × 𝐷𝑜 = 1.25 × 25.4 = 31.75 𝑚𝑚
(𝑃𝑡 −𝑑𝑜 )𝐷𝑠 𝐿𝑏 (31.75−25.4)×1161×5.08
The cross flow area between tubes: 𝐴𝑠 = = =
𝑃𝑡 31.75
𝐴𝑠 = 1179.6 𝑚𝑚2 = 1.179 × 10−3𝑚2

𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑖𝑛 𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑙 318.1
Mass velocity: 𝐺𝑠 = = 1.179×10−3 = 2.7 × 105 𝐾𝑔/𝑚2 𝑠
𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎
𝑠 𝐺
Shell side velocity: 𝑢𝑠 = 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 27.6 m/s Which is highest than the acceptable range, but in the next trials it
will be within the range.

1.10
The equivalent diameter: 𝑑𝑒 = (𝑃𝑡2 − 0.917 𝑑𝑜2 ) = 18.04 mm
𝑑𝑜
𝑢𝑑𝜌
𝑅𝑒 = = 188269.6
𝜇
𝐶𝑝 𝜇
𝑃𝑟 = = 0.001
𝑘𝑓
𝑘
ℎ𝑠 = 𝑑𝑓 𝑗𝑛 𝑅𝑒𝑃𝑟 0.33 = 78956.56 W/m2.C
𝑒
Step 11: calculate overall heat transfer coefficient
𝑑 −1
𝑑𝑜 ln( 𝑑𝑜 )
1 1 𝑑𝑜 1 𝑑𝑜 1
𝑈𝑜 = [ℎ + ℎ + 𝑖
+ 𝑑 × ℎ + 𝑑 × ℎ ] = 460 W/m2.C
𝑜 𝑜𝑑 2𝑘𝑤 𝑖 𝑖𝑑 𝑖 𝑖
|𝐸𝑜 −𝐸𝑐𝑎𝑙 | 460−250

𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟% = = × 100 = 45.65%
𝐸𝑜 460
The maximum acceptable error is 30 %. So in the following trial, this calculated overall heat transfer coefficient
will be used as the assumed overall heat transfer coefficient to minimize the error until the error reduced to less
than 30%.
Step 12: tube side pressure drop
𝐿 𝜌𝑢𝑡2
∆𝑃𝑡 = 𝑁𝑡 [8𝑗𝑓 (𝑑𝑡 ) + 2.5] = 0.6 bar
𝑖 2
Jf is the friction factor for the tube side and it’s taken from graph from the book.
Step 13: shell side pressure drop
P a g e 124 | 125
𝐷 𝐿 𝜌𝑢𝑠2
∆𝑃𝑠 = 8𝑗𝑓 (𝑑𝑠 ) (𝐿 𝑡 ) = 6.4 bar
𝑒 𝐵 2
The rest is iterative procedure, and its fully explained in excel sheet. After satisfying the acceptable limits for the
design, more iterative has been considered to reduce the dimension and size of the heat exchanger, because the
smaller effective area will minimize the total cost of heat exchanger. The main objective is to optimize HE
dimensions with desired performance that provide required duty for the process stream.
Step 14: Shell thickness
𝑃𝑖 𝐷𝑖
𝑡=
2𝑆 − 𝑃𝑖
4.119 𝑏𝑎𝑟 ∗ 13.49 𝑚𝑚
𝑡= = 0.50 𝑚𝑚
2(129 𝑏𝑎𝑟) − 4.119𝑏𝑎𝑟
According to ASME BPV standards, 2 mm corrosion allowance should be considered as safety factor, so the
thickness is 2.5 mm.
P a g e 125 | 125

Plant II - Final Draft 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plant II - Final Draft 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Team contribution

Mohamed Anas Mohamed Khalid

Chapter 10 25% 25% 25% 25% 100%

Chapter 11 25% 25% 25% 25% 100%

Chapter 12 25% 25% 25% 25% 100%

Chapter 13 25% 25% 25% 25% 100%

9.2.1 Heat integration

9.3 Potential areas of heat recovery

9.4.1 Graphical method

Min cooling requirement

Figure 3 graphical thermal pinch analysis for Tmin = 10 oC

Tmin Tmin = 10 oC Tmin = 50 oC

Min cooling requirement

Figure 4 graphical thermal pinch analysis for Tmin = 50 oC

9.4.2 Algebraic method

Figure 5 Temperature interval diagram

Cascade sample calculation:

Figure 6 Cascade sample interval

By pursuing the energy balance to calculate r1:

Figure 7 Cascade representation of the system

9.4.3 Heat exchanger network design

Figure 8 HEN for Tmin= 10oC

Table 3 External heat exchangers summary for Tmin= 10oC

Figure 9 HEN for Tmin= 50 oC

Results are summarized in table 6 below.

Table 5 WHR unit summary

Table 5 fuel consumption before and after WHR

# Before WHR After WHR

Fuel Gas Consumption 729 662.7

Table 6 emissions before and after WHR

# Before WHR After WHR Before WHR After WHR

NOx 18.4 16.8 16 16

Table 7 steam generated from WHR

# From fuel From WHR Total

9.4.1 Fluid allocation

9.4.2 Fluids’ properties

➢ 𝐶𝑝𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑 = 58.333×(354.7−283.15) = 1906 𝐽⁄𝐾𝑔. 𝐾

9.4.3 Assumptions and constrains

9.4.4 Design sample calculation

Step1: Finding the logarithmic temperature difference

As the heat exchanger is counter-current, then

➢ 𝐼𝐷 = 15.73 − 2.8 = 12.93 𝑚𝑚

Step 4: calculating shell’s dimensions

➢ 𝑏𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑙𝑒 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 0.2 × 814.6 = 162.92 𝑚𝑚

Step 5: calculating flow properties in the shell side

Step 6: calculating flow properties in the tube side

➢ 𝑁𝑢𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 = 0.023 × (1.252 × 105 )0.55 × (5.366)0.33 = 25.48

Step 7: calculating the total heat resistance

➢ 𝑅𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝑅𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑙 + 𝑅𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 + 𝑅𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

Step 9: Calculating velocity and pressure drop

➢ ∆𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 = 36.39 𝑘𝑃𝑎 = 0.36 𝑏𝑎𝑟 ≫ almost acceptable

shell side Tube side

Figure 11 E-107 Rating results

shell side Tube side

Table 11 E-107 Case 2: design using HITRI

shell side Tube side

Table 12 E-107 Case 3: design using HITRI

shell side Tube side

Figure 12 E-100 HITRI design

shell dimension HTRI design Kern’s method design

Table 14 E-104 tubes design

Tube dimension HTRI design Kern’s method design

Fluid Allocation Shell (Hot) Tube (cold)