Sieves, Valves, and Bubble

Caps, Oh My! (TDC)

Rotation 2, Section AA
Stephanie Ford, Evan Epstein, Emily Thomas,
Kyle Elliott, Andrew Kullman

February 18, 2020

Summary
1. Introduction & Objectives
2. Background
3. Rotation I Recommendations
4. Experimental Design
5. Data and Analysis
6. Conclusions
7. Next Steps and Recommendations

EMT
Introduction
● The process: Tray distillation acts as the initial separation

● Rotation II: build a model for the design team to optimize bioethanol production
Objectives:
○ Deliver data on most efficient tray type
○ Determine relationship between tray efficiency and vapor flow rate

TDC brings beer from 10% ethanol to 70% ethanol

EMT
Background
TDC: Uses volatility differences to separate
mixtures [1]

● EMV: Separation achieved on each tray

● Vapor (boil up) flow rate:

○ Steam pressure changes
temperature range within the column
○ Increases with temperature Used with permission from Zander Hall-Spicuzza, Samuel Ng, Ryan
O’Hara, & Takuma Okamoto - Section AA - CHEM E 437

EMT
Background
● Parameters:
○ Trays
○ Vapor flow rate

● Different trays provide differing contact

between V and L:
○ Bubble cap
○ Sieve
○ Valve [2]

[2]

Hypothesis: Bubble cap trays will have the highest efficiencies.

EMT
Where Did We Come From?

Rotation I Findings Rotation I Recommendations

Low vapor rate → high purity Test 5-10 psig

High vapor rate → high efficiency Test 18-20 psig

Low reflux drum height → dries up Reflux drum height: 4 inches

Low CW rates → reflux vaporization Constant CW flow rate: 4.6-4.8 GPM

KE
Where Do We Go From Here?

Rotation I Recommendation Rotation II Implementation

Test 5-10 psig Replicate at 10 psig steam pressure

Test 18-20 psig Replicate at 20 psig and test at

maximum column pressure (24 psig)

Reflux drum height: 4 inches Maintain 4-inch height

Constant CW flow rate: 4.6-4.8 GPM Maintain 4.8 GPM flow rate

KE
Data Collection
● Exclusively liquid samples taken
● Determination of ethanol mol% at each tray
● Condensate flow rate at given steam pressure
● T, P taken from computer interface
● Reflux flow rate from totalizer
● Cooling water flow rate

Uncertainty remains in the accuracy of certain measured variables

AHK
 Data Analysis and Assumptions
Assume:

● Saturated steam
● Constant molar overflow
● Operation of the column is total reflux
● Well-mixed ethanol and water

Three energy balances performed:

Condenser

MPS
Reboiler Reflux Drum
(Totalizer)

CW
AHK
Steam Pressure vs. Vapor Flow Rate

Vapor flow found via condenser balance has linear relationship with steam pressure
SF
Tray Efficiency vs. Vapor Flow Rate

General increase in efficiency with vapor flow rate

SF
Mid-range vapor flow rates may decrease valve tray efficiency

SF
Efficiency by Tray Type

Optimal tray type is dependent on vapor flow rate

SF
Conclusions
● General trend of increased EMV with increased boil up

● Optimal tray type is dependent on vapor flow rate

● Condenser energy balance found to be most reliable

SF
Method Refinement
EH&S:

● Safety protocols listed in the SOP are generally sufficient

○ Be especially careful with hot pipes while steam is flowing
○ Use PPE, including safety goggles and gloves
● Do not dispose of any ethanol-water samples down the drain, instead depositing them
in the designated containers
● Do not consume any samples

Protocol:

● Valve placements

EE
Method Refinement

EE
Recommendations
Rotation 3 goal: “Test the robustness of the EMV model. Based on the model developed by rotation 2, use McCabe Thiele
analysis or spreadsheet model to predict how the pilot column should perform under conditions not previously tested by
Rotations 1 and 2, and compare to measurements.”

Technique:
● Use liquid samples and the densitometer for McCabe-Thiele analysis
● Use a cooling water balance to determine the vapor flow rate

Studies:
● Test model of steam pressure to vapor flow rate at 18 psi
● EMV at vapor flow rates of 0.095 and 0.105 kg/s
○ Further strengthen EMV to vapor flow rate

Design:
● Which tray performs best at a given vapor flow rate?
● How can we stop heat loss from the system?

EE
Sources
[1] Robert Perry, Don W. Green, Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook, 8th ed., McGraw-Hill, 2007.
ISBN 0071422943

[2] Distillation Column Internals. Werner Sölken 2008 - 2020.

http://www.wermac.org/equipment/distillation_part2.html

[3]Calculator: Saturated Steam Table by Pressure.

https://www.tlv.com/global/US/calculator/steam-table-pressure.html

[4] Water - Heat of Vaporization.

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-properties-d_1573.html?vA=94&units=C#

[5] Ethanol. NIST

https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C64175&Mask=4&Type=HVAP-FORM1&Plot=on#HVAP-FOR
M1
Questions?
Weeping - Tray 2 onto 1