Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 144 (2019) 107651

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification

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

Separation of propylene oxide-methanol-water mixture via enhanced T

extractive distillation: Design and control
⁎
Zhishan Zhang , Chao Wang, Chao Guang, Chen Wang
College of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Shandong University of Science and Technology, Qingdao 266590, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The ternary azeotropic mixture of propylene oxide-methanol-water generally occurs in the direct oxidation of
Extractive distillation hydrogen peroxide and needs to be separated effectively. This paper explores two energy-efficient configurations
Process intensification with water as solvent, namely extractive dividing-wall column (EDWC) and side-stream extractive distillation
Process control (SSED), in terms of the potential economic advantages compared to conventional extractive distillation (CED)
Azeotropic mixtures
and the dynamic control. Several steady-state designs with the minimum total annual cost (TAC) by using a
Propylene oxide-methanol-water
sequential iterative optimization method are achieved and compared. Regarding the controllability, four control
structures for the SSED are developed and examined via introducing the feed flow and composition disturbances
as well as one control structure for the EDWC. Similar to the EDWC, the SSED can be well controllable via an
optimal control structure relying on only temperature measurements.

1. Introduction component azeotropic mixtures. Anokhina and Timoshenko [21] com-

Propylene oxide (PO) plays an important role in organic chemical
materials and fine chemicals. The epoxidation of propylene, using hy-
drogen peroxide as oxidant and methanol as solvent is a common PO
production technology named HPPO. During this process, it is difficult
for separating the high purity PO product from the mixture of PO-me-
thanol-water due to the presence of one minimum-boiling azeotrope of
methanol-PO. Hence, some special distillation methods have to be used,
such as pressure-swing distillation [1–5], extractive distillation [6–11]
and azeotropic distillation [12–16].
Among these alternatives, extractive distillation is an attractive
option since no extra substance is introduced when selecting water as
solvent. Currently, some extractive distillation enhanced configurations
via dividing-wall column and side-stream column have been widely
studied for achieving the efficient separation of different systems. Kiss
and Suszwalak [17] explored the application of the dividing-wall
column in extractive distillation (EDWC) for enhancing ethanol dehy-
dration. Kiss and Ignat [18] developed a thermally integrated extractive
distillation configuration in the downstream bioethanol fuel produc-
tion. Modla [19] investigated a comparison of conventional, thermally
integrated and dividing-wall extractive distillation processes for se-
parating a two-component azeotrope of methanol/toluene. Timoshenko
et al. [20] explored the practicability of diverse partially thermal-cou-
pled extractive distillation configurations for splitting several triple-
pared the energy efficiency of traditional and partially thermally cou-
pling extractive distillation flowsheets and proposed a few evaluation
criterions for the effectiveness of complex extractive distillation column
via investigating the separation of seven different azeotropic mixtures.
Wang et al. [22] studied the steady simulation and dynamic control of
the EDWC for separating a binary azeotrope of acetonitrile-N-propanol.
Zhao et al. [23] investigated two thermally coupled ternary extractive
distillation processes for separating tetrahydrofuran-ethanol-water
ternary azeotropic mixtures. Tututi-Avila et al. [24] firstly investigated
an energy-efficient extractive distillation configuration intensified with
side-stream (SSED), which is illustrated with the separation of three
binary azeotropes. Wang et al. [25] proposed and explored ten ther-
mally coupled extractive distillation separation sequences based on
SSED and EDWC for separating methanol-acetonitrile-benzene ternary
mixture with three binary azeotropes. In addition, Wang et al. [26]
applied the side-stream technology to pressure-swing distillation and
proposed a few energy-enhanced schemes for the binary separation of
ethyl acetate-ethanol, methanol-chloroform, and ethylenediamine-
water.
The application of any high efficient separation configuration to a
new system would likely be dismissed as far as implementation due to
operational and control issues. The optimal design and operational
control for EDWC have been investigated extensively for a long period.
Zhang et al. [27] studied the economic and dynamic performances of

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tjzza@163.com (Z. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2019.107651
Received 20 June 2019; Received in revised form 10 August 2019; Accepted 30 August 2019
Available online 31 August 2019
0255-2701/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Z. Zhang, et al. Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 144 (2019) 107651

Nomenclature NFS Solvent location

NLS Side liquid location
AC Heat transfer area of condenser [m2] NV Side vapor location
AR Heat transfer area of reboiler [m2] PO Propylene oxide
CED Conventional extractive distillation QC Condenser duty [kW]
CSCinst Installed cost of column shell [$] QR Reboiler duty [kW]
EDC Extractive distillation column RR Reflux ratio
EDC-SS Extractive distillation column with a side stream SC Side column
EDWC Extractive dividing-wall column SRC Solvent recovery column
FS Solvent flow [kmol/h] SSED Side-stream extractive distillation
hcol Column height [m] S:F Solvent to feed ratio
htray Column height between top and bottom tray [m] TAC Total annual cost [$/a]
ID Diameter [m] TACC Total annual capital costs[$/a]
FLS Side liquid flow[kmol/h] TAEC Total annual energy costs[$/a]
FV Side vapor flow [kmol/h] TCinst Installed cost of trays [$]
MC Main column ΔT Temperature difference [K]
NT Number of stages UC Heat transfer coefficient of condenser [kW/(K·m2)]
NF Feed location UR Heat transfer coefficient of rebolier [kW/(K·m2)]

the optimal three-column EDWC for separating ethyl acetate and iso-
propyl alcohol. Tututi-Avila et al. [28] investigated the same issues for
separating ethanol-water binary azeotrope system with ethylene glycol
as solvent. Luyben [29] provided a dynamic performance investigation
of regular and thermally coupled three components extractive distilla-
tion process for separating benzene-cyclohexane-toluene mixture with
N-methylpyrrolidone as solvent. Dai et al. [30] studied the similar is-
sues of separating benzene and cyclohexane mixture by extractive
distillation with o-xylene and sulfolane mixture as entrainer. Li et al.
[31] compared the economics and controllability of three extractive
distillation configurations (regular extractive distillation, vacuum ex-
tractive distillation and EDWC) for separating a 2-methoxyethanol/to-
luene mixture. Wang et al. [32] researched the controllability of EDWC
for separating methanol-acetonitrile-benzene ternary mixtures with
chlorobenzene as solvent. Feng et al. [33] proposed three different
temperature control schemes for the proportional-integral control of
EDWC for separating toluene-2-methoxyethanol mixture with dimethyl
sulfoxide as solvent, and evaluated their dynamic performances. Sun
et al. [34] studied the design and control of the separation of benzene
and cyclohexane via the EDWC process. To the best of our knowledge,

Fig. 1. The consistency between the predicted and experimental phase equilibrium data (a) methanol-PO, (b) water-PO and (c) water-methanol.

2
Z. Zhang, et al. Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 144 (2019) 107651

Table 1 economic and energy performances. In order to improve the opera-

The detailed formulation of TAC. tional performance of SSED and avoid on-line composition measure-
Parameters Formula or data Units ments, four control structures are proposed and analyzed. For com-
parison, one common-used control structure of EDWC is also developed.
Condenser: All control structures are evaluated via introducing feed disturbances in
Heat transfer 0.852 kW/(K·m2)
the flowrate and composition.
coefficient (UC)
Heat transfer area(AC) QC/(UC×△Tcon) m2
Heat transfer 13.9 K 2. Steady-state design
temperature
difference (△TCon)
Capital cost(C1) (M&S/280) ×1609.13×AC0.65 $ 2.1. Design basis
Reboiler:
Heat transfer 0.568 kW/(K·m2) 2.1.1. Thermodynamic model
coefficient (UR) The NRTL model is chosen to describe the phase behaviors of this
Heat transfer area(AR) QR/(UR×△T) m2
Heat transfer 34.8 K
azeotropic system and all binary interactive parameters from Aspen
temperature Plus V8.4 are listed in Table S1 in Supplementary information. Fig. 1
difference (△TReb) shows the extreme consistency of the model prediction data with the
Capital cost(C2) (M&S/280)×1775.26×AR0.65 $ experimental data from the references [36–38].
Column:
hcol 1.2 × 0.6096×(NT-2) m
htray 0.6096×(NT-2) m 2.1.2. Economic evaluation
TCinst (M&S/280)×97.243×ID1.55×htray $ TAC is minimized to obtain one optimal separation configuration. It
CSCinst (M&S/280)×3919.32×ID1.066×hcol0.802 $
Capital cost(C3) TCinst+CSCinst $
is made up of total annual energy costs (TAEC) and total annual capital
Payback period 3 a costs (TACC). The major capital costs include the costs of condensers,
Energy price 4.7 × 10−6 $/kJ reboilers and columns. The column costs cover the installed shell cost
TACC (C1+C2+C3)/Payback period $/a (CSCinst) and the installed tray cost (TCinst). The minor items are neg-
TAEC QR×3600 × 365 × 24×Energy price $/a
ligible due to a lower expenditure, for instance, reflux drum, pump,
TAC TACC + TAEC $/a
valve, and pipe. The TAEC only accounts for the steam consumption
and the costs of solvent makeup, electricity and cooling water are un-
there are no more efforts to the control performance for the high effi- covered. Table 1 summarizes the formulation of the TAC calculation
cient SSED except for Ma et al. [35]. In that reference, the dynamic [39–41].
control of SSED for the separation of methanol-acetone binary mixtures All capital cost data are based on Marshall and Swift equipment cost
was conducted effectively through evaluating the dynamic perfor- index for 2016 (M&S = 1582.3). The CSCinst is calculated as a function
mances of various control structures. of the column height (hcol) and the column diameter (Dcol). The TCinst is
This article aims to explore the application of two energy-saving calculated as a function of the height of the column occupied by trays
extractive distillation configurations (EDWC and SSED) with water as (htray) and Dcol. The cost of the heat exchanger is related to the heat
solvent for separating and purifying the PO product from the PO-me- exchanger area (A) that is estimated from the heat duty (Q), and the
thanol-water mixture. The intensified designs and the conventional temperature difference (ΔT) and the appropriate overall heat transfer
extractive distillation process (CED) are optimized through the search coefficients (U). Simultaneously, the individual cost correction factors
of the minimum total annual costs (TAC) and assessed in terms of associated with the pressure effect, the construction material and
equipment type are fully considered. The basis of equipment material is

Fig. 2. The CED optimal design with detailed information.

3
Z. Zhang, et al.
Fig. 3. The optimal EDWC configuration (a) constructure schematic, (b) thermodynamic equivalent flowsheet with detailed information.
carbon steel. The payback period of 3 years is commonly used in most
references for the TACC calculation, which can provide a safer cost final
estimate. The assumed operating time is 365 × 24 h.
2.1.3. Design statement
A fresh feed is assumed as 1000 kmol/h with the composition
50 mol% methanol, 40 mol% water and 10 mol% PO. The specifications
of both PO and methanol products are 99.99 wt%, and that of the water
product is 99.995 wt%. In addition, the operating pressure of the dis-
tillation column extracting PO as the top product is set at 2 atm for the
purpose of using the cooling water as cooling service. The pressure of
the other column is set at 1 atm, and the tray pressure drop is given as
0.0068 atm.
2.2. Optimal design for CED
The CED process consists of the extractive distillation column (EDC)
and the solvent recovery column (SRC), as shown in Fig. 2. The fresh
feed and the solvent enter the EDC from the lower tray and upper tray,
respectively. The PO and methanol products are obtained at the top of
4
Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 144 (2019) 107651
the EDC and SRC, respectively. The bottom stream from the SRC that is
the high purity water is divided into two parts of the solvent and the
product.
The global sequential iterative optimization algorithm is used to
obtain the optimum design parameters and the minimum TAC, as
shown in Fig. S1 of Supporting Information. In the CED process, four
key design variables including two reflux ratios (RR1 and RR2) and two
distillate flowrates (D1 and D2) are determined via the “Design Spec/
Vary” function to meet the separation requirements below.
(1) For the EDC, the mass composition and the recovery of PO in the
distillate are both set at 99.99% via adjusting RR1 and D1, respec-
tively.
(2) For the SRC, the methanol purity in the distillate is maintained
99.99 wt% via adjusting RR2, and the water purity in the bottom
outflow reaches 99.995 wt% via adjusting D2.
Six optimization variables including the number of stages (NT1 and
NT2), three fresh feed stages (NF1, NF2 and NFS) and the solvent flow
rate (FS) are determined by minimizing the TAC. The recycling solvent
Z. Zhang, et al.
Fig. 4. The optimal SSED flowsheet with detailed information.
Fig. 5. The temperature profiles of the EDWC configuration (a) MC, (b) SC.
temperature is considered as fixed variable (298.15 K) instead of opti-
mization variable in this work, which is generally done for simplicity by
most scholars. Some important optimum parameters of the CED design
are given in Fig. 2. The minimum TAC is 3.485 × 106$/a and includes
TAEC (2.308 × 106$/a) and TACC (1.177 × 106$/a).
2.3. Optimal design for EDWC
The used-widely EDWC configuration is capable of accomplishing
the above separation for the ternary mixture only containing one
minimum azeotrope. Fig. 3 gives the constructive schematic and the
thermodynamically equivalent flowsheet consisting of a main column
(MC) and a side column (SC). In the calculation of TACC, the divided-
wall column equivalent diameter is estimated based on the equivalent
square method [30]. The fresh feed and solvent enter the MC from the
different trays. A side vapor stream containing full methanol and part of
water is withdrawn and fed into the SC. The high purity PO and
5
Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 144 (2019) 107651
methanol are obtained as distillate products of the MC and SC, re-
spectively. The high purity water is produced as bottom product of the
MC, which is partially recycled back to the MC as solvent.
A conventional sequential iterative optimization algorithm is used
to search optimal design parameters and the minimum TAC, as pro-
vided in Fig. S.2. of Supplementary Information. For the EDWC process,
five variables are selected as key design parameters, including reflux
ratios (RR1 and RR2), the distillate flowrates (D1 and D2) and the side
vapor flowrate (FV). They are determined via the “Design Spec/Vary”
function to reach several separation specifications below:
(1) For MC, the mass composition and recovery of PO in the distillate
reach to 99.99% and 99.99% by adjusting RR1 and FV, respectively,
while the mass composition of water in the bottom reach to
99.995% via adjusting D1.
(2) The mass purity of methanol in the stream D2 reaches to 99.99%
via manipulating RR2.
Z. Zhang, et al. Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 144 (2019) 107651

Fig. 6. The EDWC configuration (a) control structure, (b) feed flowrate dynamic responses, and (c) feed composition dynamic responses.

Fig. 7. The temperature profiles of the SSED configuration (a) EDC-SS, (b) SSRC.

The six variables including the number of trays (NT1 and NT2), the
raw materials and solvent feed stages (NF1, and NFS), the solvent
flowrate (FS) and side vapor stream withdrawn location (NV) are opti-
mized. Some key design parameters of the EDWC optimum configura-
tion are given in Fig. 3. TAC is minimized as 3.457 × 106$/a, including
TAEC (2.361 × 106$/a) and TACC (1.096 × 106$/a).
2.4. Optimal design for SSED
The lately-developed SSED configuration is also adapted to the se-
paration of this system. Fig. 4 shows the SSED separation flowsheet that
includes an extractive distillation column with side stream (EDC-SS)
and a column for recovering solvent (SRC). PO and methanol are

6
Z. Zhang, et al.
Fig. 8. The SSED configuration (a) control structure-CS1, (b) feed flowrate dynamic responses, and (c) feed composition dynamic responses.
obtained as the overhead products of EDC-SS and SRC respectively. The
differences from the EDWC configuration are the removal of some
water as the bottom product in the EDC-SS and the extraction of a side
liquid stream containing full methanol and the remaining water.
A sequential iterative optimization algorithm is used to obtain the
optimum design parameters and the minimum TAC, as given in Fig. S.3
of Supplementary Information. For the SSED configuration, five key
design variables of reflux ratios (RR1 and RR2), the distillate flowrates
(D1 and D2) and a side liquid flowrate (FLS) are chosen as key design
parameters. They are determined via the “Design Spec/Vary” function
to reach the several separation specifications below:
(1) For EDC-SS, the mass composition and recovery of PO in the dis-
tillate are set as 99.99% and 99.99% via adjusting RR1 and FLS
respectively, while the mass composition of water in the bottom
reaches 99.995% via adjusting D2.
(2) For SRC, the methanol purity in the distillate is maintained
99.99 wt% via adjusting RR2, and the water purity in the bottom
stream reaches 99.995 wt% via adjusting D2.
The selected seven variables are optimized including the number of
stages (NT1, NT2), fresh feed stages (NF1, NT2, NFS), a side liquid lo-
cation (NLS) and a solvent flowrate (FS) by searching for the minimum
TAC. Some key design parameters of the optimum SSED configuration
7
Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 144 (2019) 107651
are given in Fig. 4, with the minimum TAC of 3.445 × 106$/a, and
made up to the TAEC (2.277 × 106$/a) and (TACC of 1.168 × 106$/a).
In comparison with the EDWC, the SSED has advantages to some extent
in terms of economic costs.
3. Dynamic control
The control and operational issues of the implementation following
the steady-state optimum design must be discussed. In this section, the
control structures of the EDWC for one and the SSED for four are
constructed. Their dynamic properties are analyzed via introducing the
disturbances in feed flowrates and feed compositions. The magnitude of
the disturbances is the same one in the literature [42]. The steady-state
simulation is exported into Aspen Dynamics as a pressure-driven si-
mulation after the needful equipment sizes are calculated. At the same
time, the adequate pressure drop is provided by selecting appropriate
pumps and valves. Additionally, the relay-feedback testing and Tyreus-
Luyben tuning rules are used to get the ultimate gain KC and period τI
for all controllers in this paper.
3.1. Control of EDWC configuration
The slope criterion is adopted for the selection of the sensitivity tray
[43]. The temperature profiles of EDWC are shown in Fig. 5. For the
Z. Zhang, et al.
Fig. 9. The SSED configuration (a) control structure-CS2, (b) feed flowrate dynamic responses, and (c) feed composition dynamic responses.
MC, the location of the tray with the larger slopes are the 40th and
57th. For the SC, the location of the tray with the larger slope is the
46th. Fig. 6(a) shows the dual-temperature control structure.
As for the controller tuning, level controllers are proportional-only
controllers with large integral time (9999 min) and KC = 2. Flow is
controlled by using the proportional-integral controller with KC = 0.5
and τ1 = 0.3 min. Pressure controllers are tightly tuned with KC = 20
and τ1 = 12 min. The deadtime in the temperature control loop is set as
1 min [44,45]. The control loops are listed as follows:
(1) Fresh feed flow is controlled.
(2) Reflux-drum levels of MC and SC are maintained by manipulating
their distillate flowrates.
(3) Base level of SC is maintained by manipulating the flowrate of the
bottom product.
(4) Notably, base level of MC is controlled by adjusting the water
product flowrate due to the absence of a solvent makeup.
(5) The overhead pressures of MC and SC are controlled by manip-
ulating the condenser heat duty.
(6) The ratio of solvent flowrate to fresh feed flowrate is fixed.
(7) The temperature on stage 40 is kept constant by adjusting the ratio
of side vapor flowrates and reboiler heat duty (VR/QR), while the
temperature on stage 57 is controlled by manipulating QR.
(8) The temperature on stage 46 in the SC is controlled by operating the
8
Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 144 (2019) 107651
reflux ratio (RR2).
The dynamic behavior under this control structure is tested when
facing feed flowrate disturbances ( ± 10%) and feed composition dis-
turbances from 0.1(PO)/0.5(methanol)/0.4(water) to 0.09/0.52 /0.39 (+Δz)
and 0.11/0.48/0.41 (-Δz) at time = 2 h. Fig. 6(b) and (c) respectively
shows the dynamic responses.
From these figures, two temperature controllers respond rather fast
by getting the temperatures back to their setpoints, and all product
purities approaching the initial set values can be maintained. Overall,
the implementation of the EDWC goes with the good control.
3.2. Control of SSED configuration
3.2.1. Control structure (CS1)
The control of the SSED configuration is less studied than that of the
EDWC despite more advantages in energy-savings. The temperature
profiles of the EDC-SS and SRC are shown in Fig. 7. It can be seen that
the locations with the larger slope are stages 42 and 56 for the EDC-SS
and the location with the largest slope, is stage 40 for the SRC. Note that
the side-stream flowrate is an important control variable in the control
structure of the SSED that can achieve different control goals. Fig. 8(a)
shows the first control structure (CS1). The following is the control
loops that need to be highlighted.
Z. Zhang, et al.
Fig. 10. The SSED configuration (a) control structure-CS3, (b) feed flowrate dynamic responses, and (c) feed composition dynamic responses.
(1) For EDC-SS, temperatures on stage 42 and 56 are controlled by
manipulating reflux ratio (RR1) and reboiler duty (QR1), respec-
tively.
(2) The stage 40 temperature in the SRC is controlled by manipulating
reboiler duty (QR2).
(3) The side-stream flowrate (FLS) is used to control the purity of me-
thanol product. The deadtime in the composition control loop is set
as 3 min.
The dynamic performances are analyzed by disturbing feed flowrate
and composition at the time = 2 h. However, the Aspen Dynamics si-
mulation fails when a large feed flowrate disturbance (-10%) occurs, so
only a +10% feed flowrate disturbance is investigated besides the ±
5% feed flowrate disturbances. Fig. 8(b) and (c) gives their dynamic
responses for these feed disturbances. It can be seen that both product
purities and tray temperatures are returned to their specifications but a
long restore time is needed.
3.2.2. Control structure (CS2)
In order to improve the poor performance of CS1, the second control
structure (CS2) is proposed by combining the ratio of side-stream
flowrate to feed flowrate (FLS/F) with a composition controller, as
shown in Fig. 9(a). The FLS is indirectly adjusted to maintain the me-
thanol product purity and the side-stream flowrate controller is on
9
Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 144 (2019) 107651
“cascade”. In other words, the methanol mole fraction is connected as
an input signal with the composition controller, where the resulting
output signal changes the ration of FLS/F.
Fig. 9(b) and (c) respectively show the dynamic responses to feed
flow and composition disturbances after 2 h. After stabilization, all
sensitive tray temperatures can quickly return to their setpoints, and all
product compositions have a small deviation from the initial set values.
Although the CS2 can effectively address the feed flow disturbances
( ± 10%), the major drawbacks are to require too long time and os-
cillate violently before restoring to another stable state.
3.2.3. Control structure (CS3)
The third control structure (CS3) is developed to improve the con-
trol quality further, as shown in Fig. 10(a). The difference from the CS1
and CS2 is that the PO composition in the side stream is measured and
controlled by manipulating the side-stream flowrate controller on
“cascade”.
Fig. 10(b) and (c) show the dynamic performances of the CS3 when
the feed disturbances occur. It can be noticed that the CS3 handles these
disturbances quickly and effectively. The restoring time to the initial
values is significantly shortened and the oscillate phenomenon is
greatly weakened as well. However, one of the deficiencies is that the
PO composition in the LS stream is so small as to make the detection
and control difficult. The other is that the PO composition is inconstant
Z. Zhang, et al.
Fig. 11. The SSED configuration (a) control structure-CS4, (b) feed flowrate dynamic response, and (c) feed composition dynamic responses.
when facing the greater feed composition disturbances, which has a
significant impact on the methanol product purity. Moreover, most
industrial applications try to avoid the use of inferential composition
controller due to the delay and high-cost of on-line composition mea-
surements.
3.2.4. Control structure (CS4)
By analysis, the fourth control structure (CS4) relying on only
temperature measurements is established, as shown in Fig. 11(a). In this
structure, the side stream flowrate control (FC) is cascaded with the
temperature control on stage 56. In addition, a proportional control
between the reboiler duty of EDC-SS (QR1) and the fresh feed flowrate
is implemented to meet the limitation of degrees of freedom.
Fig. 11(b) and (c) give the dynamic responses for the identical feed
disturbances. The results show that both product purities and the sen-
sitivity trays temperature are capable of returning to their set points
quickly. Therefore, CS4 is considered the best option for the control of
the SSED configuration.
To be clear, the proposed control structures are untested for the
greater feed flowrate and composition disturbances ( ± 20%), which
maybe affect to some extent the system’s operational flexibility. In fact,
the magnitudes of the feed disturbances in the distillation system are
associated with possible deviations at the upstream chemical stage. As
for the propylene oxide production, it is justified to allow the small
10
Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 144 (2019) 107651
magnitude of the change.
4. Conclusions
In this article, two energy-efficient extractive distillation alter-
natives, namely EDWC and SSED are adopted for the first time to se-
parate the PO-methanol-water mixture with water as solvent. The
steady optimization results reveal that both EDWC and SSED have
economic advantages to great extent compared to the CED, which
causes a reduction of 0.28 × 105$/a and 0.4 × 105$/a TAC, respec-
tively.
In the control analysis, the EDWC configuration is readily controlled
via a common-used control structure and is performed with good dy-
namic behaviors. For the SSED configuration, four control structures
are successively constructed to improve its controllability according to
the use of the side-stream flowrate as control variable. CS1 is simply
unable to handle a large negative feed flowrate disturbance (-10%).
Both CS2 and CS3 can solve this puzzle, but a lengthy running period is
required. CS2 simultaneously occurs a violently oscillation phenom-
enon. Different from the other three structures, CS4 only using tem-
perature controllers can smoothly maintain the product purities with
litter deviations and a short recovery time. Hence, the SSED config-
uration is an attractive energy-saving alternative for separating the PO/
methanol/water mixture in addition to the EDWC, which can be well
Z. Zhang, et al.
controllable under this newly proposed control strategy.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the
online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2019.107651.
References
[1] S. Liang, Cao Y, Liu X, X. Li, Y. Zhao, Y. Wang, Y. Wang, Insight into pressure-swing
distillation from azeotropic phenomenon to dynamic control, Chem. Eng. Res. Des.
117 (2017) 318–335.
[2] C. Guang, X. Shi, Z. Zhang, C. Wang, C. Wang, J. Gao, Comparison of heterogeneous
azeotropic and pressure-swing distillations for separating the diisopropylether/
isopropanol/water mixtures, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 143 (2019) 249–260.
[3] A. Yang, W. Shen, S. Wei, L. Dong, J. Li, V. Gerbaud, Design and control of pressure-
swing distillation for separating ternary systems with three binary minimum
azeotropes, AIChE J. 65 (2019) 1281–1293.
[4] M. Aurangzeb, A.K. Jana, Pressure-swing dividing-wall column with multiple
binary azeotropes: improving energy efficiency and cost savings through vapor
recompression, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 57 (2018) 4019–4032.
[5] C. Wang, Z. Zhang, X. Zhang, C. Guang, J. Gao, Comparison of pressure-swing
distillation with or without crossing curved boundary for separating a multi-
azeotropic ternary mixture, Sep. Purif. Technol. 220 (2019) 114–125.
[6] J. Gu, X. You, C. Tao, J. Li, W. Shen, J. Li, Improved design and optimization for
separating tetrahydrofuran-water azeotrope through extractive distillation with and
without heat integration by varying pressure, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 133 (2018)
303–313.
[7] P.D. Ghuge, N.A. Mali, S.S. Joshi, Comparative analysis of extractive and pressure
swing distillation for separation of THF-water separation, Comput. Chem. Eng. 103
(2017) 188–200.
[8] Y. Wang, G. Bu, X. Geng, Z. Zhu, P. Cui, Z. Liao, Design optimization and operating
pressure effects in the separation of acetonitrile/methanol/water mixture by
ternary extractive distillation, J. Clean. Prod. 218 (2019) 212–224.
[9] Y. Wang, X. Zhang, X. Liu, W. Bai, Z. Zhu, Y. Wang, J. Gao, Control of extractive
distillation process for separating heterogenerous ternary azeotropic mixture via
adjusting the solvent content, Sep. Purif. Technol. 191 (2018) 8–26.
[10] X. Zhang, Y. Zhao, H. Wang, B. Qin, Z. Zhu, N. Zhang, Y. Wang, Control of a ternary
extractive distillation process with recycle splitting using a mixed entrainer, Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res. 57 (2018) 339–351.
[11] Q. Pan, X. Shang, J. Li, S. Ma, L. Li, L. Sun, Energy-efficient separation process and
control scheme for extractive distillation of ethanol-water using deep eutectic sol-
vent, Sep. Purif. Technol. 219 (2019) 113–126.
[12] W.L. Luyben, Control of a multiunit heterogeneous azeotropic distillation process,
AIChE J. 52 (2006) 623–637.
[13] T. Shi, A. Yang, S. Jin, W. Shen, S. Wei, J. Ren, Comparative optimal design and
control of two alternative approaches for separating heterogeneous mixtures iso-
propyl alcohol-isopropyl acetate-water with four azeotropes, Sep. Purif. Technol.
225 (2019) 1–17.
[14] Y. Cui, X. Shi, C. Guang, Z. Zhang, C. Wang, C. Wang, Comparison of pressure-swing
distillation and heterogeneous azeotropic distillation for recovering benzene and
isopropanol from wastewater, Process. Saf. Environ. 122 (2019) 1–12.
[15] A. Yang, S. Jin, W. Shen, P. Cui, I.-L. Chen, J. Ren, Investigation of energy-saving
azeotropic dividing wall column to achieve cleaner production via heat exchanger
network and heat pump technique, J. Clean. Prod. 234 (2019) 410–422.
[16] Y. Dai, F. Zheng, B. Xia, P. Cui, Y. Wang, J. Gao, Application of mixed solvent to
achieve an energy-saving hybrid process including liquid−liquid extraction and
heterogeneous azeotropic distillation, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 58 (2019) 2379–2388.
[17] A.A. Kiss, D.J.-P.C. Suszwalak, Enhanced bioethanol dehydration by extractive and
azeotropic distillation in dividing-wall columns, Sep. Purif. Technol. 86 (2012)
70–78.
[18] A.A. Kiss, R.M. Ignat, Innovative single step bioethanol dehydration in an extractive
dividing-wall column, Sep. Purif. Technol. 98 (2012) 290–297.
[19] G. Modla, Energy saving methods for the separation of a minimum boiling point
azeotrope using an intermediate entrainer, Energy 50 (2013) 103–109.
[20] A.V. Timoshenko, E.A. Anokhina, A.V. Morgunov, D.G. Rudakov, Application of the
partially thermally coupled distillation flowsheets for the extractive distillation of
ternary azeotropic mixtures, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 104 (2015) 139–155.
11
Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 144 (2019) 107651
[21] E. Anokhina, A. Timoshenko, Criterion of the energy effectiveness of extractive
distillation in the partially thermally coupled columns, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 99
(2015) 165–175.
[22] X. Wang, L. Xie, P. Tian, G. Tian, Design and control of extractive dividing wall
column and pressure-swing distillation for separating azeotropic mixture of acet-
onitrile/N-propanol, Chem. Eng. Process. 110 (2016) 172–187.
[23] Y. Zhao, K. Ma, W. Bai, D. Du, Z. Zhu, Y. Wang, J. Gao, Energy-saving thermally
coupled ternary extractive distillation process by combining with mixed entrainer
for separating ternary mixture containing bioethanol, Energy 148 (2018) 296–308.
[24] S. Tututi-Avila, N. Medina-Herrera, J. Hahn, A. Jiménez-Gutiérrez, Design of an
energy-efficient side-stream extractive distillation system, Comput. Chem. Eng. 102
(2017) 17–25.
[25] C. Wang, C. Guang, Y. Cui, C. Wang, Z. Zhang, Compared novel thermally coupled
extractive distillation sequences for separating multi-azeotropic mixture of acet-
onitrile/benzene/methanol, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 136 (2018) 513–528.
[26] Y. Wang, K. Ma, M. Yu, Y. Dai, R. Yuan, Z. Zhu, J. Gao, An improvement scheme for
pressure-swing distillation with and without heat integration through an inter-
mediate connection to achieve energy savings, Comput. Chem. Eng. 119 (2018)
439–449.
[27] H. Zhang, Q. Ye, J. Qin, H. Xu, N. Li, Design and control of extractive dividing-wall
column for separating ethyl acetate−isopropyl alcohol mixture, Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 53 (2014) 1189–1205.
[28] S. Tututi-Avila, A. Jiménez-Gutiérrez, J. Hahn, Control analysis of an extractive
dividing-wall column used for ethanol dehydration, Chem. Eng. Process. 82 (2014)
88–100.
[29] W.L. Luyben, Control comparison of conventional and thermally coupled ternary
extractive distillation processes, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 106 (2016) 253–262.
[30] X. Dai, Q. Ye, J. Qin, H. Yu, X. Suo, R. Li, Energy-saving dividing-wall column
design and control for benzene extractive distillation via mixed entrainer, Chem.
Eng. Process. 100 (2016) 49–64.
[31] L. Li, L. Guo, Y. Tu, N. Yu, L. Sun, Y. Tian, Q. Li, Comparison of different extractive
distillation processes for 2-methoxyethanol/toluene separation: design and control,
Comput. Chem. Eng. 99 (2017) 117–134.
[32] C. Wang, C. Wang, Y. Cui, C. Guang, Z. Zhang, Economics and controllability of
conventional and intensified extractive distillation configurations for acetonitrile/
methanol/benzene mixtures, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 57 (2018) 10551–10563.
[33] Z. Feng, W. Shen, G.P. Rangaiah, L. Dong, Proportional-integral control and model
predictive control of extractive dividing-wall column based on temperature differ-
ences, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 57 (2018) 10572–10590.
[34] L. Sun, Q. Wang, L. Li, J. Zhai, Y. Liu, Design and control of extractive dividing wall
column for separating benzene/cyclohexane mixtures, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 53
(2014) 8120–8131.
[35] K. Ma, M. Yu, Y. Dai, Y. Ma, J. Gao, P. Cui, Y. Wang, Control of an energy-saving
side-stream extractive distillation process with different disturbance conditions,
Sep. Purif. Technol. 210 (2019) 195–208.
[36] V.N. Vostrikova, T.V. Komarova, V.M. Platonov, L.V. Morozova, T.P. Moiseeva,
M.N. Saenko, M.E. Aerov, Liquid-vapor equilibrium in binary systems containing
propene oxide, Zh. Prikl. Khim 47 (1974) 568.
[37] J.N. Wickert, W.S. Tamplin, R.L. Shank, Phase equilibria in the system propylene
oxide – water, Chem. Eng. Prog. Symp. Ser 48 (1952) 92–96.
[38] C. Yang, S. Ma, X. Yin, Organic salt effect of tetramethylammonium bicarbonate on
the vapor liquid equilibrium of the methanol water System, J. Chem. Eng. Data 56
(2011) 3747–3751.
[39] Ž. Olujić, L. Sun, A.D. Rijke, P.J. Jansens, Conceptual design of an internally heat
integrated propylene-propane splitter, Energy. 31 (2006) 3083–3096.
[40] W.L. Luyben, Distillation Design and Control Using AspenTM Simulation, second
edition, (2013) Hoboken, New Jersey.
[41] C. Wang, C. Wang, C. Guang, Z. Zhang, Comparison of extractive distillation se-
paration sequences for acetonitrile/methanol/benzene multi-azeotropic mixtures,
J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 93 (2018) 3302–3316.
[42] W.L. Luyben, Control comparison of conventional extractive distillation with a new
split-feed configuration, Chem. Eng. Process. 107 (2016) 29–41.
[43] W.L. Luyben, Evaluation of criteria for selecting temperature control trays in dis-
tillation columns, J. Process.Contr. 16 (2006) 115–134.
[44] K. Ma, X. Pan, T. Zhao, J. Yang, Z. Zhu, D. Xu, Y. Wang, Dynamic control of hybrid
processes with liquid−liquid extraction for propylene glycol methyl ether dehy-
dration, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 57 (2018) 13811–13820.
[45] Z. Feng, W. Shen, G.P. Rangaiah, L. Lv, L. Dong, Process development, assessment,
and control of reactive dividing-wall column with vapor recompression for pro-
ducing n‑Propyl Acetate, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 58 (2019) 276–295.