Available

Available online
online at
at www.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
Availableonline
Available onlineatatwww.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com
Energy
Energy Procedia
Procedia 00
00 (2017)
(2017) 000–000
000–000

ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Energy
EnergyProcedia 142
Procedia 00(2017)
(2017)2630–2635
000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

9th
9th International
International Conference
Conference on
on Applied
Applied Energy,
Energy, ICAE2017,
ICAE2017, 21-24 August 2017,
21-24 August 2017, Cardiff,
Cardiff, UK
UK

Systematic design of energy efficient distillation column for alcohol

The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling
mixture
Assessing
Muhammad the aafeasibility
Afiq Zubir
Zubir ofRahimi
usinga the heat demand-outdoor Zahranaa,,
Muhammad Afiq ,, Ahmad
Ahmad Nafais
Nafais Rahimia,, Muhammad
Muhammad Fakhrul Islam
Fakhrul Islam Zahran
temperature
Munawar function
Munawar Zaman
Zaman Shahruddin
Shahruddinforaa,,aKamarul
long-term
Kamarul Asri district
Asri Ibrahim
Ibrahim
a,b, heat demand
a,b, Mohd
Mohd Kamaruddin
Kamaruddinforecast
Abd
Abd
a,b,
a,b,c
Hamid
Hamid a,b,*
*
I. Andrić *, A. Pina , P. Ferrão , J. Fournierb., B. Lacarrièrec, O. Le Correc
a a
aProcess
Process Systems
Systems Engineering
Engineering Centre
Centre (PROSPECT),
(PROSPECT), Research
Research Institue
Institue for
for Sustainable
Sustainable Environment
Environment (RISE),
(RISE), Universiti
Universiti Teknologi
Teknologi Malaysia,
a
Malaysia,
a 81310
IN+ Center for Innovation, Technology and Policy UTM
UTM Johor
81310 Research Bahru,
- Instituto
Johor Johor,
Johor, Malaysia.
Bahru, Superior Técnico, Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
Malaysia.
bDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Faculty
Faculty of Chemical and Energy Engineering,
Dreyfous Universiti Teknologi
Limay,Malaysia,
France 81310
81310 UTM
UTM Johor
Johor Bahru,
b b
Veolia Recherche
Department of Chemical Engineering, of & Innovation,
Chemical and 291 Avenue
Energy Engineering, Daniel, 78520
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Bahru,
c Johor, Malaysia.
Département Systèmes Énergétiques et Environnement
Johor, Malaysia.
- IMT Atlantique, 4 rue Alfred Kastler, 44300 Nantes, France

Abstract
Abstract
Abstract

When
When designing
District heatingaa networks
designing separation
separationare system for mixtures
commonly
system for mixtures containing
addressed close
in theclose
containing boilingaspoint
literature
boiling point components,
one components, ordinary
of the most ordinary distillation
effectivedistillation
solutions cancan be
for be considered
decreasing
considered the
not
not feasible since high purity products require large number of stages and reflux ratio. During the design phase of distillation
feasible
greenhouse since
gas high
emissionspurity
from products
the require
building large
sector. number
These of
systemsstages and
require reflux
high ratio.
investmentsDuring the
which design
are phase
returned of
through the heat
distillation
processes, several
sales. Dueseveral
processes, problems
to theproblems
changedmay may occurconditions
climate
occur such as
such as determination
determination
and buildingof of renovation
optimal number
optimal number of plates,
policies,
of plates, optimal location
heat demand
optimal location for feed,
in the future
for feed, and decrease,
could
and optimal
optimal
reflux ratio.
ratio. The
prolonging
reflux main
main objective
the investment
The of
return
objective this
this paper
paper is
of period. is to
to propose
propose aa methodology
methodology to to design
design anan energy
energy efficient
efficient alcohol
alcohol distillation process
distillation process
using
using driving
The main scope
driving force
force approach.
of this The
paper isThe
approach. design
to assess
designthe concept is
feasibility
concept to design
is toofdesign the
using the heatdistillation column
demandcolumn
distillation – outdoor system at
temperature
system maximum
at maximum function driving force.
for heat
driving demand
force. At
At
maximum
forecast. driving
The force,
district ofthe energy
Alvalade, required
located for
in the system
Lisbon will be
(Portugal), minimum.
was used A ascase
a study
case
maximum driving force, the energy required for the system will be minimum. A case study of 5 component alcohol mixture from of
study.5 component
The alcohol
district is mixture
consisted from
of 665
aa buildings
literature was
was selected
literature that and
and investigated.
vary in both
selected construction Initially,
investigated. period and
Initially, the literature
literature case
the typology. Threestudy
case was
was analysed
weather
study scenariosand
analysed (low,
and simulated
medium,
simulated by using
byhigh)
usingand Aspen
Aspen HYSYS
three district
HYSYS
V9’s
V9’s shortcut
renovation design
design method
shortcutscenarios to
to determine
were developed
method determine the
the energy
(shallow, usage
usage and
intermediate,
energy and capital
deep).
capitalTocost. Then,
estimate
cost. Then,the similar
error,feed
similar information
obtained
feed from
from the
heat demand
information shortcut
values
the were
shortcut
design
compared
design was used
was with for
used resultsa new design
fromdesign
for a new which
a dynamic was
whichheat developed
wasdemand
developed model, according
previously
according to the driving
developed
to the force approach
and validated
driving force in
approachbyinthe the methodology.
theauthors. Optimum
methodology. Optimum
design
design variables
The results
variables werethat
showed
were determined
when only
determined from
from the
the methodology.
weather Both
Both designs
change is considered,
methodology. the were
designs margin
were simulated
of errorusing
simulated couldsimilar
using thermodynamic
be acceptable
similar for somemodel
thermodynamic (RK-
applications
model (RK-
Aspen) to
to ensure
(the error
Aspen) reliable
in annual
ensure data
data for
demand
reliable wascomparison
for purposes.
lower thanpurposes.
comparison Finally,
20% for Finally,
all weather bothscenarios
both designs were
designs were analysedHowever,
considered).
analysed and compared
and compared in
after in terms of
introducing
terms of capital
capital and
renovation
and
operating
scenarios,cost.
operating the Based
cost. on
on the
error value
Based findings,
findings, the
theincreased capital
up to
the 59.5%
capital cost was
was reduced
cost(depending
reduced onup theto
up 12.25
12.25 %
toweather and
%and operation
operation cost
andrenovation up
up to
scenarios
cost to 9.39 %.
%. The
The performance
combination
9.39 considered).
performance
confirms
The value
confirms that
thatofby using
byslope this
this methodology,
usingcoefficient increased
methodology, optimum or near
on average
optimum or near optimum
within
optimum designoffor
the range
design for alcohol
3.8% up to
alcohol distillation process can
8% per decade,
distillation process can be
thatbe developed in
corresponds
developed in an
to an
the
easy, practical,
decrease in theand systematic
number of
easy, practical, and systematic manner. manner.
heating hours of 22-139h during the heating season (depending on the combination of weather and
©
© 2017 The
renovation Authors.
scenariosPublished
considered). by
by Elsevier Ltd.
On the other
Ltd. hand, function intercept increased for 7.8-12.7% per decade (depending on the
© 2017
2017 The Authors.
The Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
Elsevier Ltd.
coupled scenarios). The values suggested
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific couldcommittee
be used to modify
of the the function Conference
9th International parameters on forApplied
the scenarios
Energy.considered, and
improve the accuracy of heat demand estimations.

© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and
*
* Corresponding
Corresponding author.
Cooling. author. Mohd
Mohd Kamaruddin
Kamaruddin Abd
Abd Hamid
Hamid
E-mail address: kamaruddinhamid@utm.my
E-mail address: kamaruddinhamid@utm.my
Keywords: Heat demand; Forecast; Climate change
1876-6102
1876-6102 ©© 2017
2017 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by
by Elsevier
Elsevier Ltd.
Ltd.
Peer-review
Peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of
of the
the scientific
scientific committee
committee of
of the
the 9th
9th International
International Conference
Conference on
on Applied
Applied Energy.
Energy.

1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling.
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 9th International Conference on Applied Energy.
10.1016/j.egypro.2017.12.203
2 Muhammad Afiq bin Zubir/ Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
Muhammad Afiq Zubir et al. / Energy Procedia 142 (2017) 2630–2635 2631
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 9th International Conference on Applied Energy.

Keywords: Alcohol mixture; Extractive distillation; Driving force design method; Shortcut design method; Economic analysis ;

1. Introduction

Previously, the most common design method used to design a distillation column system is the shortcut design
method. One of the popular shortcut methods is a combination of Fenske-Underwood-Gilliland equations to determine
the design variables of the distillation system. By using shortcut method, the reflux ratio, number of stages, and feed
location can be determined easily by setting the desired product’s purity. However, the shortcut method is limited only
to ordinary distillation columns. Separation of close boiling components usually require a very high number of stages
and a huge reflux ratio. Since capital cost and operating cost of the column are directly affected by those variables,
increasing the variables will cause an increase in overall cost. Fig. 1 illustrates the overall flowsheet obtained through
shortcut design method for the alcohol system.

Fig. 1: Flowsheet of shortcut method for alcohol system.

The driving force design method is a graphical method which utilizes a diagram developed by Gani and Bek-
pedersen (2000) [1] to obtain design variables required by a distillation column. The method has flourished from year
to year and has interested many researchers. By using the driving force diagram, design variables such as optimal
reflux ratio, minimum number of stages, and feed stage can be obtained by setting the purity of product specification
only. Based on previous works by Mustafa (2015) [2], Rahimi (2016) [3] and Zaine (2015) [4], it also proven that
sequence for separation of multicomponent mixture which operate at minimum energy can be determined easily from
the diagram.
The aim of this work is to propose a driving force design to obtain optimal design variables for alcohol distillation
processes with five alcohol components as case study. Most of the design variables were obtained through very simple
calculations. The design developed takes both capital and operating cost into consideration.

Nomenclature

XD mole fraction of light product in the distillate

XB mole fraction of light product in the bottom
DX x-axis point at maximum driving force
DY y-axis point at maximum driving force

2. Design Configuration

An alcohol mixture consists of five different components as shown in Table 1 was taken from Westerberg and
Andrecovich (1985) [5] as case study for this work. In this work, the separation system was designed using the
methodology shown in Fig. 2. By using the methodology, ordinary and extractive distillation can be designed and the
important variables can be obtained in an easy and systematic manner. Initially, the separation was designed using the
2632 Muhammad Afiq Zubir et al. / Energy Procedia 142 (2017) 2630–2635
Muhammad Afiq bin Zubir/ Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 3

shortcut design method. Feed mixture flowed at 0.139 kmol / s with operating pressure of all columns at 100 kPa. All
work was developed using Aspen HYSYS Simulator V9. Thermodynamic model of RK-Aspen was imported from
the aspen properties to be used in Aspen HYSYS. According to Aspen Physical Properties System (2007) [6], basic
equations of state such as Peng Robinson and Soave Redlich Kwong should not be used for moderate to highly non-
ideal mixture. Most of close boiling point mixtures usually do not behave ideally. Since there is a very close boiling
point separation between ethanol and isopropanol, proper thermodynamic model selection is crucial to ensure reliable
simulation results. In addition, the manual stated that RK-Aspen thermodynamic model is capable of handling polar
components such as alcohols [6]. The design obtained from the shortcut method was used as a base design for
comparison purposes.

Table 1: Feed information of alcohol system

Component Feed molar composition Boiling point (K)
Ethanol 0.25 351.4
Isopropanol 0.15 355.4
n-propanol 0.35 370.3
Isobutanol 0.10 381.0
n-butanol 0.15 390.9

Fig. 2: Methodology of energy efficient extractive distillation driving force design

 Muhammad Afiq Zubir et al. / Energy Procedia 142 (2017) 2630–2635 2633
4 Muhammad Afiq bin Zubir/ Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

Driving Force Graph for Alcohol System

0.6

0.5

0.4
Ethanol-Isopropanol
ABS(Y-Xi)

Isopropanol-npropanol
0.3
Dy1 npropanol-isobutanol
0.2 Isobutanol-nbutanol
Ethanol-Isopropanol+Solvent
0.1
Isopropanol-Solvent

0 Dx1 B
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Xi

Fig. 3: Driving force diagram for alcohol system.

In this work, driving force design method was used to develop the optimum design for an alcohol separation system.
For a multicomponent mixture, the components were arranged according to their boiling points. Then, splits were
defined as binary mixtures. Maximum driving force point for each split was located and the desired purity for each
product was set. Then, point B was located from the driving force diagram according to the specified light product
purity for each split. From the driving force diagram in Fig. 3, optimal design variables for the alcohol system were
determined easily. Minimum reflux ratios were calculated using method 2 from the methodology in Fig. 2. The optimal
reflux ratio for each column operation was set at 1.2Rmin while 1.5Rmin for recovery column. In this work, methyl
caproate with a flow rate ratio 1:1 to ethanol-isopropanol separation was selected as a solvent to alter the volatility of
the mixture based on a patent by Berg (1995) [7]. Minimum number of stages for both columns was calculated as
shown in the methodology. The feed location was determined and the location was adjusted based on the scaling factor
on Mansouri et al.’s (2000) work [8]. Aspen HYSYS simulator was used for next purposes to determine the actual
number of stages. The driving force design was simulated using the same thermodynamic model and simulator with
the shortcut design to obtain reliable data and results for comparison purposes. The design variables obtained by using
this methodology was shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Design variables by Shortcut method and design obtained in this studies
Operating Variable Shortcut Design Method Driving Force Design Method
Number of Stages Feed Location Reflux Ratio Number of Stages Feed Location Reflux Ratio
Distillation Column 1 48 27 2.720 43 22 2.844
Distillation Column 2 217 97 14.000 110 5 (Solvent) 6.842
64
Distillation Column 3 - - - 10 7 1.410
Distillation Column 4 79 33 3.868 66 35 4.118
Distillation Column 5 86 47 7.628 116 53 6.412

Based on the operating variables shown in Table 2, there are significant differences in the number of stages between
both design methods. According to the driving force design method, it was proposed to use extractive distillation
column for ethanol-isopropanol separation due to its high number of stages requirement. High number of stages might
2634 Muhammad Afiq Zubir et al. / Energy Procedia 142 (2017) 2630–2635
Muhammad Afiq bin Zubir/ Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 5

be infeasible especially due to safety and economic concerns. Hence, by using an extractive column distillation, the
number of stages obtained from the shortcut method was reduced significantly from 217 stages to 110 stages for
extractive and 10 stages only for recovery column. Most of other distillation columns’ stages were reduced when
driving force design was used except for distillation column 5. This is because the reflux ratio obtained for this column
by driving force design method is much lower than the reflux ratio from shortcut design method.
Product purities obtained from both designs are displayed in Table 3. Based on the results, the purity achieved from
driving force design method is much higher than the purity from shortcut design method. Even though shortcut design
method has a higher total number of stages, designs according to the driving force method proved that by using this
method, purity of desired product can be improved while reducing the distillation column’s number of stages.

Table 3: Purity of product comparison for ethanol dehydration technologies

Process Type Purity (mol %)
Ethanol Isopropanol n-propanol Isobutanol n-butanol Solvent
Shortcut Design Method 96.8 94.5 99.5 98.6 99.9 -
Process Studied (Driving Force Design) 99.9 99.7 99.6 98.5 99.5 99.9

3. Economic Analysis

Previous studies on alcohol distillation systems only focussed on the sequence of the distillation columns. Hence,
the aim of this study is to design an optimum alcohol distillation process which takes into account both operation and
capital cost. In order to estimate the operating cost of the process, the amount of energy and utilities to be used by
both columns were identified. Overall energy usages consumed by both shortcut design method and the current study
are displayed in Table 4. Based on the findings, by using driving force design method, energy usage can be reduced
especially for the close boiling point separation process. Separation of ethanol-isopropanol requires a huge amount of
energy and number of stages if designed according to the shortcut design method. One of the disadvantages of shortcut
design method is the method is limited only to ordinary distillation column designs. Hence, shortcut design method
cannot be used for complex distillation based separation processes.
The operating cost was calculated using the utility prices in Yu and Chien’s (2016) works [9]. In order to calculate
the operating cost, suitable utilities were selected from Table 5 based on the operating temperature of condenser and
reboiler of the column. Then, the operating condition per year was estimated by assuming that the plant operates 24
hours per day and 330 days per year. For capital cost, Aspen Economic Analyser was used. Overall operating and
capital cost of the designs are shown in Table 6. Based on the results, by using driving force design, capital and
operating costs can be reduced up to 12.25 % and 9.39 % respectively.

Table 4: Energy comparison between Shortcut design method and Driving force design method
Shortcut Design Method Driving Force Design Method
Condenser Energy 1, GJ/hr 29.570 30.549
Condenser Energy 2, GJ/hr 75.082 39.289
Condenser Energy 3, GJ/hr - 7.1286
Condenser Energy 4, GJ/hr 34.819 36.608
Condenser Energy 5, GJ/hr 17.347 14.930
Reboiler Energy 1, GJ/hr 29.855 30.834
Reboiler Energy 2, GJ/hr 75.166 46.006
Reboiler Energy 3, GJ/hr - 11.535
Reboiler Energy 4, GJ/hr 34.902 36.698
Reboiler Energy 5, GJ/hr 17.359 14.939
Total Energy, GJ/hr 314.100 268.517
 Muhammad Afiq Zubir et al. / Energy Procedia 142 (2017) 2630–2635 2635
6 Muhammad Afiq bin Zubir/ Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

Table 5: Utilities price used in this work [9]

Utility Price [USD/GJ] Tin [°C] Tout [°C] Assumed minimum T-difference
LP steam 7.78 160 160 10
HP steam 9.88 254 254 10
Cooling water 0.354 35 45 -

Table 6: Capital and operating cost comparison

Shortcut Design Method Driving Force Design Method
Capital Cost, USD 15,565,200 13,658,200
Operating Cost, USD/ yr 10,131,008.21 9,179,310.19
Capital Saving, % 12.25%
Operating Saving, % 9.39%

4. Conclusion

In this work, a methodology for energy efficient distillation process design for alcohol system was proposed. A
case study of five component alcohol mixture from past literature was selected and simulated via Aspen HYSYS
simulator. The proposed methodology required less effort and is easier to be applied at earlier design phases. The
economic analysis was carried out to compare the design obtained from this methodology and past works. Based on
the findings, by using driving force design, up to 12.25 % capital cost and 9.39 % operation cost can be saved. Purity
of product obtained from driving force design method is also higher compared to the purity from shortcut design
method. The aim of this work is to highlight the use of the methodology for design purposes. The energy usage can
be further reduced in the future with identification of a new solvent which is more efficient for the alcohol system
with proposed driving force design method.

Acknowledgements

The financial support from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (RUGS Tier 1 Q.J130000.2546.12H67) and (RUGS
Flagship Q.J130000.2446.03G68) are highly acknowledged.

References

[1] Gani, Rafiqul, and Erik Bek-Pedersen. Simple new algorithm for distillation column design. AIChE Journal 46.6 2000;1271-1274.
[2] Mustafa, M. F., Zaine, M. Z., Ibrahim, N., Ibrahim, K. A., and Hamid, M. K. A. Optimal Synthesis of Energy Efficient Distillation Columns
Sequence for Hydrocarbon Mixture Separation Process. Energy Procedia, 2015;75,1569-1574.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.07.352
[3] Rahimi, A. N., Mustafa, M. F., Zaine, M. Z., Ibrahim, N., Ibrahim, K. A., Yusoff, N., . . . Hamid, M. K. A. Energy Efficiency Improvement For
Natural Gas Liquids Direct-Splitter-Direct Sequence Fractionation Unit. Jurnal Teknologi, 2016;78, 77--83. doi:10.11113/jt.v78.9236
[4] Zaine, M. Z., Mustafa, M. F., Ibrahim, N., Ibrahim, K. A., and Hamid, M. K. A. Minimum Energy Distillation Columns Sequence for Aromatics
Separation Process. Energy Procedia, 2015;75, 1797-1802. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.07.14
[5] Andrecovich, M. J., and Westerberg, A. W. A Simple Synthesis Method Based on Utility Bounding for Heat‐Integrated Distillation Sequences.
AIChE journal, 1985;31(3),363-375.
[6] Aspen Physical Property System, Version 2006.5, Aspen Technology, Inc., Cambridge, MA, 2007.
[7] Berg, L. Separation of ethanol from isopropanol by extractive distillation. Google Patents; 1985.
[8] Mansouri, S. S., Sales-Cruz, M., Huusom, J. K., and Gani, R. Systematic integrated process design and control of reactive distillation processes
involving multi-elements. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2016;115,348-364. doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2016.07.010.
[9] Yu, Bor-Yih, and Chien, I. Lung. Design and Optimization of the Methanol-to-Olefin Process. Part II: Comparison of Different Methods for
Propylene/Propane Separation. Chemical Engineering & Technology, 2016;39(12),2304-2311. doi:10.1002/ceat.201600168.