Applied Thermal Engineering 173 (2020) 115228

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

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

Economically and thermodynamically efficient heat pump-assisted side- T

stream pressure-swing distillation arrangement for separating a maximum-
boiling azeotrope
Qingjun Zhanga,1, Shunjin Yanga,1, Pengyuan Shia, Wei Houa, Aiwu Zenga,b, , Youguang Maa,b,
⁎

Xigang Yuana,b
a
State Key Laboratory of Chemical Engineering, School of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Tianjin University, 300350, PR China
b
Chemical Engineering Research Center, Collaborative Innovative Center of Chemical Science and Engineering (Tianjin), PR China

HIGHLIGHTS GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

• Two novel improved heat pump-as-

sisted side-stream pressure-swing dis-
(a) VRC-SSPSD-PF-HEN; (b) VAB-SSPSD-PF-HEN.

tillation options are investigated.

• The recommended arrangement can
achieve reduction of 30.23% in TAC
compared to the basic case.
• The multi-stage compression process
is used to decrease the higher com-
pressor discharged temperature.

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The feasibility and effectiveness for the two types of heat pump-assisted side-stream pressure-swing distillation ar-
Side-stream pressure-swing distillation rangements (vapor recompression and bottom flashing heat pump-assisted systems) are investigated with the separa-
Heat pump tion of a maximum-boiling ethylenediamine and water azeotrope as the demonstrating example. To further improve the
Heat exchanger network synthesis heat recovery within the process as much as possible and reduce the excessive utilization of cold and hot utilities, the
Thermodynamic analysis
efficient Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis (HENs) analysis tool is adopted. Total annual cost (TAC), carbon footprints
Maximum-boiling azeotrope
and thermodynamic efficiency are as the evaluation indicators to assess and screen the eco-efficient arrangement in a
series of pressure-swing distillation (PSD) processes. Compared to the partially heat-integrated PSD process, the eco-
nomically optimum flowsheet is the intensified self-heat recuperative vapor recompression-assisted arrangement (VRC-
SSPSD-PF-HEN) since it can achieve the reductions of 59.01% in energy consumption rates, 86.60% in CO2 emissions,
12.78% in TAC and enhancement of 143.38% in thermodynamic efficiency. And the amount of heat recovery within
this process is 7028.0 kW with the requirement of cold utility 395 kW and without any hot utility consumptions
(electrical power is required). Besides, the exergy destroyed in each component for the optimal intensified alternative is
analyzed. Result shows that the major exergy losses mainly produce in columns, especially in high-pressure column.

⁎
Corresponding author at: State Key Laboratory of Chemical Engineering, School of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Tianjin University, 300350, PR China.
E-mail address: awzeng@tju.edu.cn (A. Zeng).
1
These authors contributed equally to this work and should be considered co-first authors.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2020.115228
Received 5 September 2019; Received in revised form 18 March 2020; Accepted 20 March 2020
Available online 21 March 2020
1359-4311/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Q. Zhang, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 173 (2020) 115228

Nomenclature side-stream pressure-

PF-HEN swing distillation with pretreating feed and heat
COP coefficient of performance exchanger network
DWC dividing wall column Qa total energy consumed by the system
EDA ethylenediamine Qh extra hot utilities
HPC high-pressure column QCW extra cold utilities
LPC low-pressure column Qr energy required by corresponding reboiler
TAC total annual cost [$/year] W the electric work required by the compressor
HENs Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis HCC hot composite curve
PSD pressure-swing distillation CCC cold composite curve
SSPSD side-stream pressure-swing distillation Ex_input the exergy entering the system [kW]
SSPSD-PF side-stream pressure-swing distillation with pre- Ex_output the exergy leaving the system [kW]
treating feed Ex_loss-component the exergy destruction in each component [kW]
SSPSDPF- thermal integrated side-stream pressure-swing dis- Ex_rise-system the increase of exergy in the system [kW]
tillation configuration with Q heat required by the corresponding distillation
HEN pretreating feed TR temperatures of reboiler [K]
VRC-SSPSD vapor recompression-assisted side-stream pressure- TC temperatures of condenser [K]
swing distillation Wmin minimum separation work [kJ/h]
VRC-SSPSD- vapor recompression-assisted side-stream pressure- LW lost work [kJ/h]
swing distillation b exergy [kJ/kmol]
PF with pretreating feed h enthalpy [kJ/kmol]
VRC-SSPSD- vapor recompression-assisted side-stream pressure- n flowrate of the corresponding streams [kmol/h]
swing distillation T0 environmental temperature [K]
PF-HEN with pretreating feed and heat exchanger network α the molar content ratio of CO2 and C
BF-SSPSD bottom flashing-assisted side-stream pressure-swing NHV net heating value
distillation C% carbon content
BF-SSPSD- bottom flashing-assisted side-stream pressure-swing NGS natural gas
distillation with HOF heavy oil fuel
PF pretreating feed Qproc total energy required by the system
BF-SSPSD- bottom flashing-assisted side-stream pressure-swing λproc latent heat entering the system
distillation with hproc enthalpy entering the system
PF-HEN pretreating feed and heat exchanger network TFTB flame temperature
VAB-SSPSD vapor recompression and bottom flashing assisted Tstack stack temperature
side-stream pressure-swing distillation Qpre preheater duty
VAB-SSPSD- vapor recompression and bottom flashing assisted CR compression ratio
side-stream pressure- SR splitting ratio
PF swing distillation with pretreating feed Qs energy supplied by latent heat of overhead vapor
VAB-SSPSD- vapor recompression and bottom flashing assisted stream leaving the compressor

1. Introduction
Distillation is an energy intensive process accounting for about 3%
of the world energy consumption [1], boiled down to the lower ther-
modynamic efficiency. The typically normal operation for conventional
distillation process is that a large amount of energy is inputted to the
reboiler, while the appropriate heat is removed or directly wasted at the
condenser, which produces the large exergy losses. Considering the
strong relationship between the carbon footprints and energy con-
sumption rates, there is an indispensable to develop a more energy
competent alternative taking some intensified options such as dividing-
wall column (DWC) configuration, side-stream distillation system and
heat pump-assisted alternatives (especially vapor recompression ar-
rangements).
Currently, the heat pump-assisted distillation system is a hot re-
search topic lying in its own advantages (lessening the energy con-
sumption rates and improving the thermodynamic efficiency) and
characteristics since the heat released in desuperheating and conden-
sing the stream leaving compressor can be partially or completely
served as the heat source for reboiler through consuming relatively less
electricity power. The exploration of vapor recompression-assisted
complex distillation arrangements had received some attentions in the
steady-state designs. The vapor recompression-assisted extractive dis-
tillation configuration was explored by Gu et al. [2] taking the se-
paration of a ternary mixture as the example, and the reductions of
30.40% in CO2 emissions and 20.40% in TAC were obtained in com-
parison with the corresponding conventional case. Yang et al. [3]
ranked the effectiveness of vapor recompression-assisted reactive di-
viding-wall column (RDWC) configuration, and it can reduce 20.52% in
TAC and 33.74% in CO2 emissions when comparing to the conventional
case. Li et al. [4] used the intensified vapor recompression-assisted
RDWC process to produce methyl acetate, and the reductions of 17.80%
in TAC and 87.90% in CO2 emission were obtained compared with the
conventional case. Lee et al. [5] also studied the vapor recompression-
assisted RDWC process, which achieves the reduction of 32.10% in
energy consumption rates. The combination of DWC and vapor re-
compression technology was explored by Aurangzeb et al. [6], and the
less 13.25% TAC was achieved. Fan et al. [7] researched vapor re-
compression technology in the pressure-swing distillation process with
reactive distillation for the synthesis of propylene glycol monomethyl
ether acetate, which decreased by 51.83% of TAC, 57.87% of energy
consumption rates, and 62.15% of CO2 emissions, respectively. Besides,
the application of bottom flashing heat pump-assisted distillation pro-
cess can also be found in open literature. You et al. [8] compared the
performance and effectiveness of vapor recompression-assisted and
bottom flashing heat pump-assisted extractive distillation arrange-
ments, and the performance of bottom flashing heat pump-assisted
option was superior to that of vapor recompression-assisted arrange-
ment. Leo et al. [9] strengthened the conventional distillation process
using the bottom flashing heat pump option with the separation of

2
Q. Zhang, et al.
ethylene and ethane as example, and the reductions of 44.00% in TAC
and 57.00% in energy consumption rates were obtained. The perfor-
mance and effectiveness of the bottom flashing heat pump-assisted
distillation was also explored by Díez et al. [10] taking the separation of
i-butane and n-butane, and it can yield the decreases of 32% in energy
cost and 10% in TAC.
Among the simple and special distillation configurations, pressure-
swing distillation (PSD) is an attractively typical example of taking
some strengthening options (process intensification and integration) to
boost its performance such as reducing the energy consumption rates
and improving the thermodynamic efficiency lying in its own ad-
vantages (no product contamination) and characteristics. Taking the
binary azeotrope separation as the example, the inherent temperature
difference in two columns, caused by the different operation pressures
(the separation principle of PSD process), allows energy integration
such as either integrating the condenser or rectifying section of high-
pressure column (HPC) with the reboiler or stripping section of low-
pressure column (LPC) and/or simply stream-to-stream heat exchanging
between the cold and hot streams [11,12]. As discovered from the
aforementioned cases, the performances in economics, energy-savings
and thermodynamic efficiency are greatly improved, which indicate
that the application of heat pump-assisted technology to distillation
system is feasible and efficient. Taken these aspects into consideration,
the eco-friendly heat pump-assisted technologies can be also adopted in
PSD processes since the overall column temperature difference tends to
be suitable, and this is its weak spot since the compressor mechanical
work requirement strongly related to the compression ratio. The self-
heat recuperation technology, Heat Exchanger Networks Synthesis
(HENs), was adopted in these vapor recompression-assisted configura-
tions to further improve the heat recovery within the process and re-
duce the excessive application of the utility. Recently, a new structure,
side-stream PSD process, was proposed by Wang et al. [13] to enhance
the performance of conventional PSD process through extending design
concept of Tututi-Avila et al. [14], wherein the intermediately con-
nected side-stream was introduced to reduce the remixing effect of in-
termediate component in extractive column. In PSD process, the side-
stream was withdrawn from the column HPC at an appropriate location
and fed into the column LPC at a proper location. This arrangement was
much more efficient and attractive in terms of economics, energy-
saving and environmental properties in comparison with the corre-
sponding conventional and heat-integrated configurations with the as-
sistance of the mass and heat transfers through this side-stream.
The investigation of vapor recompression-assisted PSD processes
received some attentions in terms of the steady-state designs or dy-
namic control behaviors. Available from the open literatures, only the
minimum-boiling azeotropes have been studied. What the conclusion
was that the performance and effectiveness of the intensified PSD al-
ternative with vapor recompression was prevailed over that either with
the integrated condenser/reboiler exchanger and/or both with simple
stream-effluent economizer(s). Zhang et al. [15] explored the perfor-
mance of the conventional and heat-integrated PSD arrangements by
taking a separation of ethyl-acetate and ethanol mixture as the de-
monstrating example, and it can produce the reductions of 26.64%
(17.14%) in TAC and 33.33% (22.39%) in energy consumption rates,
respectively, with the comparison of conventional configuration,
where, the data in the brackets refer to the partial case. And the cor-
responding intensified vapor recompression-assisted PSD arrangement
was further investigated by Zhang et al. [16], and as observed that it
was superior to the completely thermal-integrated configuration since it
can further generate lessening of 10.23% in TAC and 60.19% in carbon
footprint and enhancement of 77.19% in thermodynamic efficiency.
The self-heat recuperation-assisted PSD configuration with heat ex-
changer networks was economically attractive and eco-friendly when
comparing to the fully heat-integrated arrangement owing to it further
producing reductions of 5.18% in TAC, 53.06% in energy consumption
rates and 87.15% in carbon footprints and enhancement of 4.43% in
3
Applied Thermal Engineering 173 (2020) 115228
thermodynamic efficiency [17]. Luyben [18] revised this arrangement
and developed a much simpler heat exchanger system with optimizing
column overhead azeotropic composition, and it can achieve the further
31% and 16% less in compressor power requirements and energy costs
in comparison with that of Xia et al [17]. Two vapor recompression-
assisted PSD processes were established by Li et al. [19], including one
was the vapor stream discharging from compressor as the heat source to
its own column’s reboiler and another was the overhead vapor stream
of column LPC entering the compressor to enhance its energy grade as
the heat source of reboiler in the column HPC, and the result was that
the second alternative was relatively attractive with the 26.94% and
5.31% less in TAC (taking payback period as 10 years) in comparison
with the conventional and partially heat-integrated cases. Besides, an-
other related research was not further discovered in the open litera-
tures. And the corresponding bottom flashing heat pump-assisted PSD
process was also not found in the open literatures.
Another flavor, separating maximum-boiling azeotrope, is also a
competent alternative for PSD configurations, while the relevant ex-
ploration of vapor recompression-assisted PSD configurations have re-
ceived no attention so far. Besides, the bottom flashing heat pump-as-
sisted PSD process is also not found in the published literature. Based on
these insights obtained from aforementioned studies, some guidance or
orientations are provided for these complex alternative configurations.
Besides, the combination of the different intensified options such as
side-stream PSD process and self-heat recuperative technology was also
not explored. Whether the self-heat recuperation-assisted strengthening
option using in the side-stream PSD arrangements is feasible for se-
parating the maximum-boiling azeotrope, and whether the performance
of vapor recompression-assisted and/or bottom flashing heat pump-
assisted side-stream PSD configuration is prevailed over that of con-
ventional and heat-integrated PSD alternatives, which are in need of
certainty. That’s the purpose of this paper.
The contribution of this paper is to compare the performance and
effectiveness of heat pump-assisted side-stream PSD arrangements (in-
cluding vapor recompression and bottom flashing heat pump options)
with the conventional and heat-integrated side-stream PSD (SSPSD)
cases in terms of the steady-state economics, thermodynamics and en-
vironmental indictors taking a separation of maximum-boiling azeo-
trope of ethylenediamine (EDA) and water as the demonstrating ex-
ample. And to determine the incentive of this intensified alternative,
the corresponding calculation of exergy losses in each component are
performed in the economically optimal arrangement as expressed in a
Sankey diagram.
2. The definitions of performance evaluation indicators
2.1. Heat pump performance
Plesu et al. [20] proposed a simple evaluation criterion, coefficient
of performance (COP), to rank whether a heat pump is worth using in
distillation process. When the COP value exceeds 10, a heat pump is
clearly recommended, whereas there are no any benefits if it is lower
than 5. It can be shown as in Eq. (1):
COPs =
1
=
Q
=
TC
Carnot W TR TC (1)
where Q [kW] is the heat required by the corresponding distillation
(column HPC or LPC), and W [kW] represents the electric work re-
quired by the compressor. TC [K] and TR [K] are the temperatures of
condenser and reboiler, respectively.
2.2. Economic evaluation for PSD configurations
The TAC is a valid index to select the optimal operation parameters
and the corresponding formula is shown in Eq. (2):
Q. Zhang, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 173 (2020) 115228

TAC = total capital costs/payback period + operated costs (2) Qproc TFTB T0
Qfuel = × (hproc 419) ×
The payback period in this paper is assumed as 5 years with the proc TFTB Tstack (5)
operated time of 8000 h/year, and the detailed calculation formulas or
where is 3.67, which means the molar content ratio of CO2 and C. The
parameters refer to Table S1 of Supporting Information [21–23].
NHV and C% are for the net heating value and the carbon content, re-
spectively. The value of C% and NHV are 75.4 kg/kg and 51,600 kJ/kg,
2.3. Thermodynamic evaluation for PSD configurations 86.5 kg/kg and 39,771 kJ/kg, for natural gas (NGS) and heavy oil fuel
(HOF), respectively [25]. The Qproc is the total energy required by the
The ratio of the minimum work consumed by corresponding process system. The proc [kJ/kg] and h proc [kJ/kg] represent the latent heat and
to the actual work consumption is called the second-law efficiency. The enthalpy entering the system. TFTB (1800 °C) and Tstack (160 °C) are the
formula of second-law efficiency (η) [24] is given in Eq. (3): flame temperature and stack temperature, respectively.

Wmin
= 3. Partially Heat-integrated SSPSD arrangement with heat
LW + Wmin (3)
exchanger networks
where Wmin [kJ/h] and LW [kJ/h] means the minimum separation
work and the lost work, respectively, and their calculation formulas are Fig. S1 of Supporting Information gives the flowsheets of the novel
shown in Eq. (4): eco-efficient side-stream PSD alternative arrangement (denoted as
SSPSD) for separating a maximum-boiling EDA and water azeotrope, as
Wmin = nb nb the base cases of our studied. The Aspen Plus built-in UNIQUAC phy-
out in
sical property package is used in our steady-state simulations. A com-
b=h T0 s parison of the experiment and prediction data obtained based on UN-
IQUAC model for this mixture is shown in Fig. S2 of Supporting
Information, which indicates the reliability. The detailed operation
T0 T0
LW = nb + Q 1 + WS nb + Q 1 + WS parameters such as total stages, feed locations, operation pressures and
TS TS
in out stream compositions are directly taken from Wang et al. [13].
(4) The alternative configurations with the temperatures of all feed
streams pretreated to their bubble points have been explored [27,28]
where the exergy is denoted as b [kJ/kmol], which represents the value
and this intensified option is also capable since the feed state has
of available energy; The molar flowrate is expressed as n [kmol/h]; h
changed such that the difference from the state on the tray is reduced,
[kJ/kmol] refers to the enthalpy of the stream in the process. T0 [K]
which leads to the reductions in lost work and entropy production
represents the ambient temperature (305 K), and Ts [K] refers to the
[29,30]. The optimal feed locations are needed to re-determine for
steam temperature.
columns HPC and LPC, and the corresponding optimization process is
shown in Fig. S3 of Supporting Information. The optimization results
2.4. Environmental evaluation for PSD configurations are also applicable to the heat pump strengthening process.
Given the large heat-transfer temperature differential driving force
CO2 emissions can be as an effective indicator to evaluate en- between the condenser of column HPC and the reboiler of column LPC,
vironmental performance of an intensified distillation. The carbon the corresponding intensified energy integration alternative is adopted.
footprints for electrical power consumed in compressor is assumed as Besides, the simple stream-to-stream heat integration option is also ap-
51.1 kg CO2/GJ [25], and the calculation formula of CO2 emissions in plied. And the efficient heat-integrated arrangements are designed and
steam heat exchangers [26] can be defined as follow: ranked through the Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis (HENs), which
is based on the pinch analysis. Fig. 1 gives the best heat exchanger
Qfuel C%
[CO2 ]emissions = × networks design. The fresh feed and bottoms stream (B2) of column LPC
NHV 100
are preheated to their bubble points through several consecutive

83.51 kW 2730.60 kW 28.07 kW 302.30 kW 102.86 kW

36.85 °C 32.00 °C
E8 E9 E10 E11 E12 Cooling Water
115.57 kW
151.23 °C 126.90 °C 63.57 °C
Product B1 E1 E11
1480.45 kW
E2
123.31 °C 120.85 °C
HPC overhead vapor
252.10 kW 184.40 kW
122.21 °C
E3 E4 121.76 °C E9
42.00 kW
121.10 °C 64.37 °C
Side Stream 149.71 °C E5 E8
4764.48 kW
HPC Reboiler 151.23 °C 151.23 °C
E7

120.85 °C E12 42.00 °C

Product D1

64.69 °C 64.69 °C
LPC Reboiler E2

58.42 °C 42.00 °C
Product D2 E10
95.10 kW
144.09 °C 110.85 °C 64.64 °C
E6 E5 E4 Product B2
138.88 °C 110.85 °C
46.85 °C
E1 E3 Feed
159.85 °C 159.85 °C
E6 E7 LP Stream

Fig. 1. The economically optimal HI-SSPSDPF-HEN heat exchanger networks designs.

4
Q. Zhang, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 173 (2020) 115228

exchangers, respectively. And the side stream and bottoms stream (B1)
of column HPC are condensed to their bubble points by cooling water-
driven coolers after providing partial heat for the process streams via an
economizer. The overhead vapor stream from column HPC is dividing
into two streams. One enters the reboiler E2 (1480.45 kW) of column
LPC to achieve the integrated condenser/reboiler type heat integration.
Another is liquefied with the aid of the condenser E9 (2370.60 kW)
after providing partial heat for the fresh feed and the bottoms stream
(B2) in E3 (252.10 kW) and E4. Products streams (D1 and D2) are di-
rectly cooled by exchangers E12 (102.86 kW) and E10 (28.07 kW),
respectively. The heat requirement in reboiler of column HPC is sup-
plied by hot utility in E7 (4764.48 kW). The partially heat-integrated
SSPSD arrangement with heat exchanger networks (HI-SSPSD-PF-HEN)
is given in Fig. 2, as the research basis of this article. The TAC is
1.799 × 106 $/year with the annualized capital cost of 6.055 × 105
$/year and the operation cost of 11.941 × 105 $/year. The second-law
efficiency and the energy consumption rates are 7.40% and
4859.58 kW, respectively.
4. Intensified PSD arrangements through heat pump and thermal
integration
As obtained that the coefficient of performance (COP) is 12.97 and
53.31, respectively, for columns HPC and LPC, which indicates that the
intensified heat pump-assisted option is recommended to be used in this
process. In this section, two typical heat pump-assisted distillation types
are explored and evaluated including vapor recompression-assisted
SSPSD (VRC-SSPSD) arrangement and bottom flashing heat pump-as-
sisted SSPSD (BF-SSPSD) configuration. Besides, the intensified heat
integration option is also adopted to further boost their performances
and qualities.
4.1. Vapor recompression-assisted SSPSD processes
4.1.1. Basic VRC-SSPSD-PF arrangement
For fair comparisons, some parameters of feed conditions (flowrate,
temperature and composition) and the column configurations (such as
column stages, feed locations, operation pressures and stream compo-
sitions) for this intensified arrangement are kept the same as the cor-
respondingly aforementioned conventional SSPSD processes. The en-
ergy grade elevating of the overhead vapor stream is achieved by a
compressor through consuming electricity power. The heat requirement
in reboiler is provided by desuperheating and condensing the vapor
stream discharging from the compressor. The higher the temperature of
vapor stream leaving the compressor, the greater the energy supplied to
the reboiler, while the larger the amount of the electricity power re-
quired by the compressor, which could increase the operation cost.
Besides, the temperature in suction stream of compressor can be in-
creased through a preheater to further reduce the temperature differ-
ence between two ends of compressor, which results in decreasing
compression ratio. Besides, if the overhead vapor stream leaving the
compressor provides more energy than the heat requirement in re-
boiler, this can result in wasted electrical energy. Therefore, the over-
head stream needs to be split. The overhead vapor stream is splitting to
two streams. One enters the preheater and the compressor to enhance
its energy quality to provide the heat requirement in reboiler, and an-
other bypassed around preheater and compressor is mixed with the
stream leaving the reboiler and directly enters the cooler to bring the
temperature of this blending stream down to the reflux temperature.
There pushes design tradeoff among preheater duty (Qpre), compression
ratio (CR) and vapor splitting ratio (SR). Herein, the implication of
vapor splitting ratio is a ratio of the splitting stream flowrate with en-
hanced quality to total overhead vapor flowrate. The splitting ar-
rangement is favorable when the latent heat (Qs) of overhead vapor

285.66 kmol/h E9
2730.60 kW
120.85 °C
2 atm 123.31 °C

E1 2
115.57 kW
110.85 °C
0.1 atm E12
Feed 46.85 °C 138.88 °C 5 1447.98 kW
58.42 °C
E3 D1
100 kmol/h HPC RR2=2.754 2
252.10 kW 60.10 kmol/h
0.400 EDA 42 °C ID2=1.926 m
144.09 °C 44 0.005 EDA Cooler 3
0.600 WATER
0.995 WATER 102.86 kW 11
29.33 kmol/h 63.57 °C
122.21 °C 0.656 EDA E8
82 0.344 WATER 83.51 kW LPC
RR1 = 5.030 SIDE
Vapor-liquid ID1 = 1.299 m 149.50 °C 21
mixture 64.34 °C E10
E7 28.07 kW
Vap. Frac 0.922 97
4764.48 kW
24
151.23 °C D2 42 °C
64.69 °C 39.90 kmol/h
0.995 EDA
121.10 °C 0.005 WATER
B1
95.32 kmol/h E2
126.90 °C
0.733 EDA 1480.45 kW B2 64.69 °C
0.267 WATER 84.75 kmol/h
E11 E5 0.583 EDA
302.30 kW 110.85 °C 0.417 WATER
42.00 kW

Vapor-liquid
E6 E4
mixture
95.10 kW 184.40 kW
121.76 °C Vap. Frac 0.864

Fig. 2. The flowsheet of the economically optimal HI-SSPSDPF-HEN arrangement.

5
Q. Zhang, et al.
stream discharging from compressor is larger than the heat requirement
in reboiler (Qr), otherwise, the non-splitting arrangement is a possibly
attractive option. Fig. 3 gives the sequential iterative optimization
procedure. All streams compositions are kept the same as the above
case in the overall optimization procedures. For the column HPC, the Qs
and Qr (about 4764 kW) are basically the same, however, the Qs and Qr
are 1514.10 kW and 1480.45 kW, respectively. According to Fig. 3, the
non-splitting arrangement is used in column HPC, while column LPC
needs to perform the overhead vapor splitting option. Note that the
isentropic efficiency and mechanical efficiency of compressor are set
0.80 and 0.90 [31–33], and a reasonable differential temperature
driving force between the discharging stream from reboiler and column
base is set 5 °C through the comprehensive trade-off between the heat
transfer area and the expensive electricity power cost [16–18].
Through the simple steady-state calculations, as obtained that the
critical compression ratio is 2.75 for column HPC, shown in Fig. 4(a).
The discharged temperature (more than 240 °C) of the overhead vapor
stream leaving the compressor cannot be accepted since the common
compressor discharge temperature cannot exceed 200 °C, which is
mainly caused by sealing problems (the rubber ring is difficult to
withstand the high temperature of 200 °C). Therefore, multi-stage
compression option is applied to solve this problem, as shown in
Fig. 4(b). Directly specify the discharged temperature of compressor
Fig. 3. Sequential iterative optimization procedure for two columns in VRC-SSPSDCPF arrangement.
6
Applied Thermal Engineering 173 (2020) 115228
COMP1 to 200 °C, then use a condenser to remove excess sensible heat
(actually, this sensible heat can be completely recycled as the partial
heat source of reboiler.), and finally enter compressor COMP2 to be
compressed again to reach the required pressure. The product of the
compression ratios of two compressors is equal to the critical com-
pression ratio. Therefore, the corresponding issue of high discharged
temperature of compressor can be properly handled and avoided. Fig. 5
gives the optimization results for this intensified VRC-SSPSD-PF con-
figuration for column LPC. The optimal preheater duty and pressure
ratio are 95 kW and 1.68 at a vapor split ratio of 0.95. Note that the
compression ratio of compressor for columns LPC is also a critical value.
The heats released of these enhanced-quality vapor streams discharging
from the compressors are exactly equal to the heat requirements in
reboilers for columns HPC and LPC, respectively. The flowsheet of in-
itially intensified VRC-SSPSD-PF arrangement is shown in Fig. 6.
The TAC is 17.468 × 105 $/year with the annualized capital cost of
10.520 × 105 $/year and the operation cost of 6.948 × 105 $/year.
The reduction of TAC can achieve about 2.90% in comparison with the
HI-SSPSD-HEN case. As observed that this alternatively intensified op-
tion is feasible and efficient owing to its economics prevailed over their
correspondingly heat-integrated SSPSD processes. Other comparisons
for these alternatives in terms of the environmental and thermodynamic
properties are demonstrated in Section 4.4. Fig. 7 gives the heat transfer
Q. Zhang, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 173 (2020) 115228

(a) (b)
Overhead vapor stream
123.31 °C

Compression ratio = 1.97

Overhead vapor stream
123.31 °C COMP2 162 kW
Compression ratio = 2.75 200 °C 160.78 °C

COMP1
156.23 °C Compression ratio = 1.395 COMP3
242.24 °C 156.23 °C
200 °C
4764.48 kW
4602.48 kW

Fig. 4. The conventional compression process (a) and the multi-stage compression process (b).

steps of overhead vapor streams for these two columns. As observed in

Fig. 7(a), the State 1 indicates the initial state of overhead vapor stream
for column LPC with temperature of 58.65 °C and pressure of 0.1 atm.
After preheating to 88.33 °C via preheater (State 2), the temperature
and pressure are further elevated to 105.06 °C and 0.168 atm (State 3)
by the compressor. The heat requirement in reboiler is provided by
desuperheating and condensing the discharged stream of compressor
and the corresponding temperature is decreased to 69.64 °C (State 4)
with a 5 °C higher than that of reboiler as illustrated in shaded zone. In
Fig. 7(b), the State 1 is the initial state of the overhead vapor stream for
column HPC with temperature of 123.31 °C and pressure of 2 atm. The
overhead vapor leaving the compressor (State 2) is released heats by a
condenser to State 3, and its temperature and pressure are160.78 °C
and 3.94 atm respectively. Then, the overhead vapor stream is further
Fig. 5. The effect of parameters on TAC of VRC-SSPSD-PF process for column compressed to the temperature of 200 °C and pressure of 5.4 atm (State
LPC. 4). Finally, a similar step for overhead vapor stream of column HPC are

Cooler 3 6.00 kmol/h

102.88 kW
V1 418.85 kmol/h PREH 3
123.31 °C LP stream
95 kW 88.33 °C
160.78 °C 2 atm 0.1 atm
COMP2 201.93 kW V2 56.85 °C
COMP1
1 120.48 kmol/h
392.04 kW D1 42.00 °C 114.48 kmol/h
R1
60.10 kmol/h
358.75 kmol/h
0.005 EDA
PREH 1 1
200 °C HPC 0.995 WATER
367.52 kW R2
200 °C
Feed RR1=5.98 80.85 kmol/h
70.06 kW
100 kmol/h 138.88 °C 4 ID1=1.30 m 120.85 °C
LPC COMP3
46.85 °C
43 30.14 kmol/h 63.57 °C 10 105.06 °C
0.656 EDA
0.344 WATER
81 SIDE 149.71 °C 64.37 °C 20

Cooler 6
162 kW 125.51 kW RR2=2.01 1480.45 kW
4602.48 kW
96 ID2=1.71 m
23
144.09 °C
151.23 °C 64.64 °C
156.23 °C 69.64 °C
Cooler 1 Cooler 2
369.90 kW 129.64 kW

PREH 2
321.52 kW Reflux drum2
B1 Reflux drum1
94.92 kmol/h Cooler 5
0.733 EDA 417.75 kW Cooler 4
0.267 WATER B2 64.64 °C 28.07 kW
86.61 kmol/h
0.583 EDA D2 42.00 °C
0.417 WATER
39.90 kmol/h
0.995 EDA
0.005 WATER

Fig. 6. The optimum flowsheet of the thermal-integrated VRC-SSPSD-PF process.

7
Q. Zhang, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 173 (2020) 115228

Fig. 7. Heat transfer steps for overhead vapor streams of the VRC-SSPSD-PF arrangement: (a) Column LPC; (b) Column HPC.

preformed to the State 5.
4.1.2. Thermal-integrated VRC-SSPSD-PF arrangement
The performance of this initial intensified process and the heat re-
covery within this process can be improved through taking the simple
stream-to-stream heat integration option because of the sensible heats
for the pressurized overhead vapor streams and product stream of
column HPC being not utilized. To find the economically efficient and
environmentally friendly arrangement, the tool of Heat Exchanger
Network Synthesis (HENs) is applied. Fig. 8, the Cross-Grid Diagram,
represents the economically optimal option for heat exchangers place-
ments. There are 12 heat exchangers including 7 self-heat exchangers, 5
coolers and no heaters. Fresh feed stream is preheating to the bubble
point with the aid of the sensible heats of bottoms stream B1 of column
HPC via economizer E1 (367.52 kW) and then fed into column HPC.
The overhead vapor stream V1 of column HPC is compressed by the
compressor COMP1, and then its excessive sensible heat is used as the
partial heat source in reboiler via E12 (162 kW). Subsequently, it is
further compressed in compressor COMP2 to satisfy the energy re-
quirement via E7 (4602.48 kW). The vapor stream discharging from
reboiler E7 is dividing into two streams: one is preheating the suction
stream of compressor COMP3 to its optimal suction temperature via
economizer E6 (95 kW); another is preheating the bottoms stream (B2)
of column LPC to its bubble point, fed to column HPC, along with the
side stream via exchangers E5 (274.90 kW) and E3 (46.66 kW). And the
temperatures of these two streams are dropped to the reflux tempera-
ture. This side stream is then cooled to the bubble point by cooler E4
(84.15 kW) and then enters column LPC. The enhanced-quality over-
head vapor stream V21 of column LPC is heated by exchanger E6 and
then is compressed by compressor COMP3. The heat supplied of this
stream V21 (1480.45 kW) is exactly provided to the heat requirement in
reboiler E8. And this stream discharging from reboiler E8 is then cooled
to the corresponding reflux temperature via cooler E11 (129.64 kW)
blending with the virgin splitting stream. A part of the sensible heat of
bottoms stream (B1) of column HPC is used to preheat fresh feed, and
the remaining is directly cooled to its bubble point via cooler E2

102.86 kW 50 kW 28.07 kW 84.15 kW 129.64 kW

36.85 °C 32.00 °C
E9 E2 E10 E4 E11 Cooling Water
367.52 kW
151.23 °C 73.57 °C 63.57 °C
Product B1 E1 E2
46.66 kW
64.37 °C
Side Stream 149.71 °C E3
119.24 °C
E4
COMP2 162 kW COMP1
200 °C 160.78 °C 200 °C 123.31 °C
E12
95.00 kW
HPC overhead vapor 4602.48 kW E6
156.23 °C 274.90 kW 120.85 °C
E7
E5

120.85 °C 42.00 °C
Product D1 E9
1480.45 kW
58.64 °C 58.41 °C
LPC overhead vapor E8

COMP3 58.64 °C
105.06 °C 88.33 °C
LPC overhead vapor E6

69.69 °C
E8
58.42 °C
E11

58.42 °C 42.00 °C
Product D2 E10

151.23 °C 151.23 °C
E7 E12 HPC Reboiler

144.09 °C 76.39 °C 64.64 °C

E5 E3 Product B2
138.88 °C 46.85 °C
E1 Feed

Fig. 8. The economically optimal VRC-SSPSD-PF-HEN heat exchanger networks designs.

8
Q. Zhang, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 173 (2020) 115228

(50.00 kW) and enters column LPC. Note that the outlet temperatures of
distillate streams D1 and D2 are set as 42 °C, which is 10° higher than
that of the cooling water. And the detailed flowsheet of the thermal
integration arrangement (VRC-SSPSD-PF-HEN) is shown in Fig. 9.
The TAC of this intensified VRC-SSPSD-PF-HEN process is
15.694 × 105 $/year including the annualized capital cost
(10.570 × 105 $/year) and the total operation cost (5.124 × 105
$/year), which is superior to all the aforementioned cases. It should be
noted that the requirement of the cold utility is only 395 kW without
any hot utility consumptions in this arrangement (The energy con-
sumed in this process is all provided by electrical power). Therefore, the
intensified self-heat recuperation option reduces the energy input ef-
fectively. Other comparisons for these alternatives in terms of the en-
vironmental and thermodynamic properties are demonstrated in
Section 4.4.
4.2. Bottom flashing heat pump-assisted SSPSD-PF processes
4.2.1. Basic BF-SSPSD arrangement
The key operation steps for basic bottom flashing heat pump-as-
sisted process are that the bottoms stream passes through a throttle
valve to become a vapor-liquid mixture with decreased pressure and
temperature, and then absorbs heat to achieve full vaporization in the
condenser, and finally enters the compressor to achieve the bottoms
pressure with the removal of excessive heats to return to the column
base. The key variable for this process is the discharged pressure of
throttle valve, which determines whether this process can be feasible.
As the discharged pressure of throttle valve drops, the temperature of
the bottoms stream leaving the throttle valve decreases. When the
temperature difference between the overhead vapor stream and the
bottoms stream is large than 5 °C, the bottom flashing heat pump-
assisted SSPSD process can obtain the sufficient heat transfer driving
force. However, this temperature difference cannot be increased end-
lessly, because the lower the pressure of the bottoms stream, the greater
the compression ratio, which causes an increase in energy costs.
Therefore, there is a trade-off between the heat transfer area of the
condenser and the electrical power consumed by the compressor.
Fig. 10 gives the optimization results, and the flowsheet of this basic BF-
SSPSD arrangement is shown in Fig. S4 of Supporting Information. The
optimal discharged pressures are 0.86 and 0.055 atm for columns HPC
and LPC, respectively. Note that the 0.055 atm is the critical discharged
pressure that can achieve enough heat transfer driving force for column
LPC.
4.2.2. Thermal integrated BF-SSPSD-PF arrangement
The performance of basic BF-SSPSD arrangement can be also im-
proved by taking the simple stream-to-stream thermal integration op-
tion. Fig. S5 of Supporting Information shows the HENs diagram of
thermal integrated BF-SSPSD-PF arrangement (BF-SSPSD-PF-HEN). The
bottoms recycled stream (B21) of column LPC is preheated to the bubble
point via three economizers E3 (150.70 kW), E6 (56.80 kW) and E1
(114.01 kW), and the fresh feed stream goes through a similar process
in two economizers E5 (191.10 kW) and E2 (176.40 kW). The overhead
vapor stream of column HPC achieves full condensation through three
exchangers E7 (4366.54 kW), E5 and E4 (95.00 kW). The side stream
and B11 stream from column HPC are both cooled to their bubble points
by several continuous exchangers, respectively. Besides, for columns
HPC and LPC, the bottoms streams leaving the throttle valve achieves
full vaporization in the condenser, and increase to bottoms pressure by
corresponding compressor. The optimum flowsheet is shown in Fig. S6
of Supporting Information. The TAC is 17.646 × 105 $/year with the
summation of the annualized capital cost (12.122 × 105 $/year) and

120.85 °C

D1 42.00 °C E9
102.86 kW R1
60.10 kmol/h 358.75 kmol/h
0.005 EDA V22 6.00 kmol/h
0.995 WATER V1 418.85 kmol/h
123.31 °C
EDA 0.005
COMP1 V2 56.85 °C
2 atm WATER 0.995 88.33 °C
120.48 kmol/h
392.04 kW 201.93 kW COMP2 EDA 0.995
160.78 °C WATER 0.005 V21
1 E6 114.48 kmol/h
0.1 atm 95 kW
E1 200 °C
HPC R2
367.52 kW 80.85 kmol/h
Feed 200 °C 1
RR1=5.98
100 kmol/h 138.88 °C 4 ID1=1.30 m 107.64 kmol/h
46.85 °C RR2=2.01
ID2=1.71 m
LPC
43 70.06 kW COMP3
SIDE 149.71 °C E4 63.57 °C 9
30.14 kmol/h 84.15 kW
0.656 EDA
81 0.344 WATER 64.37 °C 19 105.06 °C

E12 E7 E8
162 kW 58.42 °C
4602.48 kW 119.24 °C 1480.45 kW
96 23
151.23 °C 64.64 °C
69.64 °C
E11
156.23 °C 129.64 kW
E2
B1
50.00 kW Reflux drum 2
94.92 kmol/h
0.733 EDA E5 E3
0.267 WATER 274.90 kW 46.66 kW D2 42.00 °C
144.09 °C 76.39 °C 39.90 kmol/h
E10
0.995 EDA
B2 28.07 kW
0.005 WATER
73.57 °C 86.61 kmol/h
0.583 EDA
0.417 WATER
120.85 °C
311.20 kmol/h

Fig. 9. The flowsheet of the economically optimal VRC-SSPSD-PF-HEN process.

9
Q. Zhang, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 173 (2020) 115228

Fig. 10. The discharged pressure optimization of throttle valve: (a) Column HPC; (b) Column LPC.

the total operation cost (5.524 × 105 $/year). The reduction of 1.89%
in TAC is achieved in comparison with the conventional HI-SSPSD-PF-
HEN arrangement, and the performance of this arrangement is inferior
to that of VRC-SSPSD-PF-HEN (15.694 × 105 $/year) configuration in
terms of the steady-state economics.
4.3. Combined process with two heat pump-assisted types
The two-stage compression steps are taken to reduce the highly
discharged temperature of compressor for column HPC in the vapor
recompression option. As obtained that the relatively small discharged
temperature can be achieved by taking the bottom flashing heat-pump
alternative. Therefore, the combined process with these two heat pump-
assisted options is explored in this section. To achieve this combination,
it is only necessary to replace the column HPC from the vapor re-
compression process to the bottom flashing process based on the VRC-
SSPSD process. Therefore, in this arrangement, some parameters (the
discharged pressure of the throttle valve at the column HPC, the pre-
heater duty, compression ratio and split ratio at column LPC) of col-
umns HPC and LPC are consistent with column HPC of VRC-SSPSD
process and column LPC of BF-SSPSD process, respectively.
As obtained by the above improved measures, this combined heat
pump-assisted SSPSD (VAB-SSPSD-PF), shown in Figs. 11 and 12, can
be enhanced through thermal integration. All feed streams of column
HPC and LPC are pretreated to their bubble points by the series heat
exchangers. The overhead vapor stream of column HPC is partially
condensed in the condenser E7 (4366.54 kW), and then its remaining
heat is removed by two heat exchangers E4 (95.00 kW) and E5
(191.10 kW). The overhead vapor stream of column LPC is dividing into
two streams. One enters the cooler E12 directly to remove the excessive
heat to its reflux temperature. Another is directly passed through the
preheater E4 and compressor COMP2 to enhance its thermal quality to
serves as the heat source for reboiler E8 (1480.45 kW) before cooling
down to the reflux temperature in cooler E12 (129.64 kW). Bottoms
stream (B12) of column HPC leaving the throttle valve achieves full
vaporized in the condenser E7, and then it can be compressed by
compressor COMP1 to its bottoms pressure. Finally, its excessive heat
can be used as a partial heat source to preheat B2 stream in economizer
E1 (114.01 kW) before returning to column HPC. The TAC is
17.020 × 105 $/year for this intensified VAB-SSPSD arrangement with
the summation of annualized capital cost of 11.528 × 105 $/year and
the total operation cost of 5.493 × 105 $/year, which can achieve the

102.88 kW 87.19 kW 74.42 kW 28.07 kW 129.64 kW

36.85 °C 32.00 °C
E11 E9 E10 E13 E12 Cooling Water
176.40 kW 150.70 kW
151.23 °C 113.90 °C 81.57 °C 63.57 °C
Product B11 E2 E3 E9
4366.54 kW 95 kW 191.10 kW
123.31 °C 120.86 °C 120.85 °C 120.85 °C
HPC overhead vapor E7 E4 E5
56.80 kW
64.37 °C
Side Stream 149.71 °C E6 119.24 °C
E10
VX
151.23 °C 113.90 °C

HPC bottom stream B12 114.01 kW COMP1

151.23 °C 163.10 °C 115.85 °C
E1 E7

120.85 °C 42.00 °C
Product D1 E11

COMP2 58.64 °C
105.06 °C 88.33 °C
LPC overhead vapor E4
1480.45 kW
69.69 °C
E8
58.42 °C
E12

58.42 °C 42.00 °C
Product D2 E13
144.09 °C 110.98 °C 102.42 °C 64.64 °C
E1 E6 E3 Product B2
138.88 °C 95.63 °C 46.85 °C
E2 E5 Feed

64.64 °C 64.64 °C
E8 LPC Reboiler

Fig. 11. The heat exchanger networks design of VAB-SSPSD-FP-HEN process.

10
Q. Zhang, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 173 (2020) 115228

120.85 °C
Vapor-liquid E7
mixture 4366.54 kW 120.86 °C
Vap. Frac 0.041 Vapor-liquid
mixture
V1 6.00 kmol/h
Vap. Frac 0.062
123.31 °C D1 42.00 °C
60.10 kmol/h
0.005 EDA 88.33 °C
0.995 WATER
2 atm 114.91 °C E9
V2 56.85 °C E4 87.19 kW
120.48 kmol/h LP stream
1
E11 0.1 atm 95 kW
RR1=5.97 102.88 kW
E2 ID1=1.31 m 115.85 °C
176.40 kW HPC 1 R2
Vapor-liquid
Feed mixture COMP1 640.83 kW
Vap. Frac 0.154 B12 63.11 °C 70.06 kW
46.85 °C 95.63 °C 4
94.23 kmol/h LPC COMP2
138.88 °C VX1 0.656 EDA
B12 161.63 °C RR2=2.01
E5 43 0.344 WATER
433.05 kmol/h 10 ID2=1.71 m
191.10 kW
105.06 °C
81 149.71 °C 20
SIDE 64.16 °C
30.14 kmol/h
0.656 EDA E8 1480.45 kW
120.85 °C
95 0.344 WATER 23
151.23 °C 64.64 °C
E10 69.64 °C
74.42 kW E12
B1 129.64 kW
B2 64.64 °C
527.28 kmol/h
86.61 kmol/h
0.733 EDA
0.583 EDA
0.267 WATER
E6 0.417 WATER D2 42.00 °C
151.24 °C E3
56.80 kW 150.70 kW 39.90 kmol/h
0.995 EDA
144.09 °C 102.42 °C 0.005 WATER
E1
114.01 kW 116.21 °C E13
113.91 °C 81.57 °C 28.07 kW

Fig. 12. The flowsheet of the economically optimal VAB-SSPSD-FP-HEN process.

lessening of 5.39% in TAC compared with the HI-SSPSD-PF-HEN ar-
rangement.
4.4. Performance comparisons of different intensified alternatives
consumption rates and thermodynamic efficiency. And the VAB-SSPSD-
FP-HEN arrangement is also better than the BF-SSPSD-PF-HEN ar-
rangement due to higher thermodynamic efficiency and less equipment
costs.

Table 1 enumerates the results of these alternatively intensified 5. Energy analysis

arrangements in several evaluation criteria, and Fig. 13 visually gives
the comparisons of all intensified alternatives in terms of key evaluation
indicators such as TAC, CO2 emissions and thermodynamic efficiency.
Compared to HI-SSPSD-PF-HEN process, the economically optimum
flowsheet is the intensified self-heat recuperative vapor recompression-
assisted arrangement (VRC-SSPSD-PF-HEN) since it can achieve the
reductions of 59.01% in energy consumption rates, 86.60% in CO2
emissions, 12.78% in TAC and enhancement of 143.38% in thermo-
dynamic efficiency, respectively. Therefore, the self-heat recuperative
vapor recompression configurations are most efficient and attractive.
Besides, the vapor recompression process has obviously economic ad-
vantages over the bottom flashing process (caused by the increase in
equipment costs) with the little difference in terms of energy
5.1. Temperature-enthalpy diagram
The feasibility and effectiveness of the heat-integrated and the in-
tensified heat pump-assisted options can be intuitively obtained and
ranked by the temperature-enthalpy (T-H) diagram. The greater the
heat recovery possible within the process, the less utilities (hot or cold)
are required. The overlap region (shaded zone) between the hot com-
posite curve (HCC) and the cold composite curve (CCC) is for the heat
recovery possible within the process. The “overshoots” of the HCC and
CCC curves represent the extra requirements of the cold utility (cooling
water) and the hot utility (LP or MP Steam). And the detailed im-
plication of these composite curves is illustrated in the works of Zhang

Table 1
The comparisons of key performance evaluation indicators for different configurations.
Items HI-SSPSD-PF-HEN VRC-SSPSD-PF-HEN BF-SSPSD-PF-HEN VAB-SSPSD-PF-HEN

6
TAC (10 $/year) 1.799 1.569 1.765 1.702
TAC lessening (%) 0.00% 12.78% 1.89% 5.39%
Total heat duty (kW) 4859.58 1992.09 2149.59 2132.67
Energy saving (%) 0.00% 59.01% 55.77% 56.11%
The second-law efficiency (%) 7.4 18.01 16.21 16.82
Efficiency enhancing (%) 0.00% 143.38% 119.05% 127.30%
a a a a
CO2 emissions (kg/h) 612.3 (911.4) 122.1 (122.1) 135.7 (135.7) 130.8 (130.8)

Note: The total heat input is calculated by the load summation of the steam-driven reboiler and the electricity work in vapor recompression processes, and the
amplification factor of 3 is presumed to convert compressor work into the thermal energy (total heat input = Qt + 3Qe) [21,34].
a
The data in the bracket are for burning materials of heavy oil fuel.

11
Q. Zhang, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 173 (2020) 115228

Fig. 13. Comparison of different alternatives in terms of key evaluation indicators: Cost, CO2 emissions and second-law efficiency.

et al. [6] and Xia et al. [7]. Fig. 14 gives the corresponding T-H dia-
grams for all configurations. The QCW and Qh, respectively, represent
the requirements of the cold and hot utilities for the corresponding
processes.
There is no any overlap region for the conventional SSPSD process,
observed from Fig. 14(a), indicating that there is no heat recovery
within in this process, in other words, the potential thermal energy is
wasted in the condenser, especially for column HPC. The CCC curve is
shifted to the left and the heat recovery area begins to appear when
comparing the HI-SSPSD-PF-HEN process with the SSPSD process,
shown in Fig. 14(b), which clearly reflects the heat recovery possible
within the process with the form of integrating the condenser of column
HPC with the reboiler of column LPC and simple stream-to-stream heat
integrated option. A large amount of the latent heat is still not utilized
as discovered in Fig. 14(b) of the HI-SSPSD-PF-HEN process. And the
temperatures where the two-phase transitions (“platforms”) of the HCC
curve could be enhanced to exceed that of the CCC curve, therefore, the
low-grade thermal energy can be utilized. As is well-known, reboiler
needs high-quality thermal energy while only the low-grade energy is
provided in the condenser, which can be achieved by taking a heat
pump (compressor). In the VRC-SSPSD-PF-HEN arrangement, given in
Fig. 14(c), the temperature of the platform in the HCC curve exceeds

Fig. 14. The T-H diagrams for each configuration: (a) SSPSD; (b) HI-SSPSD-PF-HEN; (c) VRC-SSPSD-PF-HEN; (D) VAB-SSPSD-PF-HEN.

12
Q. Zhang, et al.
that of the CCC curve through taking compressor, and the heat recovery
within the process, the overlap region between these two curves, is
increased and the requirement of the cold utility is only 395 kW
without any hot utility consumptions in this arrangement. The essence
of the vapor recompression process is to increase the temperature of
phase transition for the overhead vapor stream by consuming expensive
electrical power, so that the large amount of latent energy of the
overhead vapor stream can be used as partial or full heat source of the
reboiler. Fig. 14(d) shows the T-H diagram of combined VAB-SSPSD-FP-
HEN process, and this arrangement also does not require any hot uti-
lities. The main difference between VRC-SSPSD-PF-HEN and VAB-
SSPSD-PF-HEN arrangement is the heat recovery zone. In Fig. 9, the
sums of E7 and E12 are about 4764 kW and in Fig. 12, the E7 is about
4367 kW. Their difference is 397 kW, which exactly equal to the dif-
ference between the heat recovery zone value of the Fig. 14(c) and (d).
The decisive reason for this situation is the location of the compressor.
For the vapor recompression process, the compressor is located before
the integrated heat exchanger to boilup bottoms stream, which makes
the energy provided by the compressor to be credited to the heat re-
covery zone. However, for the bottom flashing option, the compressor is
located after the integrated heat exchanger to make the pressure equal
to the bottoms, which results in energy provided by the compressor not
being counted in the heat recovery zone. For the VRC-SSPSD-PF-HEN
arrangement, it can be further found that about 594 kW electric energy
consumed by the compressor of column HPC, the energy converted into
heat and the energy used to enhance energy grade are 397 kW and
197 kW, respectively.
5.2. Exergy analysis
Exergy analysis is a powerful tool to determine the distribution of
exergy destruction for each component in a certain process [35], and it
can provide the constructive advices on how to improve the thermo-
dynamic efficiency of the process. Exergy is prone to be destroyed when
the process is irreversible, and the exergy losses are attributed to the
driving force in the system such as pressure drop, temperature and
composition gradients. The less exergy destruction, the larger exergy
rises of the system, which means that the higher thermodynamic effi-
ciency and lower energy consumption should be achieved in a given
process. In this article, the sector diagram is used to illustrate why the
VAB-SSPSD-PF-HEN process consume more energy than the VRC-
SSPSD-PF-HEN process. The formula of exergy rise in the system is
given in Eq. (6):
Ex rise =Ex input Exloss
system component
Fig. 15. The sector diagrams of the whole system about the exergy destruction: (a) VRC-SSPSD-PF-HEN; (b) VAB-SSPSD-PF-HEN.
Applied Thermal Engineering 173 (2020) 115228
where the exergy input in the system is denoted as Ex input , and the
exergy losses in each configuration is represented as Exloss component ,
which is formulated as the Eq. (7):
Exloss component = Exinput Exoutput (7)
The VRC-SSPSD-PF-HEN and VAB-SSPSD-PF-HEN arrangements are
analyzed and compared from the aspect of exergy destruction, as shown
in Fig. 15. The exergy rises in the VRC-SSPSD-PF-HEN system (19.22%)
is larger than that of VRC-SSPSD-PF-HEN (17.34%). Both processes
have the largest percent of exergy destruction in column HPC (about
46.63% and 44.78%) due to the most energy input in column HPC.
Besides, there has a larger exergy destruction in the compressor for the
combined arrangement in comparison with that of VRC-SSPSD-PF-HEN
arrangement, which can be mainly attributed to the larger compression
ratio of the VAB-SSPSD-PF-HEN arrangement. The exergy losses of
other components including heat exchangers, condensers, throttle (ex-
cept VX1) and compressor COMP2 in both configurations is also similar,
which is because the total heat transfer capacity and electricity capacity
of these devices are similar in these two configurations. Besides, the
extra exergy destruction introduced by the throttle valve (VX) in
column HPC is also an important reason why the economic and en-
vironmental performance of the VAB-SSPSD-PF-HEN arrangement is
not as good as that of the VRC-SSPSD-PF-HEN arrangement.
6. Conclusions
In this work, the feasibility and effectiveness of two types of heat
pump-assisted side-stream pressure-swing distillation arrangements,
the intensified vapor recompression-assisted SSPSD arrangement and
bottom flashing heat pump-assisted SSPSD process, were investigated
and assessed by taking a separation of maximum-boiling azeotrope as
the demonstrating example. The intensified vapor recompression-as-
sisted SSPSD arrangement existed a problem that the compressor dis-
charged temperature was too high for column HPC, and the two-stage
compression option successfully solved this problem. Compared with
the conventional single-stage compression process, the multi-stage
compression can reduce the consumption of electric energy with the
same final compression ratio because the multi-stage compression op-
tion was closer to the isothermal compression process. To further im-
prove the heat recovery within the process as much as possible and
reduce the correspondingly excessive utilization of cold and hot uti-
lities, the efficient Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis (HENs) analysis
tool was adopted. Total annual cost (TAC), carbon footprints and the
thermodynamic efficiency were as the evaluation indicators to ration-
(6)
ally rank the eco-efficient arrangement in a series of PSD processes.
13
Q. Zhang, et al.
Results showed that the economical-efficient and environmental-
friendly arrangement was the VRC-SSPSD-PF-HEN configuration among
these SSPSD processes. It can achieve the reductions of 59.01% in en-
ergy consumption rates, 86.60% in CO2 emissions, 12.78% in TAC and
enhancement of 143.38% in thermodynamic efficiency, respectively.
What should be noted that the total capital cost of the VRC-SSPSD-PF-
HEN arrangement was higher than that of the HI-SSPSD-PF-HEN mainly
due to the expensive compressor costs. Besides, the economic perfor-
mance of the BF-SSPSD-PF-HEN arrangement was not as good as VRC-
SSPSD-PF-HEN arrangement mainly due to more heat transfer area for
the corresponding condenser and the increase in electric power con-
sumption. However, the bottom flashing heat pump had a significant
advantage that the compressor discharged temperature was lower than
that of the vapor recompression case, therefore, it can avoid the use of
multi-stage compression to decrease the complexity of system.
Therefore, a compromised solution (VAB-SSPSD-PF-HEN arrangement)
that combines vapor recompression heat pump and bottom flashing
heat pump was also discussed and investigated, and its economic per-
formance was also found to be between these two heat pump processes.
Consequently, the exergy destroyed in each component for the VRC-
SSPSD-PF-HEN and VAB-SSPSD-PF-HEN was obtained, and result
showed that the major exergy losses mainly produced in columns,
especially in column HPC.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declared that there are no conflicts of interests.
We declare that we do not have any commercial or associative in-
terest that represents a conflict of interest in connection with the work
submitted.
Acknowledgment
We are grateful to the comments and suggestions from the executive
editor (Professor. Srinivasa Murthy) and the anonymous reviewers and
Professor William L. Luyben, such as how to show the concise content
of this article. These will have a great positive effect on my future re-
searches by studying your comments carefully. Special thanks again to
you for your good comments.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2020.115228.
References
[1] A.K. Jana, Heat integrated distillation operation, Appl. Energy 87 (2010)
1477–1494.
[2] J. Gu, X. You, C. Tao, J. Li, Analysis of heat integration, intermediate reboiler and
vapor recompression for the extractive distillation of ternary mixture with two
binary azeotropes, Chem. Eng. Process 142 (2019) 107546.
[3] A. Yang, S. Sun, A. Eslamimanesh, S. Wei, W. Shen, Energy-saving investigation for
diethyl carbonate synthesis through the reactive dividing wall column combining
the vapor recompression heat pump or different pressure thermally coupled tech-
nique, Energy 172 (2019) 320–332.
[4] J. Li, F.J. Zhang, Q. Pan, Y.L. Yang, L.Y. Sun, Performance enhancement of reactive
dividing wall column based on self-heat recuperation technology, Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 58 (2019) 12179–12191.
[5] H. Lee, W. Jang, J.W. Lee, Multiple transesterifications in a reactive dividing wall
column integrated with a heat pump, Chem. Eng. 36 (2019) 954–964.
[6] M. Aurangzeb, A.K. Jana, Pressure-swing dividing wall column with multiple binary
azeotropes: improving energy efficiency and cost savings through vapor re-
compression, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 57 (2018) 4019–4032.
14
Applied Thermal Engineering 173 (2020) 115228
[7] Y. Fan, Q. Ye, H. Cen, J. Chen, T. Liu, Novel process design combined with reactive
distillation and pressure-swing distillation for propylene glycol monomethyl ether
acetate synthesis, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 58 (2019) 19211–19225.
[8] X. You, I. Rodriguea-Donis, V. Gerbaud, Reducing process cost and CO2 emissions
for extractive distillation by double-effect heat integration and mechanical heat
pump, Appl. Energy 166 (2016) 128–140.
[9] M.B. Leo, A. Dutta, S. Farooq, Process synthesis and optimization of heat pump
assisted distillation for ethylene-ethane separation, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 57 (2018)
11747–11756.
[10] E. Díez, P. Langston, G. Ovejero, M.D. Romero, Economic feasibility of heat pumps
in distillation to reduce energy use, Appl. Therm. Eng. 29 (2009) 1216–1223.
[11] K. Huang, L. Shan, Q. Zhu, J. Qian, Adding rectifying/stripping section type heat
integration to a pressure-swing distillation (PSD) process, Appl. Therm. Eng. 28
(2008) 923–932.
[12] W.L. Luyben, Design and Control of Distillation Systems for Separating Azeotropes,
John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken, Newy Jersey, 2010.
[13] 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.
[14] S. Tututi-Avil, N. Medina-Herrera, J. Hahn, A. Jimenez-Gutierrez, Design of an
energy-efficient side-stream extractive distillation system, Comput. Chem. Eng. 102
(2017) 17–25.
[15] Q. Zhang, M. Liu, C. Li, A. Zeng, Heat-integrated pressure-swing distillation process
for separating the minimum-boiling azeotrope ethyl-acetate and ethanol, Sep. Purif.
Technol. 189 (2017) 310–334.
[16] Q. Zhang, M. Liu, A. Zeng, Performance enhancement of pressure-swing distillation
process by the combined use of vapor recompression and thermal integration,
Comput. Chem. Eng. 120 (2019) 30–45.
[17] H. Xia, Q. Ye, S. Feng, R. Li, X. Suo, A novel energy-saving pressure swing dis-
tillation process based on self-heat recuperation technology, Energy 141 (2017)
770–781.
[18] W.L. Luyben, Design and control of a pressure-swing distillation process with vapor
recompression, Chem. Eng. Process. 123 (2018) 174–184.
[19] X. Li, X. Geng, P. Cui, J. Yang, Z. Zhu, Y. Wang, D. Xu, Thermodynamic efficiency
enhancement of pressure-swing distillation process via heat integration and heat
pump technology, Appl. Therm. Eng. 154 (2019) 519–529.
[20] V. Plesu, A.E.B. Ruiz, J. Bonet, J. Llorens, Simple equation for suitability of heat
pump use in distillation, Computer-Aid. Chem. Eng. 33 (2014) 1327–1332.
[21] S. Feng, X. Lyu, Q. Ye, H. Xia, R. Li, X. Suo, Performance enhancement of reactive
dividing-wall column via vapor recompression heat pump, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 55
(2016) 11305–11314.
[22] Z. Zhu, L. Wang, Y. Ma, W. Wang, Y. Wang, Separating an azeotropic mixture of
toluene and ethanol via heat integration pressure swing distillation, Comput. Chem.
Eng. 76 (2015) 137–149.
[23] J.M. Douglas, Conceptual Design of Chemical Processes, McGraw-Hill, Britain,
1988.
[24] J.D. Seader, E.J. Henley, Separation Process Principles, John Wiley & Sons,
Danvers, 2006.
[25] M.A. Waheed, A.O. Oni, S.B. Adejuyigbe, B.A. Adewumi, D.A. Fadare, Performance
enhancement of vapor recompression heat pump, Appl. Energy 114 (2014) 69–79.
[26] M.A. Gadalla, Z.O. Peter, J. Jansens, M. Jobson, R. Smith, Reducing CO2 emissions
and energy consumption of heat-integrated distillation systems, Environ. Sci.
Technol. 39 (2005) 6860–6870.
[27] J. Chen, Q. Ye, T. Liu, H. Xia, S.Y. Feng, Improving the performance of hetero-
geneous azeotropic distillation via self-heat recuperation technology, Chem. Eng.
Res. Des. 141 (2019) 516–528.
[28] Y. Fan, Q. Ye, H. Cen, J. Chen, T. Liu, Design and optimization of reactive dis-
tillation processes for synthesis of isopropanol based on self-heat recuperation
technology, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 147 (2019) 171–186.
[29] Q. Zhang, M. Liu, C. Li, A. Zeng, Heat-integrated pressure-swing distillation process
for separation of the maximum-boiling azeotrope diethylamine and methanol, J.
Taiwan Institute Chem. Eng. 93 (2018) 644–659.
[30] Q. Zhang, M. Liu, C. Li, A. Zeng, Design and control of extractive distillation process
for separation of the minimum-boiling azeotrope ethyl-acetate and ethanol, Chem.
Eng. Res. Des. 136 (2018) 57–70.
[31] S. Feng, Q. Ye, H. Xia, Rui Rui, X. Suo, Integrating a vapor recompression heat
pump into a lower partitioned reactive dividing-wall column for better energy-
saving performance, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 125 (2017) 204–213.
[32] Z. Fonyo, N. Benko, Comparison of various heat pump assisted distillation config-
urations, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 76 (1998) 348–360.
[33] A.K. Jana, A novel energy-efficient batch stripper: thermodynamic feasibility, cost
analysis and CO2 emissions, Appl. Therm. Eng. 84 (2015) 292–300.
[34] R. Li, Q. Ye, X. Suo, X. Dai, H. Yu, S. Feng, H. Xia, Improving the performance of
heat pump-assisted azeotropic dividing wall distillation, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 55
(2016) 6454–6464.
[35] A.A. Kiss, C. Ferreira, Heat Pumps in Chemical Process Industry, Taylor & Francis
Group, Boca Raton, 2017.