OPTIMIZATION OF METHANOL

TO DME PROCESS

SUBMITTED TO
Dr. Helen Lou

Department of Chemical Engineering

Lamar University
Beaumont, TX 77710

SUBMITTED BY:

Thomas Zacharia (L20261221)

Hitesh Vaid (L200000882)
Preeti Gangadharan (L20239920)
 Overview
INTRODUCTION
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
SOLUTION IDENTIFICATION, RESULTS
AND DISCUSSION
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
Introduction
DME, is colorless gaseous ether with an
ethereal odor
It can be made from natural gas, coal, or
biomass.

PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES:

Molar mass: 46.07 g/mol
Appearance: Colorless gas with typical smell
Density: 1.97 g/L, gas (1.59 × that of air) 668
Kg/m3, liquid
Melting point: −138.5 °C (134.6 K)/ (−217.3 °F)
242.37 °R
Boiling point: −23 °C (254 K)/ (−12.82 °F) 446.85 °R
Solubility in water: 328 g/100 mL (20 °C)
METHOD OF PRODUCTION
DME synthesis from hydrogen and CO
gas, also known as syngas.

The methanol dehydration method

2CH3OH → CH3OCH3 + H2O

Methanol → dimethyl ether + water
 APPLICATIONS
 A refrigerant
 A (co-)blowing agent for foam
 A propellant for aerosol products
 A solvent
 A fuel for welding cutting and brazing
 A multi-purpose fuel
PROCESS FLOWSHEET- BASE
CASE
 Process Improvement

 Determine optimum temperature of

feed to the DME separation column for
maximum profit
 Heat integration to save utility costs
 Remove unnecessary utilities
 Heat integration to save utility costs
Problem
Methanol feed stream is heated from 25 0C to 250 0C before entering the
DME reactor.
The product from the reactor which is at 343 0C is then cooled to 125 0C
prior to separation in the distillation column.
Thus we have a very good opportunity to exchange heat between these
two streams.

Benefit
By exchanging heat between these two streams we were able to
eliminate one cooler and improve profit
 Remove Unnecessary Utilities
Based on sensitivity analysis carried out for temperature of COOL2
against operating profit, we were able to eliminate COOL2. Thus
improving plant profit
OPTIMIZED PROCESS FLOW
DIAGRAM –FINAL
STREAM TABLE (FINAL)
 Economic Evaluation
Base Case Modified Process

Heating Cost (@$0.5 per kg $296.59 $195.81

Gas)

Cooling Cost $1.98 $2.09

(@ $0.1/ GJ)

Electricity $339.30 $1.28

(@$0.10 per kWh)

Total Utility $637.86 $199.19

Feed Cost $1406.96 $1406.96

Product Sales $4626.41 $4611.64

Operating Profit $2,582 $3,005

 Economic Evaluation contd.
Base Case Modified Process

COOL1 $74,100 --

COOL2 $74,100 --

HEAT $74,100 $74,100

HEX -- $90,700

PUMP $29,300 $29,300

PUMP2 $23,400 $23,400

REACT $245,300 $245,300

RIG-COL $250,800 $235,900

RIG-COL2 $263,600 $261,200

TOTAL $1,034,700 $959,900

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK

Methanol dehydration is one of the most efficient methods available today for
production of DME.

The commonly used methanol dehydration process was simulated in Aspen Plus
(v7.1) for a feed of ~7000 kg/hr methanol. The base case was studied in detail,
and improvements were suggested.

The process was subjected to various sensitivity analyses and heat integration to
improve the profitability of the plant. Upon incorporating the design
modifications, there was a marked improvement in the hourly operating profit of
the plant, as well as a decrease in the capital cost.

The conversion of methanol is 62.88% when alumina is used as the dehydration

catalyst. This conversion can be improved by using a combination of alumina and
zeolite catalyst. (Reference: Vishwanathan et al, Vapor phase dehydration of
Methanol to DME over Na modified H-ZSM-5 catalyst). This would make a good
topic for future work.
 REFERENCES

 R.S. Schiffino and R. P. Merrill, A mechanistic study of

methanol dehydration on alumina catalyst, J. Phys. Chem.
1993,97, 6425-6435

V. Vishwanathan, K. W. Jun, J. W. Kim, H. S. Roh, Vapor

phase dehydration of crude methanol to dimethyl ether over
Na-modified H-ZSM-5 catalysts, Applied Catalysis A:
General 276 (2004) 251–255

E.Y.Lee, Y.K. Park ,O.S.Joo , K.D. Jung, Methanol

dehydration to produce dimethyl ether over g-Al2O3,
Reaction Kinetics And Catalysis Letters, Vol 89 , No: 1, 115-
121