Ethylene
Ethylene
Ethylene
and Art
Authors:
Ghazal Erfani
Ciera Lowe
Joshua Mayourian
Instructor:
Professor Okorafor
Executive Summary
An ethylene production plant was designed to meet a product specification of 700 metric tons per
day. To do so, 140,010 lb/hr of 100% butane is fed to the plant, and 100% of ethane is recycled
at a rate of 8,174 lb/hr. This plant process includes: a furnace (to crack the hydrocarbon
feed), a quench tower (to cool the exiting stream), a four stage compressor system (to increase
the pressure of the cracked gases), a refrigeration section (to cool the stream to cryogenic
temperatures), and a five tower fractionation system (to separate the remaining products). The
resulting ethylene, propylene, gasoline, and high pressure stream products are subsequently
sold.
An economic analysis was performed on the ethylene plant designed, where it is expected that
the plant will profit approximately 160 million over a 10 year operation period, with a return
on investment of 16%. It was assumed for the economic analysis that the plant will run 8,400
hours a year (0.96 plant operating factor). This promising return on investment makes it
sensible to perform more rigorous economic studies, and to potentially go forward in the plant
construction. The capital investment for the plant construction was $248,000,000. The utilities
to run the compressors and pumps, including low pressure steam, cooling water, and electricity,
cost approximately $16,000,000 per year. To reduce unnecessary utility costs, certain process
streams were used for heating and cooling. Since it is assumed that wage costs are $4.5 million
per year, the total annual operating cost is $20,500,000 per year.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
ii
List of Figures
iv
List of Tables
Introduction
1.1 Motivation for Ethylene Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Plant Process Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
1
1
Mass Balance
2.1 Rate of Ethylene Production
2.2 Feed Requirement . . . . . .
2.3 Ethane Recycle Rate . . . . .
2.4 Feed Cost . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
3
3
3
5
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
10
10
10
11
Furnace Design
4.1 Radiation Section Design and Sizing .
4.2 Convection Section Design and Sizing
4.2.1 Stack Design . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 Heat Exchanger Design and Sizing . .
4.4 Furnace Costing . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
13
13
14
15
15
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Quench Tower
16
5.1 Energy Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
ii
Table of Contents
5.2
5.3
5.4
iii
Compressor System
6.1 Compressor Design and Sizing .
6.2 Compressor Costing . . . . . .
6.2.1 Compressor Costs . . .
6.2.2 Knockout Drum Costs .
6.2.3 Heat Exchanger Costs .
6.2.4 Cooling Water Costs . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
18
19
20
20
21
22
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23
23
26
26
27
27
28
Demethanizer Section
29
7.1 Demethanizer Process Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.2 Demethanizer Sizing and Costing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Fractionation Columns
8.1 Process Summary . . . . . . .
8.2 Fractionation Tower Sizing .
8.3 Fractionation Tower Costing .
8.4 Heat Duties . . . . . . . . . .
8.5 Heat Exchanger Costs . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
34
34
35
37
37
38
45
46
47
52
List of Figures
1.1
2.1
3.1
6.1
23
7.1
30
8.1
34
9.1
42
iv
List of Tables
2.1
2.2
2.3
4
4
5
3.1
3.2
3.3
12
12
12
4.1
Furnace Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Quench
Quench
Quench
Quench
Quench
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
Compressor Results . . . . . . .
Component Mass Balance . . . .
Heat Exchanger Characteristics .
Compressor Electricity Costs . .
Compressor Capital Cost . . . .
Knockout Drum Capital Cost . .
Heat Exchanger Capital Cost . .
Compressor Cooling Water Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
Tank Sizing . . . . . . .
Heat Exchanger Sizing .
Compressor Sizing . . .
Tank Costing . . . . . .
Heat Exchanger Costing
Compressor Costing . .
Utility Costing . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
Tower
Tower
Tower
Tower
Tower
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
18
21
22
22
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
24
25
26
26
27
27
27
28
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
31
31
31
32
32
32
33
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
35
35
36
36
37
37
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
List of Tables
vi
8.7
8.8
8.9
8.10
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
38
38
38
39
9.1
9.2
Costing Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Revenue Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
40
Introduction
An ethylene production plant was designed for its wide industrial relevance and its great economic potential. A more detailed exploration of the plant process and the motivation for
ethylene production are discussed below.
1.1
Ethylene is a valuable product of this process with a $160 billion per year market alone [1].
Ethylene is produced more than any other organic compound due to its versatile chemical
industrical use. Industrial uses of ethylene include polymerization, oxidation, halogenation,
alkylation, hydration, oligomerization, and hydroformylation [2]. Specifically, it is used in the
production of polyvinyl chloride, and other important plastics [3]. Therefore, in this study, an
ethylene production plant was designed for its economic potential. The plant process to produce
ethylene is discussed below.
1.2
There are five main sections of the ethylene production plant which must be designed: a furnace, a quench tower, a compressor system, a demethanizer/refrigeration section, and a set of
fractionation columns (Figure 1.1).
First, a 100 % n-butane feed enters the furnace, where it is cracked to produce various hydrocarbons, including ethane and ethylene. To be economically efficient, the excess heat is recovered
in the convection section, where the diluent steam is superheated (for other processes witin the
plant), and the feed is preheated (prior to cracking). Next, the hydrocarbon product is cooled
with cooling water in a quench tower to prevent coking and unwanted polymerization reactions.
The resulting cooled stream is fed into compressors, where the pressure is increased for the
following demethanizer section. In the demethanizer section, the stream is cooled even more,
in order to approach cryogenic temperatures by a refrigeration cycle. Finally, using a series of
fractionation towers, the product stream is purified to obtain a 99.95 mol% ethylene stream, a
propylene stream, and other valuable product streams (i.e. gasoline).
Section 1. Introduction
Figure 1.1: There are five main sections of the ethylene production plant which must be
designed: a furnace, a quench tower, a compressor system, a demethanizer/refrigeration section,
and a set of fractionation columns.
Mass Balance
To meet the product specification of 700 metric tons of ethylene per day with 100% ethane
recycle, a mass balance was performed on the ethylene plant. As a result, the rate of ethylene
production, feed requirements, and ethane recycle were found, as shown below.
2.1
First, the rate of ethylene production was calculated, assuming 99.95% purity of ethylene in the
product stream, and assuming 99% recovery of ethylene from the furnace:
lb
1 day
ton
2, 204.6
(2.1)
2.2
Feed Requirement
By calculating the rate of ethylene production, it was possible to calculate the feed requirement
into the furnace. Within the furnace, it was necessary to account for the hydrogenation of
acetylene, and the 100% recycle of ethane. The hydrogenation of acetylene is described with
the following reaction:
3
1
1
C2 H2 + H2 C2 H4 + C2 H6
2
2
2
(2.2)
26 lb C2 H2 + 3 lb H2 14 lb C2 H4 + 15 lb C2 H6
(2.3)
The expected composition of the product exiting the furnace, when accounting for ethane recylce, is shown in Table 2.1 [4].
Component
Weight Percentage
H2
CH4
C2 H2
C2 H4
C2 H6
C3 H6
C3 H8
C4 H6
Other C4 s
Other C5 s
Total
3.72
3.47
0.42
47.97
40.00
1.29
0.03
1.73
0.60
0.77
100.00
Using the hydrogenation reaction equation and the ethane recycle yield composition, the product
stream from the furnace was determined iteratively (Table 2.2).
For each iteration, the acetylene was hydrogenated, and then 100% of the ethane was recycled.
This was repeated until the recycled ethane was extinct. These iterations were performed on
Table 2.2: Furnace Product Stream Composition
Component
H2
CH4
C2 H2
C2 H4
C2 H6
C3 H4
C3 H6
C3 H8
C4 H6
C4 H8
C4 H10
Other C5 s
Benzene
Other C6 s
Toluene
Other C7 s
C8 s
Fuel Oil
Total
2,249
26,409
844
55,590
10,600
1,582
17,523
841
4,650
4,183
2,814
2,576
6,440
392
1,120
98
392
1,708
140,010
1.6
18.9
0.6
39.7
7.6
1.1
12.5
0.6
3.3
3.0
2.0
1.8
4.6
0.3
0.8
0.1
0.3
1.2
100.0
Microsoft Excel (for details on Appendix D). Using this information, the ethane recycle rate
was determined, assuming 100% ethane recycle.
2.3
To determine the ethane recycle rate, the furnace was illustrated into two parts: a cracking
furnace and a recycle furnace (Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1: To determine the ethane recycle rate, the furnace was illustrated into two parts:
a cracking furnace and a recycle furnace.
The 12,138 lb ethane made from the cracking furnace, which is subsequently fed into the recycle
furnace, was calculated from the feed and the hydrogenation reaction (see Appendix D for more
detail). The ethane recycle of interest is R, which is equal to 40.24% (accounting for the recycle
yield and the hydrogenation reaction) of the sum of the recycle and the ethane fed into the
recycle furnace, F . Using this information, the ethane recycle was found from a mass balance:
F =
12, 138
= 20, 313 lb/hr
1 0.4024
(2.4)
(2.5)
Therefore, 8,174 lb ethane are recycled per hour. These calculations were used for the energy
balance on the furnace, which is necessary to design, size, and cost the furnace. A summary of
the mass balance results on the furnace are shown in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3: Summary of Mass Balance
Design Factor
Plant Capacity
Feed Requirement
Ethane Recycle Rate
2.4
Feed Cost
By completing the mass balance, the feed operating cost can be determined. Since butane costs
$0.26/lb [5], the operating cost for the feed is $36,400/hr, which is equivalent to $305,781,840
per year.
Figure 3.1: A schematic of the pyrolysis furnace. The furnace consists of a radiation section
and a convection section. In the convective section, the hydrocarbon and steam feeds are
preheated prior to entering the radiation section. In the radiation section, the air and fuel
are fed to produce flue gas via combustion. Furthermore, the heat required for cracking the
hydrocarbon are supplied, in order to produce the required effluent needed.
3.1
The heat required for the radiative section of the furnace is found by adding the heat required
by the cracking reaction and the sensible heat required to heat the feed stream to the coil outlet
temperature (COT) while taking a 1.5% heat loss into account.
3.1.1
Heat of Cracking
First, a heat balance was performed to find the heat of cracking. The heat of cracking can be
found from:
X
X
Qcracking = m(
Hf,products
Hf,reactants )
i
(3.1)
where Qcracking is the heat of cracking, i represents all the product components, j represents all
the reactant components, and m
is the mass flow rate. Using this equation, the heat of cracking
is 146.8 MM BTU/hr (for detailed calculations of the heat of cracking, see Appendix D).
3.1.2
Sensible Heat
The sensible heat, or the heat required to increase the temperature of the cracked gas (diluent
stream and hydrocarbon stream) from crossover temperature (XOT) to the COT is:
Qsensible = m
steam (hCOT,steam hXOT,steam ) + m
gas Cp (TCOT TXOT )
(3.2)
BTU
BTU
lb
(1610.56
1448.02
)
hr
lb
lb
lb
BTU
+ 140, 010
0.91043 (1550 F 1180 F) = 56.3 MM BTU/hr (3.3)
hr
lb F
3.1.3
Process Duty
The process duty is found by adding the sensible heat and the heat of cracking:
QProcess Duty = Qcracking + Qsensible
(3.4)
(3.5)
Therefore, the ideal process duty is 203.0 MM BTU/hr. However, since there is a 1.50% heat
loss, the overall process duty within the radiation section (denoted as Qradiation ) is 206.1 MM
BTU/hr.
3.1.4
Next, the flue gas requirements were calculated from the overall process duty within the radiation
section, Qradiation , and the change in enthalpy from temperature variations within the furnace:
Qradiation
hin,flue gas hfirebox, flue gas
(3.6)
206.1 MM BTU/hr
= 480, 030 lb/hr
1045.4 BTU/lb 616.1 BTU/lb
(3.7)
m
flue gas =
m
flue gas =
where hfirebox,flue gas is the enthalpy of the flue gas at the firebox, and hin,flue gas is the enthalpy
of the flue gas in. Therefore, the flue gas required was 480,030 lb/hr. The enthalpy of the gas
into the furnace was determined by the combustion reaction:
1 lb CH4 + 19.66 lb Air 20.66 lb Flue Gas + Lower Heating Value
(3.8)
where the lower heating value (LHV) was 21,720 BTU. Using this combustion reaction, hin,flue gas
was:
Fuel LHV
lb Flue Gas/lb Methane
(3.9)
(3.10)
hin,flue gas =
hin,flue gas =
3.2
The USX and TLX heat exchangers aid in cooling the feed stream after it has left the furnace.
The heat duties for both these heat exchangers can be found by adding the heat of the cracked
gas, and the heat of the steam. In other words:
10
(3.11)
Qsteam = m
steam (hCOT,steam hexit,steam ) = 27.5 MM BTU/hr
(3.12)
Qcracked gas = m
cracked gas Cp (TCOT Texit ) = 106.0 MM BTU/hr
(3.13)
where:
and:
(3.14)
This heat exchanger heat duty of 133.4 MM BTU/hr is used to find the total heat available to
make steam, as discussed in the following section.
3.3
The amount of heat available in the convective section of the pyrolysis furnace is estimated
using the heat of flue gas exiting the radiative section of the furnace, and the given temperature
limit on the flue gas exiting the furnace stack. The heat needed to preheat the dilution steam
and the feed stream to the cross-over temperature (XOT) is then subtracted from the estimated
heat available in the convective section to generate the heat available for preheating boiler feed
water (BFW) and superheating high pressure steam to the designated conditions of 875 F at
1750 psig. These calculations are discussed more in detail below.
3.3.1
Heat Available
To find the heat available, it was assumed that 0.50% of the heat was lost in the convective
section. Using this assumption, the heat available is:
Qavailable = 0.9995m
flue gas (hfirebox, flue gas hout stack, flue gas )
(3.15)
3.3.2
Next, the energy needed to pre-heat the dilution steam, from 475 F to XOT, and the cracked
gas, from 60 F to XOT, was found in order to find the heat of the economizer stream and the
superheated stream. The heat needed to pre-heat the dilution steam and the cracked gas is:
11
Qpre-heat = m
steam (hXOT,steam h475 F,steam ) + m
hydrocarbon Cp (TXOT 60 F)
(3.17)
3.3.3
Next, the heats of the superheated and economizer streams were found. The heat of the economizer and superheated streams was the excess available heat above the pre-heat energy. In
other words.
Qsuperheated and economizer = Qavailable Qpre-heat
Qsuper and econ = 269.5 MM BTU/hr 123.4 MM BTU/hr = 146.2 MM BTU/hr
(3.19)
(3.20)
where Qsuper and econ is the heat of the superheated and economizer streams. By finding the
heat of the superheated and economizer streams, it is possible to find the total heat available
to make steam. Specifically, the heats of the superheated and economizer streams, as well as
the heat exchanger heat duties can be used to find the total heat available to make steam:
Qsteam = Qsuperheated and economizer + QHeat Exchangers
Qsteam = 146.2 MM BTU/hr + 133.4 MM BTU/hr = 279.6 MM BTU/hr
(3.21)
(3.22)
From the total heat available to make steam, it is possible to find the rate of steam generated
by finding the enthalpies of BFW and superheated states. Therefore:
Qsteam
hsuperheated hBF W
(3.23)
279.6 MM BTU/hr
= 223, 828 lb/hr
1461.315BTU/lb 212.12 BTU/lb
(3.24)
m
steam =
m
steam =
where the enthalpies at the BFW and superheated states were found from available data [6].
Finally, using the rate of steam generated, it was possible to find the superheated stream heat,
and the economizer stream heat:
Qsuperheated = m
superheated (hsuperheated hsaturated ) = 66.5 MM BTU/hr
(3.25)
(3.26)
12
A summary of all the furnace heat balances are shown in Tables 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3.
Table 3.1: Radiation Section Summary
Value
56.3 MM BTU/hr
146.8 MM BTU/hr
203.1 MM BTU/hr
1.5 %
206.1 MM BTU/hr
480,030 lb/hr
23,104 lb/hr
501.9 MM BTU/hr
Value
106.0 MM BTU/hr
27.45 MM BTU/hr
133.4 MM BTU/hr
Value
Heat Loss
Heat Available
Pre-heat Energy Required
Steam Heat Required
Steam Heat Available
Total Heat of Steam
Steam Made
Superheating Stream Heat
Economizer Stream Heat
0.5 %
269.5 MM BTU/hr
146.2 MM BTU/hr
17.4 MM BTU/hr
106.0 MM BTU/hr
279.6 MM BTU/hr
223,838 lb/hr
66.5 MM BTU/hr
79.7 MM BTU/hr
Furnace Design
By performing an energy balance on the furnace, it is possible to size and cost the furnace. The
sizing and costing of the radiation section, convection section, and heat exchangers is discussed
below.
4.1
To design the radiation section, it is first necessary to select the average radiant transfer flux,
or the heat transferred to the charge stock in the radiant section divided by the total radiant
section heat transfer surface. After selecting the average radiant transfer flux, the radiant heat
area can be calculated as:
AR =
QR
q
(4.1)
where QR is the radiant duty, and q is the average radiant flux. Assuming an average radiant
flux of 20,000 BTU/(hrft2 ), the radiant heat area is:
AR =
4.2
206.1 MM BTU/hr
= 20, 304.6 ft2
20, 000 BTU/(hrft2 )
(4.2)
The design of the convection section involves a shiled or shock bank, or the first 2 or 3 rows
of tubes adjacent to the radiant section. Typically, these tubes are oriented in a staggered
triangular pitch normal to the flue gas flow. As a result, they are capable of absorbing and
screening the residual radiative comoponent. For bare bank tubes, the convective film coefficient
is found by:
0.28
2.14g 0.6 Tga
hc =
do0.4
(4.3)
where Tga is the average flue gas temperature, g is the flue gas mass velocity, and d is the tubes
outer diameter. A Manaurite 36 XS pipe was selected, with an outer diameter of 3.18 in [4]. In
order to find the gas mass velocity, the diameter of the stack is needed. Therefore, the furnace
stack was first designed, as shown below.
13
4.2.1
14
Stack Design
To find the gas mass velocity, it was necessary to find the stack height, the friction loss per foot
stack, and the diameter of the stack. For a draft specification, Dr, of 2 inches of H2 O, the stack
length was determined by:
L=
Dr
= 262 ft
0.52(1/Ta 1/Tga )
(4.4)
The frictional loss per foot stack, f , is therefore 0.008, which is used to calculate the diameter
stack diameter do :
do = (
16m
f lue Tga 0.2
) = 7.8 ft
211, 000 2 f
(4.5)
m
f lue
lb
= 2.76
2
do /4
s ft2
(4.6)
Now, since the gas mass velocity was calculated, the bare bank convective film coefficient can
be calculated:
0.28
2.14g 0.6 Tga
hc =
= 19.7 BTU/lb F
(4.7)
d0.4
o
The radiant coefficient of the hot gas is calculated as:
hrg = 0.0025Tg 0.5 = 2.5 BTU/lb F
(4.8)
where Tg is the average flue gas temperature. From the convective film coefficient and the
radiant coefficient, the overall film coefficient can be calculated as:
ho = 1.1(hc + hrg ) = 22.2 BTU/lb F
(4.9)
To find the overall heat transfer coefficient, it was necessary to select a fin surface area, Af , and
a total surface of extended surface tube, A0 . As a result, the in tube film resistance (Ri ), the
external film resistance (Ro ), and the tube-wall resistances (Rw ) were calculated. The overall
heat transfer coefficient can then be found by:
U=
1
= 7.2 BTU/hr Fft2
Ri + Ro + Rw
(4.10)
which is within the expected range of overall heat transfer coefficient for flue gases in heaters
(5-15 BTU/hr Fft2 ). Finally, the convective surface requirement can be calculated by:
Ac =
Qc
= 39, 600 ft2
TLM U
(4.11)
4.3
15
To design and size the heat exchanger, a heat balance was applied. The area of the heat
exchangers required was:
AHX =
QHeatExchanger
U TLM
(4.12)
where U is assumed to be 150 BTU/hr Fft2 from heuristics by Turton et al. Therefore, the
heat transfer area is 3,142 ft2 . These sizing calculations can be subsequently used to cost the
furnace, as discussed in the following section.
4.4
Furnace Costing
To cost the furnace heat exchanger the computational software CAPCOST was used. The cost
of the furnace heat exchanger, convective section, and radiative section are shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Furnace Cost
Component
FOB Cost
Heat Exchanger
Convective Section
Radiative Section
938,000
1,830,000
145,000
3,090,000
6,020,000
477,000
Quench Tower
To prevent coking and polymerization from occurring, the hot effluent from the furnace is cooled
in a quench tower. To do so, USX and TLX heat exchangers are used in series to decrease the
temperature of the effluent to 650 F. Furthermore, the gas exiting from the TLX heat exchanger
is cooled to 100 F. To properly design a quench tower to meet these specifications, an energy
balance was first applied.
5.1
Energy Balance
The total cooling duty of the hot effluent includes the condensation duty and the sensible cooling
duty, such that:
Qtotal cooling = Qsensible + Qcondensation
(5.1)
where Qsensible is the sensible cooling duty, and Qcondensation is the condensation cooling duty.
First, the sensible cooling duty, Qsensible , was calculated. The sensible cooling duty was the
heat removed to decrease the temperature of the cracked gas and steam streams from 650 F to
100 F. Therefore, the sensible cooling duty was calculated as:
Qsensible = m
gas Cp (650 F 100 F) + m
steam Cp (650 F 100 F)
(5.2)
BTU
(650 F 100 F)
lb F
BTU
+ (140, 010 lb/hr)(0.5486 (650 F 100 F) = 58.6 MM BTU/hr (5.3)
lb F
where the average specific heat, Cp , was found, using available data [4], at the average temperature of the steam and gas entering and leaving the system. Therefore, the sensible cooling heat
of the cracked gas and steam streams was 58.6 MM BTU/hr. Next, the condensation duty was
calculated as:
Qcondensation = m
steam hsteam m
water hsteam
16
(5.4)
17
where hsteam is the enthalpy of the steam at this phase transition temperature and pressure,
m
steam is the mass flow rate of the steam prior to condensation, and m
water is the mass flow rate
of the water after condensation. Assuming thermodynamic equilibrium and ideal conditions,
the partition coefficient of water was calculated as 2.6. Therefore:
Qcondensation = 56, 004 lb/hr 970.1 BTU/lb 21, 283 lb/hr 970.1 BTU/lb = 33.7 BTU/hr
(5.5)
Therefore, the total cooling duty was found as:
Qtotal cooling = 58.6 MM BTU/hr + 33.7 BTU/hr = 92.3 BTU/hr
(5.6)
These cooling duties were used to find the coolant mass flow rates, by applying requiring the
coolant duty to equal the total cooling duty:
Qtotal cooling = m
coolant Cp T
(5.7)
where m
coolant is the coolant stream mass flow rate, Cp is the average flow rate of the stream,
and T is the temperature rise from the specified inlet temperature of 85 F to 115 F.
Therefore, the coolant mass flow rate could be found as:
Qtotal cooling
Cp T
(5.8)
92.3 BTU/hr
= 3.1 MM lb/hr
1.0 BTU
lb F 30 F
(5.9)
m
coolant =
m
coolant =
A summary of all the key energy balance values calculated are shown in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: Quench Tower Energy Balance Summary
Value
33.7 MM BTU/hr
58.6 MM BTU/hr
92.3 MM BTU/hr
3.1 MM lb/hr
These energy balance equations were used in order to design and size the quench tower, as
shown in the following section.
5.2
To design and size the quench tower, the following initial assumptions were made (Table 5.2).
18
Table 5.2: Quench Tower Sizing Assumptions
5.2.1
Sizing Parameter
Value
9.62 ft2
4.81 ft2
5.25 ft2
To make sure the sizing assumptions were valid, it is necessary to compare the actual window
and curtain velocities to the maximum allowable window and curtain velocities. First, the actual
window velocity was compared to the maximum allowable window velocity.
The actual window velocity requires the gas flow rate, which is calculated as:
vgas =
m
gas + m
steam
= 85.8 ft3 /s
g
(5.10)
where g is the average mass of the cracked gas and steam. The actual window velocity could
be subsequently found as:
vwindow =
vgas
= 17.8 ft/s
Aw
(5.11)
l g
= 27.7 ft/s
g
vwindow,max = 0.58
(5.12)
Therefore, the design window velocity is less than the maximum allowable window velocity, as
required. Next, the actual curtain velocity was compared to the maximum curtain velocity. The
maximum curtain velocity requires the liquid flow rate, which is calculated as:
vcurtain =
m
coolant + m
water
= 13.8 ft/s
water
(5.13)
l g
= 54.8 ft/s
g
(5.14)
Therefore, the actual curtain velocity is also well within the maximum allowable curtain velocity.
Therefore, the intial sizing assumptions made for the curtain and window area were valid.
Next, it was necessary to confirm the assumed tower cross section area, which is shown in the
following section.
5.2.2
19
To confirm the assumed tower cross section area, it is necessary to determine the overall heat
transfer coefficient in order to find the contact volume of the quench tower, the total contact
area, and finally the height of the tower.
The heat transfer coefficient can be determined from the correlation:
Ua = 0.026G0.7 L0.4
(5.15)
where G is the gas flux in the tower, and L is the liquid flux in the tower. The gas flux in the
tower, G, is found as:
G=
m
gas + m
steam
lb
= 20, 374.7
At
hr ft2
(5.16)
m
coolant + m
water
lb
= 323, 374.2
At
hr ft2
(5.17)
BTU
lb F
(5.18)
This heat transfer coefficient can be used to determine the overall heat transfer coefficient:
Ua =
1
1
hL a
Qsensible
1
Qtotal cooling Ha
(5.19)
Assuming negligible resistance from the 1/(hL a), and = 1, the overall heat transfer coefficient
is:
U=
1
Qsensible
Qtotal cooling
1
Ha
= 6, 800
BTU
lb F
(5.20)
Using the overall heat transfer coefficient, the total contact of the quench tower, the cross
sectional area of the contact height, and the number of trays can be found. The total contact
area, VT is:
Qtotal cooling
U TLM
(5.21)
Qtotal cooling
= 76.4 ft3
U TLM
(5.22)
VT =
VT =
where TLM is the log-mean temperature difference. The cross sectional area of the contact
height, ZT was:
20
ZT =
76.4 ft3
VT
=
= 7.9 ft
At
9.62 ft2
(5.23)
Furthermore, it is necessary to add 2 ft. above and below the top and bottom trays, respectively,
where the total height is:
ZT = 7.9 ft + 4 ft = 11.9 ft
(5.24)
Finally, the number of trays, N , was found by assuing a tray spacing of 1.5 ft:
N=
Zt
= 6 trays
1.5
(5.25)
5.2.3
(5.26)
Tower Diameter
p
4At / = 3.5 ft
(5.27)
5.2.4
Wall Thickness
To determine the wall thickness of the quench tower, t, the following equation is used:
t=
P R
+C A
2S 0.6P
(5.28)
where P is the design pressure (50 psia), R is the tower radius (1.75 ft), S is the stress allowance
(15,000 psi for carbon steel), is the joint efficiency (0.85 for carbon steel), and C A is the
corrosion allowance (0.125 in). Therefore:
t=
50 psia 21 in
+ 0.125 in = .17 in
2(15, 000 psi) 0.85 0.6(50 psia)
(5.29)
Rounding up to the next 1/8, the tower wall thickness is 0.25. A summary of the quench
tower design and sizing is shown in Table 5.3. These values can be used to cost the quench
tower, as shown in the following section.
21
Table 5.3: Quench Tower Design Summary
Design Factor
Value
9.62 ft2
4.81 ft2
5.25 ft2
3.5 ft
5.3
6, 800
BTU
lb F
76.4 ft3
7.9 ft
11.9 ft
0.25 in
Finally, by completing the quench tower design, it is possible to cost the quench tower. To do
so, it is necessary to determine the tower weight, which requires the shell and head volumes.
The shell volume is given by:
Vs = DtL = 2.73 ft3
(5.30)
Next, the head volume was found by assuming a spherical head, where:
Vh = D2 t = 0.80 ft3
(5.31)
Therefore, the total volume of steel needed for the column is:
Vtotal = Vs + Vh = 3.53 ft3
(5.32)
Since the density of carbon steel is 0.284 lb per in3 , the total tower weight is 1,733 lb. Adding
25% for nozzles and intervals, the total quench tower weight is 2,311 lb. Since the cost of carbon
steel is 50 cents per pound, the tower cost is $1,155.50. To account for installation, the cost is
$3,500 for the quench tower.
Next, the tray cost was determined. From the tray cost curve, for a tower diameter of 3.5 feet,
the cost of one tray is $850. Therefore, the total tray cost is $11,900. To account for installation,
total cost is $35,700.
5.4
22
The quench tower requires operating costs for the cooling water. The cooling water operates
at a cost of $0.09 per 100 gallons. Therefore, the operating cost of the quench tower is $44 per
hour, which is approximately $370,000 per year (assuming 8400 operating hours per year).
A summary of the capital and operating costs of the quench tower are shown below (Tables 5.4
and 5.5, respectively).
Table 5.4: Quench Tower Capital Cost Summary
Item
FOB Cost
Quench Tower
1,160
3,500
Trays
11,900
35,700
Item
Cost ($/yr)
370,000
Compressor System
After the cooled gas stream leaves the quench tower, it is compressed by a system of four compressors (Figure 6.1). The gas enters the system at 19.7 psia and 100 F, and leaves the system
at 565 psia and 60 F. A knockout drum and a heat exchanger follow the first three compressor
stages, where water and hydrocarbons are removed. It is assumed that the compression ratio is
constant, and that there is a 6 psi pressure drop across each knockout drum.
Figure 6.1: Schematic of Compressor System. After the cooled gas stream leaves the quench
tower, it is compressed by a system of four compressors. The gas enters the system at 19.7 psia
and 100 F, and leaves the system at 565 psia and 60 F. A knockout drum and a heat exchanger
follow the first three compressor stages, where water and hydrocarbons are removed.
6.1
To design and size the compressor system, the computational tool Pro/II was used. To do so,
the following factors were defined within Pro/II:
1. The pressure, temperature, composition, and flowrate of the inlet stream.
2. The hot process outlet fluid temperature of the heat exchangers (100 F).
3. A 6 psi pressure drop for each knockout drum, and that the outlet from the last stream
is saturated.
4. The compression ratio for each compressor, , where =
Pn+1
Pn .
The output compressor results, component mass balance, and heat exchanger data is shown in
Tables 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3, respectively.
23
24
Table 6.1: Compressor Results
Compressor Results
C1
C2
C3
C4
Inlet Temperature ( F)
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Outlet Temperature ( F)
143.48
199.20
201.83
207.68
20.00
43.10
100.81
242.49
Outlet P (psia)
49.10
105.81
247.49
595.31
6,092.20
5,997.11
5,921.16
5,822.67
134.34
56.54
23.21
9.37
137.77
57.99
23.21
8.69
13,988.61
5,795.80
2,290.32
843.70
21.94
23.24
23.10
22.77
Enthalpy (BTU/hr)
6,374,400.65
6,521,938.84
6,313,485.46
5,997,163.16
Horsepower
2,505.14
2,563.12
2,481.20
2,356.89
Frame
46M
46M
29M
29M
Head/Wheel
9,050.00
9,050.00
9,918.00
9,918.00
Polytropic Efficiency
0.77
0.77
0.76
0.76
Adiabatic Efficiency
0.74
0.74
0.73
0.73
Adiabatic Head
23,375.47
26,048.42
25,538.06
24,377.78
Number of Wheels
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
Actual Head/Wheel
7,791.82
8,682.81
8,512.69
8,125.93
% Error
-0.14
-0.04
-0.14
-0.18
25
Component
C1 (lb/hr)
C2 (lb/hr)
C3 (lb/hr)
C4 (lb/hr)
H2
1,115.91
1,115.90
1,115.84
1,115.33
CH4
1,646.21
1,646.08
1,645.37
1,641.35
C2 H2
32.43
32.41
32.34
32.01
C2 H4
1,981.51
1,980.95
1,978.03
1,964.00
C2 H6
352.52
352.37
351.64
348.24
C3 H4
39.46
39.38
38.94
37.38
C3 H6
416.35
415.80
412.98
402.06
C3 H8
19.08
19.05
18.93
18.43
C4 H6
85.95
85.56
83.71
77.76
C4 H8
74.49
74.17
72.66
67.72
C4 H1 0
48.37
48.14
47.15
44.05
Other C5 s
35.66
35.26
33.51
28.70
Benzene
86.82
80.85
60.67
34.40
Toluene
12.96
10.87
5.49
1.77
C8 s
3.49
2.19
0.57
0.09
Fuel Gas
6.65
1.58
0.11
0.00
Total
5,957.85
5,940.57
5,897.96
5,813.29
26
6.2
E1
E2
E3
E4
Duty (BTU/hr)
22,000.00
19,100.00
18,200.00
19,600.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
120.00
120.00
120.00
120.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
143.48
199.20
201.83
207.68
TLM
21.69
43.02
43.89
45.79
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
Area (ft2 )
101.41
44.40
41.47
42.80
Cp water
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
m
water (lb/hr water)
550.77
478.17
455.64
490.69
Compressor Costing
By calculating the output compressor results, component mass balance, and heat exchanger
data, it was possible to find the compressor costs. The compressor system costs include compressor electricity costs, compressor FOB and installation costs, knockout drum FOB and installation costs, heat exchanger FOB and installation costs, and cooling water costs.
6.2.1
Compressor Costs
The compressor horsepower was used to calculate the compressor electricity costs (Table 6.4).
Table 6.4: Compressor Electricity Costs
Cost
C1
C2
C3
C4
112.08
941,513.41
114.68
963,305.14
111.01
932,516.10
105.45
885,794.58
27
The compressor capital cost was also calculated, by using the computational software CAPCOST. The compressor capital cost is shown in Table 6.5.
Table 6.5: Compressor Capital Cost
Component
Compressor
Compressor
Compressor
Compressor
6.2.2
1
2
3
4
FOB Cost
635,000
645,000
630,000
608,000
1,740,000
1,770,000
1,730,000
1,670,000
Similarly, the knockout drum costs were calculated using the computational software CAPCOST. The knockout drum capital costs are shown in Table 6.6.
Table 6.6: Knockout Drum Capital Cost
Component
Drum
Drum
Drum
Drum
6.2.3
FOB Cost
21,100
11,800
6,300
3,300
63,300
35,500
18,900
9,800
1
2
3
4
The heat exchanger costs were calculated using the computational software CAPCOST. The
heat exchanger capital costs are shown in Table 6.7.
Table 6.7: Heat Exchanger Capital Cost
Component
Heat
Heat
Heat
Heat
Exchanger
Exchanger
Exchanger
Exchanger
1
2
3
4
FOB Cost
5,360
4,550
4,480
4,510
17,600
15,000
14,700
14,900
6.2.4
28
Cost
C1
C2
C3
C4
8,684.56
7,539.78
4,480.00
31,145.98
Demethanizer Section
7.1
The refrigeration section includes two parts (with 3 stages each), which are used to bring the
process fluid temperature down from 100 F to -145 F for the cryogentic fractionation processes.
The following steps were followed to design the first section of the refrigeration section:
1. The total heat duty across all 3 heat exchangers was determined in Pro/II by taking the
outlet stream from the compressor section and specifying the outlet temperature. This
heat duty was divided across the 3 heat exchangeres with exchangerA having the largest
heat duty and decreasing across each (Figure 7.1).
2. The pressure in the extra tank is the saturation pressure of propylene at 22 F to -145 F
because the stream is at the same conditions in the extra tank and entering heat exchanger
A (Figure 7.1). A 5 psi pressure drop across the extra heat exchanger is assumed to give
the pressure exiting compressor A (Figure 7.1). The saturation pressure of propylene at
-28 F is the pressure of the stream exiting heat exchanger C, and a 1.5 psi pressure drop
is assumed across each knockout tank so which gives the pressure entering compressor C
(Figure 7.1).
3. The compression ratio from the pressure entering compressor C and exiting compressor
A (Figure 7.1). This is used to calculate the pressure entering and exiting compressor
B (Figure 7.1). The vapor stream exiting knockout tanks A and B are assumed
to be equal to the stream it is mixing with, and the liquid stream exiting each of these
knockout tanks is at the same pressure as the vapor exit stream.
4. The streams entering and exiting each knockout tank are at saturated conditions and their
pressures are known, so a Mollier diagram can be used to determine the specific enthalpy
of each of these streams.
5. The mass of propylene flowing through each heat exchanger is calculated using the heat
duty and change in enthalpy across the heat exchanger.
6. A mass and energy balance around each knock out tank is performed to determine the
flow rate of the vapor exit stream of tanks A and B (Figure 7.1).
29
30
7. The specific enthalpy of the stream entering compressor C was determined from a Mollier
diagram in Step 4, and the streams entering compressors A and B are the weighted
averages of the specific enthalpies of the stream exiting the previous compressor and of the
stream exiting the knockout tank. The enthalpy of the stream exiting each compressor
is determined by following a line of constant entropy on the Mollier diagram from the
compressor input pressure (saturated conditions) to the output pressure. The enthalpy
difference across each compressor can be converted to horsepower and used to cost the
compressor and electricity.
8. The compressor design was selected as 38M based on the total flow rate across all compressors giving the desired head per wheel, adiabatic efficiency, and maximum number of
wheels.
9. The specific heat ratio is found for propylene, and used with the compression ratio and
adiabatic efficiency to find the polytropic efficiency from a chart. These are used to
calculate the adiabatic head (Wad ) and polytropic head (Wp ):
Wad = had 778
Wp =
Wad p
ad
ft lb
BTU
(7.1)
(7.2)
10. The number of wheels can then be calculated determined from the adiabatic head and the
desired head per wheel.
These steps were repeated for the second section of the refrigeration cycle as well (where A, B,
and C become D, E, and F, respectively). Figure 7.1 illustrates the first step of this two stage
process. The sizing and costing of this process is shown in the following section.
Figure 7.1: Schematic of Refrigeration Process. The first cycle of this two stage process is
shown, with steam temperatures and pressures.
7.2
31
Using the methodology previously described, the demethanizer section was sized and costed.
The sizing of the tanks, heat exchangers, and compressors is shown in Tables 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3,
respectively.
Factor
49,443
28
80
0.16
0.25
147.15
51.31
83,610
23,224
21
67
0.14
0.25
92.16
28.86
69,826
7,852
15
44
0.13
0.25
43.62
14.73
47,185
119,369
37
111
0.21
0.25
268.85
89.60
59,617
64,883
30
92
0.16
0.25
180.23
58.90
43,719
24,718
22
65
0.13
0.25
93.63
31.68
27,737
Factor
Extra 1
Extra 2
Area (ft2 )
3,449.8
7,409.9
6,954.1
6,073.1
5,545.2
4,125.8
2,711.6
1,796.8
Factor
Flow (cfm)
Horsepower (G HP)
7,911
319.81
3,716
310.24
1,256
110.91
19,099
869.67
10,381
538.04
3,955
262.81
From these sizings, the costs for the tanks, heat exchangers, compressors, and utilities can be
found, as shown in Tables 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, and 7.7 respectively.
32
Table 7.4: Tank Costing
Factor
41,805.45
34,913.22
23,592.75
29,808.78
21,859.56
13,868
125,416.36
104,739.65
70,778.25
89,426.34
65,578.69
41,606.34
Heat Exchanger
A
B
C
D
E
F
Extra 1
Extra 2
158,000
342,000
320,000
280,000
255,000
190,000
125,000
82,500
521,000
1,130,000
1,050,000
921,000
839,000
626,000
410,000
272,000
Compressor
A
B
C
D
E
F
14.31
13.88
4.96
38.91
24.07
11.76
120,193.76
116,599.73
41,683.19
326,850.21
202,213.85
98,774.76
33
Table 7.7: Utility Costing
Cycle
1
2
26.37
22.38
221,528.56
187,959.25
Fractionation Columns
8.1
Process Summary
To seperate the valuable products ethylene, propylene, mixed C4s, gasoline, and high pressure
stream products, a five tower fractionation system is used. In this process, adeethanizer, depropanizer, and debutanizer are in series, where the subsequent column receives the bottoms
of the previous column. Ethylene and propylene towers accept feeds from the deethanizer and
depropanizer, respectively (Figure 8.1). To size and cost the fractionation towers, and to meet
specifications, the computational tool Pro/II was used.
Figure 8.1: Schematic of Fractionation Process. A deethanizer, depropanizer, and debutanizer are in series, where the subsequent column receives the bottoms of the previous column.
Ethylene and propylene towers accept feeds from the deethanizer and depropanizer, respectively.
34
35
Component
C2 H4
C2 H6
C3 H6
C3 H8
C4 s
C5 s
Benzenes
C7 s
5370
1620
1430
110
360
50
10
0
0
3
360
40
80
240
160
80
The design specifications for this fractionation process is shown in Table 8.2. These specifications
were met by using Pro/II.
Table 8.2: Fractionation Process Specifications
8.2
Tower
Deethanizer
Ethylene Tower
Depropanizer
Propylene Tower
Debutanizer
0.16 C3 H6
99 C2 H4
0.04 C4 s
0.1 C3 H8
0.2 C5 s
0.26 C2 H6
99 C2 H6
0.2 C3 s
15 C3 H6
1.3 C4 s
In order to determine if a single tower or separate rectifying and stripping towers should be used
for each distiallation tower, a diameter for each section was calculated. If the two diameters
were within 15% of each other, a single tower was used. Otherwise, it was separated into two
towers. A distillation column would also be separated into two separate towers if the number
of trays was too large, where the tower would be unsafe.
Therefore, the diameters and heights for the rectifying and stripping section were first determined to see whether or not it was necessary to split the tower into two separate towers (Table
8.3).
36
Table 8.3: Diameter of Rectifying and Stripping Sections for Each Tower
Tower
Diameter (ft)
Deethanizer (Rectifying)
19.3
Deethanizer (Stripping)
28.6
29.9
25.6
Depropanizer (Rectifying)
9.6
Depropanizer (Stripping)
8.4
29.3
29.8
Debutanizer (Rectifying)
6.3
Debutanizer (Stripping)
5.5
As evident from Table 8.3, the ethylene tower must be split into two separate rectifying and
stripping towers, as the two diameters were not within 15% of each other. Next, the tower
heights were checked to see if it was necessary to split to towers to avoid unsafe conditions
(Table 8.4).
Table 8.4: Height of Rectifying and Stripping Sections for Each Tower
Tower
Height (ft)
Deethanizer (Rectifying)
38
Deethanizer (Stripping)
53
Ethylene Tower
98
Depropanizer
88
Propylene Tower
413
Debutanizer
66
Clearly, from Table 8.4, the propylene tower is unsafe. Therefore, it is necessary to split the
propylene tower into two separate towers. The resulting sizes for each tower are shown in Table
37
8.5.
Table 8.5: Fractionation Tower Sizes
Tower
Number of Trays
Feed Tray
Height (ft)
Diameter (ft)
Deethanizer (Rectifying)
11
11
23
19.3
Deethanizer (Stripping)
10
38
28.6
Ethylene Tower
32
12
98
29.9
Depropanizer
27
14
88
9.6
Propylene Tower 1
91
91
198
29.3
Propylene Tower 2
92
215
29.8
Debutanizer
16
66
6.3
8.3
To cost the fractionation towers, the weight of the towers was first calculated. Then, the cost
of carbon steel was used to find the total price of each tower. The cost of each tower is shown
below:
Table 8.6: Cost of Each Tower
8.4
Tower
Deethanizer
Ethylene Tower
Depropanizer
Propylene Tower
Debutanizer
20,282,329
35,972,011
886,607
162,150,059
204,845
Heat Duties
The reboiler and condenser heat duties were calculated from Pro/II simulations. The condenser
and reboiler heat duties, and the associated heat transfer area calculated from an energy balance
are shown in Tables 8.7 and 8.8, respectively.
38
Tower
Deethanizer
Ethylene Tower
Depropanizer
Propylene Tower
Debutanizer
6,433,700
32,205,200
6,721,000
42,684,800
3,535,600
11,600
20,500
8,253
24,227
3,754
8.5
Tower
Deethanizer
Ethylene Tower
Depropanizer
Propylene Tower
Debutanizer
27,394,200
23,557,000
4,694,200
43,641,800
3,031,500
2,519
856
451
3,599
365
From these heat duties and heat transfer areas, the heat exchanger costs were calculated via
CAPCOST. The condenser and reboiler costs are shown in Tables 8.9 and 8.10, respectively.
Tower
Deethanizer
Ethylene Tower
Depropanizer
Propylene Tower
Debutanizer
1,770,000
3,110,000
1,250,000
544,000
53,900
291,425
1,458,786
304,438
1,933,476
160,151
39
Tower
Deethanizer
Ethylene Tower
Depropanizer
Propylene Tower
Debutanizer
1,110,000
377,000
214,000
1,580,000
183,000
1,643,471
1,413,265
281,621
2,618,220
181,870
The remaining heat drum and heat pump costs were calculated in CAPCOST, and were accounted for in the economic analysis, as discussed in the following section.
Each section of the ethylene producing plant was designed, sized, and costed. A summary of
the resulting capital and operational costs are shown below (Table 9.1).
Table 9.1: Costing Summary
Equipment
Furnace
3,567,000
Quench Tower
70,700
370,000
Compressor Section
7,099,597
3,754,276
Refrigerant Section
7,811,372
1,315,803
Fractionation Section
229,859,450
10,371,196
Total
248,408,119
15,811,275
A summary of the resulting revenue from the product stream is shown in Table 9.2.
Table 9.2: Revenue Summary
Component
Value ($/lb)
Ethylene
64,950
0.60
327,348,000
Propylene
16,791
0.16
21,862,077
Gasoline
6,297
0.45
23,802,746
Total
373,012,823
40
41
The total bare module costs, the annual costs, and the revenue stream were used to perform
an economic analysis on the ethylene producing plant, in order to determine the profitability of
this process.
9.2
Economic Analysis
In performing the economic analysis for this ethylene plant, certain assumptions were made:
1. It is assumed that the plant takes two years to be built and three years to reach full
production capacity.
2. The plant is assumed to operate for ten years.
3. A building value of $5.5 million and working capital of $3.5 million are used.
4. Fixed costs, which include payroll, salaries, supplies, direct overhead, and indirect overhead, are $4.5 million per year.
5. The variable costs include the purchase of butane, the selling of ethylene, propylene, and
fuel, the cost of utilities, and packing and freight of the products.
6. The calculation of all variable costs has been accounted for while the packing and freight
of the products have been approximated at $15,000 per ton of ethylene produced.
7. Additionally, an investment grant of 15% of building and plant investment is earned each
year.
8. The building is assumed to have a straight line depreciation (5% per year) whereas the
plant has a reducing balance depreciation (15% per year).
9. Corporate tax is assumed to be 45%, a tax allowance is earned on the depreciation of the
building and plant.
Using the assumptions above, the economic analysis is performed to generate a internal rate
of return (IRR) of 16%, indicating that this design is a profitable investment. Over the life
of the plant, a profit of approximately $160 million is accumulated. Figure 9.1 illustrates the
cumulative cash flow and cumulative discounted cash flow rate over the life of the plant. Based
on this economic analysis, the design and construction of this plant is highly profitable.
Figure 9.1: An economic analysis was performed to find the potential profitability of this
plant. Over the life of the plant, a profit of approximately $160 million is accumulated. The
cumulative cash flow and cumulative discounted cash flow rates are shown.
42
Recommendations
There are numerous recommendations for the design of this chemical plant. As evident from
Table 8.3, the ethylene tower must be split into two separate rectifying and stripping towers,
as the two diameters were not within 15% of each other. Furthermore, the propylene tower is
unsafe due to its height. Therefore, it is recommended to split the propylene tower into two
towers. Another design recommendation would be to use more process streams within the plant
as utilities for heating and cooling to be economically efficient.
10.2
Conclusion
An ethylene production plant was designed to meet a product specification of 700 metric tons
per day. To do so, 140,010 lb/hr of 100% butane is fed to the plant, and 100% of ethane
is recycled at a rate of 8,174 lb/hr. This plant process includes: a furnace (to crack the
hydrocarbon feed), a quench tower (to cool the exiting stream), a four stage compressor system
(to increase the pressure of the cracked gases), a refrigeration section (to separate out methane
and hydrogen), and a five tower fractionation system (to separate the remaining products). The
resulting ethylene, propylene, mixed C4s, raw gasoline, and high pressure stream products are
subsequently sold.
An economic analysis was performed on the ethylene plant designed, where it is expected that
the plant will profit approximately 160 million over a 10 year operation period, with a return
on investment of 16%. It was assumed for the economic analysis that the plant will run 8,400
hours a year (0.96 plant operating factor). The capital investment for the plant construction was
$248,000,000. The utilities to run the compressors and pumps, including low pressure steam,
cooling water, and electricity, cost approximately $16,000,000 per year. To reduce unnecessary
utility costs, certain process streams were used for heating and cooling. Since it is assumed that
wage costs are $4.5 million per year, the total annual operating cost is $20,500,000 per year.
43
Bibliography
[1] Dallas Kachan. The story of ethylene - now starring natural gas.
[2] UNEP Publications. Ethylene.
[3] M.W. Allsopp and G. Vianello. Poly(Vinyl Chloride in Ullmanns Encyclopedia of Industrial
Chemistry. Wiley-VCH, 2012.
[4] Ethylene Technology: Engineering Education Instruction. Stone and Webster, .
[5] Market data center,
3023-cashprices.html.
URL
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_
44
45
Appendix B: Environmental
Implications
The design of this plan will also be accompanied with environmentally friendly procedures. For
example, sources of waste are properly dealt with according to environmental considerations
and regulations. Recycle and reuse of some materials such as fuel oil are established wherever
possible for both environmental friendliness as well as improved plant efficiency. This ethylene production plant has been designed and will be constructed with the highest regard for
environment impacts.
46
lb
day
ton
2, 204.6
(1/24)
= 64950 lb/hr
day
ton
hours
(.1)
12, 138
= 20, 313 lb/hr
1 0.4024
(.2)
(.3)
(.4)
lb
BTU
BTU
(1610.56
1448.02
)
hr
lb
lb
lb
BTU
+ 140, 010
0.91043 (1550 F 1180 F) = 56.3 MM BTU/hr (.5)
hr
lb F
(.6)
(.7)
(.8)
206.1 MM BTU/hr
= 480, 030 lb/hr
1045.4 BTU/lb 616.1 BTU/lb
(.9)
m
flue gas =
m
flue gas =
47
gas
48
Calculations
Fuel LHV
lb Flue Gas/lb Methane
(.10)
(.11)
hin,flue gas =
hin,flue gas =
(.12)
(.13)
(.14)
(.16)
(.18)
(.19)
(.20)
(.21)
Qsteam
hsuperheated hBF W
(.22)
279.6 MM BTU/hr
= 223, 828 lb/hr
1461.315BTU/lb 212.12 BTU/lb
(.23)
m
steam =
m
steam =
49
Qsuperheated = m
superheated (hsuperheated hsaturated ) = 66.5 MM BTU/hr
(.24)
(.25)
(.26)
206.1 MM BTU/hr
= 20, 304.6 ft2
20, 000 BTU/(hrft2 )
(.27)
AR =
AR =
Stack Design Calculations
L=
Dr
= 262 ft
0.52(1/Ta 1/Tga )
do = (
16m
f lue Tga 0.2
) = 7.8 ft
211, 000 2 f
g=
m
f lue
lb
= 2.76
2
do /4
s ft2
(.28)
(.29)
(.30)
0.28
2.14g 0.6 Tga
= 19.7 BTU/lb F
hc =
d0.4
o
(.31)
(.32)
(.33)
U=
1
= 7.2 BTU/hr Fft2
Ri + Ro + Rw
(.34)
Qc
= 39, 600 ft2
TLM U
(.35)
Ac =
(.36)
BTU
(650 F 100 F)
lb F
BTU
+ (140, 010 lb/hr)(0.5486 (650 F 100 F) = 58.6 MM BTU/hr (.37)
lb F
50
Qcondensation = 56, 004 lb/hr 970.1 BTU/lb 21, 283 lb/hr 970.1 BTU/lb = 33.7 BTU/hr
(.38)
Qtotal cooling = 58.6 MM BTU/hr + 33.7 BTU/hr = 92.3 BTU/hr
(.39)
Qtotal cooling = m
coolant Cp T
(.40)
Qtotal cooling
Cp T
(.41)
92.3 BTU/hr
= 3.1 MM lb/hr
1.0 BTU
lb F 30 F
(.42)
m
coolant =
m
coolant =
m
gas + m
steam
= 85.8 ft3 /s
g
vwindow =
vgas
= 17.8 ft/s
Aw
s
(.45)
m
coolant + m
water
= 13.8 ft/s
water
(.46)
s
vcurtain,maximum = 1.15
l g
= 54.8 ft/s
g
Ua = 0.026G0.7 L0.4
(.47)
(.48)
m
gas + m
steam
lb
= 20, 374.7
At
hr ft2
(.49)
m
coolant + m
water
lb
= 323, 374.2
At
hr ft2
(.50)
G=
G=
(.44)
l g
= 27.7 ft/s
g
vwindow,max = 0.58
vcurtain =
(.43)
Ua =
BTU
lb F
1
1
hL a
Qsensible
Qtotal cooling
1
Ha
(.51)
(.52)
U=
51
1
Qsensible
Qtotal cooling
= 6, 800
BTU
lb F
(.53)
VT =
Qtotal cooling
= 76.4 ft3
U TLM
(.54)
ZT =
VT
76.4 ft3
= 7.9 ft
=
At
9.62 ft2
(.55)
Zt
= 6 trays
1.5
(.56)
p
4At / = 3.5 ft
(.57)
50 psia 21 in
+ 0.125 in = .17 in
2(15, 000 psi) 0.85 0.6(50 psia)
(.58)
N=
D=
t=
1
Ha
52